I have had an impression that two SGOTMs after SGOTM3-Rome were too easy to play.
I placed a message in another thread, and I guess I followed my own and M-Bs suggestions to create this poll. I'd like to gather your opinions on how difficult you would like to see SGOTMs.
Personally, I’d like every SGOTM to be a very difficult game where victory is not a guarantee.

nice poll dman :wavey:

i voted SGOTMs difficulty level should be changed each time as it is done in regular GOTMs, COTMs.

just nice to have a change in pace every time, that's all. and "difficulty level" does not necessarily mean regent vs diety, it could mean difficult varient rules, like all-war or tactless or xCC, etc.

nice poll dman :wavey:

i voted SGOTMs difficulty level should be changed each time as it is done in regular GOTMs, COTMs.

just nice to have a change in pace every time, that's all. and "difficulty level" does not necessarily mean regent vs diety, it could mean difficult varient rules, like all-war or tactless or xCC, etc.

Thanks, G-Man... I totally agree on your definition of difficulty level, that is actually exactly what i meant, but didn't describe it as clear as you just did.

I voted varying difficulty level. Extreme difficulty will drive more players away than it attracts. Too easy, and the experienced players will get bored. Varying difficulty (map, variant and/or level) will allow new players to get into the pack on some of the games, and still provide the occasional challenge for the advanced players. We can also increase the effective difficulty of easier games by mixing up the player standards in the teams more, if we have sufficient 'trainee' level players.

The level of play + the map layout + variant = level of difficulty

I like the level of play to remain in the Regent-Monarch-Emperor

Having a medium game level with a tough map or difficult variant adds a lot of challenge to seek new ways of victory. I think the most fun and biggest variable is the variant. Tweaking the map to add or remove initial challenges and tailoring the variant to the conditions are what makes the game fun. I'm pretty sure most people here are playing the game for a win (while losing is a good teacher, most of us prefer to learn while winning), so setting up a game where 50% of the teams lose is a bit depressing for the players. I'd rather have a winnable game that requires tactics & strategy to win. Just plowing over (or getting plowed) by 50 cavalry is pretty boring game after game.

I would really exclude regent even with most diffucult variant rules from the list...
Regent AIs are so weak, I don't see any possible variant rules that would make regent succession game hard to play.

I understand teams compete against each other here, but i'd really love to also compete with AIs and fight for the win and that is how i enjoy the game rather than converting it to the professional sports of team competition.

There is a difference between SGOTM and regular GOTM. I understand a nessesity of having regent ("easy") games in GOTMs because beginning players need those. But in SGOTM every team has at least a player or two who can easily defeat diety AI. I don't see any point of playing a regent game as a Succession game other than pure competition between the teams.
Beginners would not learn as much as if they would playing more difficult games.

For regent level games, variants like one city conquest or an archers only conquest are needed.

Most games should be Monarch (harder map or variant) and Emperor (easier map or variant). Unlike television, we shouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator. And I agree with AlanH that too high a difficulty (diety) drives away quite a few players.

I would also hope that some of Cracker's unique units might be used again in some of the games. Using the Minoan Peltasts or Mongol Hordes would be new expierence for alot of the new players.

I picked none of the above. I like the idea of varying difficulties, but I think on average the games should be harder than the G/COTM (taking variants into account). Teams will always have at least a few experienced players to give tips, and the very nature of succession games seems to encourage a high level of play from participants in the first place. (How many monarch training games have gone on in the SG forum where a bunch of "can barely handle regent" players got together and won in a romp with the guidance of just one experienced player?)

Ideally I'd like a level of difficulty somewhere in between the Rome game and SGOTM4 (can't speak for the difficulty of SGOTM5 yet -- as may have been noticed, the Staff team hasn't progressed all that far ;) ). 50% losses is excessive, but variant-style succession games have traditionally been about pushing the envelope a bit, so to have no teams lose in any particular competition also seems not-quite-right. To state it another way: the G/COTM is almost purely about player-to-player competition, at least in the top half of the bracket, in almost every case. There's little to no drama around "will I win or will I lose". That's fine to me, but given the history and tradition of succession games in general, I think the SGOTM should aim for a slightly different dynamic, with more emphasis on challenging the game itself.

