Terraformers were ok in SMAC, but in other civs... fuck worker units. In Civilization: Call to Power, they introduced PW in the place of Workers. Instead of getting units to build farms, roads, mines, etc, you allotted a percentage of your empire production (the stuff you use to build units) towards Public Works points. When you had enough points, you instantly put down the improvement on the tile.
I liked it, because you couldn't put tile improvements down outside of the city area of influence *unless* you connected it to another improvement. You couldn't put a fort down in the middle of nowhere without building a road to it for example.
If you had an exceptional production generation working, you could sometimes put down a settler for a city, and then next turn you could spend the required PW and place all the tile improvements for it. Then go on to work on something else.
I don't think it was balanced properly, and this was back in the days of city sprawl to win, but you'd end up with suburbia looking like this:
There was some ways the game ate up PW though. there were like 4 or 5 types of farms and mines with better outputs, that cost like 50, 100, 500, 5000 PW, and you had to build over the previous improvement.
There was a pollution mechanic in effect as well that ate up your PW too. Pollution would leave a barren patch of earth that couldn't be worked on until you spent gobs of PW to turn it back into grassland or plains.
It was very possible to scar the world and turn it into a nuclear wasteland with shear pollution if you weren't careful. SeaLabs and Orbital Facilities were protection in case someone was stupid to kill the planet.
Terraformers were your most devastating weapons in Alpha Centauri.
You could literally erect mountains to starve your enemies out, or sink their nations beneath the waves.
Or cut yourself off from aggressors on the same land mass.
Or you could completely fuck up a naval states ability to project power.
AI in SMAC was really bad at terraforming, it was the key weakness of the AI, not counting diplomacy exploits and the like. That said, the computer opponents get enough advantages on higher difficulty levels that it didn't really matter, and on the hardest difficulty level the player actually had to exploit advanced terraforming very adroitly or the AI would steamroll you.
Terraformers were ok in SMAC, but in other civs... fuck worker units. In Civilization: Call to Power, they introduced PW in the place of Workers. Instead of getting units to build farms, roads, mines, etc, you allotted a percentage of your empire production (the stuff you use to build units) towards Public Works points. When you had enough points, you instantly put down the improvement on the tile.
I liked it, because you couldn't put tile improvements down outside of the city area of influence *unless* you connected it to another improvement. You couldn't put a fort down in the middle of nowhere without building a road to it for example.
If you had an exceptional production generation working, you could sometimes put down a settler for a city, and then next turn you could spend the required PW and place all the tile improvements for it. Then go on to work on something else.
I don't think it was balanced properly, and this was back in the days of city sprawl to win, but you'd end up with suburbia looking like this:
There was some ways the game ate up PW though. there were like 4 or 5 types of farms and mines with better outputs, that cost like 50, 100, 500, 5000 PW, and you had to build over the previous improvement.
There was a pollution mechanic in effect as well that ate up your PW too. Pollution would leave a barren patch of earth that couldn't be worked on until you spent gobs of PW to turn it back into grassland or plains.
It was very possible to scar the world and turn it into a nuclear wasteland with shear pollution if you weren't careful. SeaLabs and Orbital Facilities were protection in case someone was stupid to kill the planet.
Terraformers were your most devastating weapons in Alpha Centauri.
You could literally erect mountains to starve your enemies out, or sink their nations beneath the waves.
Or cut yourself off from aggressors on the same land mass.
Or you could completely fuck up a naval states ability to project power.
I never understood why people thought the unit builder in SMAC was bad.
I mean, yea, you can end up with bonkers different iterations of units, but I liked being able to build my army as I see fit. (Plus, you don't *have* to accept the designs that are offered)
The way combat worked was that attack always fought defense.
So I could have super efficient garrison units that were infantry with the best armor in the game. and then equip them with Psi defense and Non-lethal techniques for city happiness boosts.
Then I could build my main line troop with the best defense and attack. These guys were used to draw the line of the conflict.
I had quick attack rovers (eventually lev-tanks) to exploit openings or harrass the flank.
