Deterministic game designs

(I hope I was able to describe the problem rapprochement. As you can see, the theoretical matter is not my problem, I am logician and scientist, but the English language. I hope I could make myself understood and inspire.)

1. Thesis

I know of no game that is not deterministic. Although our human reality is usually not deterministic, humans creating games like simple machines, which become after a while predictable or linear. Let me explain this.

After a median level of play, games usually collapse. In role-playing games we gain enough objects, that everything getting boring or unusual predictable (victorious). Strategy games changes their organized towns or nations into clocks, which produce no errors from now on, which works like abstract factories. It seems that only the first 1/3 or 1/2 part of a game is unusual undeterministic, because of under development or organization lacks. In Civ there is a point, after a state or society becomes no more threats, no more riots. It is possible to build a well developed economy and nation (utopia) without inner state confrontation or systematic clumsiness forever, and it is nothing difficult to do so. For me, this is too far from realistic representations of communities or societies.

Although we know, that everything and everybody is lethal, and that everything dies or changes after enough of time, and that none money, none superior machine can create a solid state, we build games like abstracts clocks. And I think, this is the reason why today’s games seems only particularly realistic. It is a modern problem of development of large logical systems: and a strategy game is one of the most complex structures that can be abstractilly imagined, as it tries to portray a society after all.

As you maybe know, money and organization is only a small factor of a society. The Elemental game tries to imagine fantasy societies. As you see in German and European debates about welfare states and support of unemployed, there is a reasonable but unpredictable complexity of social systems, which you can not weight in money or deterministic evolution of production levels. Although a society spends millions of money, the people get unhappy. In manner of Niklas Luhmann (sociologist, system theory): We can not build systems that do not require changes. Systems change constantly from itself. It means: self-organization. All systemic change What is on the microscopic level change (dissatisfaction of an individual) may lead to a macroscopic change (overthrow of the king).

2. Examples

I am asking me, how a modern game like Elemental, which will get the same deterministic problems after all, could be more realistic, how to solve it in a realistic manner of “less deterministic”.

It is a mathematical problem. Think of complex adaptive systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system).

To establish the uncertainty of a realistic system, we need unknown factors which are capable of making a quiet system restless. These unknown factors can not be merely coincidental. You need to have microscopic causes, for example, that someone have to be an opinion leader, because he has a new idea (the leader of a new society).

When you look outdoors, you recognize a society which is (in manner of active police and firefighters and hospitals) restless, but also kind of pretty quiet (within an attractor of). Even you invest millions in this society, it could (but do not!) become restless and breakable and changeable. Your investment is indicative, for orientation, but not fully regulate. Deterministic systems, however, act as if everything would be fully adjustable.

I miss such logical and sociological circumstances in every game I’ve ever played. It is interesting to observe how developers deal with the problem of “wear and tear”. Usually you'll use “maintenance costs” to depict this factor. Houses getting older, trousers wear off, people are getting older, etc. But “maintenance” is too easy. For example: in Civ you getting after a while economical strength enough to solve every inner state issue. It could not be. Because in reality there are problems that arise, even if everything is quiet or well paid. It is called self-organisation of complex systems.

In most games I build a house that will never collapse, will be never out of date. It is simply there and can if necessary be replaced. But the house in itself caused no damage or disruption. This is a logical or sociological problem, because only a tiny number of systems in our real world are at all capable of such phenomena.

In games only the builder, the player, and a random counter (desasters) have the ability to change the deterministic perfection, if a player builds a new industry area or harbor. Then prices rises or decreases. But prices never decreases by fashion, or boredom, or unusual movement from the “inner logic of citizens” (self-organisation).

I think these models follow an old, classical model of the 19 century of complexity and mathematics and logics, where (important) changes take place only if they are influenced from outside.

It is the reason why all or most games are unrealistic and only realistic at the beginning, what means: they are only at the beginning a major challenge. Because at the beginning you, as a player, never knows everything or if, your “game society” or city is not fully operational. All your beginner operations are focusing to a well-done and superior production structure. And this is not realistic, because there is non super structure, because every level have it’s own reasons for descrease. And you're always confronted with the self-conscious of actors of your company or your system. This is the reason why complex systems are never deterministic.

3. Games solution

Now we could ask, how to develop abstract socities (games), which are capable of modern mathematics and processes of change, attractors, adaptive mechanics.