Renata

I voted that it is all right as it is, although as the general level of play is high I think higher difficulty games would also be OK. I doubt if any of the teams would struggle too much with a straight deity game as long as the start/variant wasn't too bad.

I didn't play the Rome game but as a lurker it seemed a pretty confusing and difficult variant, and it did seem to cause tetchiness in some teams. I suspect the problem was more the variant than the difficulty, but mad-bax still deserves credit for the brave idea.

I think encouraging more players should be the priority, and as far as I’m concerned, if that means playing warlord, so be it. If everyone wants to play sid, that's fine too.

I think M-B has done a very good job of play balance and setting difficulty based upon the scenario he has created. Just because this game is set to regent, doesn't mean it will play like one. In fact, I don't see how we can have a good opinion of how this one plays since we haven't completed it yet. I voted to keep it as it is and allow M-B the freedom to make the adjustments he feels are necessary to keep the game interesting.

IMHO a team plays at least 1 level stronger than its team members; i.e. 2 emperor players should bring a team to deity level.

Having the variant allows to choose 2 different difficulty levels already.

Thus IMHO there is no real need to to have a wide variety in difficulties; the increased difficulty comes from the variant.

There should not be a game perceived easier than emperor, because I suppose each team to have at least 2 monarch players.

Variants may well be on deity or deity+ level. There is no real thrill if there is not even the remote chance to loose .....

Having the variant allows to choose 2 different difficulty levels already.

Thus IMHO there is no real need to to have a wide variety in difficulties; the increased difficulty comes from the variant

I think m-b is proposing that the variant will be the only option in future games an teams will not have the option to play to standard rules, so this should always add an extra level of difficulty. I think this is sensible, as a single team opting for non-variant could automatically take the green laurels.

There are some other considerations that I need to make in setting difficulty levels. It was suggested for instance that games should last 8-10 weeks. Difficult games last longer, and the spread of finish dates is bigger, and that could mean fast teams waiting maybe months for a declared result.

Games like SGOTM3 in which half the teams lost tend to put people off. We lost a lot of people in that game, and I regret not making it an AWM instead. Good map though. So maintaining and growing the participation levels is important too.

Also I need to mix the types of game up between warmongering and building for example to allow everyones gifts to shine ;)

The next game will be monarch (probably) - though I am currently getting my ass kicked playing it at emperor. Emperor is probably winnable by some teams. The game will also probably take longer to play. It can be difficult to judge how difficult teams will find it. The current game SGOTM5 was a risk for me. If anyone had settled at the start it could have been a very difficult game for instance. In the end I added resources to the start continent, which was originally bereft of any such thing, and this probably reduced the difficulty below a suitable level for you lot.

Hopefully I will improve in mapmaking skills, and be able to tune the difficulty to suit you. That is why this thread is important, but just be aware that it is not just a question of difficulty, and that there are some practical considerations too.

It sounds like if I can win then it's too easy. :cry:

I don't agree with making SGOTM extreme difficult: most Teams stay with the same very-experienced members - what you'd do if the Team had some beginners that still learn basic things?
GOTM is being played from 1 person and not from a Team, and it's a lot easier to make your plans and strategy when no one else changes your plans.

Yes, the difficulty should varry, but not extreme things, because you actually don't know what the other players are capable of(unless, if you play with the same high-level players all the time!).

EDIT: Here's an idea to make every game challenging: be randomly selected for a SGOTM Team(meaning, you organise the players according to their level and assign, say, 1 Diety - 1/2 Emperor - 2 Monarch - 1/2 Regent/Warlord players).
I'm sure that a lot of players would disagree with the above idea, because some don't want anymore to play with completely "amateurs", so you get my point - SGOTM is still very challenging as it is, so anyone(from any level) can participate.

I think SGOTM is a good place to play a very different type of CIV game. For instance, look in the SG forum and you will see an extra ordinary amount of unorthodox games currently being played. If your'e just looking for a civ game to play, I think G/Cotm is what you should do. This is a good place for a competative twist.

