Reactionary Events

Nice ideas in my opinion and given a comprehensive enough system, they could really feel original and blend in with the game flow. One thing to note however is that the thing only works, if there are negative events of similar nature as well.

For example: Say you are attacked by an enemy empire, how do your civilians feel about it? If your race is xenophobe, then they will likely be afraid, but unless the enemy has a history of genocide, they might still prefer servitude and a new rule to outright dying. There is only so much patriotism will compell you to do.
What if the enemy nation is huge and overpowering? Would your civilians really look forward to fighting them?
What if they have a rich and happy civilian sector? Would your civilians not be looking forward to be captured by them, to become part of a better "nation"? Especially if said race has already demonstrated willingness and capacity to integrate foreign races / cultures?

I think in most of those cases, if a war pops up, civilian pressure would be towards ending it ASAP, to the point where border colonies could simply defect to the enemy rather than fighting a pointless and misdirected war.

Again, plenty of opportunity in the idea. +1

 

Hi again MikeG
I am in complete agreement with you here, events, especially reactionary, would be a great way to deal with some of these issues. In fact, as I have suggested on other threads as well, reactionary events can be used throughout the game to level the playing field every so often and really introduce some additional excitement into the game right at the point where it may start to get a little dull.
Later, I will try and post some specifics that could be used to affect some balance when it comes to military, economic and scientific issues that crop up all too often in 4X games.

 

I'd click yes and move all scientists to production for next 3 turns

 

I spent some time thinking about this over the last few days and I have to say, this is going to difficult.

First, let me state that I am all for reactionary events as a concept but...

Once I actually started to think about execution it quickly became obvious that while this sounds good on paper it can easily destroy the game as well.

Think about this for a moment.

Too many reactionary events would cause the player to feel like their decisions don't really matter as the game would be re-balancing itself too often. How do you avoid this then? An obvious solution would be to really limit the parameters that would cause reactionary events to fire.
For example, you fell behind on research so an event fires allowing you to close the gap. Well where do you draw the line here? Does being last in research in the early part of the game qualify as a reason to fire a reactionary event even though the player could close the gap on their own?
What about one faction totally dominating in technology (by mid game) where no one else has even half the the tech of the leading faction.

As I see it the reactionary event should fire in the second scenario I describe but not the first, someone else may think otherwise. For me it is important that if reactionary events are included the parameters firing those events should be very restricted while the events themselves should be of numerous types.

A bit confusing huh?

Not really

What I am advocating is the instances where the reactionary events fire are extremely limited so as to keep the player in control while the events themselves are numerous (and random) so that the mechanic does not become boring.

In following this approach the developers would need to ensure that these events fire rarely while the number of actual reactionary events is large.

A single situation then such as described above (falling behind in tech), could cause a reactionary event to fire from a large pool of such events. In this way, factions may get some help when badly needed but the type of help itself would include enough variety so as to keep from getting boring.

Specifics would have to be looked at so that the reactionary events give a boost or downgrade as needed to the situation at hand. The events would have to be meaningful enough to have a potential impact without becoming a Deus Ex Machina.

Clearly a case where the approach (if implemented), would have to be meticulously thought out, if not, better to skip it entirely.

 

Your example is too broad for analysis. How would be technologies be awarded to those falling behind, how often would it happen and would it truly be event based (happening on exact game condition) or tied to some dice roll + turn number combination.

Game just gifting any technology would be bad kind of ruber banding and as you have pointed out, what would be the point of being research leader then. It can be averted by giving player an option to invest resources in order for rubberbanding to work. For instance it may give you new research option for countering your opponent which you can research by regular investment of research points (instead of exploitable "your scientists are occupied for 3 turns"). Or it may unlock a unique construction project which would give you a technology after completion, effectively trading industry points for research points. OP's examples still have merit.

 

ChrisKonstantine, I think your concerns are geared for multiplayer, and I agree in a multiplayer game they maybe considered unfair, but i think they could still be balanced enough to be enjoyable and welcome additions. In single player, however, i think for sure they could add a great deal of fun, and narrative to the game. If you are badly loosing and get a nice little boost to make you have a better chance, but still a challenge and now the game is interesting again instead of one where you quit and start over. It could also make a game where you are stomping everyone more challenging by giving the AI some interesting boosts like MikeG suggests. In single player, i would really like this.

For me, i look at shows like Stargate SG1 and Star Trek and would love if the borg or replicators appeared, or an ancient race pretending to be gods like the Ghould appear on the far side of the galaxy with several minor factors enslaved that need saving. Or a worm hole is discovered and an powerfull race on the other side is discovered like the jem'hadar. These would add great flavor to individual games and make them more exciting and fun.

 

Hi Possibility

I also agree that the concept of reactionary events as proposed by Mike G is an excellent idea, however, I am cautioning the execution of the concept and I will give two examples, one practical and the other theoretical where this could go wrong.

Before I begin though, sorry that I did not clarify, I wasn’t thinking about multiplayer. I also believe that the reasons for introducing reactionary events are not as strong in multiplayer. Humans are quite reactionary on their own.

