vyyt
Deity
@PortugeseChicken , what's wrong with Arabia? Do they have some great national events?
Tragedy of the Events
- Thread starter Enginseer
- Start date
InkAxis
King
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2020
- Messages
- 779
I definitely agree that a lot of the events are too good or too bad, +1 pop or a unit is massive early game; but this can just be balanced better, I don't think we need to remove early events entirely.
Also, what's wrong with Arabia? I've never played with events so I'm not sure what's different. Arabia is pretty fun for me without events.
I love the civilization and religion events (although I will agree with a previous poster that these seem rare). The ideology ones are cool too.
I kinda miss the advisor ones. They gave nice bonuses, especially for RP. Although I didn't realize they were unstable.
The generic ones however are VERY repetitive and honestly kinda boring.
Someone mentioned going into debt for some of these events. I rather like the idea.
I kinda miss the advisor ones. They gave nice bonuses, especially for RP. Although I didn't realize they were unstable.
The generic ones however are VERY repetitive and honestly kinda boring.
Someone mentioned going into debt for some of these events. I rather like the idea.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
Arabia has a strong event that triggers relatively early, which buffs all desert tiles - especially oases
. The other Arabia events are good but not game-changing (and one of the later ones is kinda meh).Of the other civs I've played with using events, I like the Shoshone the most! Fun and thematic. The Byzantine events on the other hand could stand to be a little stronger, although I like the story that goes with them.
Last edited:
The Carthage events are funny tbh... themed after Dido getting marital proposals.
The Russian ones are bugged IIRC.... I didn't get science buffs on my forts/citadels after making the choice.
I will say a lot of the final events require negative GPT and that's a little difficult to unlock without actively hurting yourself.
The Russian ones are bugged IIRC.... I didn't get science buffs on my forts/citadels after making the choice.
I will say a lot of the final events require negative GPT and that's a little difficult to unlock without actively hurting yourself.
Soupy Delicious
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2017
- Messages
- 106
For me, as a rule, an event should never give you a bonus that is immensely game-changing, to keep them from changing the main gameplay too much whilst still making each match a little different. That, for me, is what the goal for events should be. I'll always play with 'em on, because they're too much fun. Even bad ones.
(if I may throw a suggestion out into the aether: +1 culture and +5% culture to monuments is OP
- and I don't think an event should ever throw in anything like a free policy!)
(if I may throw a suggestion out into the aether: +1 culture and +5% culture to monuments is OP
- and I don't think an event should ever throw in anything like a free policy!)
Last edited:
I disagree.... civilization events being powerful makes you pivot your strategy to accommodate them if possible and is an incentive for civ-specific RP.
Like sure Inca benefit from mountains for their farms and get scaling food/science, but the events let you settle some crazy fun mountain cities cause they give faith/prod/gold buffs to mountains and the common sheep tiles around them.
That being said, arbitrary general ones being too strong are definitely problematic... such as faith on shrines in the early game. It's just a big buff with no real effective changes to your gameplay paradigm.
Like sure Inca benefit from mountains for their farms and get scaling food/science, but the events let you settle some crazy fun mountain cities cause they give faith/prod/gold buffs to mountains and the common sheep tiles around them.
That being said, arbitrary general ones being too strong are definitely problematic... such as faith on shrines in the early game. It's just a big buff with no real effective changes to your gameplay paradigm.
Last edited:
Soupy Delicious
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2017
- Messages
- 106
I don't know what you're talking about. Advisor Events are unrelated to Advisor Screens.
Zanteogo
King
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2015
- Messages
- 989
I never play with events.
Gave them a try for a few games, found them repetitive and for the most part didn't really add anything to the game.
The "old man by the sea" one stood out as stupid. If it happened once per game.. ok. But it's a very specific "story" that gets played out again and again.
Gave them a try for a few games, found them repetitive and for the most part didn't really add anything to the game.
The "old man by the sea" one stood out as stupid. If it happened once per game.. ok. But it's a very specific "story" that gets played out again and again.
I assumed they interacted with them somehow due to the name, and that was a reason why I avoided them tbh, I've CTDed from Advisors more times than I can count. Maybe I'll try them out knowing this.