KA: Actually I do try to balance the teams like this and actually had quite a complicated formula at one point based on GOTM ranking. Of course not everyone plays GOTM in which case, unless I have played an SG with them I have to take their word as to experience level. Many teams want to stay together and I don't feel that breaking up a team because they won a game is right. What I can do however is add an inexperienced player to a strong side, which benefits that player and helps balance teams. This too is not without issues as some teams (mentioning no names) that are populated by experienced players may be a little intolerant of a new member. This can mean the loss of that player to the SGOTM event, and that is sad. Another problem is that where a lot of teams stay together, then I have less scope in forming teams from the new players we get every month. If we get 5 new elite players then I can only form a team from them - or as I did this month grow some teams to 6 members. The reverse is true if the new players are not elite of course.

As time has passed I have come to the conclusion that it is more important to try to build teams of players that will "get on" together rather than fret too much about skill levels. I try to strike a balance between the two criteria, and have been spectacularly wrong on a couple of occaisions. :p

Some things are easy to say but difficult to do. :(

I think sgotm in itself should not be so difficult that it is difficult to win.

I think many players will stop playing their solo games when they see the loss coming, long before they actually lose.
Now in solo games this is not so much of a problem, but in team games, it will tear up teams when one player wants to quit while another still sees a chance for victory and yet another wants to play till the bitter end.
This still holds true if actually noone quits, but half of the players continue playing for the teams sake. They will not be having fun.
Therefore, the sgotm by itself should be easy enough so that victory is almost asured if the players are not incredibly stupid.

The variant of course may be so difficult that only about half of the variant participating teams will win the game. If this is to be done however, i think it should be stated explicitly so that players who fearlesly choose the variant knowing from former sgotm, it is hard to lose even the variant, are aware of the changed difficulty.

Varying difficulty per sgotm also is not so good imo. Gotms run over a long period, and people do not want to skip gotms because they are not the right difficulty level. Here, the Variant also should be the solution.


I cannot say too much about the difficulty level. Of course now with the sgotm4 winning team, i feel the difficulty is rather low, but if i think back of my sgotm3 team, well......

EditPS:
I think balancing between skill and getting along is very difficult. I think people can get along well best if their skill is about equal. This i both from the good and the bad players point of view i think. If i were to play with a group of people that are much better than me, i would feel like my own opinion is worthless and i better shut up etc. No fun.
If i play with a group of people much worse than i, i would not like it either. Not even so for the game being screwed up by them, but you can have situations where the lesser player does not respect the better players skill and disregards its advise which is anoying for the better player, or the better player being revered by the lesser player, which is nice for a few days, but gets anoying pretty quickly as well.

Therefore, i can only vote a bigger difference between variant and non variant, and most emphasis on players getting along vs players balanced by skill.

I'd like them to be difficult, because I think the synergies of the team lower the difficulty by one to two levels anyway. :)

That said, "Interesting" ranks above difficulty for me anyway, and variety helps maintain this - vary the real difficulty with variant objectives.

I voted to keep the difficulty the way it is, although changing the difficulty level as has been done in previous games seems fine too. I don't have a problem with a relatively easy game, as long as there is some interesting challenge, as in the current game. I think if its designed for 50% of teams to lose, then the winners will be more random.

As for team mix, I would be happy to play with any combination of players, although I prefer to play with the current team as its a lot easier for me, and a lot more fun. Joining team smackster is a challenge for anyone simply because of quantity of posts they have to read per day. I think our team is tolerant and welcomes new and inexperienced players, however we are not tolerant of players that wont talk and explain themselves :)

smackster

Do you think my comment was directed at your team Smackster? :hmm: Actually it was directed elsewhere and to a very destructive situation in an earlier game. We lost nearly two whole teams because of it. :(

Do you think my comment was directed at your team Smackster? :hmm: Actually it was directed elsewhere and to a very destructive situation in an earlier game. We lost nearly two whole teams because of it. :(
No, I didn't really think it was directed at us, although we are clearly not angels. I guess I don't really know what happened in those other games. We do however take this game quite seriously, and probably too much for many players.

