Do you think that GOTM is too Easy? Or too Hard maybe?

Then vote here and make your voice heard!

I think Regent - Emporer games should make up the majority, but having the occasional Deity or Warlord/Chieftain game would be fun too. It would be great to have different types of games specified once in a while as well. Have an OCC game, or even some modified rules scenarios.

I think it is very hard to say if it should be a regent or emperor. What also count much is how the land were you start looks like....
But i think GOTM3 is a bit too easy. The GOTM should be a bit harder to play, especialy in the next GOTM´s. People begin to find good strategies and most people can beat the computer on higher level than 1 month ago.
I think next game should be emperor

For my opinion it should be emperor.

We are civfanatics. The strong players will have a fun game anyhow, but the weaker players can see, how to play a good game. You can learn from it.

So the games should be hard.

( I also think, that "milking the cow" will stop in higher levels).;)

I saw the result and I think we should go for a kind of rotation. Regent, emperor and monark.
If we go higher or lower, it'll be to easy or to hard for someone and we could lose players.
But the final decision is on Matrix that do an excellent job with the GOTM.:goodjob:

Regent is definitly too easy (at least for those who were civII fanatics). I have finished only one game (GOTM I after deadline) and started 2 other (GOTM II after deadline and GOTM III now) and was only challenged by AI while playing monarch AND discovering CivIII at the same time.

Since I don't have too much time to play except GOTM, I'ld like to have the next one Monarch and the following one Emperor (and maybe; the following Deity ??? not sure about that without try emperor first).

I guest that at some point the majority of us will want to try a deity GOTM to see how good/bad we are. :cry:

I died this GOTM. :(

I'm not sure about deity... it seems like the computer is cheating on that level... They are really fast.

But you could have an Elite GOTM at Deity level, Should be fun!

The computer is cheating on every level except regent, Grey Fox. :) All above is in advantage of the AI, but in warlord & chieftain the cheating is in the advantage of the player.

There needs to be a few games thrown in at the higher levels (emperor/deity). Monarch/Regent does not provide enough of a challenge to some of the people participating, and it may force some people who are hesitant about playing at a higher level to give it a try.

I think there should be two GOTM. One rotating the three easiest levels and one rotating the three hardest.

I voted for Regent, but that's only because I'm new to the series. I lost in GOTM3, so I need more practice. However, these games should get harder each month. Don't we play for the challenge?

I still suck in Civ3, :cry: but I think it's about time for us to play an Emperor level game next month! It's no big deal even if you got killed by the AI. We learn from defeats. :love:

Of all 12 GOTM games for Civ2, I think only 2 of them were on Deity level and we only had one chieftain game. It's probabaly going to be the same for the Civ3 GOTM: most of the games will be between Regent and Emperor.

I like to respond to "Some other guy" thread in a .... ummm .. different way. The Patched 1.16f Kinda threw me off abit. A lot of good fixes But a lot of stuff was new again. No longer could I disband units and quickly switch over to a wonder. No more forest harvesting. I had to quickly adapt. (LIKE MY CRY about HABOURS Not connecting Thanks again Duchess) Maybe should have had a practice game with the new patch before tackeling GOTM. What I hated was that For first time I experianced LOTS of crashes 10 total. the 1.07f was more stable did anyone else find this the case ?

In defence it good since everyone has a level playing field (bar those who used the no palace bug Did any off you reload ? come on now NO REALOAD REALLY ???) :p

Anyway with Diety games make it easier for us. By editing the map for a slight player advantage. It would be no fun if I ENDED up DEAD after 100 turns. I would like to see more Monarch games. and a Few Emperor games prob 3:1 ratio somthing like that.

Well I personally think that the next GOTM should be at MONARCH and the one after that should be at EMPEROR... then it should rotate between those...