Soupy Delicious
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2017
- Messages
- 106
lol? That's not what I saw, but sure bud
InkAxis
King
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2020
- Messages
- 779
I don't want to be too pushy, but are you planning on making a rework of the events system? I really think it has a lot of potential, especially with how terrible it is now.
Erm the events aren't terrible. We just need more of them to reduce repetitiveness and some fine tuning of the existing ones. It's not as easy as it sounds, especially when care has to be taken for balance and bloat.
Moderator Action: Two posts deleted for Inappropriate Language and Trolling. Please help us keep our forums family friendly by using appropriate language. Please do not answer trolling, instead report it and allow us to handle it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Overall it seems the main consensus is that we just add a lot and a lot of unspecific events.
pineappledan
Deity
I think repetitiveness will be reduced by making events more specific. Make more of them gated behind specific techs and policy choices, and obsolete faster. That way, there will be certain events that won’t happen in some games. The thing that will keep events fresh is if some events only happen once every 4-5 games.
the current problem is that you will always get every base event to fire every game, so you start to memorize them. Sometimes you will have to wait for an unlikely event to fire a little longer, but they will all fire eventually.
Incorporating civ-specific, belief specific, and policy specific events would help with this. They wouldn't even have to be thematically linked to the prerequisite; you could just make a few of them arbitrarily gated, unrelated events under the hood, just as a way to ensure that some events are exceptionally unlikely to occur
Last edited:
perfidiousONE982
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
- Messages
- 9
Events break the monotony of the game yet they can annoy or reward too much. I kept getting Stadium events after constructing around 30+ of them...that led to a golden age that didn't end until I won the game. I do enjoy events that give a nice shaping focus, the Monuments for instance getting that important choice of +1 Food, Faith, or Gold is a real shaper.
Events like this are nice, they lead to strategy.
Events like this are nice, they lead to strategy.
psparky
King
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2011
- Messages
- 623
I have been looking into the implementation of Events and have a few observations to report. I've been working with my very old version of VP but from a quick look at the code from a recent version, I don't think anything significant has changed. I have made a few changes/corrections to my old version which I think the current version would benefit from, especially if additional events are included in the future.
1) Some events are global, which means they trigger for all players at the same time. Any player can trigger the event. In practice, however, the human player will only experience the event if it triggers on his turn. All the AI's will still experience the event whoever triggers it. This is due to a check for isEndTurn, apparently to avoid some exploit, which causes the event to fail if it's not the player's turn. The check may also be related to preventing popups occurring at the wrong time. My solution to this is to only allow global events to trigger on the human's turn (this would need further thought for multiplayer). I thought I would also need to increase the chance of the event happening to compensate for only one player potentially triggering it, but in practice I see the events more frequently than before - if anything I might lower the chances.
2) The basic method for triggering events is that, on each turn, for each player and each city where events are possible (i.e. meet the conditions of the event) a random number is generated. If this is less than the event chance then the event is triggered. When multiple events are possible, the current implementation can only trigger the event with the highest probability. This means that certain low probability events become even rarer as they can only trigger when they are the only possible event. I changed this so that any one of the valid events can trigger. It appears that the code was designed to work allow any event to trigger, as it puts all the possible events into a vector and checks each one - if it was only meant to check the most probable event the code could be much simpler. Because it uses the same random number for all events and checks the most likely event first, there is no chance of a lesser event happening. I don't know the full history here so perhaps I'm just seeing an evolution of the code, but it looks to me like a bug. Because the basic support was already there, my change just required the insertion of a plus (I also removed the now unnecessary sort of the table). Of course this change made events more frequent overall, so I also increased the range of the random numbers from up-to-1000, to up-to-2000 for player events and up-to-2500 for city events, which seems to give events at a pleasing (to me) rate. I have subsequently seen some events which I don't think I've seen before in thousands of hours play.
3) Regarding the rate of events, I wonder if this should scale with game speed to that you could expect a similar number of total events irrespective of the speed. I wonder also if a define (or even a game option) could be added giving the player control over the rate - it would just need to act as a multiplier for the random number range - so, for example, the user could choose to play with events, but at a lower (or higher) frequency. Another point is that if you play with extra events, overall occurrences will become more frequent, especially after my change (2) above, so perhaps the random number range could also vary somewhat based on the total number of events in the game.
