The transition of me to cracker was huge. The whole website changed and the mods were added. What can we expect of our new man ainwood?

I, for one, definitely hope we will play normal games as GOTM's again, without any mods. That was also the original idea of the GOTM: playing a normal random game, but then the same, so that we could compare each other's results.

Or will you/ainwood simply continue cracker's vision?

Hmmm... a good discussion.

I think that priority 1 should be that the games should be playable by everybody, MAC, vanilla and PTW. If conquests can be accomodated then fine, but it can wait.

I am also coming round to the mods. I didn't like them at first, I had enough trouble learning the "Out of the Box" game without the added complexity. There is also the issue of the ever increasing download sizes. Above 4 or 5 Meg on a dialup is a RPITA. But there is no question that they add variety and interest to games. Also the themed game are atmospheric and very enjoyable.

So my view is that light modifications are welcome, so long as any game can be downloaded with a single standalone install of no more than 5MB.

Completely random games don't create a level playing field for all players. Huts, barbs, scientific civs are just a few examples of how a random game can be skewed to the advantage of certain sections of the community. GOTM needs engineering to keep the game fair for all.

My personal fear though is that GOTM will migrate swiftly to C3C, and that the effort required to engineer equivalent games for MAC, vanilla and PTW players will be just too time consuming and difficult. I only hope I am wrong.

Though I see the amount of people that enjoy the current gotm format is quite large, I too hope we'd might have some normal games for the gotm again too.

Also, will the tournament-based designated victory condition still be maintained for the "classic" gotm? Though I think having games set up as the old tournament is a good thing, for the regular gotm it takes away the "compare your style with others" part of gotm a bit, as I know I won't see many people play the game like I did when not going for the victory condition set for that game.

As I play(ed) the gotm for comparison reasons too, to see how others approached problems posed by the map for each different victory type, can't we have an open game as far as victory conditions are concerned again for the regular gotm, so not counting for any tournament play?

Originally posted by Kemal

Also, will the tournament-based designated victory condition still be maintained for the "classic" gotm? Though I think having games set up as the old tournament is a good thing, for the regular gotm it takes away the "compare your style with others" part of gotm a bit, as I know I won't see many people play the game like I did when not going for the victory condition set for that game.

As I play(ed) the gotm for comparison reasons too, to see how others approached problems posed by the map for each different victory type, can't we have an open game as far as victory conditions are concerned again for the regular gotm, so not counting for any tournament play?

I liked to play the old tournament, but I also agree with Kemal. My suggestion would be to have no set condition for the gotm and have the seperate medal play 5 games (one every month, the 3 best count). So a season would be longer, but that should not matter too much.

Ronald

I completely forgot about the tournament games, and I agree with Kemal, though I have a more complicated idea for the solution, which would be...

5 tournament games would be provided. Three of them specifically tournament games with set victory conditions.
2 would be GOTM games with no set victory condition.

To qualify for a tournament entry, a player would have to submit 4 games from the set with different victory conditions. I can see the objections to this, but it's my idea and I like it ;)

I don't particularly like the fact that the Tournament Games got mixed in with the GOTM. I would prefer to see them separate or just let the Tournament Games die if there is not enough support.

However, I like the modded games for GOTM. I agree with mad-bax that the downloads for them to work should be limited. It is a bit daunting for someone new to GOTM 26 to have to download game packs from 21, 24 and 25. A simpler system must be devised or we will not be encouraging new people to participate.

But the game pack issue does not mean that the games are too complicated. The games are interesting and challenging in their modded state. For the most part it seems to me that most of the games cracker designed were easier than the "out of box" games. Look at the scores most people got on Emperor and Deity games. They are pretty good and I don't mean the scores of the top players. Those will always be great. I mean the scores of the ordinary players. When I played my first game on Deity it was last year a couple of months after cracker took over. That was a non-mod game as far as I know. I lost early on. But I haven't lost an Emperor or Deity level game since.

I think the modded games have been good for the GOTM and would like to see them continue.

My Opinions:

Game mods - They certainly add flavor to the games. I didn't always think they were good from the beginning, but I have been swayed to the dark side, and really enjoy them now. It CAN be a pain with a dial-up connection, as has been mentioned. I would like to see the mods stay.

Tournament games - I think have one game double as a tournament and GOTM game was a bad idea (I thought that way from the very beginning). The results of the GOTM games have been severely scewed with most people going for the tournament victory condition. Case in point - I won the fastest conquest victory in GOTM 21 (22, 23?) with a victory in 2050 AD. That should not happen. Therefore I would like to see completely different GOTM and tournament games.

In the end, however, I will probably continue to play no matter what Ainwood decides to do. I am an addict.

Hergrom

There is clearly a lot of support (and logic) to separating the Tournament games from the GOTM. Doing so will not only provide players like Matrix the opportunity to play out-of-the-box games, but keep players like Kemal interested in the GOTM, which has clearly increased its popularity as a result of its mods and sophisticated game design.