As time has passed I have come to the conclusion that it is more important to try to build teams of players that will "get on" together rather than fret too much about skill levels. I try to strike a balance between the two criteria, and have been spectacularly wrong on a couple of occaisions. :p

Some things are easy to say but difficult to do. :(
On the other hand MB, I reckon you have got it right with the assortment that you have put together for Team Peanut each time. The new players that have joined have fitted in well. Getting expectations clear up front helps a lot, as does recognition that this is just a game that we do as a break when the real world gives us a bit of spare time.

Challenging (but winnable) games are best, and having a team allows the difficulty to be cranked up without anyone feeling out of their depth. I think that the best part of these games has been the variant objective. Keep 'em imaginative and difficult so that the strategy to achieve them is not too obvious and this competition will keep on being interesting to everyone.

Thanks MB for all the work you and the staff do to put this competition together.:goodjob:

I chose that the last 2 month's complexity was just right. In part, because I feel the smaller the empire the better. Large complex empires are hard enough to run as a single player; team play is really tough to manage a big empire. The 5CC SGOTM4 and current OBCC games felt/feel pretty comfortable.

I don't think the goal for SGOTM is to have a bunch of losing teams; you'll lose a lot of the non-diehard players, the type of players that SG's are aimed at in the first place. Better to provide unique games offering challenges, not nearly insurmountable walls. The competition is really between the teams, who can achieve the variant quickest. Making the game itself incredibly difficult would generally be a turn-off.

That having been said, I wouldn't mind a game where the variant was to survive to the middle Ages! Earliest wins. But only occasionally. The maturity level of the team has to be pretty high to fight through a losing cause.

I like the occasional really hard game.

In my case, I wouldn't be playing SGOTM if it wasn't for SGOTM3 - Rome.

I lurked my way in here and the variant caught my eye. If it had been during SGOTM4 or SGOTM5, I probably would have just lurked right on out. Of course, now that I'm here, I am definately hooked. :)

I think 1 out of every 4 games or so should be on the level of SGOTM-3. Casual players should be warned so they can ask to be on non-variant teams for these nasty nail biters.

I know of at least one player who didn't want to play the variant in SGOTM4, but was on a variant team (since they were all variant). Seems like we should avoid those kind of situations, since that player did not have a chance to play the game that they wanted to play.

I reckon we can put some closure on this poll....
Looks like majority of participants want to see each SGOTM to be different and i think we all should respect that.
I know M-B has already prepared maps and variants for then next 6-7 months in advance and I believe SGOTM will always be much fun to play.

Thanks again to everyone who contributes to this from M-B and staff of Civfanatics to all of us players, visitors and lurkers who wasting our business hours debating how we should play next 10 turns instead of actually doing our jobs.
:hatsoff:

I am really looking forward for the Conquests version of SGOTM.
And here is the another poll idea... How many players will want to participate in conquests version? :)

And here is the another poll idea... How many players will want to participate in conquests version? :)
I for one would have to buy Conquests to participate :)

It's on my holiday wish list, but we shall see.

At this stage when I'm sure that everyone has worked out that Peanuts have finshed their SGOTM05 i'd like to say that it's been a really intersting game because of everybody playing very much the same game. Having finished our one, I've been able to lurk in other teams threads and it's far more interesting to read other threads when everybody's going for the same victory condition.
Just having the same map and start and opposition can still lead to very different games depending on the chosen victory condition. And when games are different they are not that much fun to compare.
For example in this game there certainly were some issues that I'm sure all the teams had to deal with specifically because they had to win by conquest, that with 20K culture would not have mattered at all.
So for the future: Intersting, challenging and well defined :)

Thank you mad-bax :goodjob:

"There are some other considerations that I need to make in setting difficulty levels. It was suggested for instance that games should last 8-10 weeks. Difficult games last longer, and the spread of finish dates is bigger, and that could mean fast teams waiting maybe months for a declared result."
Length of the game is a problem. However it is nice to exersise at all military level, it was a pity that we did not use industrial age power yet.
What do you think about reduction of Tech Tree (Remove all optinal Techs for example?). Also I like play in smaller team, when 5 players just met, it take long time to know each other.
May be you can consider 3-4 players team? (Split stable teams by forse). Also I think viewing may be allowed. It will be more fun, though less competition. As a compensation we may not allowed to discuss what we saw at others threads as in SGOTM1.