I think that regent is to easy, on this game it was a bad start (not as bad as APOLYTON's 4th Tournament...) but if you played to non-agressive in the start and left the japanese alone, then you would have an hard time later... If you wanna know what I mean read the spoiler thread

Well, the problem with the higher level, is that it will refrain people like me to participate cuz we got our butt kicked too often ... I tried it, but I wasn't just able to pass the BC ... I think that maybe making two GOTM per month could be nice... one easy and the other harder .... like warlord and emperor for example ... Maybe Matrix could get someone to help him if we did something like that ;)

I, for one could help Matrix if he decided to put up a Second GOTM... It could be a good Idea with two GOTM's, one rotating Warlord and Regent, and one rotating Monarch and Emperor.

Good...

That way, I think even more people would be interested in the GOTM

No no no, the GOTM stays the GOTM. The fact that some people have difficulties with difficulties is not a good reason to split up the Game of the Month. It'll totally spoil the power of the concept.

Sorry, guys...

You might have too few players to make a split? If you had about 500-1000 players it might be a good idea, to split the GOTM into 2 diffrent GOTM's.

Monarchy and Regent are so easy I have lost interest. If GOTM were to be mostly emporer which is still easy with an occasional deity I might decide to keep playing.

The thing is that if people read how people do things on here and apply what they can learn they should be able to crush monarch and lower games at will. The current GOTM is a great example of how even with a terrible starting place and being far far far away from the nearest horses it was just a roll over the enemy game. I don't feel like taking the time to build up my score, but I've conquered all but maybe 6 opposing cities at around 1000ad.

Anyway, I think in time a lot of things will have to be worked out. I would prefer a switch to harder games and results being by year of victory with score as a secondary factor to break ties. Or anything else to remove the milking of a game gets you a higher score/rank.

Eliezar

I had conquered ALL the civs by the year 1000 AD, and I milk the game only because that's the way you get a High score...

And even if everyone milked the game, their is only going to be the fastest conquerers and the best players with the High scores anyway...

It almost sounds like you've grown tired of the game. :( Next GOTM will be emperor. And probably after that we'll have an easy GOTM. But I'm having difficulties with Monarch! Not everyone is as good as you are...

I'll sure participate at next GOTM even if it is on Emperor, but look who will be last :cry:

I don't really care to lose a game, it's part of the game... but to get my a$$ totally wiped before AD ... that is not so cool .... even if it is just a game... And I want to play GOTM cuz it help me to learn how to play harder level ... but I would need to start learning at warlord right now :D

Anyway, do it as you like, I'll get on board at the next one

I play mostly Deity games personally, though they tend to be rather boring games. I usually don't play them out past the BC's, because the game is either won or lost by then it seems. The lower difficulty levels allow for more deviation from "the one and only way to win" that seems common on Deity. In the GOTM the competition/comparison between players is what makes it fun, not the difficulty level.

I could'nt agree more with you Aeson, but the difficulty does one thing that's bad.

When set too high, the less experienced Civ players are having a hard time coping and often dies early and might think it was a boring or just agrevating (:confused: right word?) game...

Or when the difficulty is set to low, the more experienced players might think that the game is to easy and not enough challange.


I personally in my first GOTM, GOTM2, I had never played a Monarch game before. I had just started to manage Regent, actually... So the game was a good and fun learning experience for me. Now I play Monarch games often, and more often I play emperor games nowadays... I have even played a Deity game once... (well, my settings were too win... I played Iroquai, against Americans on a small Islands map with culturaly linked starting positions... Just wanted to see what score I could get...)

Deity, it is so easy even then.

Yeah Diety is sooooo easy, i give the AI a 2000 year head start before planting my settler just to give them a chance :rolleyes:



bored and waiting for the next GOTM, sometimes i hate the timezone here in NZ :sheep:

I personally like the idea of two GOTM. I just tried a Regent game, and by 500BC I gave up because I had already lost. I was behind on tech, cities, etc. and I had just watched the Japanese (whom I was at war with) build a road to their iron deposit. This is probably because I didn't play Civ2...

But a Beginner GOTM would keep my spirits up while I was getting stomped on a more advanced one (I'd probably play both, as the 'advanced' game wouldn't take that long...)

i think there should be two GOTMs each month:
1) chieftain, warlord, or regent
2) monarch, emperor, or deity

because i am not a "civfanatic" (maybe just a civlover) and i find regent challenging enough (shoot me). So if there were two games each month, then the not-so-advanced players could have at least a chance. And then the verts could try and go for the hard ones.

(or, at least do the rotation thing. Cause i could n't play emperor on my life)

i quite like the mix of difficulty levels atm, though i'm sure as the year goes on and the regular players get better, the difficulty level will go up.

one thing though - i know its a small forum and all, but should this thread not be a sticky one?

-ChumChum
:cool:

It might be a good Idea if this thread was a sticky one. Might ask one of the Moderators, I'll do that now in fact...

I think we should have all levels. But not 1 Chieftain and then 1 elit, then 1 regent and so on, but rather a bell curve distribution. Monarch and Regent should be the most common game, Emperor and Warlord slightly rarer, and Deity and Chieftain the exception.

How about 1: 2:3:3:2:1????

Or rather 2:3:4:4:3:2??? Yeah i guess that`s what i want!

Exsanguination has a good point: two GOTM's has my vote!

ERIKK :D

I completely agree with Exsanguination. :goodjob:

I like the idea of GotM, it's a great initiative but it's limited to a small crowd due to the high difficulty level. I can understand that experienced players don't even bother to play games on Regent difficulty or lower, but for not-so-skilled players (like me), games on Monarch, Emperor or Deity difficulty are ones I would not even dream of making past the ancient ages. Arguments that say novice players will *eventually* (being a few centuries ?) catch up by looking at the GotM savegames of experienced players or read their comments about the GotM are not helping us novice players out much... Sure, we read some strats and tactics we try to copy and imitate to the best of our ability, but don't expect us to go from Chieftain to Emperor so easily (if we ever get that good at all !?).
The GotM provides us with an excellent way of comparing your progress and skills with other players, but since there's no games for the novice crowd, we lag behind and the distance between the good and novice players increases with each GotM.

Splitting up GotM in 2 or 3 categories would be an ideal solution for this. A much broader audience would be reached, more civ-fans would play GotM since everyone can pick a game at his/her skill to compete versus equally skilled players !

Exsanguination's solution would be perfect :D

Originally posted by Khellendros
I completely agree with Exsanguination. :goodjob:


Exsanguination's solution would be perfect :D

That was MY idea dammit !! Go read the first Tread !! :lol: :lol: :lol:

(Grey Fox, Thunderfall made this a steaky thead. :blush: )

Splitting the GOTM into two divisions: the harder and the easier difficulties would mean the best player will always play the difficult GOTM and the worse players (like me) will play the easy one. That way the worse players can't compare their game with the best players and also can't see as good as they can now what the best way would've been to play the game, hence they can't learn.

And again: the two GOTM's will have a less importance. It stays a very bad idea. :(

Oh, by the way, I think the difficulty will differ according to this poll more or less. ;) Sporadically a chieftain/warlord game or a deity, but mostly monarch and then regent or emperor.

Then I have succeded. Thanks everyone that have voted on this poll.

It seems like there is almost as many votes as submitted games, or even more. Maybe everyone doesn't submit their games?

Originally posted by Matrix
(Grey Fox, Thunderfall made this a steaky thead. :blush: )

Splitting the GOTM into two divisions: the harder and the easier difficulties would mean the best player will always play the difficult GOTM and the worse players (like me) will play the easy one. That way the worse players can't compare their game with the best players and also can't see as good as they can now what the best way would've been to play the game, hence they can't learn.

And again: the two GOTM's will have a less importance. It stays a very bad idea. :(

Yes, it was my idea, but to think about it, it is not a really good idea... but it is not BAD!! :lol:

It is true that if we split the game, it would'nt be challenging for the worse player (like me too!!) to try and persevere to win and maybe get to the top someday! The goal is to compare with the other player... if you finish last, well, it is because you are not a good player. Just too bad ! ;)

As we can see, most of the GOTM should be regent or monarch.

We can afford only one GOTM per month because most of the players are fanatics like me and will want to play both GOTM.

Plus, Two GOTM would bring more works for Matrix.

The formula we use now is find to me (even is GOTM higher than regent are a big challenge to me, I'll learn.):)

Doesn't the game alter score based on your level? I can't remember right now, but I thought it did in Civ1...

As for the score 'problem'... Just don't compare across boundries. Why would a newbie want to see how bad he sucks in relation to Mr Expert? And why would Mr Expert care if he outscores a beginner?

It's like the major and minor leagues (if you'll pardon the sports referance. :( ). If you're the champ in the minors, that doesn't mean you're the US champ...

I don't think that splitting the competition is a bad idea at all. Most players who are still learning the game probably understand that they aren't going to score as well as more experienced players. They still should have the opportunity to play the GOTM and not be slaughtered when it is on a higher difficulty level than they are ready for.

By using Gramphos' Civ3CopyTool, any map can be quickly saved in multiple difficulty levels. This could allow for the players to download the difficulty they want while still playing on the same map. The highest scores would still come from the highest difficulty levels. The exception being Deity as it just adds too much difficulty in comparison to the 4:6 or 5:6 score ratio of Monarch and Emporer in many cases. There isn't a need for a Deity and an Emperor option though, just one or the other.

The GOTM's could alternate from month to month from a Chieftain/Regent/Emperor game to a Warlord/Monarch/Deity game. Each month would have a "advanced", "standard", and "begginer" map version. Deity games might not always have the highest scores, but would be the ones that would qualify for the awards. If there weren't any submissions for the highest difficulty level that qualify for an award, then the next highest difficulty game that qualified would receive the award.

have to say i disagree with multiple difficulty levels for a number of reasons.

firstly and cheifly i think it defys one of the main points of a GOTM which is a level comparison of players playing abilitys. hence the one map / one difficulty level. splitting the group (even in two), comprimises this aim quite a lot i think.

secondly, from a scoring point of view how are you going to make sure people play on the hardest difficulty level. you would find players choosing a level less than they were capable of to jack up their points score, and yes i know there is a level modifier but that can be overcome... (or am i being too cynical here?)

thirdly, i think the novices / moderate players who sometimes feel they are out of their depth will not improve as much. one of the things i have learned is that it is good to try things that are a bit harder than you can manage. you get better. i think that two or even three settings will encourage people to go for lower settings when in fact they should be pushing their own abilities to get better at the game.

i'm not afraid of change but i think the current GOTM rules are excellent. it seems strange that aeson advocates splitting the difficultly levels when (from his own words - and i entirely agree with this) "the competition/comparison between players is what makes it fun, not the difficulty level".

i'm not afraid of change but i think the current GOTM rules are excellent. it seems strange that aeson advocates splitting the difficultly levels when (from his own words - and i entirely agree with this) "the competition/comparison between players is what makes it fun, not the difficulty level".

I do feel that the competition/comparison is very important. Playing at a harder level than you are comfortable with is the best way to learn the game as well. The problem is when we have an Emperor/Deity game, some people just won't be able to get into the game before they lose. I wouldn't think that that would be very entertaining for most, even if it offers a bit of a learning opportunity. There have been about 100 submissions for each GOTM now right? That would leave plenty of people in each difficulty category for a fun competition. As people become more familiar with the game, they could work their way up to the higher difficulty ratings.

As far as scoring goes, the only problem would be Deity games. A player that can score 10k on a Monarch map should be able to score a couple thousand more than that on the same Emperor map by playing the same way. For the most part the scoring increases compare very well to the difficulty increases. The jump from Emperor to Deity is more like the jump from Regent to Emperor though, without the extra scoring punch. The "by date" victories would certainly be easier to get on lower difficulty levels in many cases, and thats why the awards would be limited to the highest difficulty level where a game qualified.

I'm fine with how the GOTM is run now, but if I was consistantly having problems making it out of the Ancient Era alive, it just wouldn't be enjoyable. If there are enough people having those problems currently, it would be a good idea to offer them a playable difficulty map. And it shouldn't have much of an impact on scores at all.

I think that when splitting the GOTM you sacrifice more than you gain. My guess is there are almost no people who are having trouble with monarch. Donsig and me perhaps. Though I have learned much lately and now will even probably win the current GOTM. :) But even if I wouldn't have been able to survive in this GOTM, then I'm most likely not the only one and I can still try/hope to be higher than the other losers. And when the difficulty level is low, than I'm sure you and the other top players can have fun as well. That's just a seek and destroy game. ;)

But I'll always want to compare me with the top players, believe it or not. Or at least I want to know what score the best players got. And I don't really mind when I don't play on my own difficulty level.

I also hope I'm representative for my leage. ;)

Originally posted by Matrix
Oh, by the way, I think the difficulty will differ according to this poll more or less. ;) Sporadically a chieftain/warlord game or a deity, but mostly monarch and then regent or emperor.

If you are going to use this poll for deciding the next GOTM, then you should reset it or start a new one each month. I'm sure many people change their minds as to what they want from month to month.

I voted for Monarch last month but after playing Emperor I would definitely like to play another Emperor or maybe even Diety. Although with the 1.17 patch maybe not.

Perhaps another poll on the world configuration. This was my first game in an Archipelago and I was a little disappointed in the AI's ineptness at sea invasion. Landing two warriors in the industial age on a large island with rail is not my idea of a well thought out attack.

I'd like to try Pangea next.

As for victory conditions, I like having them all enabled. You can pick the one you like and go for that. Disabling domination may make the game to long for some and it can be avoided with care.

Why don't we just stay at Monarch and up the difficulty of the starting location instead? Starting on mountains, desert, Tundra Island...:eek: Now, that would be something.

Something along the lines of Sirian's Rumble in the Jungle (http://sirian.warpcore.org/civ3/game8.html) would be interesting...

Originally posted by Matrix
No no no, the GOTM stays the GOTM. The fact that some people have difficulties with difficulties is not a good reason to split up the Game of the Month. It'll totally spoil the power of the concept.

Sorry, guys...
It would be fun some month to have the same save game
(map & starting position) editted for a handful of different levels:
(e.g diety, monarch, chief). There only be one ranking of scores.
Since the harder levels get score multipliers, it would be an interesting trade off to pick the
level that gets you the highest score without having it so hard
that you lose.

I would encourage variety in GOTM competitions.

I've been playing at Monarch, mostly. I just started my first ever Warlord level game last night - the April GOTM (Indians).

It seems to me that there is not much doubt about the outcome for experienced players. The AI is too handicapped, with a 20% disadvantage. The competitive interest is limited to comparative scores: can you stomp them better than I stomp them? At some level, I wonder what's the point of that?

With the two previous games, Americans and English (I didn't try the ones prior to those), losing or getting killed outright was a possible outcome for all but the most elite players. For me, this is more interesting.

It might be interesting to have a map where winning is in doubt at Warlord level. It would need a miserable starting position on a remote isolated island. Think Eskimos. I think it could be very satisfying to overcome this handicap.

Also, it might be fun to twist the tables and play a Deity game where the player had a starting position vastly superior to the AI.

Thanks again to Matrix and Thunderfall for the GOTM and the site. I really appreciate it.

I like to play in the regent-monarch region. I' m fine with the current rules of the GOTMs.
Maybe a bellcurve like Killer suggested, but mostly on regent and monarch and a few on emperor. Really little on warlord and almost none on the other two.

to all of you who say deity is too easy, bite me.They are too easy only if you play the conquerization way. The "mad rush method"works, on small maps, with plenty o land. Fine but i thought we were playing civilization, not command and conquer. Call it what you will but IMHO the mad rush is crap..... no different than exploiting lumberjacking, concentration camping (entertainer pop rush cities), or using scouts to block resources. Sorry i dont buy that you are the greatest civilization there is when you havent even reached the middle ages and the game is over. I gotta vote for either the 2 gotms one for the lower 3 one for the upper3 or just 1 at regent to emporer. I prefer the first 1, as it would give me 2 gotm every month, esp since apollyton cant seem to have a gotm anymore.


as a side note matrix one of these months id love ya to put out a map that will leave these command and conquer types hung out to dry. id lmfao as would many others im sure.

Hats off to CFC for providing GOTM! Great way to spice things up.

Voted Regent because that seems to be a level where strategy really comes into play but micro-managing isn't a must. Good players will recognize the best terrain, know when to war and when not to, and use advisors to their fullest. Regent level rewards this sort of play.

Hours of play is an important limitation for some, I guess. Me, I don't have TV so there ya go.

GOTM6 is making me realize that these low-difficulty games are just a chore to play. After really enjoying GOTM5 and getting interested in the whole GOTM thing, I thought this month's game was a real letdown.

I mean, where's the tension? Where is the fear and loathing? It seems from turn one that the game is basically a race agains the clock--or specifically, against other GOTM'ers who are themselves just racing against the clock. It's not like any of the AI civs are worth taking very seriously, but you don't feel good about youself for beating them, because they're just handicapped. (OK, on Regent they're technically not, but I count AI stupidity as a handicap).

This month I was all pumped up to do my fist "real" GOTM (no reloading, submit my score), but now I'm not sure if I'm even going to go through the tedium of finishing the game. I'd rather just make a nice random map on Diety and play that.

Since this game has players on so many levels, I think it would be best to keep rotating the level of difficulty from Warlord to Monarch. I find Monarch levels incredibly difficult and frustrating - frankly, I don't want to play them. I find Warlord games enjoyable even though they are less difficult. By rotating between all of the levels you are appeasing all of the game players from the experts to the newbies. I have been playing for about a month, and I really enjoy the game, but my approach is not to go war-mongering around the globe. I like to build a real civilization. I prefer my civilization to look like the historical Rome or the Spanish Empire than to look like a roaming band of Visigoths destroying other civilization just to win a game. Just my preference.

I agree with Spork. It is almost a chore playing warlord but i want to try to get close to a score comparable to some of the best guys so this may be my chance.

I can definately see Spork's point. However, I feel it is a weakness of CIV not the GOTM. When the game is too easy, it certainly becomes tedious.

My vote goes to Rotation of difficulty. I think GOTM5 has shown the map design can go far to make the game challenging. Lets see what else can be done besides making the AI weaker to make the GOTM more fun.

Warlord is a bit below my preferred difficulty as well Spork. My advice would be to play GOTM06 in an unconventional way. I went for peaceful domination, no wars at all. It was actually interesting, and kept the outcome in doubt.

Warlord games don't take too long to play either, unless you are going to milk it to 2050. I probably spent 12 hours total on my game.

I tend to agree with a lot of posts here (diplomat...) - and although I'm currently a struggling Regent player, I think that I will be able to fair decently on Monarch soon and on Emperor a little (or a fair) bit later.

Possibly Warlord is one step too low for most players, but the occasional Warlord GOTM will enable more players to join the GOTM challenges and measure themselves against other players (since there is no real measurement towards the computer on how "good" you really are).

Therefore, in my opinion, the majority of GOTM's should be on Regent and upwards even if it means I'll have to submit a loosing game once in a while - but it sharpens my tactics and provides a great learnng experience from time to time (and the opportunity to see what I should have done, when reading the descriptions from others in the forum)

//

:rolleyes: :yeah: ;)