Random events on or off?

[MeatUnit2]

I put up with volcanoes and storms for years, then one day the Bermuda Triangle swallowed three boomers that were chalk full of nuclear missiles and I have never played with random events since then. No regrets. In my opinion they should default to OFF.

 

[Steve the Noble]

I play with them on. I view them as just another aspect that I have to adapt my strategy to, just as favourable/unfavourable resource placement can alter my plans as the game goes on.

Also, it seems that over the course of the game, the net effect of positive/negative events for myself/AI don't swing the game very much overall.

I haven't been on the wrong end of some of the more catastrophic events (Bermuda Triangle?), so maybe my feelings about them aren't as strong as other players'.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I view them as just another aspect that I have to adapt my strategy to

Nope, some arguments for leaving them on are acceptable, this isn't one of them.

Also, it seems that over the course of the game, the net effect of positive/negative events for myself/AI don't swing the game very much overall.

Fact checking, or maybe checking earlier in the thread? They can and sometimes do drastically alter games by themselves, with nothing strategy can influence.

I haven't been on the wrong end of some of the more catastrophic events (Bermuda Triangle?), so maybe my feelings about them aren't as strong as other players'.

Keep playing, I'm sure they'll find you .

 

[krikav]

Random events is moronic.
Playing with random events on, is comparable with playing chess and each turn the players need to roll a die to see if they lose a pawn. >_<

 

[uat2d]

Random events is moronic.
Playing with random events on, is comparable with playing chess and each turn the players need to roll a die to see if they lose a pawn. >_<

Not always. Sometimes it's as if the enemy's pawns turn into queens.

No, I can't beat Shock Praetorians with classical era techs.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not always. Sometimes it's as if the enemy's pawns turn into queens.

No, I can't beat Shock Praetorians with classical era techs.

Shock noobiphants to the rescue ? They're technically classical lol.

 

[Steve the Noble]

Wow. Touchy issue it seems.

I would think their very random and sometimes screwball nature makes them hard to argue for purely with rational reasons. By contrast, in a competitive setting, clearly reducing in-game randomness is preferred.

My games are casual. I'll chuckle at the positive events. I'll shrug my shoulders at the negative events and won't dwell on them. I'm happy.

I wonder if there's a correlation between players' skill and their preference for events - maybe higher-skilled players don't like events messing with their mastery of the game. Oops, I guess my preference for leaving events on means that I'm lousy...

 

[strijder20]

I view them as just another aspect that I have to adapt my strategy to

Nope, some arguments for leaving them on are acceptable, this isn't one of them.

I don't see why, say Barbarians, do deserve an adaptation of your strategy while those events do not. The amount of barbarians and the place they spawn is random - and so are random events. Surely random events may have a bigger effect on your game than barbarians usually do - but whether your neighbour gets spread your state religion or another religion to his cities first is random too.
I think whether random events should be on or off depends on whether you are playing to win, and solve the strategic difficulties the RNG has thrown at you in the most efficient way, or whether you are playing to make the empire you control a great one, kind of role-playing.
I think everyone has the right to play Civilization the way he wants, and that that person can choose whether he wants those random events on or not - so there is no absolute answer on whether you should turn them on or off.

 

[Steve the Noble]

Remember also the "Beyond the Sword" title was chosen in part because of the pack's attempt to reduce the emphasis on the familiar conquer-with-stack-of-doom technique. (Yes, there are other keys to victory but bear with me.)

While corporations and espionage were the obvious new aspects to integrate into your overall strategy, random events can introduce some interesting zigzags into your beeline to victory.

Events take the random rolls of the dice - which are already so much a part of the game - and give them some contextual feel with tangible and visible effects on units/cities/resources/relations whatever.

It seems like it's the major events that really turn people off and that's understandable. I think if events were split into two game options such as minor events and major events (the equivalent of "barbs" and "raging barbs"), perhaps people would be more accepting of events in non-competitive games.

P.S. Best thread in a while. Well done all!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't see why, say Barbarians, do deserve an adaptation of your strategy while those events do not.

Barbarians: Known, high-frequency of occurrence where a player can plan for reasonable survival odds. To be fair, I've come to hate them too because I play a lot of games and in 1/150 or so I get buttsecks'd by 2 barb archers taking my city defended by 2 archers (including my most recent video, though I do win that game anyway). Regardless, the frequency of their occurrence and the sliding cost of nullifying them can be reasonably planned on a game to game basis.