I voted other. The current SGOTM is my third in the SGOTM series (well actually 2.5). I'm very pleased with the current difficulty level of the game. SGOTM3 was a bit harsh but I wouldn't shy away from playing another game of the same difficulty. So in short I'd say mb has done a great job of mixing it up in the games I've played in so keep up the good work.

Next: I've not played on the same team twice. I personaly like to play SG's to meet new people and see other peoples ideas and strategies. If it were soley up to me my sugestion would be to throw every one in a big hat every month and randomly pick players to make up the teams. That's just me though.

Lastly: The offer is still open to you MB that I will play test the next game and sit it out if you think it will help the cause.

I'm sort of in the same boat as Jeffelammar here, SGOTM3 was a real challenge, and I'd like som eof these nut-crackers now and then (with a clear warning that the variant will be very hard).

Although I have prepared maps for the next three games, I can scrap them or modify them, or modify the variants to adjust difficulty level. I think I am beginning to sway towards slightly more difficult games and allowing the game time to increase from 8-10 weeks to 10-12 weeks.

The standard of the teams and individuals playing SGOTM is generally very high, and I think that less experienced individuals can be accommodated within the teams and brought up to speed reasonably quickly.

So maybe a policy of pressing harder until you squeal would be best for now. :)

Go for it M-B!
Make us squeal!!!! :goodjob:

I also have considered Ivans comments about teams and how they are made up. This is a considerable headache for me. It was my intention that the teams would be "equalised" over time so that all teams had a chance to win. It was my expectation that the turnover of players would be great enough that I would be able to adjust the "power" of each team on a game by game basis. It is becoming apparent that there are two or three very strong teams who could conceivably monopolise the top awards for each game. It is difficult however to split up teams that want to stay together, and particularly with the vanilla players as there is a smaller pool to choose from. For the moment I don't intend pulling out the big stick to split up elite teams. I am hoping that the teams will change with the introduction of C3C and I will be able to manufacture something better then. If necessary I will consider options to water down teams that get too big for everyone elses boots, and may introduce a mechanism where a winning team must disperse for a while at least.

This thread would be as good a place as any to discuss how we can manage this. As I have said before it is not my intention to force anything on the players, I just want to make the competition as much fun for as many people as possible. My *opinion* is that it is more fun if you have a reasonable chance of winning (or losing ;) )

Hey, leave us together ! :eek:

I still have nightmares from my sgotm3 team (sorry if any of them read this) and am so happy with my new team, not even so because we win sgotm's, but because we are pretty equal players and noone in the team needs to feel better or worse than another.
No need to be ashamed for your mistakes (for the lesser player)
No need to worry about another's mistakes (for the better player)
No need to hold back your oppinions (for the lesser player)
No need to keep trying to explain lesser players every little and obvious thing (for the better player)

I know, it is good when lesser players learn from better players, and i have no problems explaining things now and then, but it really gets anoying when players now just about nothing, don't want to believe they are wrong or simply have a very low interest in the game and therefore are not really willing to learn.

All together, i just love to play with this team of dedicated and equal players. Its just much more fun. 1 newbie in the team would certainly be ok as long as its a dedicated player who is willing to learn. But if i had to play with an sgotm3 like team again, i would no longer play sgotm.

M-B,
I would like to keep core of Smackster's team together and don't really like idea of separating us.
I do understand your point 100% and I agree on much of what you've said. But I believe SGOTM will be less fun for me personally if i played for any other team but the one I was with since SGOTM3.

Well, I don't *want* to split teams up and will avoid it if I can. I know what it's like to play SG's in a team you get on well with.

