We would like to solicit some feedback and inputs from regular players of the Games of the Month to see if there would be interest in supporting some shorter, quicker games IN ADDITION TO the regular game of the month.

The intent would be to have these games be played similar to the specialized QSC succession games that I have supported in the succession games forum in the past.

Players who regularly play the GOTM games could request a quick game to be set up using specific game conditions and then invite other players to join an play. Any player could join and play the games even if they did not play the GOTMs regularly but only GOTM players would be able to define the games and request the special maps and games to be generated.

We would support the games with scoring utilities and some standard scoring systems but players in the individual games would be responisble for summarizing their own results and scores. We would also be able to configure a "Jason Score" calculator for each game to help players assess what their GOTM equivalent score would be under the map conditions of that specific game.

We would welcome any comments, feedback, or suggestions related to this concept.

It may be interesting to introduce some varient play into the GOTM with different scenarios or play options that require to explore some unique play techniques. OCC games 5CC games, AW, accelerated production or more extreme games the Charis is fond of, ie Epic 25.

Playing these type of games on a quicker schedule or a comparison 30 turn blocks will foster good discussion and bringout some unique play opportunities.

Shorter term games that allow for detailed discussions at set blocks of turns, such as QSC-C1 or C2e/r, allow players to see the how the play can unfold and talk about what choices were made and why. The spoiler thread do that to some degree but without the possibility of in process scoring or game to game comparision with a set roster of players the discussion my not be as focused. Smaller games with set rosters and games played to the same point allows for more discussion and is something that I find enjoyable.

Some other examples of these types of "10-20" turn blocks of games played by multiple players and discussion are the TDG's sponsered by SG vets like Lkendter, sirian, Sirp and Sullla. Players take the same start and play in blocks of 10 and discuss how there progress is the same or different and why? And above all how they can be improved.

Hotrod

Another example of a fun thing to try might be focusing on one time period when playing the GOTM. One of the Epics, War Paint (http://realmsbeyond.net/civ/epic22.html), focused on Ancient War, and although I did not get a chance to participate in it due to time constraints, looking at the results is very informative as to what units to use during the Ancient Era, in what combination, how many cities to support them, etc.

Also, variants to test common methods the human player uses that the AI does not would be interesting- for instance, the AI does not 'mass upgrade' the way the human player does, possibly upping a few units but not saving 20+ warriors to turn into swords men, for example. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to code, but if there would be a way to set up a game allowing only "x" number of offensive units to be upgraded per turn, that would better match the player to the AI's pace. Yes, it would have to be played at a slightly lower difficulty level than usual for most players (probably including me), but it would force people to explore what else they would use the gold for.

I really like the idea cracker. Especially the fact that 'we', players of the GOTM, would be able to make requests. It would also give to opportunity to some of the less skilled players to increase their own skill by playing more games in a 'competitive' spirit.

What I can tell from my own experience is: playing games like GOTM and the Tournament, has done a lot to improve my skills. Especially the QSC portion of the GOTM pays off almost instantaneously. It makes you consider the consequences of every move you make in the early BCs.

All I can add to this initiative: :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob:

I'm new to GotM - 17 was my first submission - but I like the idea. Playing under specific conditions sounds like fun and probably helps a lot to develop new ideas. I fully agree with Jurimax that competitive games improves playing skills a lot and reading other players timelines and strategies is fun as well as it teaches weaker players like myself a lot about the methods of highly skilled players.

I'm learning a lot from playing the QSC and comparing the G'sOTM. However, yet another competition would take too much time for me.
No strong opinion here.

I'm voting no strong opinion. I may give it a try but basically I have a lack of time problem already. The regular GOTM keeps me very busy already, and I cannot foresee myself committing still more time to Civ. It sounds like a good idea, but it will most likely not fit my personal situation too well.

I have alot of time on my hands now, so I like the idea. If the game of the month crash on my computer, I can play the other quick game of the month.

I already have problems finding enough time to play the GOTM, so while I like the idea, I probably would not participate regularly because of this...

Originally posted by Darkness
I already have problems finding enough time to play the GOTM, so while I like the idea, I probably would not participate regularly because of this...


I agree. I voted that I would play every other month. Or maybe I would play two quick games and not play GOTM every other month.

I like playing GOTM because it forces me to come to a conclusion. But I think, I still have so much to learn that playing the "quick" side by side comparison games and playing in 30 turn blocks would be a much better learning aid.

Actually, it would be nice if the quick game used the characteristics of the NEXT months GOTM so that playing the quick game would be a good intro into the next GOTM. Like QSC-C2 was for GOTM17.

I'm assuming you won't include these games in the GOTM scoring. I wouldn't want to be penalized because everyone else has more time to play Civ than Darkness and me.:)

As long as it doesn't mean that the regular GOTM games are neglected (which I first feared, but it seems Cracker only intends to have a supporting role) it could be a good idea. Who knows, maybe I'll try it too. :)

I think the QSC to each GOTM can be lost in the wilderness of GOTM reports and feedback. QSC-C2 empreror and regent where fun games where Cracker did a fine job in gathering the data on each evolution of the QSC game. Comparing saves and seeing the expansion pattern from game to game where good entertainment, and also good learning material to understand how the mechanics of the game works.

Here is the link to the last QSC made by Cracker over at the succsession forum:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44161 (emperor)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44163 (regent)

If I had the time I would participate in at least one such event between the GOTMs-

I agree that it's easier to learn if you compare where you are with respect to the other players every 30 turns. To add too the list of "Quick games"

Cracker also ran:
QSC-C1 "Irritated Mao" Game (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37821)
The "handyandy" Persian training game (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36486)

I participated in the HandyAndy game and shadowed the Irritated Mao. Both have improved my game play (even if it doesn't show.)

I know there are players of GOTM who are done within days (hours?) of the start of the month. I'm not one of them; with my RL commitments, I just barely finish the GOTM in time 2 out of 3 times. But, I think the Quick Game concept is a good idea to keep the fast players involved, and I may occasionally be able to participate.

Actually, Cracker, maybe you should split the QSC off from the GOTM. What I mean is that you run a specific QSC game each month that is NOT what we are playing in GOTM. What you then do is ENCOURAGE players to play it from the beginning--NOT RELOADING ALONG THE WAY--as many times as they want and then submit what they feel is their best effort.

This will encourage you to follow your timeline and try different things to see how they come out. On the plus side, since it's only got to run through 1000 BC you don't have to make a nice full map; on the downside, I would expect the scores to be even more tightly packed. On the plus side it would be the teaching experience you seem to want it to be, especially if you tweak the map a bit to have the same sort of 'opportunities' as will be in the upcoming GOTM (though perhaps just a city or two removed from the starting position), on the downside it would be removed from the GOTM...

Depending on your point of view, it would be good or bad to not have the QSC be a part of the Global Ranking system. I kind of feel that your Global Ranking should only be based on the end result of your game--after all, if you win a game of chess it doesn't matter how horrible your starting position was! (Doing it this way is a sort of cut-me-own-throat position since I can easily get better at the beginning of the game but I still tend to lose focus somewhere in the middle!) I guess the final downside is that I feel a subtext of the QSC was to perhaps detect cheaters in the GOTM which would HELP the Global Rankings be 'truer' even with the addition of the QSC portion of the points...


I've typed this all up and now I'm wondering if I should post it! (The answer was yes! <g>)

I love that idea Pterrok.

I'm not sure how much I'll learn reloading like pterrok suggests. Once I know the map it is very easy for me to make "better" decisions know which way to expand and the like. That doesn't improve my decision making skills when I start a new GOTM that I can't reload. I say keep it to just one try through.

I also think the score should be separate from the GOTM. I wouldn't want to lose out on the "extra credit" of the QSC2 points just because my R/L prevents me from playing both.

Just to make sure it is clear, I do not think that these quick game concepts will be considered for the Global ranking scores because the idea would be to give you the players significantly greater latitude in defining the quick game events that you would ike to see.

We also clearly recognize that some players have Real Life time constraints (and those that currently do not should probably think about getting some. ;) ).

Hopefully we will be able to do this process in a way that gives something extra to the player community without distractinng from the main mission concept of the GOTM: to try and keep as many players as possible playing a common game that facilitates comparison, discussion, and strong sense of community.

So there would be a single save file, using the GOTM mods but a different map? Any GOTM player could take that save file and start a QSC. Provide a thread for everyone to post to. Have as many shadow games as desired. Compare notes as often as deemed necessary. Am I on the right track?

Then we could have a GOTM player say "I want to run a QSC with the goal of earliest conquest." And all players will try to head that way. Compare notes to see what strats work for that. Or others could use a modded rule set like always war. Or a training game on how to win a 20K or OCC ...

Am I on the right track?

Pretty close.

I think my intent is to promote a process that has the players define the games in terms of what they want to emphasize but to provide the support that could generate the starting map situations independently so that none of the players will have a starting map knowledge advantage. I know it is tough to set up that game and keep yourself out of the "too much knowledge" zone.

What will set the these games apart will be several big picture concepts:
1) every game will have a short time period and objective that the players participants will set. I don't think there is an absolute requirement here, but somewhere between 20 and 120 total turns feels initially like the range we could test.
2) each game will have some sort of data collection that will help to look more closely at what the game might tell us. The players will collect, analyze, and present their own game data.

Games can take several avenues to getting defined and that can include a game concept defined by just one or two people and opened to other players or a game that signs up a group of players and then defines what type of game they would like to compare based on who the players would be.

I don't see a minimum number of players as a requirement but it would be nice to get group concensus and support for at least 6 to 8 players in a game that requires any map generation support.

Players who define and/or participate in the games could request a specific mapmaker or I will appoint one from a pool that we develop to include players who have a strong understanding of some of the mapmaking skills that we are uncovering in the GOTM game development processes.

These games would be open to players outside of the GOTM community but it is my hope that the game definition process will be viewed as an added benefit of playing in the GOTM games.

Another game type that we can begin to encourage will be where an experienced GOTM player captures a save file from the GOTM in the previous month and then defines some sort of tactical objective that uses his/her selcetd save file as the starting point for the quick game. The opportunities here are virtually limitless and will allow us to really explore certain aspects of the game in great detail.

That last idea would be awesome. The QSC is a great learning tool for the beginning of the game. The last GOTM was the first and only time I've made it into the modern age. Starting from a save file further in the game would be a great way to teach the basics of the later part of the game.

Originally posted by cracker
Another game type that we can begin to encourage will be where an experienced GOTM player captures a save file from the GOTM in the previous month and then defines some sort of tactical objective that uses his/her selcetd save file as the starting point for the quick game. The opportunities here are virtually limitless and will allow us to really explore certain aspects of the game in great detail.

Now that's what I call a good idea!

As a newbie player I'm sure this type of game would be extremely helpful.


regards


Ted

How about after we submit the game, we play the same map again with the OCC set of rules.:) I'm currently replay my GOTM17 with the OCC set of rules and having a blast. Of course, a brand new map for the OCC would be quick and fun too. "Quick" is the the key word here; therefore, let's make it simple as OCC, 3CC, or 5CC.

OCC and 5CC does not necessarily equal quick, check our Charis' 5CC Deity conquest game, but I do second your idea to put a different flair on things.

Would love to compare notes along the way with some of the best GOTM players.

Hotrod

I also have the time constraint / lack of focus problem with the long GOTM games. A shorter task in the QSC style would be an interesting alternative.

It could also be more of a object lesson, too. Of course, it takes more time to create the scenario and administer it. If you are willing to host it, then players will come.

I really like the idea provided that "quick" is an integral part of it. I usually come down to the wire in finishing and submitting my GOTM, but I am sure I would enjoy playing and learning from the best in these "scenarios." One question, can we invite or request certain players to participate if they have the time???? I'd love to see, for example, how different players like say Indy and Moonsinger, go about city developement with ICS and OCP approaches with one condition in mind. I, personally, change victory conditions in my mind several times some games and would like to see how to beeline in one direction and the potential downfalls from my gameplay style.

The other day, I started a random game, that I thought could be of interest to people other than me. I was wondering if there was a place for this, and the quick games came to mind. Would these maps make good quick games?
If yes, then I would probably want someone a lot more experienced than me judge whether the map truely had value, or if I was just imagining its value due to my newness at the game.

So:
1) A player plays a map and finds it instructive in some manner.
2) A player that is not a reknowned player submits it to an expert for an evaluation. He includes the 4000 bc save, a later save, and a description on why he/she thinks it would be of interest.
3) If the expert also thinks it has value, then it is posted for any to try, along with a basic GOTM-like description of the map.
4) If there is sufficient interest, then it is handled like a regular quick game. Otherwise, it is available for anyone to try who is intrigued by the description.
---------------
One problem might be if it was a PTW map, then not everyone could try it.
Or perhaps this concept is already done elsewhere?
------------------
I don't know if this idea has any merit, but I thought I would post in case it did.

Greebley

I would play it.
Due to the very little time that I get free, any quick game would be ideal for me.