Does anyone feel like event RNG can be a detriment?

[Valthejean]

So I understand that this is basically a staple of Paradox games, and I'm not going to be insane enough to suggest that this *must* be changed. I just wanted to see if anyone else felt that the RNG on events can be....really frustrating.

I don't mind RNG used for determining what events spawn, but I think it's really poor to have (in a strategy game) events essentially be a casino. So for example (mind this isn't my only issue, it's just what's been most recently on my mind,) the abandoned terraforming project that seems to always spawn on your first colonized world. I think this event demonstrates what I really dislike about the game. You are given two options, both are very resource intensive. If you *don't* do either options, you're stuck with a permanent negative modifier on your planet. If you *do* complete the project, there is a non-zero chance of it being an absolute disaster. This is completely unnecessary. The basic elements of a strategy game is that you invest resources for an advantage. Now sometimes these resources backfire in the sense that you utilized it poorly (like building an expensive unit that gets destroyed from bad strategy on your part.)

In this particular event, the player is essentially coerced into investing early game research into an event that will then kick them while they're down. You took the time to delay your research for this, and now it's not only not giving you a benefit, but actively harming you. I've started, and quit, four games in the last week because of this. First, I tried doing the project, and it tomb worlded my colony. The next time, I decided to scrap the project and got devastation, not the best but also not the worst. The next two times, I got the mutant rampage.

I don't mind getting a "this project failed and nothing happened, but at least we remove the negative modifier," but the extra kick in the shins feels completely unnecessary, and it essentially demonstrates what I feel is a very frustrating element to this game. At the very least, if a project requires you to invest resources into it, it should not be a casino for the chance of even more negative modifiers.

Does anyone else feel this way? I'm not against having random events, or even random results, but if you're investing resources into an event the absolute worst thing that should happen is "nothing happened."

[pete3great]

It didn't used to be this bad (except for maybe the Galatron), but with the move away from 4x strategy into making it a more Crusader King's style strategy-RPG, I suspect we're going to see this issue get much worse. Indeed, as you point out, we already are.

[Ryika]

Abandoned Terraforming Equipment is practically a troll event for new players. If you know the outcomes, there's only one option you should ever take, and that's the free terraforming tech.

Worth noting though that it cannot trigger on planets that match your main species primary habitability, so I don't know where the "seems to always spawn on your first colonized world" idea comes from.

But I agree it's an example of rng used in the worst way possible, but most rng in the game doesn't work like this. So I'd say specific examples like that, certainly bad, but most uses of rng are fine in my opinion.

[The Grand Mugwump]

*looks at the ruler leader who go two negative traits which are tanking the mineral and alloy economy in the early game* Yep.

The negative multiplier from unfinished terraformer is survivable if you have two guaranteed habitable worlds. Sometimes it's better not to roll the dice when you can't afford the worst outcome.

[Valthejean]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Abandoned Terraforming Equipment is practically a troll event for new players. If you know the outcomes, there's only one option you should ever take, and that's the free terraforming tech.

Worth noting though that it cannot trigger on planets that match your main species primary habitability, so I don't know where the "seems to always spawn on your first colonized world" idea comes from.

But I agree it's an example of rng used in the worst way possible, but most rng in the game doesn't work like this. So I'd say specific examples like that, certainly bad, but most uses of rng are fine in my opinion.

I didn't actually know that, haha. That might be why I'm running into it so often. My expansion tends to go long, with the intent of finding where all my neighbors are so I can block off as many systems as I can to them, which means I tend to find my habitable world spawns a bit later than usual.

Originally posted by The Grand Mugwump:

*looks at the ruler leader who go two negative traits which are tanking the mineral and alloy economy in the early game* Yep.

The negative multiplier from unfinished terraformer is survivable if you have two guaranteed habitable worlds. Sometimes it's better not to roll the dice when you can't afford the worst outcome.

Oof, yeah I had that happen to me as well. It was back when the new luminary leader origin came out, and my luminary got a negative that just absolutely shredded my consumer goods economy.

Originally posted by pete3great:

It didn't used to be this bad (except for maybe the Galatron), but with the move away from 4x strategy into making it a more Crusader King's style strategy-RPG, I suspect we're going to see this issue get much worse. Indeed, as you point out, we already are.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's felt this way. I still love the game, just events like this tend to irk me quite a bit.

[pipo.p]

Or you could look at the glass the other way :)

1) Failed projects (or too much delayed timed projects) are not there to frustrate the player, but to spice a game when you play for the tenth time. They are like handicaps or built-in difficulty stages in an otherwise forseen gameflow at a chosen, set difficulty level. It's up to you to see them as frustrating or enticing events. I know that challenges, unchosen ones, are not for everyone, but they make the game less unidimensional (they get more crippling the higher the difficulty level is, not per themselves, but because they come on top of an already increased challenge, hence they can be seen as another dimension of that level of difficulty, that add to preset empire modifiers).