FWIW I am not planning, or expecting to split up teams. Rather, I am hoping that C3C will give me the opportunity to level teams out a bit without the use of force. :)

We have had different winners for each game so far IIRC, so no worries.

It might be the good time to start running some C3C SGOTM in parallel? Or, mad-bax, you are going the Cracker's way? Certainly, Vanilla/PTW is more balanced but C3C is also a good fun to play.

And people are complicated. Much more than the game or the AI. :)

Regarding difficulty: The more difficult, the better. SGOTM3 was not so difficult, it was just an unpleasant start very easy to screw up by less experienced players. Especially if they don't want to listen to more experienced. And very confusing ruleset. And too large map. (??)

Hows about SID SCOTM?

But overall, IMO, mad-bax is doing a great job. At least this I can see by lurking regularly. :goodjob:

And people are complicated. Much more than the game or the AI. :)

I fully agree :lol:

Regarding difficulty: The more difficult, the better.

Hows about SID SCOTM?

That's what I'd do: if some Teams want absolutely crazy games, let's just introduce Always War SID SCOTM Series, but on a tiny pangea map and not an isolated island... ;) :D , and the winner is the Team who survives the most turns!

I still play SGOTM for the fun of it and for the wonderful maps/'scenarios" mad-bax makes for us(the players).
I certainly want to win a game with the Team I play each time, but that's NOT what it keeps me on playing SGOTM games regularly, as I also play for the fun of it, and to meet new players and have an idea of different strategies(than mine).

... Always War SID SCOTM Series, but on a tiny pangea map and not an isolated island ...

Well, AWS is not needed, it is enough to play Sid level on normal aggression on a "true" Pangea map with normal number of civilizations and without a good choke point to get killed. But AWS with archipelago map might be a very difficult game, essentially impossible to win. It is possible to try AWD for the beginning. :)

Akots: The next game will have a C3C version. It will be an identical map, with identical resource locations and civs, but will play with the standard C3C ruleset. It will be interesting to compare the different versions of the game.

I have not scheduled an AWS not just because of the difficulty, but because of the amount of luck required to get a result. If the AI decide they don't want you around in the first 50 turns, then you can say bye bye. There is nothing you can do to stop it.

AWD is possible, but we will have a tough AWE first to gauge the reaction. The AWE is scheduled for March/April SGTOTM7.

Nice to see you're still lurking. I hope I can get you interested enough to play again. I miss your ascerbic wit around here. ;)

... I miss your ascerbic wit around here. ...

You probably mean acerbic? It is not acerbic, it is scientific. It is very useful to prove wrong a hypothesis of your opponent during scientific disputes. :) I.Larkin knows.

Speling is not won of my strong points. :)

It is possible to try AWD for the beginning. :)
:eek: I haven't even tried AWC(Always War Chieftain :D :lol: ), so I was wondering if you could "show" me some "moves" :cool: (j/k)

AWD is possible, but we will have a tough AWE first to gauge the reaction. The AWE is scheduled for March/April SGTOTM7.

Hmmm, how about AWR first, or put in every Team an experienced AW player and go for AWE(splitting up some Teams if necessary)? I'm sure that the majority(of players) hasn't tried an AW game.

Anyway, I haven't any problem to try such a game for a change(AWE) - winning or losing, "Civving" is what it matters! Go for it mad-bax!
btw: considering the replies from SGOTM players, I'm not sure anymore about splitting Teams, although I supported it at first place.

It is very useful to prove wrong a hypothesis of your opponent during scientific disputes. :) I.Larkin knows.
I know, but don't think so. I always try to find consensus. Normally any hypothes have useful feature.
Back to SGTOM. I do not like variants (like AW)
as they squise game options. I'd like to use trade, Diplomacy, Alliances, MPP...
In all SGTOMs this side was very limited. May be Space Ship can help. But game may be very long. About dificulty level. I think it should be Monarch or Emperor. (I prefer Emperor) to avoid random factor. At regent we were too lucky at start of SGTOM1 and win much faster then in normal game. At Deity one may easy loose or fight bitterly as Roster C of Babilons. Also I think to run game faster viewing may be allowed.

