A typical game of Civ 4 uses a random number generator many thousand times. Any single one of these (or a combination of any number of them) changes the outcome of games independently of skills.
Actually incidence of RNG outcomes changing an outcome within 1 roll are pretty rare. Care to give alternative examples that are so common as to be potentially gamebreaking, across an entire game? Aside from map rolls there aren't many...and most competitive formats seek to eliminate this as a factor...
By the way, the existence of some random factors screwing with the outcome does not make adding additional factors of that kind is a good or even neutral ideal, so you're not really refuting point 1 at all, just pointing out other aspects of the game which aren't particularly relevant to events and are often mitigated in competition. Deliberately
Exactly. And in doing so, they accept the small risk of being screwed if the event actually happens despite the small probability factor.
Exactly. So one person is punished for playing intelligently, and other players aren't. Wait, how is that a good thing?
I don’t have a problem accepting the fact that a rational choice might end up being the wrong one.
It's almost never the wrong one though. Everyone without perfectly hilly lands will run it, and some will receive a penalty while others do not. Even with the revolts, it was still the best option...but derp! Different rewards for the same thing. This is a strategy game. Why are people being *randomly* punished for making a sound choice? This is a perfect example of the idiocy of design in events when it comes to competitive settings. You and I play duel map, you get 4 slave revolts in the BCs, I get 0. We both have copper but you can't use yours in time. I win.
WTG on the "strategy" game right there.
Now, they’re just another thing to consider, another risk to weigh.
Any decisions made in dealing with some of them? No. Any thought required in dealing with some of them? Still no. Strategically worthless? Yes, despite your claim or presentation of irrelevant (and in one case not so random) examples.
But again, a great number of random calculations during the course of the game, may eventually lead to a loss or win.
I have presented fine examples of my (okay fine) *almost* instant win and loss events. Go ahead, show us that "great number" of random calculations that have a similar impact, since you're claiming it multiple times and using it as the basis for an irrelevant argument.
There's a reason that competent map creators for competitions seek to iron these crap factors out. Even HoF does so, by allowing multiple attempts with differing maps (and allowing mapfinder and opponent selection to cut down on the RNG impact). Indeed, it is to bypass random factors and let good play shine that HoF allows multiple submissions to some extent. But go ahead, show how the addition of random and potentially game breaking factors is good for competition, right after you can prove the ludicrous claim that there are lots of RNG outcomes that are similar.
For example:
What if a few unfavourable battle outcomes prolong a war, which delays building of infrastructure, which in turn causes someone else to beat you to victory by a few turns? The causality is still there, just not obvious.
Is ridiculous. Instead of having one, extremely high-impact but low occurrence event to screw you over, you're talking about LOTS of RNG outcomes, where no single one is that large of an impact. Factoring in collateral (IE GUARANTEED damage!) or not very many extra units (with experience) the odds of this can be curtailed to the point where it is nearly impossible. There is also the application of strategy here, and an actual evaluation of risk and an actual break point that might change the attack decision entirely. You go ahead and show me that application for being FORCED to declare on someone, being hit by an early uprising, or forest fires before writing.
(Personally, I would prefer the instant loss compared to spending several hours on the game only to lose at the end, but that has no bearing on the discussion.)
Well then it's a GOOD THING you don't want events on! Oh wait. I wish upon you 10000 hammers lost at sea, and that you are forced to declare into a 3 way defensive pact, and that you lose because of diplo on a RNG outcome. Have fun with those, but keep them out of competition please.
Yes, higher investment should be rewarded with better returns. People who make a HoF entry their highest goal in life and spend 20 hours a day replaying games should by all means get that precious high score and be proud about it.
Derp...
It is, quite simply, a database, an elite level of tables of the best games.
As games are submitted, verified and posted on the tables, it will become clear who is the best.
Here in the Hall of Fame are superior games to study from, experienced and talented players putting their wisdom and strategies up for all to read and know, and in the forum, posters gracious enough to advise on matters and answer questions.
Hmm. Strange. I kept looking for "luckiest" games, or for "players with most time" instead of "elite players". Looked and looked. Somehow, I couldn't find it. I wonder why that is?
Or maybe we're supposed to read "derp go for 4 huts and get the cover event" as elite strategy? Maybe not.
Maybe because in competitions, "most time" =/= best play.
put in less time, but still be rewarded by the HoF system on the basis of being a “sensible” and “good” player. It is an idealistic and not so realistic view, arguably self-centred as well.
Self-centered is somehow not telling other people what they want to do? Arguably? By the way, that isn't my motivation at all. I'd like to see more games by skilled players who play the game intelligently (like the deity win by Rusten on the tables) than by players who simply play 100 games and 1 time they got lucky on dice rolls and got a good finish. When I started in the HoF, I wasn't part of the elite. I'd argue I'm not even now. I used it as a learning tool, and this gummed up over-reliance on luck factors dilutes the tables and makes me wonder how much of a good outcome depended on luck and how much was the person's decisions.
I'd rather see a guy who out-plays the other actually win. That is the point of a competition, right? That the best player wins? If HoF defined itself around rating "players with the best amount of time to score well", then events would be a positive thing there. Odd though, that it doesn't happen that way in HoF's description of what it is.
I love it. Ever considered saying that your example was hastily constructed and consequentially wrong? No shame in that.
You know what I love? That I was wrong in the setup, and that such a fact was latched onto despite that my conclusion was accurate: more random factors = more chances at extreme outliers and less chance of a perfectly balanced outcome.
All true, with the addition that the "luck" (or the random factor) could be defined as the presence of all conditions that make the bounce possible. If the physicist freezes the game at the exact moment the shot is taken, he or she can calculate vectors and come to a conclusion. However, noone can predict the bounce before the game has started, there are simply too many unknowns
It's an amazing way to continually miss the point. Very impressive.
Speaking of wrong, we can now come to the conclusion that the following things are luck:
1. Gravity
.
2. The presence of any people at the site of competition
3. Hardwood floors
4. Players handling the ball before shooting
5. Players practicing shooting before the competition
6. Player ability to simply bounce a ball controllably
This world is filled with nothing except luck, ever. Luck all the time every time. Every outcome of everything is all luck. Skill is also luck, so why differentiate between the two? It's all luck anyway. The sun is luck too. Light is luck. Luck luck luck luck. That's the argument. Why complain about luck when everything is luck? If everything is luck you just deal with the luck and if you're lucky enough to deal with it you're lucky because after all dealing with luck is also luck because luck is skill and everything.
The simple answer was that if you dont like someone's rule set for their competition then dont compete.
Well, some formats have lacking alternatives. But perhaps more grating are formats that claim they do one thing, but then take steps to do another.
.
Let's hope not. Personally, I think more effective ways to achieve fame and respect in the CIV community are through forum contributions, mods, advice, shared experiences etc.
but minimizing random factors needs to happen to quantify strategy.
