1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Random events and huts.

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by rah, Feb 23, 2012.

  1. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam GiftOfNukes

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    22,176
    Location:
    Orlando
    I guess it depends what you mean when you say competitive. Can you have a game with random leaders on a crap MP map like fractal and still have everyone play to win? Sure. However not even the best will be able to overcome some of the things that would happen.

    Could you have such settings and then reasonably claim the winner is the best player? Not a chance.

    Civ's community is one of the greatest things about it. There are precious few forums that can even kind of sort of come close to CFC in terms of being active/reasonable/etc. I admit the existence of this community has been a major factor in me playing the game for so long.
     
  2. rah

    rah Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,399
    Location:
    Chicago
    This is the issue. No we don't claim the winner is the best player. If you play with the same group of guys, you eventually figure out who's better than the others. Let's say you were doing a ladder type scoring and two guys were separated by just a few points. I don't think you could say the person with just a few more was necessarily a better player. The RGN alone means the game isn't exactly equal.
    I think players that do well after getting crappy breaks is the true test of who's a better player. Not someone that follows the same formula each game. (even though some of them are pretty damn good)
    It's just a difference of opinion. When I was younger, I probably would have agreed with you, but I look at things a bit differently now. AND most importantly, it's just MY opinion. Which everyone is allowed to mock as necessary. It's the quality of the discussion that is valuable.
     
  3. Cort Haus

    Cort Haus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    224
    Location:
    London
    Surely the only way to have a truly level competitive playing field is for each player to start with identical land (is this what a mirror map does?) and the same traits, UU, UB and starting techs.
     
  4. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    And make the RNG the same for everyone.

    Or you could just play a chess/civ hybrid.

    "A2 is building a pawn (10 turns)". Tech path: Knights (25 turns)
     
  5. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam GiftOfNukes

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    22,176
    Location:
    Orlando
    RNG outcomes that are entered at player discretion are different from RNG outcomes that no amount of strategy controls.

    For example, in Halo there are both RNG and player-choice control elements to where you respawn after death. However, nobody serious about their play impacting the game in halo would reasonably want a 1/10 chance of spawning with a rocket launcher and having that decide the outcome of matches on occasion.

    A lot of events in civ IV can be reasonably compared to spawning with a rocket launcher when nobody else does, at random. That might be a fun mod to play, but it isn't something that is rational to put into a competition.
     
  6. Sojuz

    Sojuz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    40
    Location:
    Verona
    Oh no please, don't turn Civ into a chess game, i fail at chess, my gamer story began with Simcity then Civilization not some windows chess game :p.
     
  7. rah

    rah Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,399
    Location:
    Chicago
    If there was just one event a game, I might agree with you. Or if you only played one game. But over the course of many games, it's going to even out. JUST like the rng controlling combat. No rational person can claim to be the best player based on one game. (even thought I've seen many that do) It's only over a course of games that a person can truly claim that. It's the diversity that tests ability.
     
  8. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam GiftOfNukes

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    22,176
    Location:
    Orlando
    Competitions like HoF, XOTM, tournament series, etc don't exactly have a chance to "even out after many games". Comparison games aren't really comparable with huts or events.
     
  9. rah

    rah Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,399
    Location:
    Chicago
    And in those circumstances I believe I have already agreed with you. (if not, I agree now)
    I don't usually participate in those types of games so it's not an issue to me.
    Do you consider the player that scores the most points possible the "best player" based on one game. Performance in one game does denote ability, but not the greatness that some confer on it. I think that only comes after considerable history. I can tell there are a few people here that are better than I just based on their history of posts. I'm here poking the bear a bit just to encourage discussion with some of them. It's just a game. If I didn't enjoy it and discussing it, there would be no reason to play it. Some of the other sites that I visit don't have the quality of players that this site has.
     
  10. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam GiftOfNukes

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    22,176
    Location:
    Orlando
    Well, outside of those kinds of games there's no reason to forgo any type of setting. Even very unbalanced mods like civ gold with its 3 str aggressive warrior and super catapult UUs can be fun to play.
     
  11. madmenno

    madmenno Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    141
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Imo for straight multiplayer random events won't matter much more then any other game of civ. If you play MP with 8 people it's likely one will start off with just a cow and a silk tile in his capitol surrounded by dessert while another player has 1 corn, 2 gold a couple of floodplains and on top of that pops a horse when AH is researched. So as far as real MP goes it's not very competitive and it's one of the two reasons i never got into MP. The other one is that it's slow :D.

    Personally i like to mix it around, truthfully i like random events, i used to always play with them. But as already mentioned in this thread a couple of times losing that forge or getting a revolt that let's you miss a wonder by a turn or 2 is disastrous for real competitive play like the challenges or gauntlets. The reason these are competitive is that everyone is allowed to regenerate and play as many maps they want. And since games take long and reloading is not allowed betting on a streak of good events is very time consuming.
     
  12. uat2d

    uat2d ಠ_ಠ

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,727
    Location:
    Final Frontier Listening: House
    Randoms events break the game as they can just act as "you win" or "you lose" events and huts are just dull and can be extremely unfair, a Roman player can either get Iron Working in the first 10 turns or spawn 3 archers which then kills the player just like that off the game.

    Also, it's awful having to build tons of factories because yours burn down all the time or having 3 or 4 full health enemy default units spawn in their capitol each time you raze one of his cities, even if it's only lvl 1.
     
  13. rah

    rah Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,399
    Location:
    Chicago
    I think the "break the game" things are not that frequent. And I think civ is a better game when you add the **** happens factor. Just my opinion of course.
    Over the course of this discussion I think I now appreciate the other side of this argument a bit more due to the insightful responses from others.
     
  14. Tatran

    Tatran Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    4,131
    With huts on, the game becomes less predictable in the early stage.
    The early religions will always be founded by civs with Mysticism as starting tech.
    In a recent game I saw Shaka going for an early religion, first Meditation and later Polytheism. Both religions were founded by other leaders.

    Also, peacefull leaders almost never have a chance against a warmonger.
    See picture. Gandhi and Hatshepsut both got the upperhand against Genghis Khan and Tokugawa.

    Spoiler :


     
  15. Zx Zero Zx

    Zx Zero Zx Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,145
    Location:
    Minnesota
    They either make the game way to easy or way to hard. There is no middle ground, and events are just there to troll you.
     
  16. rah

    rah Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,399
    Location:
    Chicago
    I think there is a middle ground. There are many many lower impact events that add color. And listening to my brother whine when he loses a forge for the 2nd or 3rd time makes it all worth it. :lol:
     
  17. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam GiftOfNukes

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    22,176
    Location:
    Orlando
    If adding a random element I'd like to see more actual strategy applied to them. "you lost this tile improvement rebuild it" isn't strategy; it's tedium. Forge burning and such are similar too; the cost in gold is so comparably cheap that you'd virtually always want to rebuild a burned building if you were willing to invest in it in the first place (IE not much strategy when you "if this" and can instantly conclude "do that" and be right consistently). As binary research is generally optimal anyway, you'll always have the money if you're not being lazy also.

    Quests are a valid element. So are events that happen under more consistently discernible circumstances and can be planned to avoid, get, or compensate for. This is a strategy game, but like vassal states, AP, and most other expansion features events is largely a thrown-together package that could have made gameplay SO much more dynamic than they currently do. They'd still be bad in HoF because of "replay = skill" factor and in XOTM, but they'd be a lot more fun and more competitively valid as opponents might even seek to intercept good ones/cause risks of bad ones.

    But nope. Most of these "fun" events are just something happening that you
    1) have minimal-to-no control over (random doesn't mean it has to preclude strategy!)
    2) are largely minor and only affect timings by a turn or two, and if you're ahead by more than that wind up being non-factors or
    3) potentially game-breakingly good (free golden ages, massed march) or terrible (bermuda triangle, vedic aryans)...and even these are frequently unprepared random draws.

    This is why I temper excitement over the civ V expansion; I still remember that YOU having a vassal can actually make your opponent think HE is doing better in the war than if you didn't have that vassal...even if the vassal has killed more of its units than it lost.

    The same company that made choices like that to put into the game is giving us an expansion in a game that still doesn't work...and that fact escapes a large portion of the community :sad:.
     
  18. rah

    rah Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,399
    Location:
    Chicago
    100% agree

    While I think you paint the events as a bit too dark which I still disagree with, I respect your opinion.

    Actually I thought the slave revolt event (which many consider game breaking) was a good one.
    Slaving is such a STRONG civic that I believe it should carry a risk to use, and I think the slave revolt is a good possible penalty to offset it's use.
     
  19. Sojuz

    Sojuz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    40
    Location:
    Verona
    "A game that still doesn't work". Say that to my awesome Europe scenario games and tens of hours spent playing and enjoying it. I'd love to see a poll destoying your flawed idea that Civ4 is unfinished and broke, yes because the flawed thing here is not really the game, as i stated before, perfection is perfection, human is human, you'll never get anything perfect about videogames, pros and cons are everywhere, what changes valor of videogames is the ratio about pros/cons.
     
  20. Mylene

    Mylene Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4,000
    Location:
    Pangea
    Leaving the silly ones aside, i dislike random events cos not much thinking is involved.
    Besides, you often would get punished for playing better (if no event happens). Keeping gold in your treasury is inefficent if spending all gives you techs quicker, but if you dun have gold you cannot pay for silly event X...
     

Share This Page