Just gonna up and say it...

[Funak]

Events are fun for flavors, working both ways. That's something I love in CK2.

But if I remember well, events can be disabled ? (not now because G. wants feedbacks, but in the long run) ?

Exactly. Events are there to add some more RNG to the game, make each play-through feel different and forces you to adapt your play-style.
If you don't want more RNG in the game you can disable the events, and the ancient ruins.


Honestly I think the current bad events might be too soft on the player, you're in general gaining way more from good events than you lose from bad events.

 

[biship]

Perhaps adding a way we can change event bias in CommunityOptions.sql?

/*
Bad Event Bias
100 = Only Bad events
50 = Equal chance of good/bad event Default)
0 = No Bad events
*/
INSERT INTO COMMUNITY (Type, Value)
VALUES ('COMMUNITY_CORE_BALANCE_EVENT_BIAS', 50);

 

[PurpleMentat]

I'm in partial agreement: some of the negatives are a big issue. For example, started a game as Carthage. One of the big early bonuses is the free Harbor. The Harbor options are:
1) 20% chance of losing harbor and entering Resistance
2) Can't use it until I can build Corvettes
3) Nerf the local Fishing Boats to get a bit of Culture and Tourism
4) Lose the Harbor, two Fishing Boats, and get attacked by a barbarian, to get 1 Pearls.

This is pretty well guaranteed to hit every city before I can build Corvettes. So I'm pretty much trading my Harbors for Pearls, or save-scumming to keep my Harbors.

 

[tu_79]

Perhaps adding a way we can change event bias in CommunityOptions.sql?

/*
Bad Event Bias
100 = Only Bad events
50 = Equal chance of good/bad event Default)
0 = No Bad events
*/
INSERT INTO COMMUNITY (Type, Value)
VALUES ('COMMUNITY_CORE_BALANCE_EVENT_BIAS', 50);

Why don't we make it dependent on difficulty level?

 

[Keldorn]

Witch my first game into the April Beta and therefore with eventy, i realy like the idea behind it. Also it seems, that you get way more good events, than bad ones (but maybe im just lucky) and the bad ones didnt seem to crushing. but if multible bad events trigger one after another, it starts to get realy anoing. ice age? ok np... mine collapse? ok fine... another mine? come on... now 2 farms pillaged? another 2 farms? wtf?...
but still, the positive ones outmatch the negatives, so it is still nice.
Also i like and support the idea to raise negative events with high difficulty, instead of amazing advantages of the AI. maybe the AI just get positive events on diety, while your events are almost always negative?

 

[PurpleMentat]

Interesting. The Carthage thing gets weirder. I get the positive effects without the Harbor being destroyed, and the "+Culture +Tourism penalize Fishing Boats" option seems to only apply the negatives.

 

[Gazebo]

I think that the main problem if events like volcans, monuments, ... is that they are desined to appen in every City : the event will try to trigger when you build the monument (and have an higth enougth pop), if it fail, ut will try again few turn latter with à greater probability, if it fail again, it will try again with greater probability... until it succeed.
The initial probability does not gives the probability to appen, but the probability to appen quickly.
I think I will just put a 0 to all the "delta-probability" in my games, so events will not be forced to appen on every cities.

Another problem is that if you put two Times more event, you will have two times more events trigering. Old events will still trigger the same number of times.
What I would want is having the same number of triggered events independently of the number of possible events, but it may be complex to implement.

That's inaccurate. The delta only increases on successful attempts, and the cooldown breaks that. So more events will increase the diversity, but not the frequency.

The concerns in this thread can be dealt with in one way: start creating events for the CP. Events are easy to make. The XML is very clearly defined.

G

 

[Moi Magnus]

Why don't we make it dependent on difficulty level?

Also i like and support the idea to raise negative events with high difficulty, instead of amazing advantages of the AI. maybe the AI just get positive events on diety, while your events are almost always negative?

I am against.
First, don't forget that event are otpional, so using them to balance difficulty level is not a good thing.

Except maybe for very low difficulties that can have more positive events, enabling or disabling the events should not change the difficulty of a game.
So whatever the difficulty, the AI should have the same probabilities of events than you.

I prefer a parameter in CommunityOptions.sql
(Or an advanced option to change the frequency of events)

 

[Gazebo]

Perhaps adding a way we can change event bias in CommunityOptions.sql?

/*
Bad Event Bias
100 = Only Bad events
50 = Equal chance of good/bad event Default)
0 = No Bad events
*/
INSERT INTO COMMUNITY (Type, Value)
VALUES ('COMMUNITY_CORE_BALANCE_EVENT_BIAS', 50);

No. I've explained this before. You'd have to keep a running total of all 'bad' or 'good' events ever to happen in every city, quantify that, and then track it based on player events etc. Plus, you'd have to define 'good' and 'bad' event types, none of which excites me at all.

I'll reiterate that the amount of events in the CP right now is weighted towards 'bad' because of what I've had time to create. As more events are added, the balance will sort itself out.

Interesting. The Carthage thing gets weirder. I get the positive effects without the Harbor being destroyed, and the "+Culture +Tourism penalize Fishing Boats" option seems to only apply the negatives.

I think that's Hokath's new event – I'd report to him.
G

 

[hokath]

I think that's Hokath's new event – I'd report to him.

This is pretty well guaranteed to hit every city before I can build Corvettes.

