Random events on or off?

[Tapewormlondon]

What the hell is the bermuda triangle event and these arayn thingys??? Or an event that causes auto war - which is that?

The most exciting ive ever had is some parrots/ prarie dogs for pets or a diplomatic faux pas!!

My events are clearly broken and I demand a refund - lol

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Off if you want a serious game. ALWAYS OFF in COMPETITIVE games. ALWAYS. That's YOU, HoF!

Otherwise, do what you want. They're not balanced and cause joke effects, but if you like randomly winning or losing based on luck, go for it. I'll try not to laugh to hard when you die to barbs at 2800 BC or lose 10000 hammers in an instant. Actually that's a lie. I'll laugh.

 

[King Pluto]

Off most of the time, but when I play the Earth map I usually leave them on because I'm usually playing a more sim-type game and the flavor is nice.

 

[vincentz]

I'm really surprised to see how many dont use them.

For me its a great part of the game. It makes the game more lively.
And sometimes a good Quest can set me on a path I wouldnt normally take.
F.ex. in my last game I had to build 12 swordsmen. That in turn let to an early conquest (which I almost never do) of my neighbourghs. (eh, now I have 12 swordsmen, now what? Wait! did you just try to demand an apple from me? No you didnt! That means war!!!)
I had a lot of trouble getting the economy back on track after expanding, but it was a great game primarely because of the random events.
It is Always On in my games.

 

[Arond]

I play with them on to add a bit more variety and color to my games. Most times it seems as if the positive and negative balance each other out.

 

[uat2d]

Always off, I can't stand them.

I only seem to get Vedic Aryans, fires, storms, tornados, revolts and diplo hits.

As AJ11 put it,

That proves that you have either angered the RNG god in a previous life, or you are Murphy incarnate

 

[plasmacannon]

For my single player games, usually on.
For my multi-player games, I have done both.
I haven't seen these two events everyone is describing, however, With all of these mods available, surely, someone could edit out the extremely bad ones.
The free pastured cow or tornado'd tile is more like the seemingly randomness of nature, considering Civ4 doesn't deal with air currents, water temperature, frontal boundaries and el nino effect data. If, Rome gets the free cover promotion, I adjust my strategy to the new situation. I might attack their neighbor and save the Romans for my Rifleman attacks. So, most of these events I like, and do add flavor to the game.
However, I found one reciently, that is just lame. The slave revolt came up, and I didn't have enough to pay to stop it, but, didn't want to lose the 2 pop. So, I chose something that pushed aside temporarily, with a chance that it could come back. It did, but, my gold didn't go up, so, no matter how many times I tried, I couldn't save the 2 pop. I think, that part is lame. What is the point of putting it off for the next turn, if, we can't earn enough gold to pay off the revolters? I did have 3 revolts in 1 game, within 20 turns of each other that lasted a combined total of 7 turns. Lame, because, I was playing a Spiritual Leader, who's big advantage is normally not seeing revolts.
Note to others: I switched civics off of slavery after the revolt occured and I postponed it, and it still came back the next turn. So, getting off of slavery will not discontinue the event. Lame, you would think ending slavery would be enough and you wouldn't be forced to lose 2 pop.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I play with them on to add a bit more variety and color to my games. Most times it seems as if the positive and negative balance each other out.

Sigh...people make this ridiculous claim 24/7 it seems. What I don't understand is how it can possibly be made. Rational analysis can't possibly come to this conclusion, so why have I seen it dozens of times? Event apologists never actually give hard counts of how events are distributed in their game, it always just "seems" balanced. Convenient.

Except that there are a handful of positive and a handful of negative events that can completely alter the outcome of a game by themselves. The assertion that one of these can possibly be balanced out later is beyond reason...or rather short of it.

Or would you like to tell us what event during your game balances out losing 20000 hammers worth of troops at sea 10 turns before another civ wins? Getting killed at the start of the game? Instantly winning a diplo victory? Forcibly declaring war into a 4 civ alliance against the civ declaring's will? Losing 20 turns in the early game due to ? Promotions on UUs that allow for a sweep? Double non-great person golden age? Do I even need to continue?

The event apologists who support this joke mechanic with "it seems to balance out" NEVER have an answer for this, because there is no answer for it. The eventual fall-back is "I like random game breaking things for fun". That's fine, as long is one isn't in a competitive setting ANYTHING goes, and nobody is going to say stop others from playing what they want.

In serious games, however, events objectively have no place in civ IV. They are strictly "for the lulz" only.

Events in competitive MP and games where players compete are a complete and utter joke. Spawn luck is bad enough without throwing in even more random skill equalization. It's like tripping in smash brothers brawl --------> sheer design idiocy where the only possible conclusions are 1) Designer incompetency or 2) a deliberate effort to iron out any hope of the game being played at competitive levels in depth (in other words, incompetency). Why not go full circle and undermine the competition entirely! Don't even play! Just role a dice and determine a winner based on the number :/. That's what playing with events is like in MP.

 

[uat2d]

Just role a dice and determine a winner based on the number :/. That's what playing with events is like in MP.

To be fair, nobody plays the same, and even if a chieftain player keeps getting good events and a immortal one keeps getting bad ones, the immortal one is bound to do better in the same settings (provided there isn't any gamebreaking event).

Unlike rolling a dice, a player affects the outcome in a civ game, even with added randomness.

And about spawn luck, well there are Mirror maps. One can even play them with the same civs!

But sure, events don't belong in a competitive setting.

 

[Archon_Wing]

It balances it out in the worst way possible... sure you can have good events some games and bad events some others, but that just increases variance; it doesn't balance crap.

The big events are really too damned powerful. If they had a more subtle effect, (along the lines of those diplo choice ones) it would have been kinda fun as a distraction.

It's not even the extreme ones like 3000 bc barbs. Those events that give free early promotions are just as bad. Having such powerful things appear so early on just proves they really have no idea how to balance a game with events. Is there any point in enjoying a won game, just because the game arbitrarily lets you win here, or the same when it arbitarily decides you should lose?

But whatever, events are fine for screwing around. Just please don't play any forums games and expect useful help or comparison with them.

 

[{Iago}]

Always on. I also always play as a random Civ and random map features (apart from map size).

I find it makes the game much more unpredictable and fun. The game-breaking random events happen very seldom in my games, and can be rectified by using the Worldbuilder.

 

[Utenlok]

As strong as the general opinion is against random events and huts, I am surprised that everyone plays with barbs on. Sure they aren't as game breaking as the "broken" events, but they are random and certainly can and do effect outcomes.

 

[uat2d]

As strong as the general opinion is against random events and huts, I am surprised that everyone plays with barbs on. Sure they aren't as game breaking as the "broken" events, but they are random and certainly can and do effect outcomes.

I don't play with barbs on. I just don't fancy having to spawn bust to avoid getting harassed by axes or galleys.

 

[Rusten]

Events are terrible. Even more so for high level games.

Example: You come up with a good plan which is based around keeping relations between you and civilization X at Y. Suddenly a faux pas or similar bogus is made and relations drop a level. You are now eligible to be attacked and stand at risk of losing the game.

With events off you can make plans and follow them, which is what a strategy game is about to me. If I wanted to roll a dice I'd do just that.

Imagine playing a chess game where at any point in time there is a small chance that one of the opponent's (or your) pawns can turn into a piece, and suddenly all your good play is void.

 

[Archon_Wing]

As strong as the general opinion is against random events and huts, I am surprised that everyone plays with barbs on. Sure they aren't as game breaking as the "broken" events, but they are random and certainly can and do effect outcomes.

Because they can usually be dealt with decent planning; that's something that you can control.