I have a few suggestions, based on my completely biased starting point on the Mac platform, coupled with a limited record of only three submitted GOTMs and a couple more QSCs:

1. Our primary goal has to be to provide THE Premier Civ competitive community game forum. That means the games have to be hard enough to provide a challenge to the top players while allowing us lesser players to achieve more than we thought we could. That's a three card trick that I believe Cracker played to perfection in his Game Master role.

2. I think we need to continue as long as possible to support the PTW and Civ3 communities with a single game set to get the widest comparison base. This is because (a) Conquests is not a prime-time competition platform yet as I understand it, (b) Conquests will only be available to those who can afford it and to players with PCs.

3. Given (2) we need some mods to provide the Civ3 players with the same range of civs and units as PTW players and not limit the PTW experience. We already have enough mods to achieve this, and to provide a rich range of experience for this community. I don't think the games we have played have by any means stretched the options available with this cast of characters, and we have not yet played several of them as the playable civs. I would therefore suggest we focus on making the existing mods more accessible and not create new ones, and that we build more games using them as they stand. We could consider ...

- CD distribution for players with bandwidth problems
- Downloads from more consistent servers, and/or split downloads
- More foolproof installations
- A more straightforward and consistent set of instructions, in fewer (eg one) places
- Investigate the performance issues reported by some players and decide whether to restrict the use of specific units or fix the root problem. (Fog never affected performance on my lowly Mac, BTW)

4. C3C will happen unless Firaxis completely loses the plot and fails to fix its problems as a competitive platform. We will probably not be able to combine C3C with the PTW/Civ3 game because of its major changes in game play. If we are to meet our #1 goal we will therefore want to provide a C3C challenge as a separate competition once the platform becomes stable and playable. Mods will not, presumably be necessary for this endeavour,

5. I think Medal Play should be separated from GOTM, though I'm not sure how.
GOTM, with the Jason scoring system, is all about trying to get the best result you can with your optimum style of play, and then learning and comparing alternative styles from other players. Mixing Medal Play with GOTM seemed like a good idea at the time, but in practice it reduces the range of victory targets for the GOTM players, since most players cannot guarantee to afford the time to play enough Medal games on top of GOTM, so they want to ensure their GOTM results are also eligible for the Medal Play tables.

6. QSC was a great way for newbies to cut their teeth and learn to improve their crucial first 80 turns. I know it was doing me a lot of good, and I was still learning from it when the results and feedback dried up. We need to reinstate the scoring and evaluation of this activity so that new players can learn how to build a base from which they can challenge the top players.

I hope I can get away with offering these suggestions as I'm still only an apprentice in the sorceror's cave, and so they are not necessarily the view of the "staff". They may be naive, but maybe they'll raise some discussion, and perhaps some hackles :rolleyes:

My 2¢. Bring it on!

Thanks for raising this Matrix. :) We were going to try and catch up on the results and then initiate this discussion, but seeing that it has started, lets keep it going!

It is definitely something that I believe needs to be discussed, but I fear it will be difficult to reach a consensus on. I will watch this thread with interest!

I won't say too much yet about my feelings, but will raise a few specifics on these issues I would like to see discussed (many of them have been touched on in the posts above)

Should the tournament be split out from the GOTM, kept the same, or done away with completely? Does the target victory condition detract from the GOTM in that the clear majority of players try for it, making it more difficult to compare playing styles of players on other conditions? Or conversely, does it make it much easier to compare the different strategies used to meet the given victory condition? Does it make the scoring comparisons better, or does the 'Jason' system accomplish this anyway?

Should we revert to out-of-the-box games, or continue with the scenario-type games? For those who like the scenario type games, what is it you like about them? For those who don't, what don't you like? Is there a clear preference amongst the masses either-way, or can we extract the best elements of the two and combine them? (as a random thought - without having studied the feasibility - we might be able to offer 'optional' add-on packs for people who want that). Should we continue with the three different classes, or do away with them? Should we follow the Civ2 GOTM style of providing diversity? - e.g. the game starts and you get a pre-built wonder, the AI has a non-despotic government, you start with more than one city (like this months GOTM ;) ) etc etc.

And what about conquests? My first reaction is that it would be very difficult to transition-to in the way that cracker achieved the transition to PTW (setting up a Civ3 equivalent to each of the PTW civs, and allowing competition in parallel), because the game play is significantly different (new traits, corruption differences, new govts etc), but maybe we can look at this in more detail, especially once the corruption problems are patched.

One real concern with conquests is whether it will be available to Mac players. There is quite a strong Mac community here, and I'd hate to see them left out in the cold....

Please everyone, feedback on your preferences! :goodjob:

It's been a while for me, think I didnt finish a gotm for a year or so. Started only a few.

I very much agree with Kemal. I like the comparison between games. I'd also like to see a less modded game once in a while. The waiting for the fog and volcanoes was a bit too much for my old pc. Although I have upgraded now :)

I think GOTM should be separated from the tournament.

