As a developer of simulation software I can tell you that you have made one potentially fatal mistake in your sampling technique.

You have assumed that the history of the game has no impact on the choice of "random events". This need not be the case for several reasons including the two most obvious:

1) Firstly, and I base this on our software not Gal Civ, the randomness may well be based on a pseudo random sequence which is primed from an initial "seed value". This seed value sets the sequence of random numbers that will govern the choices made in the game. Note that this does not mean that every game started from the same first state will always be the same - each action taken by the user (and perhaps even how long they take to make a choice) will change how and when each random number gets utilized.

2) The choice of ethical event may be partly based on the characteristics of your chosen race, and/or your opponents, and could well be skewed in particular directions.

A better approach would be to play 100 completely new games thus ensuring a new random starting seed and ideally with different starting characteristics to avoid any built in skewing.

Further, you have ignored the possibility that this is deliberate - events may have a greater or lesser impact and therefor the developers may have chosen to make higher impact events less likely.

A graph of your results shows a passing resemblance to the tail of a standard statistical Bell graph - typically used to demonstrate population distributions. This could mean one of two things:

- it support my last theory that they have deliberately distributed the likelihood of the events according to some specific criteria, or alternatively

- the random number generator they are using is distributed on the Bell curve rather than being evenly distributed.

One final note - "randomness" is weird. Sometime you do get 10 heads in a row.

To Webreg.

I have to say that your post was an utter disappointment. It was a simple knee jerk reaction to my. You had an agenda and that was to "educate" me and had no thought to the merits of the post itself. Your comment illustrates this perfectly. I said clearly in my post that the sample size was small, I am well aware that random results can be perfectly random and still provide screwed results Which is why I said a sample size of 102 is small. Most people would not call 100 random events a small sample size. That the numbers where so highly skewed is a problem even if its the intent. Seeing thing happen over and over again does not make for an enjoyable game.

The biggest disappointment was you comment of

Playing 100 completely new games is so impractical that it is of no value. It took me hours just to gather this small sample size using a fast method of gathering the results. Starting 100 new games with 100 different starting stats would take over a year, to provide all the results of the random events, as real life would and does intrude upon leisure time.

Since I don’t know what is intended and what’s under the hood, I have to assume that if something in the game results in something entirely “unfun” that its not the intent or not the desired consequence on an intended feature. By your post I should have said nothing and spent a unrealistic amount of time to test things before posting. Yet if there is a problem they find out nothing if I followed your reasoning and if nothing is wrong then at least they know some people are getting rather boring repetitive results.

Gothfather,

I can appreciate that you spent a good deal of time to gather your data on these events, but Webreg has valid points. While starting a hundred completely random games with random civs each time would be very time consuming your main arguement against this is that you don't want to spend the time to do this this. I wouldn't either, but getting upset over it won't do any good. I think your distribution is interesting and there very likely are events that occur more frequently than other. In my games I rarely see the high-tech hijack and pretty typically have to relocate natives or build nets for the giant jellyfish things plaguing the beaches. This make me tend to agree with Webreg that the random distribution is skewed in one way or another based on the players stasts or play syle up to that point. Perhaps the devs could comment on this?

To all,

Perhaps a better way would be to have the game randomly seed habitable worlds with a randon ethical choice event when the map is generated. Thus, the seeded worlds would trigger their event whenever any race colonized it and if a race has already chosen an alignment then the event is simply not triggered. It seems that currently, there is no check for a random colonization event on a planet until you actually colonize it. Also, do you think the AI gets this samae ethical choice or are the players the only beneficiary to these choices? I would assume that if they got them as well, the choice would be based on the AIs inherent alignment, but I don't know.

Yeah right because that’s a reasonable request. Its utter nonsense to expect people to go through hundreds of games and while playing hundreds of games, record data on the random events and then "get back to you." Regardless for what is possibly the cause there is a basic consequence to the current situation that I believe is unintended because it reduces enjoyment considerably. If players are getting the same ethical events over and over again REGARDLESS to why its happening then things get tedious. It doesn’t matter if player A gets a different set of repetitious ethical events over and over again and Player B gets a completely different set. What matters is that it’s happening. It doesn’t matter what the cause is a bug or some unitended result in a feature that is working as designed. A more random spread is desirable to a less random spread. And if you recall the title of this thread it is about the "Poor spread of ethical random events." Its that poor spread that is at issue, not the possible causes for it.