4) I also noted a few definite bugs which I'll post on github at some point but are worth noting. Firstly, where an event or choice has a probability of success, for example Hurricane Approaching, the test is backward so that a 33% chance is actually a 67% chance. Secondly, when an event or choice is made obsolete by the discovery of a tech, the code checks the Prereq tech instead, so the event/choice is never valid. The Plague and Ice Age events should trigger additional events but these don't work due to problems with the links and also the obsolete tech bug.
5) There is a facility in the events system for checking the event status of other players. When checking for False, none of the other players can have the event active for it to be valid for you, which is fine. When checking for True, however, this requires the event to be active for ALL the other players. Reading the documentation, I don't think that's intended. I certainly tried to use it in a way where I wanted it to allow an event if ANY of the other players had the trigger event. Probably can't change this now in case existing additional events (the standard ones wouldn't be affected) rely on the existing implementation, although I think it's actually more likely that they are assuming the 'any' case and don't actually work currently. There is a similar situation with checking all cities.
1) Some events are global, which means they trigger for all players at the same time. Any player can trigger the event. In practice, however, the human player will only experience the event if it triggers on his turn. All the AI's will still experience the event whoever triggers it. This is due to a check for isEndTurn, apparently to avoid some exploit, which causes the event to fail if it's not the player's turn. The check may also be related to preventing popups occurring at the wrong time. My solution to this is to only allow global events to trigger on the human's turn (this would need further thought for multiplayer). I thought I would also need to increase the chance of the event happening to compensate for only one player potentially triggering it, but in practice I see the events more frequently than before - if anything I might lower the chances.
2) The basic method for triggering events is that, on each turn, for each player and each city where events are possible (i.e. meet the conditions of the event) a random number is generated. If this is less than the event chance then the event is triggered. When multiple events are possible, the current implementation can only trigger the event with the highest probability. This means that certain low probability events become even rarer as they can only trigger when they are the only possible event. I changed this so that any one of the valid events can trigger. It appears that the code was designed to work allow any event to trigger, as it puts all the possible events into a vector and checks each one - if it was only meant to check the most probable event the code could be much simpler. Because it uses the same random number for all events and checks the most likely event first, there is no chance of a lesser event happening. I don't know the full history here so perhaps I'm just seeing an evolution of the code, but it looks to me like a bug. Because the basic support was already there, my change just required the insertion of a plus (I also removed the now unnecessary sort of the table). Of course this change made events more frequent overall, so I also increased the range of the random numbers from up-to-1000, to up-to-2000 for player events and up-to-2500 for city events, which seems to give events at a pleasing (to me) rate. I have subsequently seen some events which I don't think I've seen before in thousands of hours play.
3) Regarding the rate of events, I wonder if this should scale with game speed to that you could expect a similar number of total events irrespective of the speed. I wonder also if a define (or even a game option) could be added giving the player control over the rate - it would just need to act as a multiplier for the random number range - so, for example, the user could choose to play with events, but at a lower (or higher) frequency. Another point is that if you play with extra events, overall occurrences will become more frequent, especially after my change (2) above, so perhaps the random number range could also vary somewhat based on the total number of events in the game.
4) I also noted a few definite bugs which I'll post on github at some point but are worth noting. Firstly, where an event or choice has a probability of success, for example Hurricane Approaching, the test is backward so that a 33% chance is actually a 67% chance. Secondly, when an event or choice is made obsolete by the discovery of a tech, the code checks the Prereq tech instead, so the event/choice is never valid. The Plague and Ice Age events should trigger additional events but these don't work due to problems with the links and also the obsolete tech bug.
5) There is a facility in the events system for checking the event status of other players. When checking for False, none of the other players can have the event active for it to be valid for you, which is fine. When checking for True, however, this requires the event to be active for ALL the other players. Reading the documentation, I don't think that's intended. I certainly tried to use it in a way where I wanted it to allow an event if ANY of the other players had the trigger event. Probably can't change this now in case existing additional events (the standard ones wouldn't be affected) rely on the existing implementation, although I think it's actually more likely that they are assuming the 'any' case and don't actually work currently. There is a similar situation with checking all cities.