Later in the campaign I would have transport rovers/choppers to carry my troops for lightning warfare while my needlejets did the actual fighting.
I'd even make Clean/Orbital Drop troops for the ultimate in guerilla warfare in my enemies' backyard while I fought the main fight.
I could develop a proper navy with carrier capabilities and role warfare. Jets would attack and if someone brought their jets to the party, I had boats with AAA capabilities to keep them away from my carriers.
Or my friend, who liked to build extravagant expensive units like Levitating Death Orbs (grav tanks with Singularity Cannons and probability Sheaths)
I liked that I could build anything I wanted or needed, the only prohibitive factor was cost, and you paid out the ass to have the very best stuff on any one unit.
I never understood why people thought the unit builder in SMAC was bad.
I mean, yea, you can end up with bonkers different iterations of units, but I liked being able to build my army as I see fit. (Plus, you don't *have* to accept the designs that are offered)
The way combat worked was that attack always fought defense.
So I could have super efficient garrison units that were infantry with the best armor in the game. and then equip them with Psi defense and Non-lethal techniques for city happiness boosts.
Then I could build my main line troop with the best defense and attack. These guys were used to draw the line of the conflict.
I had quick attack rovers (eventually lev-tanks) to exploit openings or harrass the flank.
Later in the campaign I would have transport rovers/choppers to carry my troops for lightning warfare while my needlejets did the actual fighting.
I'd even make Clean/Orbital Drop troops for the ultimate in guerilla warfare in my enemies' backyard while I fought the main fight.
I could develop a proper navy with carrier capabilities and role warfare. Jets would attack and if someone brought their jets to the party, I had boats with AAA capabilities to keep them away from my carriers.
Or my friend, who liked to build extravagant expensive units like Levitating Death Orbs (grav tanks with Singularity Cannons and probability Sheaths)
I liked that I could build anything I wanted or needed, the only prohibitive factor was cost, and you paid out the ass to have the very best stuff on any one unit.
I liked the idea. I was frustrated as hell always going in and revamping them and upgrading them and bleurrgh.
It's like how, following Master of Orion 2, all space 4Xes have to have customizable ships, and following Galactic Civilizations (?), they all have this missiles vs beams vs mass drivers / flak vs shields vs armor nonsense. The idea is cool, but having 8 or 9 versions of the same ship out there just drove me nuts.
If anything, I'd have preferred an RTS-style army/navy model, where you can assemble your units into a fighting force that has certain strengths or weaknesses depending on their composition. Just like... standardize that there are 10 "levels" of "tanks", and then if you have a lot of tanks in your army, it's more mobile and better against whatever, as opposed to fewer, then it's less mobile and worse against whatever. (I'm actually not sure I'd like that with armies in a land-based 4X, since it might take away from the tactical elements of terrain and complicate things with the return of doomstacks, but I'd think of it rather highly for the space-based 4Xes, at least.)
It's like how, following Master of Orion 2, all space 4Xes have to have customizable ships
That was definitely in MoO 1, which set a lot of genre conventions, but I think there were 4x games before that that had it, too, especially on the Mac.
I never understood why people thought the unit builder in SMAC was bad.
I mean, yea, you can end up with bonkers different iterations of units, but I liked being able to build my army as I see fit. (Plus, you don't *have* to accept the designs that are offered)
I don't like tedious unit builders. In GalCiv2, it becomes a pain to keep my units up to date.
I like having less, more meaningful upgrades. Laser/Plasma/Deathbeam, not Laser 1/2/3/4/5/Plasma 1.....
I never understood why people thought the unit builder in SMAC was bad.
I mean, yea, you can end up with bonkers different iterations of units, but I liked being able to build my army as I see fit. (Plus, you don't *have* to accept the designs that are offered)
The way combat worked was that attack always fought defense.
So I could have super efficient garrison units that were infantry with the best armor in the game. and then equip them with Psi defense and Non-lethal techniques for city happiness boosts.
Then I could build my main line troop with the best defense and attack. These guys were used to draw the line of the conflict.