About those examples

Have you ever played Star Wars Rebellion? It is a great concept with serious faults. After learning to play, I set the game to the hardest level and began for real. It was quite challenging at first but after a combination of effective strike actions and a solid diplomatic effort I was in a position to attrite the rebels and I did. Slowly at first the rebels were contained and then pushed back. I soon reached a point where I was confident of the win when an event occurred. The event catastrophically affected one of my richest shipyard worlds and the planet became useless for all intents and purposes. I was not happy with this event but I continued as I still had a few more planets that served as my shipyards. Exactly 60 days (game time) later I got the same event again and lost another major planet in the same fashion. Now I was feeling upset and somewhat angry. When the event fired a third time I quit the game and never played it again.

The theoretical example is based directly on the example offered by Mike G (understood that these are only examples)

"A species (player or AI) is close to being wiped out, or is so out-classed and feeling threatened enough that they're desperate. They get a pop-up option to try radical genetic mutations that their scientists think could turn the war around. If they choose to, one of the following happens:

1. They gain incredible psionic powers and are able to mind control and permanently steal 33% (example number only, needs to be balanced) of all enemy ships and ground troops at the start of a battle. This will completely change the war and even the struggle for power in the galaxy. Think you were about to win an easy war? Not anymore.
   A counter-reaction event after the first time they get mind controlled would give everyone else a special project to make themselves immune. Maybe they get 5 or 10 turns of super-powers against each species.
2. They gain incredible physical powers and their ground troops have crazy strength. Won't change the game too much, you just have to bomb them instead of invading.
3. They end up destroying their minds and lose all combat ability. Their ships stop moving, their troops stop defending, they stop producing food and eventually die out.
4. Other options, so you can't just say yes every time it pops up and know what will happen"

Now If I was on the receiving end of this event I would select yes. Here is my reaction to each outcome.

1 “Sweet! get ready for some pain alien filth!”

2 “That helped a lot…not!”

3 “What? I’m already loosing and now it sucks more?” Quit. (Intellectually I get it that the end result is the same but expect a negative emotional reaction)

4?

The concept is solid but could lead to unexpected and undesired consequences for the game if it isn’t executed properly, this is not only coding I am speaking about by the way. I guess in multiplayer I would feel the same and have the same concerns.

High risk High reward situation.

 

I have played Star Wars Rebellion, but it sounds like you are a cry baby there where you quit and never played again. I personally like the idea of adaptive difficulty, where the game provides challenge, but hopefully not constant. It should go easy, hard, easy, hard, all in a single game. You think you are winning, but then your opponent comes back fiercer than ever, you rise to the new challenge and start winning again, ready to crush them once and for all but a new challenge pops up and you once again are fighting for your life. Reactionary events would help this come true.

For me, one of the most boring parts of a game like Moo and Civ is when you realize you can no longer be defeated. You may not have the most techs, or the biggest empire, or the most production or the most money, and are probably 3rd place in all of those categories, but you still know you are going to win because you are out maneuvering the AI ever turn and your military is steam rolling them. But you know to win the game it will take a long grind. So you start on the long grind and build up 5 of the Civ4 mega stacks of doom that are conquering all the continents, but you still cant get the victory yet because you arent the biggest and the AI has a million cities to conquer. Or in this game a million planets, and no one can challenge your doom fleet of a thousand ships. Now its just boring. At this point it would sure be nice to have a real challenge show up! The borg etc...

 

A cry baby, really? You don't know me at all but are able to discern my character when I am clearly stating that I favor the idea but not a cheap execution of it. Star wars rebellion could have attempted the same outcome but not by a single event firing multiple times, that was just cheap. I am no cry baby but I am a picky consumer. When I spend for a game I do not want to feel put off by sheer lazyness or ineptitude.
The idea has to be done well "i am in favor"
The idea is just slapped on with no thought. "i am not in favor"
I know its just my opinion here but I doubt I am a minority of one, it's easy to screw this concept up by faulty execution, just issuing a warning about that.

In the future kindly keep any personal perceptions you have on my behavior out of your posts, You will find that regardless of agreeing with someone or not, I always keep this courtesy when I write.

 

Perhaps I should take a minute to better explain the example I referenced in post no. 9

The team behind Star Wars Rebellion was not a small studio with scant resources, it was a supported business that crafted a game. During the course of development this team was faced with numerous decisions and choices, one of these choices was whether to affect a mechanism in the hardest settings of the game which would offer a greater challenge to the player.

I agree with the decision to include a mechanic which would in theory, level the playing field some but I do not agree with the way it was executed.

In order to effect a re-balance of the game when the player is clearly winning the developers had some options to choose from, create an event which hurts the player, create an event which aids the AI or a combination of the two.

The first mistake (in my opinion) was deciding to re-balance by hurting the player. That planet I mentioned, which was carefully built up by me over the course of two years game time, was instantly made useless permanently. My work was wiped away arbitrarily and this did not sit well with me but I continued the game even after the event fired a second time. By the time the same exact event fired a third time I permanently discarded the game. Why should I bother with it again when I know how it will play out? I’ll get in front and then the game will just start picking my planets off until it decides I have been weakened enough to give the AI a better chance at winning.

