Non-Random Events

Hmm, I like the idea of an Idol to the Blood God of Khorne being buried under a particular plain, and if a certain number of murderous deaths occur atop the plain (warfare/massacre) it will fuel angry demons to be released/appear on the map near that area.

The one thing I have grown a wee bit concerned about is people gaming the event systems to get certain tactical outcomes.... without the dev supporting it: these sorts of manipulations could really be quite fun if the game was built with that in mind (fulfilling the conditions of ancient prophecies, setting the conditions needed to summon crap, that sort of thing), but if the lore and text and feel of the game don't support this system and instead create the impression that these events are in some way random, unpredictable, or outside of the channeler's control the fulfilment would just feel like manipluation or gaming the system.

I'd say both of these ideals are something to have.

Random events such as say, a volcano (to the face) are something good to have. Keeps the game a might unpredictable so you don't have people doing 'cookie-cutter' strategies. (Part of a large problem I have with playing RTS online anymore.)

At the same time, if you could trigger the volcano through maybe, casting a fireball at a certain tile, that would be great too. You could have a Pompai (spelling? I doubt it) situation of sorts. The area under the volcano has vast (or at least significanly more) resources than anything for tiles in any direction. However, it can be triggered by a certain effect from another player. Of course, with that idea, there'd have to be some sort of randomness to the flow of the volcano so it isn't 100% obliteration. Then there'd be no reason to build under it.

More ideas along the vein of 'triggered'/non-random events:

- If the game goes past a certain point (turns), X happens. (A certain number of shards do something and cause something. They could 'overload' and turn the ground for 10 tiles into barren wasteland or somesuch.)

- If someone casts a certain series of spells (as Istari touched on) X happens.

A rather bland example might be: Lightning Bolt, Lightning Bolt, Tropical Bounty (all farms produce more for X turns), a hurricane engulfs the coastline for X turns for X tiles.

There would, of course, need to be certain rules like the number of turns which can seperate the castings, etc.

-  (Final one for now) The astrology idea Istari had, I like. Tidal forces would be great, but I don't know how much that idea might tax the engine. Building a city on the coast, and a hurricane happens (ala the above idea), the city might be:

A. Destroyed

B. Flooded

C. Have a sudden prosperous influx of fishing/farming if they survive, and as such, produce X more gold.

I could think of more, but I hunger. Shgetti time.

Some random events are nice, but it is always a good thing when a random event can claim a reason, rather than, "While walking along a path, the hamburgler stole your lunch! Quest to get it back."

That is a valid concern. A possible solution would be to obfuscate the series of actions that trigger an event, such that it is not obvious "exactly" what sequence was the cause, but otherwise quite clear to the player that a certain type of playing or category of actions led to this result. Going back to the example of destructive spells, the internal conditions could be something like, 2xBombardment, 1xEarthquake, 3xHurricane all within say 2 game turns, and this would trigger some sort of cataclysm or catastrophe.

Otherwise, events and their triggers or systems should be made to fit into the lore and feel of the world.

It just occured to me that scheduled and calendered events could also be implemented into the game.

Things like festivals, holidays, celebrations, remembrance, worship or other traditions can be made to occur once per calendar year, and each one should have some sort of effect, possibly both negative and positive.

These occasions could differ according to alignment (i.e. Kingdom or Empire), as well as race.

In other words, events that are actually non-random.

Without randomness, the game will get boring, repetitive and predictable because everything will become known.

That's why most of these games for $50.00 go sour in the first month or two.  We need a game that actually takes a bold step forward and puts in alot of random variable features. so that every playthrough is fresh.  THAT would improve replayability, not cutting out random elements.  That's a total contradiction.

One random element that just popped out in my mind is critical strikes.  That's something that doesn't happen expectedly every time, and it adds some fear that you could lose to a critical.  That's just one example, but there are many different things you could add in.

In every game, YOU WILL put it down eventually because you get sick of playing the same routine every time.  If you make the mistake of not putting in random features, this game will go sour.  Please don't make that mistake.  Or elemental will be another game to throw on the shelf to collect dust.

Just think about it, HOW BORING would life be if you KNEW EVERYTHING that was going to happen.  One of the reasons that keeps driving us to live is the UNKNOWN.  We keep learning every day, because there is UNKNOWN and random things that happen everyday.  That's one of the spices of life.

More randomness means less balance. Less balance leads to less fun. Underdoses are as bad as overdoses.

What keeps us driving to live is the survival instinct. The fact that some societies can afford some of their citizens to have spare time to think about other things than just survival doesn't deny that.

And there is no randomness, just ignorance about the variables, factors, interactions... Unlike life, you can learn all about a game and predict it, going from randomness to predictability. You could reduce predictability by introducing more "random" elements but then I'd point to my first line in this post.

Not everyone shares the same drive to live, yours is survival instinct, mine is a desire to experience and learn.

Yes there is variable in life from the many interactions between things, which causes numerous different results.

And yes, thank you for agreeing with me at your last sentence.  Randomness does not unbalance a game to the point of making it unfun.  You still have the ability to survive and thrive, but you have surprises and challenge, when you put in appropriate random elements into the game.

Making a game that becomes 100% predictable, is going to set it up for boredom in a couple months.

In a multiplayer game, people do not wish for Victory to be decided based upon the RNG, and the RNG alone.

In the case of armies, the Player makes a controlled decision of where to place units, and how many units to place. only the actual exchange of blades is determined by the RNG. Heck, even battle tactics is decided by the player (which is a much greater improvement to a *pure* strategy game like Civ5 that has little-no tactics).

    //as a side note, the tactical aspect is one of my favorites. I *LOVE* strategy, although integrated tactical battles exponentially increases my appreciation.

I will *also* state that a certain number of random events are already destined to enter the game. This thread does not condone all amounts of random events. Randomized Maps, Creatures, ect are among the randomization found in the game.

Random events are all well and good, although players should not feel that victory or defeat is determined by random acts. The amount of randomness should merely set the stage, and perhaps influence the Player's resulting strategy. It should not place one player upon a high pedastal (like an advantage in a particular resource or other asset used in a strategy that is absolute in its supremacy), and another player on a low pedestal (low player's starting position is weakened to the point where there is no equal alternative strategy to the one used by the high player).

Lets say that Player A got an over-abundance of Fertile Land and nearby Mana Shards. Meanwhile Player B started with Many Gold deposits, Iron Ore, and magical creatures.

In this case, Player A has mass-mobs and magic, while player B has small amounts of high-quality soldiers and beasts. This *seems* like decent alt-strategies ... however Player A has a clear advantage.

Instead, two potential resource distribution choices could be made to equal the playing field. Either the mana-shard acess for both players should be equal, so that Player B can protect his elite units with magic equal to the Massive Empire's Channeler, OR Player B should get the Mana Shards and Player A should get the Farms and Ore deposits.

Having FOOD is very good in this game. Having MAGIC is very good in this game. No starting location should have an over-abundance of BOTH in my opinion. Ore deposits are good for military societies, magical beasts are good for Adventuring societies. Shards are good for Magical Societies, and Farming/Food is good for all. An overabundance of Farms and Ore could some-what balance an egregious lack of shards, however a lack of shards should not be combined with a lack of Fertile Land. A lack of shards CAN be combined with prolific Ore, or prolific magical beasts.

Starting locations should be exotic and varied, however they should still be some-what balanced. A game should not be decided based upon solely randomized functions *Assuming* equal strategical brilliancefor both players.

No my point about randomization was not about saying that the game was DECIDED on random things but that random things influenced the game.  In tactical battles, LUCK is a part of random element, that could help the underdog to win but not DECIDE that he is going to win, just influence the battle.  Like getting a lucky crit, or having some special item appear randomly on the tactical map to help either side who claims it first.

Same thing for outside of battles, LUCK and random elements can influence things to add challenge and unpredictability but not DECIDE ultimately what takes place, that's not what was said.

I think I might have been somewhat unclear in my original post. I don't mean to say that unexpected events should not occur. My view is that they should not be implemented as some haphazard stack of unrelated happenings that have very little to do with the world structure and the mythos. The player should feel that, although they may not have expected this particular event, it makes sense that it happened in this world, at this juncture or point in time, or as a result of certain other events. In this way you don't sacrifice immersion for replayability, but rather you have a healthy dose of both.

In regards to critical strikes, I like that idea. It is random but also quite fitting. It is expected that in a battle, a fighter might land a blow that hits a soft or weak spot and thereby does additional damage.

This is what I mean by random but not random. In other words, something unpredictable or unexpected, but still believable and relevant given the setting, scenario, situation, state of events, and timing.

Like your post Istari.  Superstition, Astrology, Magic can help disguise the unknown event; your Druids/High Priests are valued and relied upon by the citizens to help appease the gods and interpret the signs and portents.  Your idea would add depth to the game I think.  From what I read your not asking for randomness for sake of it, but events that happen because of a predefined order.

Mods Mofds Mods Mods

If, however we could get access to the random event functions, that would be endless fun.

(Hard coded in Gal Civ and maybe here too )