Predictability: good or bad?

[DrSpike]

So there are a lot of things in civ which should be random, but, due to the sterling work of spirited individuals, it is clear they aren't.

The question: Is this a good thing, since you have to really know the game to be good, or does knowing the position of all the huts and specials by 3500 or even earlier remove the pleasure of discovery for you?

[rah]

Based on the know patterns, the ability to predict where all the huts was always available. It's just with this new method, you need only find one vs 2-3-4 the old way. So it just happens a few turns earlier than it used to.

[ramses II.]

Using his own brain is a fair method compared with AI cheating ...

[DrSpike]

Rah:

My point is not whether it is worse given very recent information, but whether or not the predictability we have understood for a few years now is desirable. I mentioned huts and specials just as an example. You didn't answer the question I posed.

[samson]

When predictability is low, you have a game of chance; when predictability is high, you have a game of management.

The aim of strategy is to increase your opponent's predictability and reduce your own. Strategy must always account for randomness, but the best way of doing this is to reduce its occurrence and thus its impact on your plans.

In Civ, you play against the game as well as opponents. When the game (via random or poorly understood events) dictates your play style, you become predictable and vulnerable. When your knowledge of the game allows you to reduce this randomness, the opposite happens.

[DrSpike]

I respectfully disagree. For instance all the skill required to play civ well is still required if you remove the 'predictable' hut/special placement, oedo years, how the maps are created etc.......it hardly becomes a game of chance in these circumstances.

There are of course things that should be known to maximise propensity for skill, but the things above are not in that category IMO.

[rah]

I agree that skill is still required. But the predictability is a great advantage if the other player is not aware of the predictability.

Alas, I wish there was no hut pattern, no special pattern, no oedo year, etc, because I really like the exploring part of the early game and some of these diminish the degree of discovery. But it's a game, and they're part of it, so to be competitive it is important that we learn what we can, because if we don't, someone else will.

Rich

[solo]

Predictability is good, as is any increase in knowledge.

Individual players still have the choice whether or not they want to use this knowledge in their games, so it comes down to a matter of playing preference.

Highly competitive players are always seeking a strategic edge over opponents, and will use predictability to increase their advantage.

Casual players, who do not care to much about "winning", probably enjoy the surprise of bumping into a hut they didn't know was there, or being paid a huge commodity bonus they had no idea was coming to them.

Some people, including myself, like to play both ways, depending on their mood. In Civ II, you have the choice, and this is what makes it such a great game.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by rah


Alas, I wish there was no hut pattern, no special pattern, no oedo year, etc, because I really like the exploring part of the early game and some of these diminish the degree of discovery

Rich

Now we're cooking. Of course in reality you have to play the game as it is (in MP anyway, in SP you have more flexibility), but the quoted remark is what I was after.

I didn't want to tip my hand immediately but I agree with this statement entirely. And my reply to Samson adds a further element, in that it is only the sorts of predictability (in factors that should be random) that is due to laziness on the part of the programmers that I object to.

[samson]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I respectfully disagree. For instance all the skill required to play civ well is still required if you remove the 'predictable' hut/special placement, oedo years, how the maps are created etc.......it hardly becomes a game of chance in these circumstances.

There are of course things that should be known to maximise propensity for skill, but the things above are not in that category IMO.

What "should be" predictable and what shouldn't is a matter of opinion. What is predictable is a matter of fact. The location of huts and specials, revolution years, even the supply and demand of cities, are predictable once the factors governing them are known.

When a person first starts playing civ, cities going into disorder seems to be a random/unpredictable event. As he acquires skill in the game, he finds that it isn't. Skill is an acquired knowledge of the game's workings. This applies to any aspect of the game.

Chance vs. Managability isn't an absolute, it's a spectrum. The outcome of huts is unpredictable (for now) and this introduces an element of chance into the game. The location of huts is predictable and this provides an opportunity for planned action for those who wish to take advantage of it. Skill isn't an absolute either, it's a broad spectrum with many aspects of specialization.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by samson


What "should be" predictable and what shouldn't is a matter of opinion.

Sure. That's why I asked for opinions.

My opinion is that there are elements of predictability that are contra to the spirit of civ. Rah seems to agree. Yourself and Solo seem to always prefer predictability, with the choice always being present to 'ignore' the information you could use.

[DaveV]

Originally posted by rah
Alas, I wish there was no hut pattern, no special pattern, no oedo year, etc, because I really like the exploring part of the early game and some of these diminish the degree of discovery. But it's a game, and they're part of it, so to be competitive it is important that we learn what we can, because if we don't, someone else will.

What really killed MP Civ II for me was black clicking and city triangulation. I think both of those tricks go very much against the exploration spirit of the game, but apparently it's another of those "everybody does it" things.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by DaveV

What really killed MP Civ II for me was black clicking and city triangulation.

Yes, these are elements of predictability I could do without.

[rah]

I don't mind the complicated ones like supply/demand, optimal roading, etc. You have to program them some way. But things like huts and specials could have easily been done more random. (like civIII, and I hate admitting that, even though, two years from now, we'll probably have figured that out too )

In MP there is no choice to 'ignore' because if you do, you've given your opponent the advantage. While huts and special patterns are quite known, a lot of MP players do not use black clicking. They are at a disadvantage to those that do. But black clicking is a flaw not a pattern type thing. (edited because while posting, everyone jumped on black clicking )

RAH

[LDiCesare]

that is due to laziness on the part of the programmers that I object to.

Hi, sorry, but as a programmer I can't let that one pass.
It is not lazy programming, it is a design choice. If everything is random, instead of one seed in the save game, you need many locations. You also need much more resources at world generation and such. At least that is true for huts and specials. So these choices (considering the amount of them) may have been dictated by performance/size issues - you must fit the program on a CD for instance, along with save games. They didn't manage to crank a map editor with ToT for lack of space on the CD, so that point is probably valid. Now, it may not be, but don't accuse people of being lazy when in fact the algorithms they coded are probably more complicated than what they would have been with random distribution.

Example with a pseudo-text-based map save file:
Non random (size, seeds, terrain)
4 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 3 0
Random (size, huts, specials, terrain)
4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Save game size tripled! Means you also will take three times as long to open/save games...

There are many kinds of different randomness:
Huts location (should be random IMO)
Huts content (should not be random IMO)
Specials pattern (good and evil, see below)
Oedo years (agreed for lazy programming here)
Map (we should have random and non random maps)
Available techs (think MOO to get the point - in civ, they probably should be non random)
Starting techs (why are they random? it is not really needed and there are strange stuff in it like the affinity of egyptians for masonry and the superiority of light blue civs...)

I am more concerned by the "key civ" stuff than with other non-random but funny stuff like oedo year. Key civ is a hassle to keep track of if you are interested in (check your position every turn, pray that no civ becomes extinct...). The same holds for starting techs: They are random but include strange factors which make it worthwhile to choose a color rather than another, and Chinese or Americans rather than Persians.

The patterns special is a point I want to discuss a bit. In most games, I'd like it to be random. In OCC, I don't. I couldn't play OCC (I always run random starts) if I had no clue where to build. The exploration phase would take longer and that would probably ruin the chances of winning. More importantly, hadn't we had a constant pattern, OCC might never have surfaced (or been as enjoyable).