Ah, yes. I did not consider that Carthage's early harbor would make this happen so often for them.
Losing the harbor could probably go away on the resistance one to make the pearls less attractive.

 

[mikes61293]

Ah, yes. I did not consider that Carthage's early harbor would make this happen so often for them.
Losing the harbor could probably go away on the resistance one to make the pearls less attractive.

I'm not a fan of this event at all. First, it's pretty much guaranteed to happen in every coastal city. It should happen no more than 1-2 times per game. I like the idea of no losing the harbor on the first option and the third option needs some balancing. In most cases, I wouldn't build a harbor unless the city had a few sea resources, so option 3 never seems viable.

 

[BenchBreaker]

I think the following sums up the main problem in the current event model

Every single mountain on the map is a freaking volcano

Every coastal city has a weird old man, and gets attacked by pirates

Every market has foreign traders

Every public school...

 

[hokath]

It should happen no more than 1-2 times per game.

CityEvents can be set so either they can happen only once, or they can happen multiple times. The frequency of the event will go down when more events are added.

I wouldn't build a harbor unless the city had a few sea resources, so option 3 never seems viable.

In that case, yeah, 3 is not so good.

This was meant to be a "de facto bad, potentially good" type event where the expectation of the 'default' option 1 is slightly negative. All the good outcomes like a free unit or culture accompany bad things to try and keep the overall value near the default, but situationally better if you are trading something you have a lot of like gold and food, for something you don't have much of, like tourism. I like this form of event because hopefully it doesn't rock the balance boat too much, but also feels like the choice you make actually impacts something.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

I think the following sums up the main problem in the current event model

Every single mountain on the map is a freaking volcano

Every coastal city has a weird old man, and gets attacked by pirates

Every market has foreign traders

Every public school...

I think we might go the way of B.E. with the buildings, and just have an event tied to how those buildings work in your culture from this point forward.

God help you if you settled a city on a river, next to a mountain, on the coast, incidentally. That city will lose population twice and have its farms pillaged auto-magically three times at minimum before turn 120.

 

[Gazebo]

I think the following sums up the main problem in the current event model

Every single mountain on the map is a freaking volcano

Every coastal city has a weird old man, and gets attacked by pirates

Every market has foreign traders

Every public school...

I'm beginning to think that people are illiterate around here. Let's try this again.

The the same events seem to happen over and over because there is only a small, select pool of events.

Let's say you have a pool with 10 fish in it. You are fishing, catch-and-release. If there is an equal chance of all fish biting (in our event system there is not, but let's go with this), you are more likely to catch the same fish twice in this pool than, for example, a pool with 100 fish in it set to the same parameters.

The endless complaining about volcanoes and whatnot is absolutely pointless. Write events instead.

G

 

[phantomaxl1207]

I feel I've been getting an equal amount of good and bad events. The worst events I've gotten have been 2 Hurricanes. The best events I've gotten are War Fervor and War Materials.

 

[tu_79]

I am against.
First, don't forget that event are otpional, so using them to balance difficulty level is not a good thing.

Except maybe for very low difficulties that can have more positive events, enabling or disabling the events should not change the difficulty of a game.
So whatever the difficulty, the AI should have the same probabilities of events than you.

I prefer a parameter in CommunityOptions.sql
(Or an advanced option to change the frequency of events)

Obviously, when events are enabled, and if we want events to depend on difficulty, then the advantages that currently AIs are receiving should be removed.
No events: Current advantages.
Events: Bad events depending on difficulty level.

 

[Gazebo]

Obviously, when events are enabled, and if we want events to depend on difficulty, then the advantages that currently AIs are receiving should be removed.
No events: Current advantages.
Events: Bad events depending on difficulty level.

And what advantages regarding events are you talking about, exactly? Because unless someone slipped some code in while I slept, the AI experiences the same things that the player does.

G

 

[BenchBreaker]

I'm beginning to think that people are illiterate around here. Let's try this again.

The the same events seem to happen over and over because there is only a small, select pool of events.

Let's say you have a pool with 10 fish in it. You are fishing, catch-and-release. If there is an equal chance of all fish biting (in our event system there is not, but let's go with this), you are more likely to catch the same fish twice in this pool than, for example, a pool with 100 fish in it set to the same parameters.

The endless complaining about volcanoes and whatnot is absolutely pointless. Write events instead.

G

EXCUSE ME for not reading the entire thread, we are simply providing feedback on what the current in game experience is like, the more people report the same thing, the more the problem gets highlighted. right now setting near mountains will all but guarantee an eruption and so on, which is a huge conflict to the supposed random element that events are designed to bring to the overall game play experience.

If you dont want to hear these kinds of feedbacks, dont release betas and have dedicated feedback threads or do whatever to make it not be the in game experience (change the system, add more events, or whatever)

 

[Gazebo]

EXCUSE ME for not reading the entire thread, we are simply providing feedback on what the current in game experience is like, the more people report the same thing, the more the problem gets highlighted. right now setting near mountains will all but guarantee an eruption and so on, which is a huge conflict to the supposed random element that events are designed to bring to the overall game play experience.

If you dont want to hear these kinds of feedbacks, dont release betas and have dedicated feedback threads or do whatever to make it not be the in game experience (change the system, add more events, or whatever)

Your message was the latest of dozens of posts of the exact same message not just in this thread, but every thread since I released the events system a month ago. My explanation seems to fall on deaf ears.

G