Anyone with even a modest understanding of behavioral science would have warned against this, the same for any competent businessman.

The AI has no emotions but most human players do. The AI does not buy games, people do. The AI does not write reviews and post on blogs, people do. A mechanically sound game can still fail spectacularly if enough people don’t like it.

The second mistake was in using this one event multiple times in a single play-through, this seemed lazy and cheap. It also made the game predictable. I fail to see why as a consumer I should be pleased.

(Also, as a businessman who has designed software and business applications there is no way that this would have been allowed if I were managing that project. Again, just my opinion as I wasn’t managing that team)

Now had the developers capped this event so that it only fired once in a game I would have been ok with it. Had the developers instead coded an event which allowed an entire neutral sector to join the rebels I would have been thrilled, more war! The result would have been the same (playing field levelled) but my interest in the game would have spiked instead of the feeling of disgust that I had. In other words, if you want reactionary events which level the playing field from time to time do it! But do it in a way that does not hurt the player directly.

Destroy my planet after I invested so much time building it up=negative emotional response

Give the AI a boost in power and resources and you make me happy as I have more targets to attack and the war (game) is extended.

You can have reactionary events and expect one of three outcomes as a result.

Player is indifferent

Player is turned off to the game

Player is happy.

The result you get is largely determined by the execution of the reactionary event.

Just a handful of well thought out events programmed to fire at the right time would have been a huge plus. I understand that this would have been some more work for the developers but as the effort was made anyway, it should have been executed in a different manner that minimised the risk of the player feeling negative towards the game.

Mike G has given some outstanding examples of how this can be done and still be fresh every time, his ideas, refined even further, would be a huge asset to any 4x game.

 

I have no problem with reactionary events with one extremely important caveat. It absolutely MUST be possible for the player to turn them off in the options menu if they so desire. Then everyone is happy.

This actually applies to a lot of the more radical mechanics proposals that stray from the MOO 2 basic design philosophy. If you're going to include them, then allow us to turn them off if we so wish.

 

I wasn't trying to attack you or insult you outright, take my comment(s) in light hearted jest. I just found it very interesting that you would buy a game and only play it a single time and give up with total hatred in your heart that it still pains you almost 20 years later. That just seems a - very over the top reaction. It was just a game after all, and not a bad one.

I still like the idea of reactionary events and random events. I agree it needs to be done well. I love giant space amoebas, and love the idea of a big galaxy event thrown in when you are kicking butt to make the game more challenging. Or an event that allows you to kind of save your hiney when you are geting womped, it can spice up the game and make multiple play throughs unique and fun. These are the fine details in a game that distinguish the great games from the bland run of the mills that are forgotten in a month.

 

No Harm no foul possibility.
Not really hatred though, disappointment certainly. It stays with me because I do agree that there were aspects of rebellion that were very good and it just bothered me that the idea was executed with such a lack of imagination. That game could have been a lot more with minimal work.
But anyway, perhaps you are right there too and I shouldn't be so draconian about it.
I also agree fully that details such as this, executed well, set great games apart from the so-so ones.

 

Random events that come from nowhere can be a bit unsatisfying or even frustrating sometimes. I do like events that shake up gameplay and lead to an ebb and flow on the strategic map, but I agree that, say, simply spamming negative events when you get too powerful would be frustrating to experience.

I think a good policy is to keep the player informed of the risks they are taking, so they can make knowledgeable strategic decisions. For example, if certain event choices will lead to a % chance of a disaster happening later, then the player should be told of the %, so they can factor it into their decision. So when a gamble comes back to bite you - you only have yourself to blame!

And if you want an event system that levels the playing field, fine - but the mechanics should be visible. E.g. you should be able to monitor your power rating and when you become the dominant galactic power it should be clear that you are now the #1 target for dissidents, your generals will be more complacent, possibly more prone to civil war, etc etc. Rather than a sudden popup stating "your homeworld just exploded lol".

Basically, make sure the player understands WHY the tumultuous events are happening, rather than simply getting stomped on from nowhere for no reason.

 

One such negative random event that you get spammed with when you are winning is all the other empires declaring war on you. This is typical in many games, but to make it more interesting, it would be cool if some king of terror showed up and all the other weaker empires turn to you for salvation instead of the boring typical all other empires attack you because you are winning.

 

That's more of AI logic then random event. If only one player can win the game then there is no benefit of being in good terms with the best player so alliances against #1 arise naturally. But AI is usually not smart enough to actually make alliances with others so they all just happen to declare war at winner in the similar time frame.

 

Hi Ivan,

From your perspective, would it be difficult to code the AIs in a way, where rather than declaring war on the lead faction, two or three of the weaker factions, (preferably bordering each other) decide to form a union? In other words the two factions would cease to exist and a new faction would arise. The new faction would have all assets that were previously available to the two as well as all technology, combined.

Theoretically, two weak factions would be replaced by a single strong one. Would this pose a challenge from your perspective? more importantly, could such an event offer positive value to a 4X game as it approached the stage where the player is about to become unstoppable?