Really, I have not thought about it. But I think it would be good if the programmers would consider these modern aspects of mathematics or logic.

I don't know, maybe it’s useful in game

- to get older, not only main characters, but your citizens
- houses falls into disrepair, a house become “unrepairable” (too many fixes)
- society settings (culture, fashion, government) get “expire date” (old school)
- a king is only great as his followers does, it’s not enough to be born as
- and followers changes, with age, with (I don’t know) reasons
- or think of society changes which seems at first unreasonable
- unreasonable riots: some idiot found a new religion, new dogma
- or he tries to cut off the king (for personal reasons: to be king)
- and not randomly, but reasonable somehow by your actions

I think all this has much of a logically and mathematically problem of game design and to understand how a system evolves.

In most games there are only change effects by:

- player’s moving (reasonable factor, mostly unpredictable)
- randomly natural desasters (randomly, in manner of outside the system)
- other player’s (diplomacy, outside the system, by clash of systems)
- or sth. else outside the own society

As you see, these designs work with closed deterministic systems. Because the systems are boring, are predictable, they are only affected from the outside (also by the human player), but never by itself (self-organization). A “system“ means: a single nation in Civ or Elemental. This makes games less realistic.

Because the bigger the game society (my empire grows), the more deterministic the entire game world becomes (because I rules the outer effects). In this case we recognize that the model does not always correspond to our reality. Larger systems in our reality (huge nations, huge companies) often breaking itself, even no one extern contributes something and it is a lonely system, far from enemies. Or translated into computers: There is no computer system that would run indefinitely. At some point, somebody needs to come and share something, although a computer system seems deterministic (within itself: but is not true, and every technician knows the effects of hardware or software with bugs). It has mathematical reasons.

And I would like to know how we can make games more realistic and less deterministic.

70,406 views 32 replies +1 Loading…
Reply #1 Top

Play a sim.

Seriously, you just described a society simulation game.  There are plenty out there that you might enjoy.

Reply #2 Top

There is a game out there that has the most realism, the best graphics and the most non-linear story.  It's called life, go live it.

This is a game, and it doesn't have to be super realistic.  Nor do I think most people who play games, want to trade their life for a virtual one.  That would be really pathetic.

BUT!

One part of your post reminds me of something, that I will explain in my own way.  Alot of games fail to deliver replay value because they don't keep the player entertained.  Doesn't matter if it got game of the year.  They are too linear, too repetitive, too predictable.  So our brains adapt to it, and it is no longer stimulating to our brains.  No more challenge.  Or its one of those games that you play once, and put it in the garbage can because its like eating out of a can of fruit, once the fruit is gone, throw away the can.

Or it basically has one path that you take for example, go take a city, build it up, build and army, take the next city, build it up, make a 2nd army, rinse and repeat.  And after awhile it gets BORING.  If there was a way to solve that and to make it less predictable, then you would have a much more interesting game.

Some ways that you solve that is to introduce as many fun features as you can, and add variable elements to the game that happen by random chance.

Some games do that with natural disasters, but there is so much more stuff that I know people could come up with, that could add the random variable to a game, to make it less predictable, and increase the replay value.

Reply #3 Top

Usually you'll use “maintenance costs” to depict this factor. Houses getting older, trousers wear off, people are getting older, etc. But “maintenance” is too easy. For example: in Civ you getting after a while economical strength enough to solve every inner state issue. It could not be. Because in reality there are problems that arise, even if everything is quiet or well paid. It is called self-organisation of complex systems.
End of quote

I think your logic may be lost on the hordes of gamers within these forum walls. I was refreshed by your pragmatic prose, though it was readily inaccessable to the gaming community at large. I cannot say you were right, but I do agree. I think there are methods to combat predictable issues like this. Developers are unwilling to throw away maintenance because it is an automated system to account for random changes in cities that require money; such as fires and riots. It could lend to this game if the developers institued random events within each empire to create a more historic trend in this "deterministic" system.

Self-organization could be achieved by occasional power struggles between the immortal sovergns and their more rebelious offspring. They could arrange random riots and political upheavals to obtain a sense of fuedal kingdoms, this would make things like approval and taxation a constant concern for struggling empires. Also, these random events should stem from actual actions the each player makes. Taxes, annexation, massive expansion or colonization should all have a random chance to sprout real life occurances.