I had quick attack rovers (eventually lev-tanks) to exploit openings or harrass the flank.
Later in the campaign I would have transport rovers/choppers to carry my troops for lightning warfare while my needlejets did the actual fighting.
I'd even make Clean/Orbital Drop troops for the ultimate in guerilla warfare in my enemies' backyard while I fought the main fight.
I could develop a proper navy with carrier capabilities and role warfare. Jets would attack and if someone brought their jets to the party, I had boats with AAA capabilities to keep them away from my carriers.
Or my friend, who liked to build extravagant expensive units like Levitating Death Orbs (grav tanks with Singularity Cannons and probability Sheaths)
I liked that I could build anything I wanted or needed, the only prohibitive factor was cost, and you paid out the ass to have the very best stuff on any one unit.
I liked the idea. I was frustrated as hell always going in and revamping them and upgrading them and bleurrgh.
It's like how, following Master of Orion 2, all space 4Xes have to have customizable ships, and following Galactic Civilizations (?), they all have this missiles vs beams vs mass drivers / flak vs shields vs armor nonsense. The idea is cool, but having 8 or 9 versions of the same ship out there just drove me nuts.
If anything, I'd have preferred an RTS-style army/navy model, where you can assemble your units into a fighting force that has certain strengths or weaknesses depending on their composition. Just like... standardize that there are 10 "levels" of "tanks", and then if you have a lot of tanks in your army, it's more mobile and better against whatever, as opposed to fewer, then it's less mobile and worse against whatever. (I'm actually not sure I'd like that with armies in a land-based 4X, since it might take away from the tactical elements of terrain and complicate things with the return of doomstacks, but I'd think of it rather highly for the space-based 4Xes, at least.)
If you turn off auto-design new units then the process of managing your unit types becomes much less cluttered. You only design stuff you actually want.
I never understood why people thought the unit builder in SMAC was bad.
I mean, yea, you can end up with bonkers different iterations of units, but I liked being able to build my army as I see fit. (Plus, you don't *have* to accept the designs that are offered)
I don't like tedious unit builders. In GalCiv2, it becomes a pain to keep my units up to date.
I like having less, more meaningful upgrades. Laser/Plasma/Deathbeam, not Laser 1/2/3/4/5/Plasma 1.....
Really, the issue is one of scale. You can't have a unit production system with 50 ranks of power if the time window of the game is such that you jump 10 levels at a time. Similarly, having a ton of different ranks is meaningless if you are talking about fielding, at most, a few dozen units at a time. In the other hand, it's fine to have a lot of things to fiddle with and tweak so long as those distinctions are meaningful to the player in some way (including aesthetics). In the past with these games, lot of designers skipped this assessment in favor of the "more is better" model, which in today's day and age we recognize as clearly just not true. More is not always better, and is often demonstrably worse.
All these "Civilization finally leaves Earth" stories keep reminding me that Civ2: Test of Time existed. Man, the extra campaigns in that were awesome. I loved the SciFi one but the Fantasy one was pretty great too.
I wonder, were they ever ported to Civ4 or Civ5? Or anything really similar?
I loved the SciFi one but the Fantasy one was pretty great too.
I wonder, were they ever ported to Civ4 or Civ5? Or anything really similar?
CIV has the Fall from Heaven mod which is absolutely amazing in how completely, irrevocably broken it is - literally every single faction is OP and ridiculous - which actually makes it weirdly balanced and some of the most fun you'll have doing Fantasy 4X.
There's a CiV mod with the Forgotten Realm campaign setting, including a scenario that gives everyone their "historical" starting positions. Haven't played it much, but what I have played is great.
Then, of course, there's the dedicated fantasy 4Xes, like Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes (so good), Endless Legend (just came out; early access, is good anyway!), MOM (for olskool types) ...
I loved the SciFi one but the Fantasy one was pretty great too.
I wonder, were they ever ported to Civ4 or Civ5? Or anything really similar?
CIV has the Fall from Heaven mod which is absolutely amazing in how completely, irrevocably broken it is - literally every single faction is OP and ridiculous - which actually makes it weirdly balanced and some of the most fun you'll have doing Fantasy 4X.