2) Mind you, even researches on anomalies (before a special project is spawned for example) used to have a on-failure alternate outcome (another special project, less outcome, fdeath of scientist...). Currently it's only about special projects, and not all of them. So, it could be "worse"!

[The Grand Mugwump]

Originally posted by pipo.p:

2) Mind you, even researches on anomalies (before a special project is spawned for example) used to have a on-failure alternate outcome (another special project, less outcome, fdeath of scientist...). Currently it's only about special projects, and not all of them. So, it could be "worse"!

Oh yeah, I remember that vaguely. A science ship would be investigating an anomaly and then "nothing notable found" or "Your scientist asplode." Damn. Now I'm wondering about what I just missed.

[bri]

Considering all the RNG they've taken out of the games over the years (to their detriment IMO) it seems at least some of them agree with you. Frankly, I think removing all the RNG just makes the game even easier and all that is gained is less temptation to save scum.

[ScreamCon]

Nah rng is good better than the absence of it. The game would be stale unbuttered popcorn.
Its only a detriment to new players, more experienced players can make more out of less.

Also the kick in the shins, that is life, if you can't build enough energy to overcome the negatives they will consume you.

[Valthejean]

Originally posted by ScreamCon:

Nah rng is good better than the absence of it. The game would be stale unbuttered popcorn.
Its only a detriment to new players, more experienced players can make more out of less.

Also the kick in the shins, that is life, if you can't build enough energy to overcome the negatives they will consume you.

I mean, no amount of energy stockpiling is going to offset losing an entire planet's worth of pops because it turned into a tomb world.

And again, I'm fine with there being RNG in the game. But when you're putting in resources into an event and it *still* gives a negative consequence, you're essentially just playing a casino, not a strategy game. There's no counter play to "well the dice didn't agree."

[The Grand Mugwump]

Originally posted by Valthejean:

And again, I'm fine with there being RNG in the game. But when you're putting in resources into an event and it *still* gives a negative consequence, you're essentially just playing a casino, not a strategy game. There's no counter play to "well the dice didn't agree."

Don't go to the casino is the counterplay.

It seems fairly logical that re-activating a planet terraformer comes with risks. Maybe the terraformer was made by 8 legged spider people who eat dirt and hate oxygen. To just assume that it will fit your assumption of what a normal terraformer is is incredibly risky and shortsighted.

[ScreamCon]

Originally posted by Valthejean:

I mean, no amount of energy stockpiling is going to offset losing an entire planet's worth of pops because it turned into a tomb world.

And again, I'm fine with there being RNG in the game. But when you're putting in resources into an event and it *still* gives a negative consequence, you're essentially just playing a casino, not a strategy game. There's no counter play to "well the dice didn't agree."

The experienced player has more effecient strategies to obtaining energy, and will generally lose less as they know which events are dangerous and which isn't. Thus they can avoid putting energy into projects that will lose energy. So on the matter of no amount of energy stockpile is going to offset? Of course you can your empire stockpile size can be increased, rather its motivation that's the issue.

Your... coming off as princess-ism to me, just apply more grit !

[pete3great]

Originally posted by ScreamCon:

Your... coming off as princess-ism to me, just apply more grit !

When I say this forum is useless, this is exactly the behavior I mean.

[Razorblade]

At the end of the day, you should be able to work around a negative random outcome; your strategies should not rely on everything good well at all times, or even any of the time. To use a Stellaris metaphor: you should always be prepared to spawn next to a Determined Exterminator.

Stellaris has plenty of catchup mechanics; a little lost early game research is not going to kill you. So no, event RNG is perfectly fine in my book. If such RNG did somehow tank my game, then I'd only be frustrated with my own poor planning, not the game's design. I knew the rules going in, and I refused to play by them.

[Geoff]

Originally posted by Valthejean:

So I understand that this is basically a staple of Paradox games, and I'm not going to be insane enough to suggest that this *must* be changed. I just wanted to see if anyone else felt that the RNG on events can be....really frustrating.

I'll muck any game as a free society if I draw that "Hunt Down the Cultists" event. I just can't reconcile a witch hunt in the stars with a pluralist democracy. It's fine for an authoritarian ethos, but the only playthrough options are just... not consistent with the values I'd expect a "Star Trek" type society to have.

So yeah, there are a lot of events in the game that are really poorly designed. They're not tailored to your circumstances, they're generic, don't offer ethos-specific pathways, and trigger pretty repetitively. But, the randomness especially at the outset does go a long way toward diversifying the way your society can turn out. Up to a point, I enjoy being thrown a curve ball that I have to react to. There are definitely some that are designed to be no-win situations, and I'm not personally opposed to that, if it's fairly thoughtful. Many of them definitely don't enhance replayability and I've seen some that were just outright depressing.

[ScreamCon]

Originally posted by pete3great:

When I say this forum is useless, this is exactly the behavior I mean.

Nah I'm simply providing an alternative truth, if they don't like it than that be