I doubt the developers have any interest in such possibilities but it is nice to escape the realities of fantasy gaming, if only briefly.

 

Reply #4 Top

What you (OP) are talking about is fascinating, but it is a simulation, not a game. IMHO, there are two main reasons people play games (that are applicable).

The first is competition. Competition is fun, people like it. For it to be fun, it must at least seem fair. One thing that makes a game appear fair is a simple, comprehensible set of rules. While the system you describe would not necessarily be random, the calculations would be so abstract and complex that it would appear to be. This would leave the player feeling cheated, or having achieved victory for no apparent reason. 

The other reason is creative. People like to create. It is fun to create something, in this case a fantastical medieval kingdom, and steer it towards greatness as best you can. What is not fun is to invest time and emotional energy into such a project and to see it come down for reasons incomprehensible to the gamer.

While your suggestions would make the game more realistic and give much, much greater depth, they would also frustrate many, many gamers. We play games to win. We are okay with losing if we feel like we had a fighting chance and went down swinging (usually). If it appears that random chance brought down our kingdom, then we don't play the game. We throw the fruit away with the can because we think we see a worm.

Reply #5 Top

Well, im pretty sure there won't be any city happiness in the game (otherwise I would have used that as a variable in my ideas), however other potrayals of Social Discord, Civil Strife (royals revolt), and Extra-planar invasions would be nice.

Usually, however, each person creates their own clock, and the end of the game is a battle of the Giant Clocks. That is sometimes fun. Perhaps boring for singleplayer, but in multiplayer it can be a blast. Sometimes in games I want to build palisades and walls for that "Just in Case" they ever get attacked, but usually I should know that they never will get attacked.

Once you have enough cities, nothing ever usually attacks the inner cities. Perhaps we could have raoming bandits/ bandit armies, and neutral trolls/ect, which can move in-between our cities (towards the inner cities) and occasionally attack an inner city. Say there is something special about inner city X which is attracting a bandit army or a troll. Then those creatures, which might normally only roam the countryside, would actually lay seige/attack the inhabitants of the city.

Another example, a disgruntled Royal raises an army in the countryside and marches onto an Inner City to start his powerbase. Maybe the disgruntled royal gains a few external, outlying settlements as "his cities" ... of course if he is first born, or a particularly powerful Royal .... he could rise with half of your empire already under his command. The question I raise, is how would your first born end up being so mad??

Well, I'd like to think that each Champion (especially Royal) has a personality. Some Champions get increased Loyalty from your Channeler doing evil things, and some have an opposite effect. Some Champs get increased Loyalty for your actions to be Chaotic and Outside social norms, and others are opposite. Some Champions are Xenophobic, and others are Xenophillic. Some want a salary of more gold, others want a salary of more prestige/land/better city.

In this way, you would know which Champions to throw to the wayside, and which champions to coddle and support. I think giving in to their needs could, in some cases, increase their experience points/ level them up. And then some cases of particular disfavor could cause them to either Desert (NPC champ), or begin a Revolt (Royal Champ) by raising an army.

Executing a Champion would, of course, lower the loyalty of all but the most depraved champions, unless that Champion has led a revolt. If a champion raises an army in revolt, you can capture him and execute him without reprecussions (in fact it will increase the loyalty of al champions, if only temporarily) because he commited treason.

There are a few events in FFH where a building burns down, or a road collapses, where you would either pay to get it replaced/repaired immediately, or have to go through the trouble of building it over again. Also, in some cases you needed a Particular Magical Node in order to choose the "best outcome" for a random upkeep event. For instance, Muris Clans dumping waste, or disease hitting a city. I think disease could be spread along trade routes, and it being a Temporary buiding, which takes up no space, that adds a certain amount of negative prestige. You can take magical intervention to combat the disease more swiftly, or use mundane methods of the time to slow its spread and decrease its effectiveness. If no measures are taken the disease increases (greater decrease in prestige) until your city could possibly grow to a very low number. A city won't go below a certain amount, but if a disease is still quite strong at a low population, the negative prestige won't grow any further (or maybe it will) but it won't decrease either. Once the disease starts to be fought in some way, the temporary building's negative modifier will slowly decrease, until it is little noticable, and then decreases altogether. Living units in a city with disease ... thats a tricky one. Should your units die? Personally I think that they should be effected by the level of disease. Minor disease, and all units HP 75%, More Disease, and all units HP 40%. Powerful Disease, and all units HP 10%. however that route seems a little simplistic. I think instead the total hitpoints for the entire army should be placed on an array, and for a minor disease, each turn has an X percent chance of an HP being removed. Medium disease every turn has an X percent of 3 HP being removed, and Great Disease an X chance of 5 HP being removed each turn (5 chances for an HP to be removed). In this case, high HP units could be weakened, and low HP units would straight up die. I rather like this idea better. Some units, like undead, demon, Edar, Umberdroth, and Dragon, could be immune to disease, and therefore not be included in the array.