There's a CiV mod with the Forgotten Realm campaign setting, including a scenario that gives everyone their "historical" starting positions. Haven't played it much, but what I have played is great.
Then, of course, there's the dedicated fantasy 4Xes, like Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes (so good), Eternal Legend (just came out; early access, is good anyway!), MOM (for olskool types) ...
FFH does have the issue that the AIs have no fucking idea what they're doing. It's very Master of Magic in that way.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So, when Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth was announced, and I saw the trailer the first time, then a second time, followed by maybe 10 or so viewings of it (I was that ecstatic), I phoned my friend who had informed me of the glorious announcement, and told me that the trailer made the game look not only like a game I would love to play, but a movie I would love to watch as well.
Skip forward a month and here we are. My friend and I go to the cinema to watch Godzilla, and before the film starts, they air this trailer for a movie coming this fall:
Worrying: They ask you what platform you want to play on. Only one option, PC, but... they're not going to consolitis this game to an early grave, are they?
the first field has all Civs back to 3 as well as Revolution. clicking on other titles also lists Mac under platform, so i wouldn't worry about Beyond Earth being dumbed down for consoles.
EDIT: more interesting is that Steam isn't listed as a retailer yet.
Worrying: They ask you what platform you want to play on. Only one option, PC, but... they're not going to consolitis this game to an early grave, are they?
the first field has all Civs back to 3 as well as Revolution. clicking on other titles also lists Mac under platform, so i wouldn't worry about Beyond Earth being dumbed down for consoles.
EDIT: more interesting is that Steam isn't listed as a retailer yet.
Following the preorder link to Amazon has the DRM listed as Steam.
I am going with the faction that keeps alien cyborgs OUT of our precious bodily fluids.
Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in, and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Harmony retaliation. Uh, my boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now. So let's get going, there's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all.
Worrying: They ask you what platform you want to play on. Only one option, PC, but... they're not going to consolitis this game to an early grave, are they?
If you go through the game selection box, you'll notice all the games have a platform selector. And besides CivRev (obviously), the options boil down to PC, Mac, and PC Download.
It's meaningless and you're looking way too deep into nothing.
Worrying: They ask you what platform you want to play on. Only one option, PC, but... they're not going to consolitis this game to an early grave, are they?
I've played both Civ3/5 on PC and Civ Rev on 360. Honestly, a lot of the dumbing down in Rev felt that it was more based around the speed of this game (it was made for shorted multi games). Civ is not really a series where hotkeys are important (I play enitre games with just the mouse), and a controller does not hold you back like in an rts due to the turn based nature.
I think you could make a full Civ game on console. To me, the question would be "is there a market"
Hey, any of you guys know a good place I can cryogenically freeze myself until this game releases? Looking for these 3 facets in order of importance: cheap, safe and reliable.
Hmm. This seems to confirm that it's a reskinned Civ rather than an honest attempt at making a SMAC spiritual successor.
There's a part of me that wishes they started over, too, but let's be honest - sometimes you don't need to revisit every single design decision you have made over the course of a game. It's possible that they sat down and asked themselves what they really want to do, and they determined that the Civ engine could handle all of those requirements.
Hmm. This seems to confirm that it's a reskinned Civ rather than an honest attempt at making a SMAC spiritual successor.
That's basically what SMAC was, too. Reskinned Civ 2, that is. It had a lot of distinct mechanics and fairly different visuals, but it still played very similarly to the game that was used as its base.
Hmm. This seems to confirm that it's a reskinned Civ rather than an honest attempt at making a SMAC spiritual successor.
That's basically what SMAC was, too. Reskinned Civ 2, that is. It had a lot of distinct mechanics and fairly different visuals, but it still played very similarly to the game that was used as its base.
The best Civ games have actually been reskinned Civ games. Or even not-entirely-reskinned Civ mods.
And some information on some of the faction leaders and the factions themselves. I love the diversity and that they're building up lore as an important thing. It bodes well for the game, I think.
+2
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
Okay, reading the setting info, I've decided exactly what I'm going with for the first run.
Worrying: They ask you what platform you want to play on. Only one option, PC, but... they're not going to consolitis this game to an early grave, are they?
I've played both Civ3/5 on PC and Civ Rev on 360. Honestly, a lot of the dumbing down in Rev felt that it was more based around the speed of this game (it was made for shorted multi games). Civ is not really a series where hotkeys are important (I play enitre games with just the mouse), and a controller does not hold you back like in an rts due to the turn based nature.
I think you could make a full Civ game on console. To me, the question would be "is there a market"
I'm hoping that they bring it to tablets. I don't know that the market would be more profitable than consoles, but I really want a full-fledged portable Civ.
Posts
Terraformers were your most devastating weapons in Alpha Centauri.
You could literally erect mountains to starve your enemies out, or sink their nations beneath the waves.
Or cut yourself off from aggressors on the same land mass.
Or you could completely fuck up a naval states ability to project power.
I drowned several enemies' cities once.
I felt like a vengeful God.
I mean, yea, you can end up with bonkers different iterations of units, but I liked being able to build my army as I see fit. (Plus, you don't *have* to accept the designs that are offered)
The way combat worked was that attack always fought defense.
So I could have super efficient garrison units that were infantry with the best armor in the game. and then equip them with Psi defense and Non-lethal techniques for city happiness boosts.
Then I could build my main line troop with the best defense and attack. These guys were used to draw the line of the conflict.
I had quick attack rovers (eventually lev-tanks) to exploit openings or harrass the flank.
Later in the campaign I would have transport rovers/choppers to carry my troops for lightning warfare while my needlejets did the actual fighting.
I'd even make Clean/Orbital Drop troops for the ultimate in guerilla warfare in my enemies' backyard while I fought the main fight.
I could develop a proper navy with carrier capabilities and role warfare. Jets would attack and if someone brought their jets to the party, I had boats with AAA capabilities to keep them away from my carriers.
Or my friend, who liked to build extravagant expensive units like Levitating Death Orbs (grav tanks with Singularity Cannons and probability Sheaths)
I liked that I could build anything I wanted or needed, the only prohibitive factor was cost, and you paid out the ass to have the very best stuff on any one unit.
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
Yes.
It is not terrible, but you will just end-up wishing you were playing SMAC.
I liked the idea. I was frustrated as hell always going in and revamping them and upgrading them and bleurrgh.
It's like how, following Master of Orion 2, all space 4Xes have to have customizable ships, and following Galactic Civilizations (?), they all have this missiles vs beams vs mass drivers / flak vs shields vs armor nonsense. The idea is cool, but having 8 or 9 versions of the same ship out there just drove me nuts.
If anything, I'd have preferred an RTS-style army/navy model, where you can assemble your units into a fighting force that has certain strengths or weaknesses depending on their composition. Just like... standardize that there are 10 "levels" of "tanks", and then if you have a lot of tanks in your army, it's more mobile and better against whatever, as opposed to fewer, then it's less mobile and worse against whatever. (I'm actually not sure I'd like that with armies in a land-based 4X, since it might take away from the tactical elements of terrain and complicate things with the return of doomstacks, but I'd think of it rather highly for the space-based 4Xes, at least.)
That was definitely in MoO 1, which set a lot of genre conventions, but I think there were 4x games before that that had it, too, especially on the Mac.
I don't like tedious unit builders. In GalCiv2, it becomes a pain to keep my units up to date.
I like having less, more meaningful upgrades. Laser/Plasma/Deathbeam, not Laser 1/2/3/4/5/Plasma 1.....
If you turn off auto-design new units then the process of managing your unit types becomes much less cluttered. You only design stuff you actually want.
I love and miss the SMAC unit design system.
Really, the issue is one of scale. You can't have a unit production system with 50 ranks of power if the time window of the game is such that you jump 10 levels at a time. Similarly, having a ton of different ranks is meaningless if you are talking about fielding, at most, a few dozen units at a time. In the other hand, it's fine to have a lot of things to fiddle with and tweak so long as those distinctions are meaningful to the player in some way (including aesthetics). In the past with these games, lot of designers skipped this assessment in favor of the "more is better" model, which in today's day and age we recognize as clearly just not true. More is not always better, and is often demonstrably worse.
I wonder, were they ever ported to Civ4 or Civ5? Or anything really similar?
Edit: New(ish) interview up on the official youtube channel:
CIV has the Fall from Heaven mod which is absolutely amazing in how completely, irrevocably broken it is - literally every single faction is OP and ridiculous - which actually makes it weirdly balanced and some of the most fun you'll have doing Fantasy 4X.
There's a CiV mod with the Forgotten Realm campaign setting, including a scenario that gives everyone their "historical" starting positions. Haven't played it much, but what I have played is great.
Then, of course, there's the dedicated fantasy 4Xes, like Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes (so good), Endless Legend (just came out; early access, is good anyway!), MOM (for olskool types) ...
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
FFH does have the issue that the AIs have no fucking idea what they're doing. It's very Master of Magic in that way.
Skip forward a month and here we are. My friend and I go to the cinema to watch Godzilla, and before the film starts, they air this trailer for a movie coming this fall:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zSWdZVtXT7E
I sat there staring dumbly as I said to my friend: "Was that Civilization: Beyond Earth that we just saw?"
PCWorld has a preview up:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2156065/hands-on-preview-civilization-beyond-earth-isnt-alpha-centauri-2-but-it-totally-is.html
Also, official website now has a preorder link:
http://www.civilization.com/us/buy/?game=1
Worrying: They ask you what platform you want to play on. Only one option, PC, but... they're not going to consolitis this game to an early grave, are they?
EDIT: more interesting is that Steam isn't listed as a retailer yet.
They might be planning for Mac / Linux support.
Don't panic.
(Yet)
Following the preorder link to Amazon has the DRM listed as Steam.
Okay, that seals it.
I am going with the faction that keeps alien cyborgs OUT of our precious bodily fluids.
Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in, and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Harmony retaliation. Uh, my boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now. So let's get going, there's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all.
Why I fear the ocean.
If you go through the game selection box, you'll notice all the games have a platform selector. And besides CivRev (obviously), the options boil down to PC, Mac, and PC Download.
It's meaningless and you're looking way too deep into nothing.
Sounds very promising.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
I've played both Civ3/5 on PC and Civ Rev on 360. Honestly, a lot of the dumbing down in Rev felt that it was more based around the speed of this game (it was made for shorted multi games). Civ is not really a series where hotkeys are important (I play enitre games with just the mouse), and a controller does not hold you back like in an rts due to the turn based nature.
I think you could make a full Civ game on console. To me, the question would be "is there a market"
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/3tedfv/sid-meier-s-civilization--beyond-earth-first-look-gameplay-interview
Thanks in advance.
Hmm. This seems to confirm that it's a reskinned Civ rather than an honest attempt at making a SMAC spiritual successor.
There's a part of me that wishes they started over, too, but let's be honest - sometimes you don't need to revisit every single design decision you have made over the course of a game. It's possible that they sat down and asked themselves what they really want to do, and they determined that the Civ engine could handle all of those requirements.
The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
The supremacy's helmets are definitely reminding me of something but I can't remember what.
That's basically what SMAC was, too. Reskinned Civ 2, that is. It had a lot of distinct mechanics and fairly different visuals, but it still played very similarly to the game that was used as its base.
A mock interview with one of the faction leaders, specifically ARC's.
http://www.gamereactor.eu/news/199534/Civilization:+Beyond+Earth+info+overload/
And some information on some of the faction leaders and the factions themselves. I love the diversity and that they're building up lore as an important thing. It bodes well for the game, I think.
The Quiz Broadcast. IN SPACE.
Blessed be the regulations.
Why I fear the ocean.
I'm hoping that they bring it to tablets. I don't know that the market would be more profitable than consoles, but I really want a full-fledged portable Civ.
Well, ok, tablets that aren't running Windows 8.
So then what's the Event?