Events: Low frequency of occurrence with occasionally catastrophic implications on the outcome of the game. Examples I have seen alone include 3000 BC civ death, losing 10000+ at sea in an instant, being forced to declare on other civs that are more powerful and have DP with each other, player getting shock on something like praetorians, and +3 global diplo.

Most of the RNG screwjobs that harm the player in competitive settings are serious (and occasionally idiotic) design flaws by firaxis. Triple gems vs plains cow and a flood plain is one example, but a worse one would be how most scripts occasionally allow civs 2x average land uncontested. Things like religion, early DoW, etc are not catastrophic when the RNG doesn't bounce the player's way, but events can be because of the combination of WHEN they can happen and the global empire effects at the time. Watching a triple forest fire in my capitol stack up 3x whip in the opening turns was one of the most frustrating "minor" events ever, and this was before I reached writing and could realistically have been running binary.

so there is no absolute answer on whether you should turn them on or off.

Yes there is:

1. Competitive settings -----> events off or you don't get to pretend it's a competition.
2. Casual settings -----> anything goes.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

I was also wondering if anyone plays with the AI's having random personalities. I think it's a bit unrealistic to know who great traders are and who the war mongers are early in the game. Does anyone play that way??

I do this with every game, for the same reason as you.

I leave Random events on, usually 'cause I just figure it kinda makes sense, like, earthquakes and stuff can happen and screw up a big city. I can see the point y'all are making though about some just being ridiculous. The more I read this thread the more unsure I am of using Random Events in the future.

 

[Tecibbar]

Diplomatic situation is way more decisive, and just as random as random event.
The most random event can do is, you lost a city due to horsearcher, but you can capture it back cause they will leave the city undefended.
Consider the following situations
1. Monte decides to found his own religion, and is no longer friendly with Charlemagne.
2. Boudica war you instead of Gandi, and AP followes.
3. Pericles decides to go for Aesthetic and literature instead of the usually Math route, and build the Glib before you.

Civ is not a RPG game, where you keep getting stronger and stronger. Sometimes you just have to deal with the losts.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Diplomatic situation is way more decisive

Please explain how anything can be "way more" decisive than an instant loss or a sudden winning position?

Diplo situation isn't nearly as random, either. I'll even take the time to rip the examples:

1. Monte decides to found his own religion, and is no longer friendly with Charlemagne.

You have options here, ranging from simply denying monty to found a religion (you can even know based on tech screen if it's even possible) to picking a side. You also have espionage to alter things.

2. Boudica war you instead of Gandi, and AP followes.

Lulwut? AP isn't random, it's just a broken feature. You're not going to make a very convincing argument by citing an untested, broken trash feature in an attempt to help said argument . AI targeting algorithm has a random element, but way less than the vast majority of this forum understands...and aside from deity DoW ~2000 to 1000 BC, you can survive anyway.

3. Pericles decides to go for Aesthetic and literature instead of the usually Math route, and build the Glib before you.

Binary research? Rely less on wonders?

Civ is not a RPG game, where you keep getting stronger and stronger. Sometimes you just have to deal with the losts.

Civ is not the card game "war" or a slot machine. It's a strategy game, and "derp something you can't realistically plan for helps or hurts you" does not constitute strategy. "Derp" is usually the kind of thing that removes strategy from games...I don't see how someone can possibly make the argument that skill equalization is a good thing for a strategy game...

 

[AJ11]

Civ is not the card game "war" or a slot machine. It's a strategy game, and "derp something you can't realistically plan for helps or hurts you" does not constitute strategy. "Derp" is usually the kind of thing that removes strategy from games...I don't see how someone can possibly make the argument that skill equalization is a good thing for a strategy game...

I completely disagree. A solid strategy includes contingencies for unplanned occurances. Anyone who plans in advance, be it Civ or a IRL company's 5 year plan, without planning for contingencies should be ganked from holding a "I am a strategist" licence.

I play Diety/Marathon all the time. I have always kept not only events on, but have modded my games to increase the frequency of events drastically (10% per turn across all ages, plus most are now recurring) and always play with the Raging Barbarians setting on. Why? It is a challenge. While some games do end prematurely because of things like the Vedic Aryans, those are always the exceptions, not the rule. You shrug your shoulders and move on. Then again, I am one of those people who play for fun and the lols. Even while losing, I can have a laugh at myself. Ever seen neat squares of samurai die en massed and in place via catapults, creating a neat square graveyard of skeletons in Age of Empires 2? I have. Those samurai were mine. I laughed so hard that I could barely see the screen and at the end of the game, I gave my friend with the catapults a grinning "I'll get you back for that!" I learnt from it, and next game, I trounced his arse.