I always think SG and GOTM have different goals.

GOTM is all about competition, and it fits very well with single player. SG on the other hand tries to make the game a team effort, with interesting variants and fun stuff. It's less pressure and more fun. Combining the two together makes a very interesting challenge to the organization.

My personal opinion is that it shouldn't focus on competition side, instead it should be on the collaboration side more, i.e., it's fundamentally still SG.

To do this I would encourage more choices in a SGOTM. The concept, map, civs are all the same, but it should provide more options and encourage players to choose how they want to win. They can choose their own variants (based on the information provided to them about how difficult this game probably is). For example, I recently sponsored an Epic game. Some players choose to play OCC instead of the proposed 2CC, and that was a very interesting and different game. They should also be able to choose the difficulty.

I would also suggest putting players on the similar level in one team, instead of mixing newbies and advanced players. I think it's more fun and comfortable to play with people that discuss and play on the same level. Of course, some players don't mind being a trainer and they can also choose to play a training game.

Yes this would throw away most of the competition stuff, but I think it might bring better experience.

So it all boils down to one question: is the competition more important or the collaboration more important?

BTW: one thing I always don't like about GOTMs is that it allows many tactics others perceive as exploits, such as palace jump, RoP rape and ship chaining. People always use it for the sake of competition - even if you don't like it, you have to use it as otherwise you'd be in disadvantage. SGs on the other hand tend to be more honorable. It's part of the reasons that I do not play SGOTM now.

SGOTM is intended as a fun competition, and I can't see how you can leave out or minimise the competitive element. Competition is what differentiates it from other SGs. The very fact that more than one team is playing from the same start means we are comparing games, and that makes it a competitive team event. Otherwise we wouldn't need the scores and dates and graphs and awards and spoilers.

The collaborative element is not in conflict with competition, and shouldn't be threatened by it. It ought to be heightened by the team's interest in performing well against other teams, just as in any team sport.

If a team aren't interested in the competitive aspect, and want to choose their own options for the game then they can play their own conventional SG. Or they can play the SGOTM maps for fun, and not bother about the competition or the rules. But if they aren't playing to the cmpetition rules they shouldn't submit saves to the scoring system, and they must avoid spoiling the game for the teams that are competing.

My 2¢ :)

SGOTM is intended as a fun competition, and I can't see how you can leave out or minimise the competitive element.

By the way I just said? :)

Otherwise we wouldn't need the scores and dates and graphs and awards and spoilers.

You got it.

The collaborative element is not in conflict with competition, and shouldn't be threatened by it.

Unfortunately it is. The biggest problem is team organization.
1. No matter how you do it, some teams are always stronger than others.
2. Most people enjoy playing with people on the similar level, and the competition is inherently against it. You are forced to play with people either weaker or stronger, sometimes significantly. You might be forced to play with different players every time too, which is also a disadvantage compared to teams that have played games together before.

I understand this is not likely to happen, and I am not saying the current way is bad, just some alternate thoughts.

So your issue is essentially that you can't choose your team?

So your issue is essentially that you can't choose your team?

It's not just MY issue, so do not direct this to me personally.

It's my thoughts as part of an open discussion and how I perceive it might cause/have caused issues to other people.

I certainly have my own issues too, as partly mentioned in my first post, but that's not the main point.

Sorry, I'm being obtuse and not understanding your points. If people want another SG then they don't need SGOTM, as all they need is available in the SG forum. Are you suggesting we change SGOTM into another SG, or just stop arranging SGOTMs?

Sorry, I'm being obtuse and not understanding your points. If people want another SG then they don't need SGOTM, as all they need is available in the SG forum. Are you suggesting we change SGOTM into another SG, or just stop arranging SGOTMs?

Well, I'll just say that these are my observations and whatever people read from it is up to them. Some people may find it helpful, and others might think it's totally nonsense. And I really don't care.

[offtopic] Wow.... and i thought this thread was dead :)
By the way when do we start another SGOTM??? It's almost an end of January and I was bored lately :mischief: