New Names - same idea: Game Classes for the Civ4 GOTM

Many of you who have played the Civ3 GOTMs will be aware that we offer the starting save file in 3 different classes (Conquest, Open and Predator). Well, they're now back in the Civ4 GOTM, albeit with different names - they're now Adventurer (new name for 'conquest'), Contender (new name for 'open') and Challenger (new name for 'predator').

For new players to the GOTMs, you may be somewhat confused - so what are these about?

In running the GOTMs, we try to have a varying degree of difficulty - to keep people interested in new challenges, to provide a change of pace, for learning purposes (you can try things on lower difficulties that you wouldn't on higher ones, or you can learn to push yourself on higher levels than you'd normally play).

Sometimes, new players can feel a bit overwhelmed attempting higher difficulty levels. To help them to overcome this, we offer the 'Adventurer' class. The object of this is that we change the starting save to provide the player with an initial advantage or bonus. This helps them get their game off to a better start - with a strong foundation, they can hopefully do better (or even play more confidently) than they otherwise would.

Now - the advantages given do not guarantee that the player will win - it is a one-off starting advantage, but if used well, it can be significant. To prevent the really good players from simply taking advantage of this, there are a couple of conditions: The player should never have finished in the top-half of the results in a GOTM, and we modify the score downwards by 15%.

The score modification is to ensure that new players who are very good do not take advantage of this class to propel themselves to the top of the leaderboard. We figure that players who consistently finish in the bottom half are playing for enjoyment, learning or just the challenge, so it doesn't affect them much. They are also ineligable for any 'fastest victory' awards.

The 'Contender' class is the 'standard' level - its the game most people play. It is the vanilla level - no advantages provided, and no extra challenges.

The 'Challenger' class is for those people who simply want to give themselves an added challenge. We make the game slightly harder for them by handicapping their start. There is no restrictions on who can enter this - but its purely for the extra challenge and bragging rights - we give no score bonus to people who play this version.


If you have any questions about these, the please ask them here. :)

I have a question before I start. Will it say what class you played on the ranking/results table? Or is this just for personal pride?

Actually, if so I have another. Feels rude to ask but it is what I am wondering and thus I imagine some others will too. In CivIII, was there a general attitude that if you don't play challenger class, it doesn't reaaaaaallllly count for much? Not really? Or was that a given feeling just amongst top contenders? Or something else or nothing.

Whatever really , I'd just appreciate an impression about this cos my first feeling on reading this was, aaaaaaaarrgh, I have to play with no techs! I've seen that attitude in other games I played i.e. the RTS SWGB, if you don't play on the fastest speed with the lowest resources, the game doesn't really count. i.e. adventurer is really NOOB class; contender is really HANDICAP BONUS or NOVICE class, and challenger is PROPER GAME class.

Not trying to stir up a problem or attitudes reflecting the above, just wondering how things worked out in CivIII and would appreciate a frank commentry on it.

Yes, it will show the class in the results - the score is colour coded adventurer, contender, challenger.

Regarding "have to play predator" - I was not aware of that feeling, and I sure hope it doesn't exist. I have seen some very good players winning the C/GOTMs playing open class - and with the quality of their play, I don't think people would dispute that they would not get there if they played open.

AU_Armageddon: It is IMO worth to mention, that there were situations when playing predator could actually improve your score or achieve faster victory then playing the open class. It would occur namely if the challenger class penalty consists in giving some bonus to competing AI.

I don't really like these classes. The adventurer is ok for those who want easier gotm, but the games should be comparable with each other. The real challenge is to be better than others in a comparable way.

(I hope my english is understandable :blush: :) )

I think the classes are a great idea, thank you for organising them! As a noble player I welcome the starting advantage that Adventurer will bring and feel I might actually have a chance of making a go of this monarch game now. :mischief:

I think these classes offer something for everyone and seem very balanced.

@GOTM Staff: On GOTM1 I finished in the top half and plan on playing Open in GOTM3. But if one of the future GOTM games is Emperor, Immortal, or Deity I do not feel up to playing Open Class. Does that one Noble game mean I can never play a Conquest level game, even on the upper levels? When there were six hundred submissions that really opens up the top half. I believe I was 210th.

If the number of submissions stays as high as it did I suggest maybe going with the top third. When/If the submissions drop back down to CivIII levels I can see going back to top half.

Just my two cents.

Thanks, answers my question. If people were actually winning GotM in open class then it's not at all the situation I was thinking of. This particular gaming community keeps proving somewhat more mature overall than I am used to.

That said, I will bring some immaturity here cos I'm gonna try but dun think I will be able to shake the taunting voices in my head if I don't play the hardest :borg:

@Methos

Adventurer class:
Conditions of Entry:
You must have never finished in the top half of the results for the other Civ4 GOTMs (published results, at least )
Your submission score will be reduced by 15% (this is not a class for people to try to get an artificial leg-up to the top of the leaderboard!

Note - we'll offer some leeway here. If you have never played or never won on (or above) monarch before, you may also play in this class.

I'd assume that same thought process will go for Emperor/Immortal/Deity.

Will we be using icons during spoilers to identify who is playing which class, like the way we use to for Civ 3? I think it is good to have some sort of identification to know who is playing which class when sharing experiences.

[QUOTE=AU_Armageddon]Thanks, answers my question. If people were actually winning GotM in open class then it's not at all the situation I was thinking of. This particular gaming community keeps proving somewhat more mature overall than I am used to.

Just to muddy the water and, hopefully, provide some amusement I would like the Civ III players to recall somebody's comment: "Dave McW playing open? That ought to be illegal"
;)

Just to muddy the water and, hopefully, provide some amusement I would like the Civ III players to recall somebody's comment: "Dave McW playing open? That ought to be illegal"
;)

Funny, I remember that quote. I do think there is pressure on people to play the challenger class when they don't want to. I'd be curious how many people actually enjoy playing the challenger class because of the added difficulty vs how many play it because they feel that they have to as an upper eschelon player. Personally I don't think predator/challenger penalties make the game more fun. I do like the adventurer class quite a bit though. I think it's a lot easier and more effective to artificially decrease the difficulty for those that need it than to artificially increase the difficulty for those that can win either way. Also, taking away starting techs and things like that just makes it much more difficult to compare games between challenger and contender classes, which is a huge aspect of what the GOTM is all about.

But by all means if people play challenger because they enjoy playing with the initial handicap then more power to them. I just don't think people should ever feel pressured to do so. But it's not like you can prevent someone from making an offhand comment in one of the threads, just like the one cited above. So I think no matter what, as long as the challenger class exists, there will be some pressure involved.

Does that one Noble game mean I can never play a Conquest level game, even on the upper levels? When there were six hundred submissions that really opens up the top half. I believe I was 210th.
As Shadow2k said, we'll give some leeway. We are not going to be fascists about this - If people really feel uncomfortable about playing on high(er) levels and want to play adventurer, then that's fine. If they're consistently finishing in the top half of the GOTM results and still want to play adventurer, then they're probably underestimating their skills.

BTW - I forgot to mention that adventurer players are ineligable for any 'fastest victory' awards.

taking away starting techs and things like that just makes it much more difficult to compare games between challenger and contender classes, which is a huge aspect of what the GOTM is all about.

I agree, and I am hoping that the top players wait a few months before they start playing predator/challenger. The game is still very new for all of us, and I am finding it interesting to try different strategies based on the techs/traits we start with. I would have more fun playing the base game than I would playing a variant like "no tech start," at least for a while.

Nevertheless, if the top dogs run off to play challenger, I will feel compelled to follow even though I don't want to, because comparing my game to theirs is probably my favorite part of the GoTM.

I am thrilled, however, that the adventurer class is available now. I think that will help keep our new players around until they are ready to step up to contender. Great job for rolling it out so quickly Ainwood, AlanH and company! :king:

Edit to avoid a double post:

I missed this part of your post, Shillen:
Personally I don't think predator/challenger penalties make the game more fun...I think it's a lot easier and more effective to artificially decrease the difficulty for those that need it than to artificially increase the difficulty for those that can win either way.

Now that I think about it, you are right. I have never seen a predator/challenger handicap that makes it difficult to win, only handicaps that make the games incomparable between classes. I would actually prefer it if we had only the adventurer and contender classes. Maybe the predator/challenger class could be replaced with a "GoTM sponsored variant," like in the succession games. I would find that much more challenging and fun.

But by all means if people play challenger because they enjoy playing with the initial handicap then more power to them. I just don't think people should ever feel pressured to do so. I agree completely. I'm not a devout fan of this class either - I prefer to play open/contender when I play. I don't want people to feel pressured to play challenger, and we won't have much tolerance for anyone who tries to pressure anyone else in a negative way (positive encouragement - fine, negative pressure - not).

It's fun to play Challenger and know that you beat the AI or many Contenders with a handicap.

But it's not fun to play Challenger and lose an award to a Contender by a small margin.

I am not sure that even Dynamic should play challenger. His signature states: "predator forever", not "challenger forever" ;)

I suspect that we will have very few challengers in this game if any.

Talking about predator/challenger class, in civ3 several people suggested that limitations that make game more challenging should be self-imposed. Elite players can limit themselves in a number of ways (OCC, 3CC, always war, no open borders, never research gunpowder, etc., the list can be endless). However, the real fun will be if such a limitation will be the same for a group of people. Pre-game discussion can be used to discuss what kind of challenge should be implemented in this game. Then the games will be comparable and will use the same starting conditions.

It's fun to play Challenger and know that you beat the AI or many Contenders with a handicap.

But it's not fun to play Challenger and lose an award to a Contender by a small margin.Yep. And people claiming that you "have to" play predator / challenger are being completely unfair.

The fact that Challenger (Predator) never got a score bonus always confused me, when there is a scoring alteration for playing Adventurer.

The other confusing thing is the way the difficulty was increased. If I remember right, Predator games in C3 were made more difficult by giving the AI bonuses, like an extra settler/worker/units/higher troops support, things like that. This is the first time I remember actually penalizing the player directly in such a way that even tech development strategies will vary greatly based on class. Not sure why that was done, part of the beauty of the C3 classes was that it didn't necessarily change opening strategies that much.

In later 3OTMs, predators used to be handicapped severely. Giving no techs was very frequent.
The change compared to earlier 3OTM predators (with AI bonuses) was made because strong and wealthy AI is often better than poor and weak AI. They can pay more money for your techs, they build more cities, etc.
Thus, predators sometimes were able to use these AI bonuses to their own advantage.

There were times when you could play predator and expect a much faster game or better score, especially when it was initially begun. Any time the AI was given a break on maintenance or unit cost generally meant they had more money to spend on tech and a knowledgable player could take advantage of that if their game was tech based. Of course this wasn't always the case as tech wasn't that important for every game. But say the Civ had a UU that required a lot of teching, the predator player in those cases would get the tech faster by way of AI help and most likely win faster than a non-predator game.
I don't believe that was the original intention and was only clearly apparent early on.

I'd vote that anyone that ever won a medal should have to play it, and anyone that ever complains about the difficulty during any pregame get added to a forced challenger list as well. ;)

Why not just use the built-in difficulty levels?

If a player is struggling on noble, then giving them a couple extra resources at start (or what have you) is not going to help them much in a monarch game.

Wouldn't the GOTM appeal to a *lot* more players if they could play at the difficulty level of their choosing?

Darn. I was hoping the class system had been abolished and this would remain a level playing/comparing field. But on the other hand I'm glad that there are more options. I'm glad for the Noblers playing on Monarch. And I'm glad for the Monarchers playing on Noble. It's good that people can choose the class that best suits them.

But even so, these classes seem odd to me. I don't get it. The value of competition is diminished if my opponents aren't playing the same game. It's kind of hard to put much value in a Contender win when other players were handicapped by Challenger. And as I'm in the very bottom of the top.. I don't feel very competitive playing the Challenger game yet. I just don't understand how real competition can be maintained when people are basically playing differant games??

I played to medal the first two games just out of a play to win attitude. But the real competition for me, was to slowly and over time improve my global rankings. To compete against myself by comparing my games against the top scorers. So for each game, I would strive to improve my rankings in relation to the top scorers standings. But now with the class system back, there is not the consistency to do this. There is no real standard in which to gauge ones progress if people flip flop around the classes. Arbitrary adjustments would have to be made to try and judge one classes game against another. Lost would be the tangible consistency from which real comparisions could be made.

If each class had it's own medals, then that would make perfect sense to me. People play the class that best suits them. And people compete and compare a common game.

But thats just my humble opinion. I am just one of many and I will adapt; and then continue to enjoy the game. I very much appreciate the GOTM and am thankfull we have it. Many Thanks to those who make it happen. :goodjob:

I quite like the idea of classes. I presume it is based on some people saying "Prince is far too hard, I just die and it is no fun" and some saying "Prince is far too easy, every game is just a steam roller". I guess medals for the different classes makes sence, or just 1 (higest score chalenger class) to make the Ephiton (sp?) back up to 7. However, as all you are really after is that warm glow inside that you actually beat someone else, surely you can give yourself a medal if you get some form of best result. Would be fine for me, though I am not sure it is likely.

I also really like the idea of challenger being some imposed variant, determined by TPTB. It would be good to try 6CC (the new 5CC?) or always war against others who are playing the same.

Well, these handicaps will never make a gotm game difficult for the top players, but they provide a challenge of a different kind making it more difficult to compete with other players. I still like the idea and i enjoyed playing predator in civ3 gotm/cotm (i played in the predator class in most of my games), but i agree with DaveMcW though that loosing to open players by a couple of turns isn't fun (But of course i don't blame anybody for taking open, my view on this is quite the opposite: i wanted to show off my skills, but those guys that beat me proved that i am not that good as i thought :)).

I don't think that the changes made create such a big difference that make the games played in contender and challenger classes incomparable and i don't understand why are people complaining so much about that. Of course the challenger handicaps should be reasonable, not like the ones we had recently in civ3 cotm ;)

As for the variants i think that it is a great idea (even though it would actually make different games incomparable :p), because this way we can make the game difficult to win even for the top players - something that gotm always lacked. It'll also attract some new players who don't usually play gotm. I wouldn't play a variant game now because first i want to win by each victory condition at least once through normal game, but i think it would be awesome if we'll have some "sponsored variants" at some point later. Perahps we should include the award for winning the variant of the month into the epthatlon.

I wouldn't play a variant game now because first i want to win by each victory condition at least once through normal game, but i think it would be awesome if we'll have some "sponsored variants" at some point later. Perahps we should include the award for winning the variant of the month into the epthatlon.

I feel the same way you do on all counts. I really like the idea of adding a variant award to the eptathlon because it seems a bit easy to acquire as it currently stands. But if the staff doesn't like the idea of running variants, perhaps an alternative could be to require at least one gold medal for the eptathlon.

Perhaps even both :D. I think that the more difficult it is to win the epthatlon, the better. This is of course only if the gotm staff actually find some time to for doing the extra testing to se how those variants will play out. Already they are doing a great job.

the eptathlon ... seems a bit easy to acquire as it currently stands.
:lol:

Seriuosly though, I think we'll have to wait a few months to see how many of you there are actually competing for the awards, and thus how hard the eptathlon will be. In the first game, some awards went to people we hadn't heard of before. I guess that will continue for a while, and I would be pretty surprised if anyone acheived a cIV eptathlon during 2006. I think it took over 3 years for the first to be awarded in Civ3...

Bout time I contributed something as I've got so much from you guys.

It's perhaps obvious but starting with no techs is much more of a penalty in CivIV than III, principally because of the pre-requisites for worker actions.
In the same way, one of the side-effects of an Adventurer start is having a two-move unit to give a much wider area view on the first move.

I'm all in favour of the varied levels. Despite being with Civ since it had any numbers I'm struggling with IV at higher levels. There is still plenty of room for folks to compare with others doing the same thing or with their previous efforts. It just gives more room for us slow learners.

Why not just use the built-in difficulty levels?

If a player is struggling on noble, then giving them a couple extra resources at start (or what have you) is not going to help them much in a monarch game.

Wouldn't the GOTM appeal to a *lot* more players if they could play at the difficulty level of their choosing?

I tend to agree. I've been playing Civ a long time, but I just got into the GOTM with Civ IV. I'm not nearly as good as most of the people here, so giving me the archer and worker on Monarch level was nearly useless (I did way better in my test game preparing for the GOTM3 when I didn't have this advantage, so it might even have made me play sloppier).

I recognize that you can learn a lot by playing above your comfort zone (difficulty-wise) because mistakes can often teach you more about what to do right than winning. On the other hand, when you get trounced too quickly it's hard to know which actions were mistakes, which didn't really make a difference, and which were correct but unlucky.

Perhaps it's too complicated to have identical GOTMs with one at a higher (or lower depending on your perspective) difficulty and still handle the scores properly, but it doesn't seem like that would be any harder than adjusting scores as per the adventurer class game. In any case, based on the fact that I at least survived to the end of the GOTM-2, I probably would have enjoyed this more at prince. As it was I didn't enjoy it at all (I can enjoy losing if it's challenging, but this was beyond challenging for me).

First of all, this sounds like a fantastic competition, and many thanks to those who've obviously put in lots of effort in setting it up. I've not played GOTM before, or at Monarch level, but I'll be giving it a go at Contender level. No doubt I'll get annihilated by a horde of marauding barbarians and their personal pride of settler savaging lions, but I fancy a challenge and figure that I'll learn most at this level. I do think Adventurer class has its place though, if this was up at Emperor or Deity level that's the class I'd be having a go at.

As I play this current game and think more on these three classes; I have grown to support them even more. Comparing player styles and strategies is still valid. And competition is still preserved. So I think it is a good thing for the game and I'm happy for it's implementation.

Though I still wish there were victory medals granted to the players of each class. And how about creating new medals for subjective contests.. Such as Best Builder game, Best use of UU etc.. These medals would open the door for more variety in gameplay, and so would allow players more competitive options for the GOTM. These medals could be voted on by the GOTM players.

We had some voting awards in the past (best spoiler story, best pregame prediction). But it's a huge effort picking the best 10 or so posters to put in a poll, and the staff member that organized it eventually gave up. I imagine picking nominees for a "best playstyle" poll would be even harder.

If you really feel strongly about recognizing a certain playstyle, you are welcome to highlight it after the results are released. Phillip_martin created the Philibuster Awards (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=32772), which eventually became part of the official GOTM system.

Phillip_martin created the Philibuster Awards (http://forums.civfanatics.com/search.php?searchid=59554), which eventually became part of the official GOTM system.

Sounds interesting. This must have been before my time. I get a "no search results found" page when I click on the link though.

Thats a good idea DaveMcW. In fact, it's really the only possibility as the GOTM staff already have their hands overfilled with work. Though I wouldn't presume to initiate a medal victories for each class. Just some player voted on awards for aspects of the GOTM not related to victory.

I know that some GOTMrs are builders that are more interested in their city structure than in victory. And I for one have become interested in attempting to use the UU's to their fullest potential. In my GOTM2 domination victory, my Redcoats took most of the world, and they were my most advanced military unit. And then for GOTM3 I have the same goal. This flavor focus trumps victory points for me atm. And has added an interesting aspect to the game. I think it would be cool to have informal awards for gameplay not focused on just scoring.

I get a "no search results found" page when I click on the link though.

Same here.

Anyway a poll award for the best spoiler is a good idea. It fits GOTM spirit. How to pick up the best 10 for the poll? :hmm: ... I believe there should be a fair way :hmm:

I think that nominations would be the best and simplest route.
Then poll vote the top nominations.

I would suggest that nominations be made by the GOTMrs and not some governing body. This should make things easier for the organizers, and it will lessen the complexity required for the judging standards. Each GOTMr will have their own criteria as to what constitutes best game. Organizers would only have to lay out a general set of criteria, and then the public would make the final determination of what it takes to be the best game in each catagory. Then a poll is posted for top nominees and the public decides which game wins. It appears simple enough.

thank you - i hope, this class-system will bring my focus back to civ - bf2 is getting boring with the new patch :)

Thank you! Thank you very very much!! This might makes me try GOTM again(if times allow me)

Hi I'm new here, I signed up to play a GOTM.

Why bother with all these classes? Why not just have 3 saves, one in 3 differing levels of difficulty? Wouldnt that be far easier, stop a lot of the confusion and problems, and just be smoother in general?

Hi I'm new here, I signed up to play a GOTM.

Why bother with all these classes? Why not just have 3 saves, one in 3 differing levels of difficulty? Wouldnt that be far easier, stop a lot of the confusion and problems, and just be smoother in general?
I think the idea is that at higher levels the AI reaserch faster, so this can actually be an advantage to the player. Also the score is multiplied by a higher number on the higher levels. You would need to play the higher level to get the higher score, instead of it being a disadvantage.

I got a few questions about the GOM.

Is there a problem if I don't play the game in 1 sitting?
Its impossible for me to do so, for starters after a few hours civ 4 gets so sluggish I have no chice but to restart the computer and reload, and the other are time constraining issues.

The reloading rule is purely and simply a rule against replaying actions, decisions and events to get a better outcome. You are not required to complete the game in a single sitting.

Very few players complete the game in one sitting, and those who do are probably not generally the high scorers. There's no problem with saving the game, quitting, and later picking up where you left off. Reload the last save and continue. Don't reload a save and REPLAY the events and actions that took place since that save.

We normally recommend that you should play sessions of at least an hour at a time, simply to avoid suspicion that can arise from very short sessions.

understood, thanks for the quick response

We normally recommend that you should play sessions of at least an hour at a time, simply to avoid suspicion that can arise from very short sessions.

i think i didnt read a general rule for at least one hour playing.for HoF yes but for GotM no.:(.
truly i didnt do that.for the last save file i saved after playing 10-15 min.does it make a problem?:confused:
if it is a problem i wont continue the game.

I think AlanH means to try to avoid that if at all possible, because if you have a high score and multiple really short sessions it looks kinda iffy. I think you should be fine provided you don't have a bunch of small sessions in succession.

If my English is a problem I apologise. A "recommendation" is not a "rule". It is a *suggestion* to make all our lives easier. If we see a game that has been played in very short sessions then that raises a warning for us. That doesn't mean it will be automatically excluded, but it does take more time and effort for us to check it. It may involve asking you for extra saves during the game, and it may delay publication of the results.

This doesn't only apply to high scoring games. We will look at any entry more closely if it seems to be outside the normal range of player behaviour.

i think i didnt read a general rule for at least one hour playing.for HoF yes but for GotM no.:(.
truly i didnt do that.for the last save file i saved after playing 10-15 min.does it make a problem?:confused:
if it is a problem i wont continue the game.
SAving every fifteen minutes is not a problem. Saving every turn is not a problem.

Only playing for fifteen minutes before saving, then loading to play another session is a problem.

One problem I noticed with GOTM5 is that with my SG's that I currently have, my autosave's get overwritten.

Hence, I do know of one instance in my submission for this month where my GOTM5 Autosaves were wiped. I had to start from a save file I had taken a few turns prior. Thankfully, I knew exactly what I had done, so I just did those things.

I'm pretty sure the GOTM staff doesn't mind if there's a play, save, reload once or twice in a 13 hour gaming session. It's where its 20 times that a problem becomes evident. At least I hope so, because I do play, save, and reload once or twice due to the graphical issues surrounding my semi-old computer.

One problem I noticed with GOTM5 is that with my SG's that I currently have, my autosave's get overwritten.

Hence, I do know of one instance in my submission for this month where my GOTM5 Autosaves were wiped. I had to start from a save file I had taken a few turns prior. Thankfully, I knew exactly what I had done, so I just did those things.

I'm pretty sure the GOTM staff doesn't mind if there's a play, save, reload once or twice in a 13 hour gaming session. It's where its 20 times that a problem becomes evident. At least I hope so, because I do play, save, and reload once or twice due to the graphical issues surrounding my semi-old computer.

Plus you have to remember the staff for the GOTM are real people to they understand life (you guys arn't just AI are you ;)

Like AlanH said that is why it is a recommendation. Taking myself for example and GOTM 4 I planned on sitting down for a couple of hours to play, but by the time I figured out where I was (I hadn't played for a couple of weeks) I played one turn and the some personal stuff happened so I had to save and quit. Result, two play sessions one turn apart (but still a 30 min session). Life happens they know that.

But at the same time if The game was being reloaded every turn throughout its entirety :lol: , then they would be pretty suspicious :nono:

The easiest thing to do is just use one save file (like the original save). Save over it everytime and you never have to worry. Just pull out some keys dates incase they want other data to compare (i.e. 2000 BC 1 AD 500AD, etc)

SAving every fifteen minutes is not a problem. Saving every turn is not a problem.

Only playing for fifteen minutes before saving, then loading to play another session is a problem.

no,no,.i am a HoF player.for HoF if you save a game after 15 min and play that game is not allowed.you have to play at least 1 hour and you may save the game play that game.
i am not talking about playing a previous part of the game.

I would find myself playing more on the adventure class since I dont have that much confedence in my playing abilities, espeicaly above warlord :s.

Just signed up, probably going to go for contender since I normally play Noble, but I don't think I'm good enough to keep it up at the higher difficulty levels. I've been playing Civ for a long time, but I'm still learning on Civ IV, and I haven't even tried playing higher than Prince yet :undecide:

How high a difficulty level does the GoTM go to? If it's more than Prince or maybe Monarch I'll have to drop to adventurer, although I doubt I'll be in the top half of the scores even this time :p

The highest .... so far ... in Civ4 has been an Emperor game: GOTM 4.

We try to cater for the whole range of player skills, but as Civ4 is still only six months old and was patched again last month, there aren't too many players ready for Deity and Sid just yet.

Civ4 Emperor is roughly equivalent to Civ3 Deity.

Civ4 Emperor is roughly equivalent to Civ3 Deity.

I don't agree with that. Emperor isn't all that hard---you can win just by careful optimization without really exploiting the AI weaknesses. Civ4 Immortal might be equivalent to Civ3 Deity.

Regarding Adventurer game class, it states:

"...the Adventurer class games scores in the GOTM results will be weighted downward with an 85% multiplier to factor out the value of the additional starting bonuses."

Just to be clear, this means:

GOTMScore = 0.85 * FinalScore

Right?

(as opposed to GOTMScore = 0.15 * FinalScore)

Thanks,

Sam

Correct.....

Well I personally can't play Emperor level (or higher) to save my life, so I wanted to go Adventurer this time, except for the fact that I participated in GOTM-1 and got to the top half.

But that was Noble level, oh well... :lol: