Random events on or off?

[TheMeInTeam]

Sorry, can't have complete information about other posters, even a post spammer like me. Telling me I don't explore options isn't relevant to the discussion, or accurate.

No. We have established that YOU don't like them. We have also established that I do.

This much is definitely true.

What should or should not be allowed in competitive play is detailed in the rules of said competition

No, what is detailed in the rules are what IS allowed in competitive play. If that wasn't subject to change, competitions would be entirely static.

I have put forth a serious argument that any strategy in events is defeated through game span in some formats, and opportunities to combat negative events (or positive events for others) are limited in others. This argument has yet to be refuted.

I have also demonstrated that in HoF, events allow players with more time to be more competitive than players with less time, independent of skill (simply play more games until you get mostly or all good events). That constitutes a barrier to competition for those who don't have as much time as the other players. This, too, has never been refuted.

Stop trying to prevent others from competing.

It's rather the opposite. Events cut into competitions severely by equalizing skill and providing a barrier to some players to compete at all. Supporting the usage of events in competitions is precisely an example of preventing others from competing. So yes, please stop doing that.

 

[AJ11]

Events cut into competitions severely by equalizing skill and providing a barrier to some players to compete at all. Supporting the usage of events in competitions is precisely an example of preventing others from competing.

Only in your opinion, which doesn't mean all that much, unless you are the one holding the competition, of course, which I doubt, you being so busy and all.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Only in your opinion, which doesn't mean all that much, unless you are the one holding the competition, of course, which I doubt, you being so busy and all.

I feel it's fairly easy to demonstrate how things like huts/events function in hall of fame games by simply observing winning submissions. For example, recently tachy got a BCs victory on monarch/normal domination using horse archers. Now, tachy is an amazing player who is poised to win challenger V, so he has the skills necessary to compete regardless. However, in this particular game, he managed to pull horseback riding prior to turn 20. Considering he used horse archers fairly exclusively on that map (as did most remotely competitive submissions), it's fairly obvious that having access to them dozens of turns before it would otherwise be possible was a large advantage.

tachywaxon won 250 BC. cas, another early conquest expert who absolutely DESTROYED a recent g major (OCC conquest with a 1400's BC finish), finished 3 turns later at 175 BC. Those are currently the #1 and #2 submissions on challenge V-2.

Tachy gets HBR t17, from a hut.
cas gets hbr t39. He only got fishing from his hut.

As a result, look at 1st city capture dates:

cas: aachen, t59
tachy: t42

Tachy captured his first AI city only 3 turns after cas even managed to get HBR, because HBR is expensive for that timeframe (t50 is 2000 BC). It is literally impossible to build enough HA to grab cities and move them in to capture in 3 turns. That hut pop was worth more than 3 turns off the finish date...probably much more in fact.

You want to tell me that hut pop couldn't make the difference of 3 turns on the finish...or even that it didn't? Even tachy admits it...but also says that he leaves huts on as it's pretty well required to be competitive. He's correct, of course...but in this case pop HBR t17 more than explains a finish date variance of 3 turns! Can events do this type of thing too? It's hard to deny that they can and do. They don't change outcomes of individual games in SP, but they definitely alter finish dates in formats like this.

What's worse is that despite them being optional, the potential all-good outcome one can attain by leaving them on (through game spam) makes them mandatory, but creates an environment where games have to be abandoned based on luck alone, simply because no matter how well you played this time, it simply won't match up to your own results if you got good luck rather than bad luck.

Now I submit the 2nd piece of evidence, that should build up my argument that this dependency on random factors for top submissions is a barrier to competition:

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/challenge.php

Look at the all-time submissions for each of the challenge series, 1 through 5 (5 is current). In the history of the series, no 10 game set has ever had more than 5 players complete all 10 (V has a real chance, with 7 days remaining I certainly will make it, and I have a feeling several others will also). So, on average only 1/6 of the participants are even finishing all of the games.

Clearly, merely playing the games is already somewhat of a barrier to the competition here, as 10 games is alot. However, with random-factor settings it now becomes mandatory to repeatedly play the same game within the series in hopes of lucky breaks, in order to "outperform" the other players through sheer chance.

I'm of course certain there are players who prefer the format that way...especially those who are willing and able to repeatedly attempt the same settings and strategies until they get lucky. To those who only have time (or will) to play most of the games once or twice, however, extra random factors provide a clear barrier to equal competition. Events and huts are both random factors that do this format harm.

 

[Rubio]

I'm with TMIT on this one. You guys are jumping on him for being a tall poppy and telling it like it is.........

Another very strong indication that the events and huts ruin competitiveness... look at the HoF record victory tables.... all of those win dates are IMPOSSIBLE to get without some random "luck" from a hut/event... good play alone won't do it... I took a look at the tables and said, well, no way i'm interested in the HoF because I don't have the spare time to keep plugging at a particular record where MY SKILL ISNT EVEN THE MAIN FACTOR IN WINNING....

 

[Gwynnja]

I doubt that there is much of a population of high level players that play with them on. Henceforth I shall refer to them as "noobie huts."

 

[squall78]

huts are a random luck factor. it would hamper competitive play as much as random events/quests. in the early stages of a game getting a small boost is HUGE in the long term implications of a game.

 

[Utenlok]

once I stopped playing huts my economy took a lot more paying attention. The 500g+ that I would often get from huts covered up some serious early game mistakes I was making.

On the flip side about the huts, if you start with a scout you kinda get hosed because your wimpy unit is balance on the assumption that there are huts.

One might argue, and likely to no resolution because it can not be proved, that the slave revolts are there to balance the power of slavery. Given how powerful caste can be, I dont think I buy that one. However, a friend of mine insists otherwise.

 

[AJ11]

Stuff

If luck should not be part of competitions, then there will be no competitions. How many World Cup matches have been won because the other side's star player was injured in a previous game?

To say that luck bars competition is a bogus argument.

 

[The7Sins]

If luck should not be part of competitions, then there will be no competitions. How many World Cup matches have been won because the other side's star player was injured in a previous game?

To say that luck bars competition is a bogus argument.

Oh come now you can't use soccer as an example as its not a real sport or competition.

 

[AJ11]

Oh come now you can't use soccer as an example as its not a real sport or competition.

I am in Australia, mate. Rugby!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If luck should not be part of competitions, then there will be no competitions. How many World Cup matches have been won because the other side's star player was injured in a previous game?

To say that luck bars competition is a bogus argument.

An irrelevant example doesn't help the other side of the argument. I don't want to seem like I'm making assumptions or anything ...but I have a sneaking suspicion that if sports leagues could turn on a setting that disallows injuries, they would do so.

But quote doesn't address my argument anyway, which is that the allowance of the random factors forces players who want to make a serious run at a top spot to attempt the same game over and over until luck goes their way. The barrier to competition is the amount of time/tedium involved.

 

[Knightly_]

Hehe they would go for the "no injuries" setting but more for the health of the players and not for the fairness of the game. FIFA as well as other soccer associations have refused to introduce a short term video analysis for the sake of fairness many times. They refused although games are decided by wrong referee decisions and the actual game is only interrupted for a few seconds. I dont think they want soccer to be a fair game and honestly i think its one of the reasons why its such a popular sport. You have the league system (at least here in europe) where there isnt much room for debate that the best team is the winner. Then you have the world cup or champions league tournament where in the elimination phase you can be kicked out basically in one game. Well thats where those games get the excitement from and for a soccer fan a world cup game is a much more intense one than a league game.

Anyway back to civ. I think that civ4 is very unsuitable for competitive play even when events are turned off. I am not involved in the HoF games and i dont know the impact of this but finish times are decided by a huge amount of luck anyway because AI dows are basically just dicerolls. What if in a HoF game you are unlucky and an AI declares on you instead of his worst enemy right next to him. This wont cost you the game but ruin your finish date. However i am also with TMIT here and argue for the least amount of randomness possible for competitive games which means deactivating huts and events.

Knightly_

 

[krikav]

The thing is, you tend to remember the bad events and forget the good ones. That is why people keep whining about losing at 99.5% odds. They forget about the other 1000 times that they didn't lose.

Regardless, I don't believe events are as bad as people make them out to be. Just get rid of some of the crazier ones. Even Vedic Aryans at Deity/Marathon is not as bad as people make it out to be, unless you set them to recurring. That is bad...

Sorry, you do not understand my standpoint as well as you think.
I dislike all the events, even the good ones, perhaps it's even "especially the good ones."
A good event that instantly pushes me a huge step toward a victory is in my view as bad as a event taking me closer to a loss.
It deprives me of the sense of ackomplishment. The extent in which my skill determined the outcome of the game, was migated.



I think I understand your taste for events, beeing prepared and acting to counter bad events and leverage on good ones.
I find the events as they are now however, far to powerfull, far to random and possibly also to infrequent.

 

[AJ11]

Sorry, you do not understand my standpoint as well as you think.
I dislike all the events, even the good ones, perhaps it's even "especially the good ones."
A good event that instantly pushes me a huge step toward a victory is in my view as bad as a event taking me closer to a loss.
It deprives me of the sense of ackomplishment. The extent in which my skill determined the outcome of the game, was migated.



I think I understand your taste for events, beeing prepared and acting to counter bad events and leverage on good ones.
I find the events as they are now however, far to powerfull, far to random and possibly also to infrequent.

I don't recall a good event that is a game winner. Which one is that?

 

[Colonel Mustard]

I don't recall a good event that is a game winner. Which one is that?

Any and all.

A free scientist once it has been through long settled multipliers can win the Liberalism race. A medicine tile can supply the health to let an extra mine to be worked, perhaps giving the Heroic Epic city the chance to build 10 more units to take a rival's capital (or keep your own).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't recall a good event that is a game winner. Which one is that?

There aren't too many against the AI. The major diplo +3 ones can push you to UN when it would otherwise be impossible to get additional modifiers (I HAVE seen this happen). Maybe in MP games you can get shock on the axes or prats or something and that could certainly be game deciding. Actually a super early random golden age can be a deciding factor in an otherwise very close game too.

Obviously, good events can make HoF finish dates faster too. I don't think the guy with the slave revolt can beat the guy with the golden age, especially when it's the same guy!

I dont think they want soccer to be a fair game and honestly i think its one of the reasons why its such a popular sport.

There's no basis for this, unless you're with FIFA anyway. An alternative and highly plausible explanation is that a replay system would affect the pacing of soccer. I doubt they could review calls in a matter of < 5 seconds in practice. You'd need some official to review the video feed...probably multiple times else you risk an inaccurate overruling...and then to communicate that to the officials. Want to communicate it to the fans? Even more time. Suddenly it's not a few seconds but 30 seconds.

In football, plays have a playclock in-between and often there is that much time in between each one...a review will slow down the game of course but MUCH proportionately less. Actually football and soccer operate on different strategic levels anyway; football gives people much more time to think and plan pre-designed movements into play. Soccer requires alot more fast decisions as really only the QB in football needs anywhere NEAR the field awareness that pretty much every soccer player needs to do well. IMO this is why replay works so very well in one system but is shunned in the other. Personally, I believe both leagues know what they're doing; they're very successful.

Football fans and soccer fans have some overlap but plenty who don't. I don't know what makes soccer fans tick because I'm not one (despite having played it quite a bit, which I enjoy, I never got into watching it), however I HAVE heard several soccer fans tell me that one of the appeals of soccer is the non-stop action (having again played both, I can attest that it's a real difference...you need more extended cardio stamina in soccer for a reason). If that is true beyond my limited sampling of a few people telling me so, then FIFA would be very wise to avoid material time stoppages. Which they do.

None of this helps support an argument for events in competitive settings though. For example:

Hehe they would go for the "no injuries" setting but more for the health of the players and not for the fairness of the game.

Why not implement a rule where player, based on a dice roll, have to leave the game for 10 minute periods regardless of on-field conduct or their playing ability? Events do things like that in civ IV...and it would certainly cause a lot of variance in team's play!

I'm not convinced FIFA is so uncaring about fair play as you assert .

 

[AJ11]

Any and all.

A free scientist once it has been through long settled multipliers can win the Liberalism race. A medicine tile can supply the health to let an extra mine to be worked, perhaps giving the Heroic Epic city the chance to build 10 more units to take a rival's capital (or keep your own).

And the rival will get them or something else will happen to cancel it out. Case in point: I lost a forest to a fire. 30 turns later, I got it back via regrowth.

Events don't just happen to you.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And the rival will get them or something else will happen to cancel it out.

Not backed up by any supporting evidence whatsoever. Merely getting events at different timings can make a difference between two very close players in skill, but the ludicrous assertion that events somehow "cancel out" in competitive settings within an individual game has never been proven. A simple look at the event probs should should that events "canceling out" within an individual game is unlikely.

I lost a forest to a fire. 30 turns later, I got it back via regrowth.

Anecdotal evidence of this nature is not relevant to the discussion of merits of random events.

Events don't just happen to you.

Events do "just happen" though, based on the RNG calls.

 

[Steve the Noble]

A level playing field in competition is self-evident.

Surely though, if events and huts had to be off in HoF games, wouldn't there just be another RNG-related aspect of the game that would still make it worthwhile to "repeatedly play the same game within the series in hopes of lucky breaks"?

 

[r_rolo1]

And the rival will get them or something else will happen to cancel it out. Case in point: I lost a forest to a fire. 30 turns later, I got it back via regrowth.

Events don't just happen to you.

Ok, let me say this again ,since it looks that it wasn't read in the first time:

The events you have in a game are chosen in game gen after the map is laid according with a a RNG call and weighted by a pre-determined weight attached to the event definitions ( that is why eents have 2 weights: one is for the pick out in game gen and the other is the actual weight in game. More below ) . After the possible events in a game are chosen, the game will call every turn by the RNG to see if one ( or more ) of the chosen events is called ( that is where the 2nd weight is called ). This does not only depends on the weights every event has , but of the prereqs every event has ... that is probably why you'll see impeachement ( that requires a american civ ) far less than deer food .And OFC there is the issue about having acess to all the options of the event ...

So we have 4 intervening layers:

- 1st RNG call during map creation to see what events will roll out . This is important since it happens after map creation and, because of that, games started via WB map/scenario ) will difer on this. Using your anedoctal data, you could easily have the same map saved from 4000 AD played by other persons and one could have no forest fires at all... not so fair now

- Prereqs check. You might have a game with a event active, but where, due to a fluke, you might never see it. Say, the example I gave above about the impeachement ( that event alone should had been enough to kill any conversation about event fairness ) or the Partisans event, that can never fire if you never raze a city of someone with emancipation ( if you don't enter in the areas where the event gets wonky due to bad coding ... ). OTOH you can easily have situations where a event that was suposed to rare becomes frequent due to uncommon abudance of prereqs ( the flight crash becomes annoyingly frequent if you have 10+ civs alive with flight and one of the options is free diplo )

- 2nd RNG call every turn to see if a event is called. Pure random sheer luck ... nothing more to say. OFC that , depending of the 2 above, it can create some WTH situations, like strings of repeated events in the same spot ... forest fires, deer food, forge and theatre fires and slavery revolts are the more common offenders due to their high prereqs fullfillment odds.

- Events options possible. this is normally overlooked in the discussions, but even if the events averaged out in frequency and whatever, the avaliable options could still kill the show. The more frequent issue in here is the lack of money to buy out the bad options ( the fire collection events ), but even the game options you are using can get things very wonky. The more extreme example is the spy caught event , that gives 2 EP related options and war with the offender.... all fine and dandy until you play with no espionage in 3.19, where the event has only one viable option


So, in the end, even if the events were well designed ( they aren't ) and if the weights were minimally fair ( they aren't ), the event code structure has so many quirks that you can't assure that events will cancel out, ever. It might happen to average in the metagame sense ( I do not beleive it ... my gut feeling is that the events are somewhat damaging in average in the long run ), but it will almost certainly never happen in the course of one game. If that happens you lucked out ...