Random events?

What if the game featured random events? Right now as far as i understand the game will have weather phenomenas like hurricanes. But what about rogue asteroids? If a planet is very vulnerable due to a close asteroid belt it would be awesome to get showered in randomized asteroid impacts. Not necessarily planet destroying asteroids, but could sincerely jeopardize one or several players due to destructive force. Even with this suggestion i still believe that it would make sense to have it in. This would probably have some of the same countermeasures as to kinetic strike asteroids.

A different perspective on this is "Planet Traits". if a small planet may get 1-2 randomized traits meanwhile a really large one could have 1-6 random traits. Traits that may force you to adapt to the planet itself. Like a moon without any atmosphere (which i believe will be implented)

Comment and discuss if you will

Source?

Yes, because losing a game via a random asteroid is super fun.

Mike

Generally people don't like this sort of randomness to their games.
People prefer to let the better player win because of skill, not because they got lucky the game decided to do what it did.

Regarding source : it was a misread on my behalf so apologies on that. And it doesnt necessarily mean that it will be a game ending event. Merely a suggestion.

Anything that can result in a Commander kill is a game ending event. And asteroids certainly qualify.

Which is stupid because most of the things we're modeling our games after, namely war, is as much luck and environment as skill.

Frankly its not a lack of skill that determines the result when handling unexpected events but a testament to your ability to improvise and handle the changing situation. For instance at Waterloo Napolean flinched and refused to begin the battle against Wellington while the ground was too wet to move his artillery and instead opted to wait for the ground to dry and harden so he could get his artillery into it as he desired. This in the end gave Prussians time to get there and Napolean faced a combined enemy, instead of fighting them one at a time. D-Day was delayed constantly by weather concerns. Weather played no small part in the complexities of fighting the Battle of the Bulge and how it affected those trying to hold on or push through.

Weather, and other random environmental phenomena, have been a part of most human contest since the beginning of time. Just look at sports. Its the same there, at least the ones that still use outdoor stadiums. I think its just juvenile when people hate to not be in control of EVERYTHING.

I think random disasters are stupid of course. It shouldn't be that god decided to crash an asteroid into this player or that player, but if it were to happen it should be more interesting like say in a tight end game a few asteroids cruise into the system and if you have the time or the inclination you could divert some resources into trying to land on it and then capture it and therefore get a new revenue stream and if we're talking late late game this could be decisive if the vast majority of terrain has been annihilated thus lowering the ability of players to recover from a bad exchange.

This could be even more interesting if you add that the asteroid is just passing through the system and if you want it you have to land and get thrusters that can direct it into an orbit that prevents it from flying off into the abyss again. That of course has problems of balance. Do you give both players equally accessible asteroids relative to their main position? Do you have it spawn only for players under the gun who may need a god event to get a second shot at survival? Do you create some code that spawns it in a perfectly even position to both players to access and so it becomes a new battle ground?

Its an interesting idea if you make it subjective to the situation or more abstract in its value than just random destruction, but then again thats more code, more balance, and more headache to add to already numerous stretch goals.

I like the idea... of hurricanes tossing around little units and such >.>

You'll like it until you lose because of it.

Mike

To paraphrase a great quote on this forum;

• Being killed by a player is fun. Being killed by the map is not.

This wouldnt be events that would effect only 1 person. Like for example, a hurricane would prevent air units in the area from flying. I'm not saying that it will instantly kill a person or will ruin your game, but to adapt and improvise is important if ur a proper strategy player. Expect the unexpected. This isnt things that should affect only 1 player but all the players on that planet itself. Its the same as saying " a moon without atmosphere cant have air units " and " gas planets can't have ground units ". What i suggested is random events/traits/occurences that would affect everyone equally.

Just because an effect is global doesn't mean it affects both players the same, using your hurricane example, if you got air but I don't I have the clear advantage because I don't have any suddenly useless air units.

Mike

Then it's my fault for not having a versatile army. And i will loose the game. But then again, how would u be in that situation when for example:

I have alot of air units, you have none. I destroy your ground forces, about to destroy your main base. Then a typhoon/hurricane hits and my units return to base being rendered useless for a certain amount of time, giving me time to build ground forces and you to recover to the situation.

If i had alot of air units and u had problems with them, since u had only ground, you would probably be loosing the war before the typhoon came along and hindered me from using them anymore. In that event i would set my attention to full ground unit contruction. Also you need to consider the length between our bases, and the speed i can react to the situation. If i have a heavily fortified base you would still struggle, and i would probably have time to escape. A good player would react to every single change in the playfield, and would expect them to occurr. :geek:

You don't get it, you can come up with just as many circumstances where your hurrican doesn't effect the outcome of the game as I can come up with circumstances where it does. I can counter each of your situations with situations of my own, but that's not the point.