There could be a random event more inclined towards "older" buildings ... a building that has not upgraded in 20 turns or more, to be "wearing down" and need to be paid to be replaced, or rebuilt. It would be bad for buildings to be popping up every turn, so use some Algorythm which emphasizes that only one of such buildings could wear down per city per 5 turns. And even then, not always. If a city does not have a governor, or has poor/evil management, this chance could be higher. If it has great management, this chance could be lower. I'd say a 1 in 20 chance within the framework of once per 5 turns after initial 20 turns. Upgrading a building resets the counter.

// although this could all be far too complex, including the posts above me. I would rather have one good game than five great games competing against each other.

Reply #6 Top

On ething I like in civilization the boardgame was the way disasters appears : the more cities you have, thr more goods AND more disasters. you could do some research to lessens them, but in no way you could get rid of a civil war or volcano. Only through trade.

There's one point that should be dealt with : enough economics should never lower the problems to 0. There should always have a little chance that something gets wrong. And related to the size of a city.

Maybe add a "issue %age" for each buildings. So a big city will have a better chance to get bad events (or good ones too) because it has a lot of buildings.

For instance an arcane society has a 1% to create a new religion, 1% to create a blast that kill 100 citizens. A forge a 1% to set the city on fire, etc.

Reply #7 Top

I should say, not related to the size of the city, but the size of the empire. Then, different disasters could effect different cities depending on the disaster. If its being invaded/seiged by bandits, probably an outlying town, but could be any town. If its an invasion of trolls/ogres, same deal. If its a building gone run-down, probably a Village somewhere. If its something to do with something that could only take place in a City Proper, then it happens in a random City Proper (probably would have no more than 5 full size cities towards mid-late game)

Reply #8 Top

You guys are missing the point of the conversation. I am not concerned with implementation of random events, but with adding nondeterministic elements that create a better sense of Kingdomhood.

"The first is competition. Competition is fun, people like it. For it to be fun, it must at least seem fair. One thing that makes a game appear fair is a simple, comprehensible set of rules. While the system you describe would not necessarily be random, the calculations would be so abstract and complex that it would appear to be. This would leave the player feeling cheated, or having achieved victory for no apparent reason." 

Medieval Europe was rife with unfairness, intrigue and revolution. That is specifically what makes it interesting. Be it the religious fanaticism of the Teutonic Knights, the absurd system of succession in Lithuania and Russia, or the constant crusades of the Islamic and Christian kingdoms, unfairness did not stifle competition. I often play settlers of cataan, a game that revolves around random chance to succeed and be crushed. Its fun. I often rule the entire game due to the roll of the dice and at the very end lose to a few bad roles. That's life and thats what keeps me coming back. If we must learn to use our luck to offset our tragedy, a new strategy arisesm far more interesting than gal civ 2 for instance: Colonize, Build Infrastructure, Refine Military, Build Frontline, Never think about core planets, Destroy AI that does.

I am suggesting a constant threat of near randomness to one's Kingdom. Few millitary units protecting your inner kingdom or edge of the screen protected by a flat world and boom, revolts occur and you must withdraw your front line to qwell the uprising. A lack of research may lead to a technological revolution that could benefit or hurt you depending on your actions. Unchecked family members may try to assasinate you and take control. Disease could also result from too much trade with far away kingdoms. The possibilities are dependent on your actions. The game would demand attention and thoughtful strategies rather than unit stacking and waypointing until you cant even remember the names of your cities.

What kind of vile sovergn are you?

 

Reply #10 Top

Well, its a nice idea ...

 

Reply #11 Top

What I propose is like you describe : lot of trade = disease ? Add a % bonus to the trade buildings. Lots of buildings = lots of trades = probably a disease.

A city underprotected ? No barracks and an enemy cultural border = % of uprising in that city.

Anyway, we would need some kind of triggers. And quests have them. So why not having quests tied with you actions, the way you build towns and the sor of things you describe. Quests can give you that "non deterministic" thing.

Reply #12 Top

double post. Darn forum.

Reply #13 Top

I kinda like the approach of a non-deterministic game put in Europa Universalis III : IN.

You had random events (off course) that would influence your whole kingdom/empire, but also "National Quests" that could shape the game differently as your went on. You were sure of never having twice the same game, you'd always somewhat struggle to make sure your own empire wouldn't collapse due to overextensive wars or financial troubles. You could try to tune your Empire to be as stable as possible, yet you will still have bad things falling on top of you or you will be financially struggling.

Even with nations that are deemed "Deterministic" in strategy (like Portugal), I had a lot of variability in my fun every single time.

In that case, having a little randomised movement of society, culture, or even units on the map would be fun.

I like to think of Dwarf Fortress. Try as you may, the individualistic nature of your Dwarves will make the game unique every single time, even if you apply the same strategy. There is always something more to add that makes you have fun, even if your base needs are perfectly tuned.

Reply #14 Top

I think the OP had some very good points. So let's not bash them and tell them to go play something else. I think what notthepic is trying to get across is not that this game needs to be "realistic" in that it would replace our daily lives, but that instead it be realistic enough to remain engaging no matter how many times we play it.

Ask yourself, what is the reason you stop playing a video game? Well for FPSs and RPGs you beat them once and lets face it, they don't have much replay value. Games like Civ, FFH, GalCiv, etc all have better replay value because of random maps. But I don't play any of those games anymore. Because by the end of every single one of them, you end up hitting the "turn" button over and over and over again. I end up going to war in every one of them as well, because its the only exciting thing to do... and this should not be the case.. at all.

Imagine if Elemental could take that one factor that makes all the other games in the genre re-playable (random maps) and apply it to every aspect of the game. Take into consideration Master of Magic, which is considered one of the greatest games of all time. That game had random maps. However, it also had heroes, mercenaries, and merchants randomly show up to follow you. You see, this is what kept that game engaging. Not only was it exploring a new world every time but it was exploring a new world with new heroes and unique units. This is where games like Civ fail. There are no special units to cherish, or to become attached to. Yea, its fun to compete, and be the best at it, but eventually all of that falls through. And what stands the test of time is a game that allow you to be immersed in it and become attached to the characters.

It's why we get up every day, to experience something new, and look out the window and see a different world. This is the part of realism that needs to adapted into games. The thought that we can sit in front of the computer, the proverbial window, to a new world and experience something different every time. In order to do this we need realism (to an extent of course) because as much as we hate to admit it, realism is what keeps life interesting. The fact that games don't have much of it is what causes them to be tossed onto a shelf and never played again...

Reply #15 Top

I loved the threat of civil war in the original Medieval Total War. Though one of its faults was that it seemed to happen more often when you were weak, and almost never when you became a huge bloated empire, mopping up the rest of the map <yawn>.

One of the main things that makes medieval histroy interesting is the inner threats to factions. To a King, the enemies within his kindgom were just as great as those outside his kingdom. The distinction were all too often very blurry. In many 4x games, inner conflict is almost totally ignored, and you the player are in COMPLETE omnipotent control of their faction. Sure there is the occasional city unrest that is easily put down if you have half a brain, but even in reality, during medieval times, these kinds of revolts were somewhat easy to suppress. The real revolts with some teeth on them were started by others within the faction that also had power (i.e. nobility), but the in these games, the player almost never has to contend with any other power that he/she must share power with.

So it no wonder by why half way through the game it becomes a snorefest due to having bulit up enough steam to destroy all other factions, and nothing can stop you.

Suggestion:

(This idea of mine is actually inspired from the Dominon of the Sword mod for Medieval total war 2 (which is still a WIP). They are actually trying to implement a much more involved system. If they ever get to finishing it, it should be epic. If you like this idea, check them out http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=492))

I would love to see a beefy system where you must manage and delegate power within your own faction as you expand your power. You could do this by having a sub-faction that represents the "ruling elite" (ie nobles). It acts basically as a regular NPC faction. This sub faction is not actually seen on the map (not at first anyway) and would occasionally ask the player to complete objectives (lets call them "quests" for Elemental) that if the player completes successfully will earn them 'approval' from the sub faction. As you gain approval, special actions will become available to the player. Not completing their quests will lower their apporval and having it at negative could cause problems...such as champions, allies, vassal states and even individual cities switching sides, attacking the player or both (for being a tyrant..or at least a tyrant that isn't advantages for them). Or if things really get bad, the sub-faction props up a newly discovered channeler as the a new soverign (maybe even a family member of yours), and half of your kingdom/empire goes with them. You could go on and think of a bunch of other things that could happen..

At first, when players build their first city they won't have this ruling elite sub faction, but as their faction's population grows to a certain size, this sub faction will approach them (via a pop up window and message) and tells them that they represent their power base. They then will proceed to hand the player quests to complete, which represent the needs and desire of your ruling class. These quests should not be completely random, but be based on the current situation (anyone who has played the more recent Total War games knows what I mean). These quest may or may not be in line with the player's current objectives. They may ask the players to do things that will completely mess up their awesome invasion they are planning, or conducting the quest might break ties with a faction whose relationship the player had been cultavating. The player can of course ignore them, but at a risk.

As the player's faction gets bigger and bigger, the more the player will need the help of this ruling elite sub faction. Building more and bigger cities becomes increasingly harder to manage (via increasing maintenance costs or some other means) to the point where its impossible. However having a high standing with the sub faction or building something like a "noble's fort" (or whatever you want to call it) will make having more cities possible, but it will also increase the power of this sub faction. Their increasing power is represented by them asking you to complete bigger, bolder and simply more quests, and not completing them will have even harsher penalties.

The player can mtigate this by sectioning the empire/kingdom into vassal states (which is something the vassal states might already be asking the player to do, once you get to a large, bloated size). These states are NPC controlled and are by default allied to the player (ala civ4 colonization, but with more teeth). By doing this the player reduces the nagging of the player's ruling elite sub faction, but at the same time the player losses direct influence over parts of their empire/kingdom. The player also inadvertantly creates more enemies if he ever does ever piss of his sub-faction..however the sub faction will be easier to manage since the player has less cities and has less need of the sub faction and less will be asked from the player. Vassal states, are not ruled by a sovereign and so are dependent on you.... but other sovereigns can support them just as well....

So as the player expands, their will be more the player most consider. Instead of dealing with less and less as they grow, due to conqueroring other factions, and replacing them with nothing. So basically you get rid of enemies, and replace them with enemies you trust only slightly more : P. Like this, the feeling of winning a game might actually feel challenging, rewarding and satisfying ...rather than boring, anti-climatic and predictable.

 

Reply #16 Top

I think the problem with the OP is that, as shown in the Posts that had relevant info in them, is not where do you start but more where do you stop the non-deterministic boundary?

Take all the examples noted so far and think about how many more would be required to even scratch the surface possibilites.

Floods Famine, Tornadoes, Volcanoes, Hurricanes War etc. etc. The list of what it is that makes our world the non-determinsitic thing it is is just that. There are forces out ther that are simply beyond our control.

Look athe last month on planet Earth. 3 MAJOR Eatrthquakes, Heavy flooding in a town that has what is considered a small Brook running through it. Not the well known and catalogued Red River.

Yet one house had the water levels marked from previous floods of the same small river. 2002, 2006, 2008 (surpassed this year). Why would anyone want to continue to live there? It seems ludicrous BUT!

Tornadoe Ally? What the hell? Why would any live there knowing what happens almost annually...

People bring much of the srtife they face upon themselves because they are stubborn. Look at the absolute joke most countries face today in redagrs to there economies, and the impact it has...

So if you go down that road, you have to go all the way, to SimVille, or simply abstract some stuff in the name of FUN!

Apparently, FUN sells better, with the Sims being the exception. Tried that one and found it was rather stupid imho...

Reply #17 Top

So if you go down that road, you have to go all the way, to SimVille, or simply abstract some stuff in the name of FUN!
End of quote

I don't know. Dwarf Fortress was pretty non-deterministic without having to resort to Random Events. Can't we find a way to make all games unique?

Reply #18 Top

Not since the advent of the Console.  }:) x_x (ouch!)

Reply #19 Top

I feel non-deterministic gameplay will only be accompolished is if Stardock implements gameplay systems that determines areas with many variables relative to eachother that set things off if certain point levels aren't met.

Say for example, your city is in an area. I'm not good with math but the city is the major factor. If that city and the area around it rarely sees military units belonging to that citys faction around and especially inside the city garrisoning it, bandits, criminal guilds and whatnot should take residence within and without. I would love to see my capitol city turn into one resembling Calimport from the Drizzt Do'Urden series from Dungeons and Dragons. I have many guilds in my city that control and fight over prositution, drugs, street territory, merchants running protection schemes, cetera if I maintained units vastly below relative to the immense population.

There has to be a limit, because it is a game after all that needs to reward 1 + 1 = 2. Not there's a chance I get an army of 500,000 conquering swaths of territory, away from my empire and suddenly, half my empire and family decides it would prefer their own color, army, government, cetera. To much randomness could ruin it for someone, and that's how I felt Fall From Heaven for Civ4 didn't do well with.

Believe me, Fall From Heaven is not that balanced, especially in regards to random events. It's annoying. I played dozens of online games for hundreds of turns with at least 5 other people, and found that whoever's continent had the Black Dragon or the Orc ravager spawn on it was going to automatically fall behind everyone else in the game, like forever. Lest they traded technologies, you were fucked. Personally, whenever I see someone mention Fall From Heaven like it's a gift from God, makes me cringe. It has many unique features and good ideas, with random events giving you headaches. As I mentioned previously, would you like in Elemental, especially in an online match a Black Dragon spawned by one of your cities? You can't recruit him, he excretes barbarian units ever 2-3 turns towards your cities till you slay him, being, over 100 turns later. Whilst nobody else in the game has to deal with that level of orgy and feels like your the only one that doesn't have the Wall of China. Excuse my language. I don't want that in Elemental without having at least some idea it could occur. If one of my major cities has sewage problems for extended periods of time and I still don't handle it. I should get the following:

  • Plague
  • Sewer rats that are humanoids spawning outside and inside my city tiles generally just causing unrest and attacking any of my military units causing minor issues
  • Whatever makes you fix the situation or your city hates you and could make worse events occur. Like your mom telling you your a horrible player.

I would not like a civil war to occur because the game wanted to screw with me. Conditions need to be met, and players have some insight into it.

Reply #20 Top

Hmm, I seem to have misjudged what you dislike about the game. Aparrantly you play Continent Mapscripts, or Islands, or some Equivalent.

Firstly, if you play a Continents/Tournament Island game ... then yes Acheron DOES suck because thats land you have lost for a LONG time. In that case, simply TURN ACHERON OFF!!! There is an option to turn off alot of the systems in FFH to customize your style of play, I suggest using them.

Orthus, on the other hand, is so weak he is laughable, so thats a matter of "Learn to Play".

Anyways, from what I have heard you sound Heavily BTS oriented, however the majority of FFH random events are exactly the same sort you Find in BTS, without the Quests (ironically you have no Quest events in an RPG based mod, go figure). So you can't say that most of the quests are any worse than BTS. Its the same system, and largely ... it sucks.

If you ever had an inkling that you wanted to play Regular Fall From Heaven on multiplayer, then I suggest you play Pangea. Otherwise, you will find things to be largely unbalanced. And if you like ultra-competitive FFA (cough, BTS, cough) then you probably won't like 75% of the ways to play FFH.

Reply #21 Top

We usually played three continents. True Orthos is laughable, but many players and AI have been caught off-guard and destroyed because he popped out of nowhere, especially with an army supporting him. Suggesting if I can't handle Orthos, I need to learn how to play, huh.

What does BTS mean?

Perhaps we didn't take advantage of the options, however Elemental's regular games I'd assume both multi and singleplayer should be having recruitable dragons, and random quests available. This discussion is about non-determinsitic gameplay trying to make the flow of managing an empire fluid and yet somehow natural. I think FFH's quests and events are an example of not being well done in that aspect if that was "the regular game". Which it kinda is, if you need an option to turn it off.

Last time I checked, you really had no way of influencing which events to occur in FFH, they came and you simply responded at the moment it came. I would prefer if civil wars were possible is if Sions and Channelers were so far away each other with large armies for periods of time with other factors, it could sow the seeds of discontent. Something along those lines.

Reply #22 Top

BTS is the Civ 4 expansion pack called "Beyond the Sword" which is the platform of Fall From Heaven since 2.30 or so.

What version of Fall From Heaven were you playing?

Its possibly true that Orthus could have been much stronger in previous versions, his strength seems to go up and down in various builds. Also, Barbatos was truly deadly. Perhaps 10x as deadly as Orthus. Imagine an AI Lich str 8 that can summon Wraiths and Earth Elementals each turn. He used to Guard the Broken Sepulcher- was held to the spot.

Its true that FFH's events weren't really influenced by the player, and the few that were could be easily "gamed" into submission by the player (for instance the formerly broken library orb event).

Ive only had one time where the an event broke the game one way or another. That was, after the orb event was fixed, I randomly got it while I was strengthening the Magic of my Shieam empire.

I managed to gain Strength of Will, get Eaters of Dreams, kill Ars Moriendi, take the Staff of Souls, and use a Malevolent Designs/ Strength of WIll army with Eidolons, Beasts of Agares, Archmages, and Mardero.

My opponent was the Ljosalphar, and his Yvain and Druids were fighting against my soldiers of death. My Wraiths were slowly making a dent in his forces, while his Druids were a pain entangling my troops almost every turn. Eventually his Yvain died on the attack and he surrendered/quit.

That was a very fun game, where the tide turned back and forth (sometimes in his favor and sometimes in mine) throughout the Whole game, and Eidolons/Wraiths vs Yvain was during the final battle ... when I had finally regained the advantage.

I managed to send an emergency expedition to kill his beastmasters that were on the way to capture Acheron. IF he had taken Acheron, he could have escaped to the West to heal, and bring back a Dragon largely immune to my spectre-mages still defending my empire ... as we shared a vast border and the Strongest of My army was localized in one position attacking his core cities, locked up with Ancient Forests and Entanglement.

Reply #23 Top

I am sorry to interrupt you, of mighty FFH players, but it comes down to this comment:

The randomness element present in the game added a uncertain flavor to each game. Sometimes, it was for good. Sometimes, it was for bad. But the game just could be replayed again with a feel of unknown ahead of you.

am I right?

Reply #24 Top

Yes, Cikomyr, that was more or less correct.

There will always be the Dragon and Orthus (unless you disable them) however their exact location of revival is relatively unkown (the dragon almost always pops in the best barbarian city, so its not out of thin air, but over the course of the first 40-100 turns several barb cities can pop-up from thin air so its still a random element. Meanwhile Orthus is almost completely random, and usually beelines to a particular civ and attacks only them. Once Orthus has conquered a city, sometimes he guards the city for himself, and sometimes he waits for a barb archer to garrison and then he will try to conquer the next city.

The Armageddon Counter is more deterministic than not, but where the Riders of Appocalypse and the Avatar of Wrath arrive does alot to determine the flow of the game ... unless the game has reached a point where all nations can easily kill the riders.

Sometimes the random events will have a significant impact (like Acheron) however mostly they are more a curiosity (except for a small nation, in which the impact is larger).

I would say that each game does indeed have an element of the unknown. Usually things most relating to the Strategic Map have the most effect. (as in Nasty Lair pops, Acheron, even Map generation)

Unique features add an interesting element as well, especially for the Elohim. I must say that I have tried a multiplayer game without many of the random variables (Lairs, Acheron, Orthus, Events, Goody Huts, Unique Features) and that game quickly became boring for everyone involved.

In fact, there was a season of MP gaming (perhaps a fad) where having "living world" was almost a Must for our games (living world means that the amount of random events is doubled). Another occasionally popular choice is "Last Days" which makes Armageddon happen faster, although sometimes Last Days can be taken to an extreme which is unfun for most player.

Reply #25 Top

In fact, there was a season of MP gaming (perhaps a fad) where having "living world" was almost a Must for our games (living world means that the amount of random events is doubled). Another occasionally popular choice is "Last Days" which makes Armageddon happen faster, although sometimes Last Days can be taken to an extreme which is unfun for most player.
End of quote

I think I'm gonna try to find a copy of FFH...

Personnally, I'm all in favor or a little randomness thrown at us during gameplay. Kinda like Major Events during GalCiv2, or Europa Universalis III. I know some players are going to cry about "game balance", but I answer them:

Screw the balance, I want to replay!