Though Barb galleys are on the stupid side and are unintuitive to stop-- you need to fogbust over actual ships, and sometimes they chase someone else's workboat. :/

Events contribute nothing other than fake difficulty, or sometimes reduced difficulty.

 

[QuixotesGhost]

Screw "competetive gaming" design philosphy. It's a notion that stifles innovation in favor of the familar, simplistic, and predictable. Adaptability is a skill like any other. The ability to mitigate negative random occurances and leverage positive ones is a function of player skill. The problem with events in civ is not that they are present and "random chance has no place in a strategy game", but that certain ones are too extreme. In Civ you're constantly "playing the map", responding and adapting to the random parameters that the game throws at you - it's one of the joys of the game. I'd hate to see the Civ series get infected with the same sort of ideas about game design (i.e. "competetive gaming") that plaugue the likes of Counterstrike and Starcraft.

Mirror maps in Civ?

UGH.

URGHHHHHHHH.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Events are terrible. Even more so for high level games.

Example: You come up with a good plan which is based around keeping relations between you and civilization X at Y. Suddenly a faux pas or similar bogus is made and relations drop a level. You are now eligible to be attacked and stand at risk of losing the game.

With events off you can make plans and follow them, which is what a strategy game is about to me. If I wanted to roll a dice I'd do just that.

Imagine playing a chess game where at any point in time there is a small chance that one of the opponent's (or your) pawns can turn into a piece, and suddenly all your good play is void.

That seems to be a common trend in gaming lately though. Designers build in skill equalization such that crappy play is occasionally rewarded or at least compensated. There are a lot more bad players than good ones; bad players LIKE skill equalization, even though skill equalization isn't rational in a game! I can think of examples in virtually every genre, though it's rare in RTS at least.

 

[DocRock]

I actually play for fun and if I like to turn events for some unexpected actions, there's no real issue with this right? And I don't care whether I am a bad or a good player. So long the game I play is fun to me, it's perfect. Regardless whether I am playing chieftain or deity, events on/off or with or without cheating.

By the way I don't like events and turned them off in my games.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

and Starcraft.

Starcraft and Starcraft II are two of the best games in their genre. If you don't think adaptability and responsiveness apply to those titles, you do NOT know how to play them. Neither has any build order or pure mechanics that will win; terrain, unit positioning, econ choices, unit composition, scouting, and denying scouting all make drastic impacts game to game.

But yes, the biggest problem with events is their extreme nature, and the fact that a large portion have no strategic mitigating factors at all; you can't prepare for them, they just hit and help or do damage with generally "derp" level strategy to compensate for their occurrences. Things like quests, if balanced, would have been a great element in the game, though in competitive MP they'd have to be offered to everyone.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Starcraft and Starcraft II are two of the best games in their genre. If you don't think adaptability and responsiveness apply to those titles, you do NOT know how to play them. Neither has any build order or pure mechanics that will win; terrain, unit positioning, econ choices, unit composition, scouting, and denying scouting all make drastic impacts game to game.

Don't be silly. How can you come up with such an insane concept, where there is no luck element and people are always rewarded for making good moves? A game where the better player usually wins unless they're not careful. That's boring and predictable.

Absolutely not! I want to be able to beat MC and Boxer because a random event gives my marines 10 more health, or give me a free factory at the start so I can attack /w helions in impossible timings.

Wait, that's still not as good as Civ IV events. There should be an event that causes 12 zerglings to appear and attack them 2 minutes into the game. Or randomly destroy their 200/200 supply army as they try to come over.

They are pros. They should be able to adapt even if this happens? Am I rite?

Besides, it's not impossible to happen. Entire armies have been wiped out by tsunamis. It makes perfect sense and is realistic. Just because it could happen, means it should happen.

And sadly enough, that still isn't as good as Events in Civ IV...

Also, screw balanced maps. They should start on an island with no gas.

Because clearly, that would be fun to win games like that. And finally, if I do lose, I can just blame the game instead of myself.* Woot!

*Does not apply to Idra, since he does that anyways*