The Fact of the matter is that if it doesn't actually change the outcome why have it to begin with? All it does is extend the game and give false hope.

The Best choice is to not have it at all, then you don't have situations where it drags out the game needlessly and don't have to deal with the issues that come from a random event changing the outcome of the game.

Mike

I was actually going to give the exact same example that pfunk did, about the battle at Waterloo. Instances like this are simulated in countless wargames. For example, in Close Combat 5, you can either use the weather effects and instances that occured during the invasion of Normandy, or you can use random weather, to vary the gameplay. Heck, even more basic RTSs, like Battle Realms, had external factors like weather affecting gameplay. Being able to deal with external influences on the battlefield is an important aspect of being a good strategist.

However, I don't think that these factors are a good fit for PA, primarily due to the scope of the game. If little things like the weather affect on the battlefield are added, it would result in extreme micromanagement, as you would have to do things like keep track of weather on multiple planets, even at multiple locations on planets, depending on if the weather is implemented per biome.

In order to prevent the game from degenerating like that, the events would have to be on a larger scale, like a random asteroid, and you get the balance problems people have already mentioned.

I like long games. and it changes the outcome. And wont necessarily give false hope. You contradict me as much as yourself. So i cant really come up with a response to that. It was put out as a idea to the game, and if you dont like it that's fine. if Uber Ent. think its a interesting thing they can add it or not thats pretty much up to them. I dont get why ur so against it, considering it would be a realistic addition that would give alot of variation to the game.

You give alot of good points ill admit it. Let's say not alot of this will be implemented, and static traits to planets will be given. That will not be a major micro issue, as they are static and wont change. Then again we can discuss this day in and day out and not get in many directions.

I think the question should be:
Should random events affect the outcome of the game?
If they do, to what degree?

If both players know that an asteroid will come in X amount of time and destroy the planet that they both started on, there is nothing random or asymmetrical about that. Both players have to prepare for that and if 1 player successfully prevents the other player from escaping before the asteroid destroy the planet he played better.

If players don't know if or when the asteroid will arrive 1 player might get lucky because his commander is off world while his opponents commander is on the planet getting destroyed. If players don't know what will happen it can affect them unequally because 1 player might be prepared for some type of random event while the other player might have prepared for another type of random event.

Random events that only have minor effects or happen frequently normalizes and becomes predictable.
A random event like inaccuracy of a weapon are likely to have a predictable effect on the game.

On the other hand there are a whole lot of genres that involve a lot of randomness:
Warhammer. Every action is basically decided by a roll of the dice. Most of the dice rolls evens out because they happen so frequently. However there are some dice rolls that have more impact on the game like if the army flees or if a powerful spell hits.
Deck building games like Magic the gathering. The order of the cards you draw is highly random and if you are unlucky you might lose because of that.
Board games. Most board games include random events like dice-rolls and/or shuffled cards.

Many of these types of games are played for price-money at tournaments.
Why is so prevalent randomness in those games accepted when they are not accepted in competitive RTS?

In those games, humans are both the enforcers of the game rules and the ones who executes the "simulation".
In those games the rules are fairly simple and I'd say the human intellect can fully understand their implications.
RTSes, in contrast, the rules are not executed nor regulated by the players when they play it.
Once a player get skilled in a game with simple "simulation" he can easily predict the outcomes of what he have at hand. However randomness forces the player to adapt to the situation where he can't fully access what will happen.

In RTSes you try to understand the rules and the simulation and you feel betrayed, atleast I do, when something happens that is out of your control. Randomness is out of your control and when you can't predict the effects caused by the randomness you feel fooled.

On the other hand. If players want to play with cataclysmic random events let them do that. It can be fun to try to adapt into weird situations that you cannot predict beforehand and try to take advantage of it.
I'd say you don't need random cataclysmic events to experience cataclysmic events though. People sending nukes and asteroids at your base can cause that and if you still got a fighting chance after that, then may the best player win.

In single player or custom games (with a option to disable), sure could be fun (I myself like random events, i tend to play sword of the stars for example).


In ranked or any other kind of competitive environment, absolutely not!

I'm all for a random event, but it must be known at the start of the game.

The need to improvise often give really interesting and entertaining games. It could give some twist against predetermined build order and tactics.

I don't like the idea of "random" events.

I would like to see an option where you have a planet that occasionally moves through an asteroid field and gets bombarded. But random? nooooo.

The question is: if it's announced at the beginning of the game, is it still random ?