Feature Request: Random events

i agree with you, right now in the beta theres not much going on besides the warfare.

What kind of game do you think this is?

This isn't a empire building game.

Thats partly the point of it. If you see a volcano on a lava planet you have to adapt by not building near the base of the volcano. The point is not so much to have random events that screw one player over, although its possible, it is more to add some spice to the game by increasing the possibilities of things that can happen.

I wouldn't only include predictable events, I'd make it optional, although I imagine the less balanced and more unpredictable ones would be turned off for competitive games. A lot of the ideas mentioned have an element of predictability to them allowing forward planning and could conceivably be used in competitive games

In my head when I thought of this is that it would be unlikely to be a game changer but a player could use an event to their advantage if they were clever about it, like using a sand storm to sneak something nasty into an enemy base

We can add beauty, spice and variety to the warfare.

I'm opposed to this.

I don't want to be winning and then lose because of a volcanic eruption.

Randomness doesn't have a place in competitive games.

That is still warfair, plain and simple.

We most certainly can add beauty, spice, and variety. But that statement doesn't mean random events are the only way to add those things.

Losing a match due to a random event will be frustrating. Heck, winning a match due to a random event would be frustrating.

Game changing random events simply have no place in competitive games - even if the competition is against an AI.

Funny you should say that considering spawn points and metal placement and to an extant planet and system generation are all random events that begin before the game starts, they may only occur once but a bad spawn is a bad spawn.

and saying that having a bad spawn isn't a death sentence because of strategy is not valid either as manipulating a bad situation such as that is equal to not building near a volcano cause it might erupt or don't build land only buildings near water/lava if it floods

Where are you willing to draw the line?

Also keep in mind if this was implemented that they will be OPTIONAL and don't necessarily have to deal damage

A volcano can erupt gas and fumes and leak a little lava without harming units

Some of us have been lobbying for mirrored planets for a long time so that both sides of the planet, with a player each, have exactly the same starting spots. BTW, unfortunately for me, as long as metal cluster distrubution is fairly uniform, its pretty damn balanced.

Besides, there are two things you are saying here.

The first is that they events actually affect the game.

The second being that they are pretty damn cosmetic, and dont really bring much other than making it look better.

Pick one.

I think that such a system could have its place - e.g. weather systems and day/night cycles affecting combat on some level.

Particularly just to make it a more interesting gameplay - in "reality" those factors affect combat, and so it could be neat to model them partially, if it didn't take away from other aspects of the game.

I think it has a certain place. Bearing in mind that "singleplayer compstompers" do not view the game the same way that multiplayer competitors do. I don't think of myself as competing with the AI. It doesn't want to win. It doesn't want anything.

I think it would be nice for the single player component of the game. The recent Sins DLC, Stellar Phenomena, basically adds the same concept. Competitive players don't like it, but it does add a bit more life to the singleplayers.

As long as there's an option to toggle it off in the settings, it isn't an issue for "competitive players" who want everything to be fair, because they toggle it off and never see it.

At the end of the day, it is a video game, and (hopefully most) people play it to have fun. There will be people playing it who don't give a damn who is number 1 in the world, just like there are people who play Starcraft who don't give a damn who is number 1 in the world.

Just my two cents.

I'm not picking anything at all, I'm simply pointing out that if they are implemented they don't need to deal damage and can be turned on or off.
and also pointing out a slight hypocrisy but I digress

If it's off then there's no need to say anything
If it's on and does no damage, that's cool it makes the game prettier and I'll probably lose matches because I got distracted from the weather effects
if it's on and does alter gameplay, that's cool too

So if you want me to decide then my answer is I don't give two ducks about if it does anything I'd just like there to be something, be able to turn it on and off, and if it does damage Id like it to be balanced.

I like the idea of these being a option for players to have this in skirmish games, but never ever should you have such random events in competitive games. Any way that point has been made.

Back in the early days during or after the kick starter random events where talked about and ruled out of the scope of the game uber are making, its some thing they might add on later but for now they have many more game critical mechanics to get done.

So yeah this is some thing that wil mostly need to be modded into the game.

soz dude, explained that mixup via Pm.


I'm sure there will be "pretty effects". Should such pretty effects have any role on gameplay? It won't make any sense for volcanoes to start erupting if that doesn't do anything to the guy who built his base defences right next to it.

Possibly. They could do damage, or it could just be minor (e.g. vision radius decreases across the board, units slow down, units speed up, air units are grounded)

There are other RTS's (e.g. Star Wars Empire at War) which had planet specific affects on different units. It has the potential to make things like the galactic war more interesting, because you know your strategy is going to change based on what you encounter. (i.e. on a 'windy planet', rely more on land and less on air).

Thanks @bradburning for your insight

I don't like half of those supposed random events but the other half I think would be very cool, dont want to go through the list, but the static environmental doodads or whatshouldIcallthem could have a timer above them that let you know when they i.e start to erupt or sandstorm starts. Since they are self aware robots I don't think it is implausible that they would have invented advanced calculations allowing them to factor in all the variables for them to know exactly when something of this kind happens.

Unless we have pre-made planets, premade metal locations and balanced spawns the game already contains a random element. I'm not saying adding more randomness to competitive games would be good but some of us play games for fun and are not massively bothered if something random happens.

As its already been said it should be something that can be turned off so if thats the case it wont effect you and there is not practical reason for you to oppose it. I like the suggestion someone made to have them as cosmetic only so they did not have any impact on gameplay but do make the game world seem more alive, although I'd still like the option to have them impact on the game.

What you have to remember is that not all random events will be detrimental, and some could affect both players at the same time. Some like the sandstorm give a strategic weakness AND a strategic advantage meaning there is no real change to balance but it does give you more options of play styles.

Exactly I don't see why anyone would be opposed to this being in the game. You dont like it turn it off, or to cosmetic only.

I'm saying it could be both using options in the lobby. A suggestion was made that rather than turning them off in competative play they be switched to cosmetic only. This would mean sandstorms would still come up and blizzards and so on but they would not effect gameplay, they would make the worlds seem more alive.

As far as them being a game changer I'd like to see them (most of them) add to the amount of strategic thinking rather than being a straight out benefit or loss. The sandstorm is a great example. It would obscure your view but would also hide your units allowing for some stealth tactics.

Great idea, are you thinking removed/reduced vision, or something more complex?

The intention is to take nothing away. While throwing ideas out obviously some ideas have been thrown out that would be straight up game changers but I prefer the ones that have both an advantage and a disadvantage and are more to encourage thinking to strategically use the events and world elements properly. I like your night idea. Things like this do not change the balance because they can be use correctly for a bonus but also go wrong, or they could give the same to both players. You could walk past each other in a sand storm and then both players bases get massive damage when the storm subsides because both armies are away and cant defend. Obviously you would be smart and leave some defences

I do both. Some times I just play for fun and crazyness is good. Other times I'd like it balanced for competative play. Although as I keep saying I'd like to see most of these implemented in such a way that they do not always give a simple advantage or disadvantage but they encourage you to strategise to mitigate or take advantage of potential random events/weather.