I'm surprised you are writing a spoiler thread in PB games if you are that scared of cheaters :P
|
PB13 Signup thread
|
|
I trust everyone here has enough integrity not to cheat. But I don't think everyone has the same line for what "cheating" means.
I hate to bring up the "Spirit of RB" and I was only a lurker but some must remember how anal and absolute Sirian was about what constituted following the rules for reported games. That's the position that resonates with me. (July 11th, 2013, 21:43)Krill Wrote: Actually shortly after PB5 finished I went through the events, figuring all the truly game breaking events could be deleted and maybe that could be salvaged.According to This thread at CF, each event has a chance of being included (as a possibility) in a given game, and a separate chance of actually happening when it is present and its conditions are met. Thankfully, the ridiculous Tsunami event (Lose 5 pop plus buildings, or if city size <6, lose the entire city...) has a ZERO percent chance of each. That said, though I like the idea of random events in principle and have a more permissive view of the existing ones (I'd probably only change or delete about a quarter to a third of them, not 75% - but that's still a lot of changes...) a lot of them certainly seem very ill-thought-through.
July 19th, 2013, 02:27
(This post was last modified: July 19th, 2013, 02:31 by Lord Parkin.)
I don't particularly mind random events in general, but I think they would be a lot more palatable if the ratio of positive:negative outcomes was significantly increased. Not sure if it's just cognitive bias (haven't checked the lists in a long time), but it often seems that the negative events I encounter in a game outnumber and/or outweigh the positive ones. Outside of highly competitive play, it doesn't matter from a balance perspective if most of the events are net positive - just as long as they're happening in about equal proportions to everyone (see huts). Plus it's fun to get positive events and it royally sucks to get negative ones. So why didn't they focus on having more mildly good events?
July 19th, 2013, 02:46
(This post was last modified: July 19th, 2013, 02:46 by Lord Parkin.)
I imagine the conversation going like this:
BTS Dev 1: Bad news, guys. First user test results are in and for some reason people do not like the negative events. BTS Dev 2: Well that sucks. After all that work we put into making the tornadoes and hordes of barbarians realistically bad for you! BTS Dev 1: Yeah, stupid people and their selective memories. Of course, the bad events happen just as frequently to all the AIs. BTS Dev2: Sigh... BTS Dev1: Sigh... ..... BTS Dev 2: Oh, I know! BTS Dev 1: What? BTS Dev 2: We'll just TELL the players not to be mad about the negative events in one of those tips we display. BTS Dev 1: Brilliant! That will bring them around.  (July 19th, 2013, 02:27)Lord Parkin Wrote: Not sure if it's just cognitive bias (haven't checked the lists in a long time), but it often seems that the negative events I encounter in a game outnumber and/or outweigh the positive ones. It's leverage. A negative event for -1 hammer can screw up your precisely micromanaged planning, costing a turn on a settler or build and leading to losing a city site or wonder, hundreds of hammers of value. A positive event for +1 hammer will not see similar leverage, because you wouldn't have known to micromanage yourself into a situation where it could. So it's not just cognitive bias or loss aversion. A negative event often really does outweigh a positive one of the same magnitude. And impacts the player more than an AI because only humans make precise micromanagement that's vulnerable to leveraged upsetting. |
