Opportunities

[black213]

Does the AI get random events too?

 

[mitsho]

On the topic of random events as a balance factor in the game. Can they be triggered as well? I do not want to give badly doing civs bonuses, but maybe they could be used to help out AIs over dead ends they've gotten themselves into.

Say on an Archipelago map, Genghis Khan is known for only building ships as soon as he has two cities or enough of ressource X (hypothetically), but his home island doesn't have enough room for that. Maybe a random event letting him establish contact or giving him a settler on another island?

That's the general line of thought here, trying to work around some of the AI stupidities. Don't know if that works

I still haven't gotten around to play, so I can't say much more.

 

[Dunkah]

Does the AI get random events too?

Yes the AI get events.

You can sometimes see notifictions in the middle top of the window with yellow flags next them to indicate it is another player, (I think).

Your event notifications show up with a Red Flag next to them. (Again, I think).

 

[Thalassicus]

I've rebuilt the events and the UI box for v130. This should hopefully be out by tomorrow, and I'll have more information at that time. Each event is now designed to represent an interesting moral choice from history. The example here portrays the fencing of the open range, particularly in the US's Great Plains region of the 1800s. This event requires a Pasture and has three choices:

• Support the farmers.
  Cost: 50
  Food: +2 on the Pasture
• Support the ranchers.
  Cost: 50
  Production: +3 on the Pasture
• Let the locals decide.
  Production: +1 on the Pasture

Event rewards follow the VEM goal of yield equality:

1 = 2 = 3 = 3 = 3 = 3

 

[black213]

VEM really looks more and more like Civilization V should've looked like.

 

[Txurce]

Talk about immersive - that looks great!

 

[wobuffet]

Talk about immersive - that looks great!

This; that's pretty.

Thal, I'm thinking of typing up all the events in a clear, human-readable chart to put up on the Wordpress site; do you think that'd be a good idea? PM me if so!

edit:
PS: For the record, I'd think the balance is more like
1 = 2 = 4 = 3 = 2.5 = 2.5,
for Events, the Natural Wonders, etc (gold less valuable, science & culture more valuable).

 

[Thalassicus]

Sure! I attached the spreadsheet I made to create events.

My next steps in the plan are:

• Prevent repeat occurrences of the same event on the same tile.
• Change from independent to dependent probabilities, so as time passes without seeing an event, odds rise of it finally appearing.

===============

My vem 3=3=3=3 yield equality goal is because we do not have decimal/fractional tile yields. It's easiest to balance things if they're equal integer values.

 

[kc_bandit]

New format looks awesome. Really well done. By the way, I had oil discovered on a Mountain in my borders a few days ago. Not sure if you intended events to bonus tiles that are impossible to use.

 

[albie_123]

Prevent repeat occurrences of the same event on the same tile.

This should probably be done. I have one plains tile with improved wheat giving me 7 food in the classical era, thanks to events.

EDIT: I'm seriously finding events to be overwhelmingly positive. By the end of the classical era, it will not be unusual for me to be surrounded by mines giving 6 production, farms on plains giving 6 food, and, if I feel like it, huge amounts of culture from a variety of sources.

I think we should take a leaf from the Grand Strategy book, and make the more positive options of events have a more lasting negative effect than just a lump sum of gold. When you make a decision, it should feel like you're enhancing / improving a certain, different road of playstyle at the cost of making another road harder or less accessible, not a choice between two positive effects. As it stands, events are more just a test of how much money you have in your reserves. For example, in games such as EU3 or Victoria II, there are practically no completely negative decisions, you will simply be forced to decrease one aspect of your nation to increase another. This is also much more historically accurate - after all, nations and cities are much more prone to failing due to mistakes made by the rulers, not by tornadoes.

In short:

- should not be the only, nor the primary, payoff for per turn bonuses.

- Every major bonus (Usually the top two choices, where the bottom is more passive) should have payoffs in the opposite area.

- Purely 'negative' and 'positive' events should be discarded in favour of grey-area events.

- Choices should feel like choices, not choosing different bonuses.

- Events should cause the player to slightly alter their playstyle in a similar to (albiet more subtle than) Civ bonuses and Unique Units / Buildings.

 

[Txurce]

I'm seriously finding events to be overwhelmingly positive. By the end of the classical era, it will not be unusual for me to be surrounded by mines giving 6 production, farms on plains giving 6 food, and, if I feel like it, huge amounts of culture from a variety of sources.

In short:

- should not be the only, nor the primary, payoff for per turn bonuses.

- Every major bonus (Usually the top two choices, where the bottom is more passive) should have payoffs in the opposite area.

- Purely 'negative' and 'positive' events should be discarded in favour of grey-area events.

- Choices should feel like choices, not choosing different bonuses.

- Events should cause the player to slightly alter their playstyle in a similar to (albiet more subtle than) Civ bonuses and Unique Units / Buildings.

There's a lot of food for thought here. I'm about to start my first game with Events, but having seen Thal's fencing example, think I can comment on what you're saying, since a lot of it is philosophical.

One point you make is that going down one path to some degree closes another path. This is how the policy tree used to work; VEM has made it more mix-and-match, but there is still the inherent "can't take 'em all" choices. It seems as if Events hew to the same approach. I think this is a matter of purely subjective preference.

Gray events, vs positive and negative, makes for less luck in the game - but as long as the positives and negatives aren't too extreme, I like the idea of having all three. It seems more real.

Gold is an excellent balancer when using whether or not to make use of a positive Event. My suggestion would be to match the gold amount to better approximate the value of the Event (as with city improvements). This pushes an example like "fencing" toward the gray - which is where I think "choice" ones should be.

 

[albie_123]

I agree with you, however, I feel it is considerably boring when gold is the only factor in deciding. At the moment, almost all events with decisions follow this pattern:

- Bonus for one yield, costs gold
- Bonus for another yield, costs gold
- Mild Bonus, free

Note that when I first saw this update I was looking forward to it greatly, it was only after playing and realising I was effectively purchasing upgrades that I came up with my opinion on the subject. I'm not saying you will come to the same conclusion, but my opinion was not based on simply subjective preference, but also gameplay. It's just not as fun buying extra yields than it is making a hard decision.

I also completely agree with you on decisions being the 'grey' events, but chosing between three negative effects would also make for a fun decision - It forces the player to ask themselves, what are they willing to sacrifice?

After playing another game, I'll admit it wasn't so bad - I did get a LOT of events in the first game - but the fundemental problem of a lack of negative repurcussions for choices made is still present.

EDIT: Oh, also, just from a gameplay perspective, it's quite frustrating to see the AI get bonuses from their market events in the first few turns, thanks to their bonus market. Though, it's not really a problem since the AI doesn't know what to do with gold.

 

[Thalassicus]

it's quite frustrating to see the AI get bonuses from their market events in the first few turns

I intended to prevent events from occurring within the first 50 turns, approximately when we get our second policy. The code's there but I forgot to re-enable it after completing the testing/debugging phase. Thank you for mentioning this! It will be fixed for v131.

I like using opportunity costs:

The cost of any activity measured in terms of the value of the next best alternative that is not chosen. It is the sacrifice related to the second best choice available to someone who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices.

When the options are:

• -100 gold
  +2 /turn
  .
• -100 gold
  +3 /turn
  .
• +1 /turn

Selecting A means we have -3 less than if we chose B. So A has +2/-3 compared to B. Both have -100 compared to C.

I like opportunity costs because it feels more powerful than direct costs, is usually more fun, and fits the theme of Civ5. Policies have positive effects, and the downside of choosing one is we don't get the benefits of another. This is different from Civ4 where policies had negative effects.

Focusing on opportunity costs is something many modern games do. Few of these things have lasting penalties, only an up-front charge in money or resources:

• Talent trees in Skyrim or MMOs.
• Building a new tool in Minecraft.
• Furniture in the Sims.
• Policies in Civ 5.

 

[albie_123]

Is 100 gold REALLY a fair price for having 3 extra production for the entirety of the game?

Also, negative effects is pretty commonplace in any 4X / grand strategy game, eg. Civ 3, Civ 4, Alpha Centauri, Europa Universalis, etc.

Civ V is the odd one out in this case.

 

[Thalassicus]

B: 3/turn for 100
C: 1/turn for free

If we choose option B, we're paying 100 for 2/turn more than the free option. This is why I discussed opportunity costs. The break-even point for option B is 100/2 = 50 turns (not counting city modifiers). So after choosing this, for 50 turns we are weaker than we would have been. Games last 250-300 turns, so we're weaker for ~20% of the game.

This also relates to the concept of time value of money. Think of it like paying money to a bank to get interest back. It's easiest to consider events like Commercial Farming with a gold option. We pay 100 for +2/turn. After 50 turns we'll be better off than option C, but are we actually better overall when we consider the game as a whole? Games like Civ are exponential in nature, after all. The early game is more important than late game. So if we consider turn 50 (when we pay an event) to be twice as important as turn 100, then it raises the cost (or lowers the return value). I believe it is a net neutral effect on a game as a whole, shifting value from the early game (when we might not need it) to the late game.

 

[albie_123]

Alright, looking at it that way, I can see where you're coming from.

The only issue I have here is that in the end, if you compare playing a game with events to a game without events, the game with events you're going to end up considerably ahead, thanks to the extra yields. That's what I mean when I talk about a payoff - if you're not getting negative yields, or paying more, you're going to churn through yields much faster than without events.

 

[Txurce]

The only issue I have here is that in the end, if you compare playing a game with events to a game without events, the game with events you're going to end up considerably ahead, thanks to the extra yields.

Unless there are more negative Events than I've already encountered, I agree that the net result is a plus. We could raise the price of the gains to where it's a legitimate choice (and reduce option C to a wash)... or we can accept that this is an entertaining addition to the game in which the AI benefits just as much.

 

[Seek]

I gotta say I agree with albie here, the gains from the positive events are really very high (like Txurce, I also haven't yet seen a negative one in 150 turns, nor do I recall seeing a notice saying that the AI had got a bad one). I think a benefit of one or *maybe* two of a yield plenty for the smallish cost required, with the free option giving nothing. As another alternative, perhaps make them more like civ4 and have two tiers: a small cost for a small benefit vs a larger cost for a larger benefit. As it is now (with the possibility for the same event to occur on the same tile within a few turns, which I got in my game) we end up with tiles that have ridiculous yields for the amount of investment and lack of maintenance.

 

[Tids]

Just to note, I have had the event which adds +3 production a few times on the same plots - resulting in a plot with gems on hills giving 22 production, as well as a stone quarry giving about 13 production.
Both in the same game, resulting in some pretty excessive production. v130.

 

[Txurce]

As it is now (with the possibility for the same event to occur on the same tile within a few turns, which I got in my game) we end up with tiles that have ridiculous yields for the amount of investment and lack of maintenance.

I have had the same quarry Event occur three times now. With a city utilizing a furs camp, a horse pasture and an intergalactic quarry, I am getting 30 hammers per turn.