I have yet to see an event that cause you to automatically declare on your enemy (or maybe I don't remember it). The only one with a potential to do so gives you a choice, and only option 3 causes immediate war (actually, only if the enemy civ wants to declare war, which the AI does 100% of the time).

There are few events which you cannot control that will automatically kill you. Vedic Aryans is one of them but only because they turn up early. Otherwise, 4 archers is just free xp. I'd be more worried about the damned Gothic axemen, the Hunnic horse archers or the Philistine swordsmen! Bermuda Triangle is annoying, but can be mitigated. Just stop sending your troops across in one massive SoD. One of the stated aims of the creators of Civ4 is to abolish SoD as seen in previous editions of Civ. Hence, collateral damage and the like. The Bermuda Triangle is just a more extreme example of it.

If you don't like events, that is fine, but don't insinuate that other people are ******** because they play with it on, or claim that just because they wreck your strategy, it must be a sign of anti-strategy. Maybe it is a sign of you needing to plan for contingencies more in your strategies and emerge as a better strategist.

 

[r_rolo1]

Bermuda Triangle is annoying, but can be mitigated. Just stop sending your troops across in one massive SoD. One of the stated aims of the creators of Civ4 is to abolish SoD as seen in previous editions of Civ. Hence, collateral damage and the like. The Bermuda Triangle is just a more extreme example of it.

Wrong. The event notes state clearly that the objective of the bermuda event was to kill 2 destroyers. What happens now is not intended at all.

 

[AJ11]

Wrong. The event notes state clearly that the objective of the bermuda event was to kill 2 destroyers. What happens now is not intended at all.

I was not talking about the event's notes. I was talking about the game as a whole. They wanted to eliminate the endless city sprawl and stacks of death. Gold upkeep did the first. Collateral damage did the second, although not 100% sucessfully. Bermuda merely took it to one extreme in its present form.

Regardless, the trick to mitigating Bermuda is not to have your entire fleet in one stack. The point of the post was that you need to adapt instead of whining about how it messes up your strategy and it is therefore anti-strategy in general.

While I agree that certain events are over the top, the amount of whining and sheer aggro towards those with a differing opinion or even people who innocently bring it up, even obliquely, is a bit off. Civ4 is a game. People like playing it differently. Some like the gambling-like atmosphere of lots of events. Others believe that to have events on, like barbarians and goody huts, makes for the total, complete Civ package. Still others believe that all of the above should be turned off. Who is to dictate which is the right way to play the game? If you (the generic you) don't agree with someone's view of playing the game, either ignore the post and move on, or state nicely why you believe the guy is wrong. You don't have to jump on every person who talks about events and insinuate that the guy is a clueless, non-strategic idiot just because he either plays with events on or likes events.

 

[r_rolo1]

I guess you did not understood me. The bermuda event was supposed to destroy 2 destroyers ( the devs say it in the notes ). Not more, not less and regardless of how much units you had in the tile ( as long as you had 2 destroyers, that is ). The event , as it is , it is not working as intended ... and you can't use a thing that is explicitely working in a wrong way as a example of a game philo, no matter if the philo could hold that thing as it is working now.

You are right in the anti-SoD attempts in civ IV ( that worked exactly as well as the anti- measures in civ V ), but that was not my point ...

Anyway, I'm not against events in this game per se. I simply know enough of the events to know that there are , even in 3.19 , 2 or 3 events that don't work as the devs intended ( and some produce quite a dramatic effect if pushed to the extreme ), that the rest is ridiculously badly balanced and that most of them were not thinked to the end ... not mentioning the WTH method of choosing what events you have in one game ( basically the game , after map generation, chooses randomly some events that can appear in that game ( meaning that the rest will never happen in that game ) and then from those events the game checks every turn what ones can fire and from those that can fire the game randomly weights a probablity of one firing ... that is why you have rows of deer food , mine colapses or forest fires in some games ) that exacerbates the odds of some events to repeat ad nauseam in one game ...

So, events? Not opposed to a priori. This random events system ? :suicide:

 

[AJ11]

You are right in the anti-SoD attempts in civ IV ( that worked exactly as well as the anti- measures in civ V ), but that was not my point ...

Then we are talking at cross purposes here. Let's drop it.

 

[Dr.Null]

I play with events on, though I've removed some of them (bermuda triangle and barbarian uprisings).

The remaining events add variety, and since I'm playing this game for fun, that's a good thing.

 

[Army of Scouts]

It's just a game: Play how you want. There is no right way to play. That said, I play with events off, but I used to love them so I can understand both sides of the argument. Have a nice day!