GOTM is the strong foundation and can stay modded and in the different classes, for what I care. Yes, the games are very different considering the classes, but it gives choices for the experienced players and to those that are new to to games as well.
Perhaps classes could be league based or something, e.g. Predators compared against predators? Or would that be too messy?

Tournament should be simple games...give us 5 game saves and say: You have now 90 days to finish at least 3 of these games to take part in the MP.

Bear with me, I'm only brainstorming :)

Of course Mac players has to be involved as much as possible, so if they can't play C3C, then don't implement that in GOTM.

Wow, thanks for your openness. http://www.straland.com/images/smilies/yeah.gif

My preference is as stated before: playing with normal rules. The power of Civ3 is that no game is the same - and this is more the case than with other strategy games -, but only has the same rules. When you keep playing with different rules there's no fun in telling what's happening, while when playing with standard rules you can actually learn from it.

But I'm afraid it's simply a matter of taste whether someone likes to play with mods or not.

OK, some feedback.

Tournament mixed with GOTM:
For me I have really enjoyed having a prescribed Victory condition to aim at. This was introduced at just about the point where I could think of winning, up to that point I was just trying to survive! I find that having lots of other people trying for the same victory condition helps because it makes it easier for me to compare my game with others when there are lots of others aiming for the same condition. I think the pre-game discussions have been a lot better since the tournament Victory condition was added as people have been thinking further than just the 1st few moves. Whether or not the Tournament/GOTM is seperated out I for one would definitely prefer to be given a Victory condition to aim for.

Scenarios/Mods
I have enjoyed playing the Scenarios/Mods, and appreciated every one of them. I can also understand other people's reluctance to use them. It is nice to have something different in the game to add a bit of interest. It doesn't necessarily have to be anything too big. The idea of a Commercial Domination victory condition (am I hung up on victory conditions or what :) ) made for a very interesting game in 5-6 France, and I believe that was just an unmodded random map. Ideas such as this and starting with more than one settler are good in my opinion.

Conquest/Open/Predator
I think the Conquest level is essential to make GOTM accessible to new users. My own initial experience was quite hard, losing the first 3 GOTMs (17-19). I would have continued trying due to my rather large stubborn streak, but I really appreciated the Conquest level for GOTM20. I'm now quite happy to plod along at Open level for a while. The only concern I have about these levels is whether they are still comparable. There have been numerous discussions about whether playing Predator makes it possible to finish earlier. On the other hand if that's a perk of playing a much harder game, those players that are brave enough to take on the Predator level deserve it!

Civ III/PTW/Conquests
I now have Conquests (though I haven't done much yet other than look at the file format :)), so I'm ready if you want to introduce a Conquests game. Your concerns make sense though, and I will be happy to continue to support GOTM even if you only support Civ III/PTW.

Here's my opinion for what it's worth...

I like the modded games for GOTM. A little surprise every so often keeps the games fresh and I enjoy that added dimension that you don't get from a random game more than the idea of comparing my games with others. I would like to separate it from medal play though to avoid too many players following the same victory conditions. (BTW why did the old tourney die? Was it lack of support from players or is there too much expected of civfanatics staff?)

Originally posted by AlanH

6. QSC was a great way for newbies to cut their teeth and learn to improve their crucial first 80 turns. I know it was doing me a lot of good, and I was still learning from it when the results and feedback dried up. We need to reinstate the scoring and evaluation of this activity so that new players can learn how to build a base from which they can challenge the top players.



Couldn't agree more. As you're now on the GOTM team, Alan is there any chance of a relaunch of QSC?;)

MY 2 cents, all the more as I won't play the very next games to completion (not past QSC periods for sure)...

I like some parts of modded games. What I didn't like at first is that I couldn't even play the games with my French version !! :mad: Thanks Firaxis... Now with C3C I believe this issue is fixed, but I'm not sure at all... since I lack experiments. :goodjob: Otherwise, I enjoyed how cracker designed the maps (special kudos for GOTM 24 - Korea : I was stunned when I first got the WM, though I didn't take advantage of it, since I didn't take over my whole continent (spaceship victory)). Placements of terrain and resources around our starting positions made for interesting pre-game discussions. I quite liked some of the new stuff that was added, like the new Mediterranean resources... But I have to say that I was disappointed to see that some of the latest stuff didn't receive full explanation : the Asian tribes were unknown tribes, no UUs nor traits explained. :( I'd like some non-modded games back, in terms of rules. Maps should be modded in any game IMO.

As for victory conditions, I liked this a lot ; I went for every victory condition for the Medal series. I think they add a lot for comparing games, and the maps should reflect that. Of course it's nice to have the choice to go for another victory, so I guess we should get two seperate competitions, one with free victory conditions, another one with a set victory condition, but which one is which I dunno.

No GOTMs before the big bugs in C3C are gone ! That should let you some time, given the time it may take for Firaxis or whoever to make a patch. Then of course I urge you not to make a same competition for C3C and Vanilla/PTW. This will be a total mess, I mean it, you should spend your efforts on giving us results more often and quicker, if you see my point. ;) Seriously, don't plan to do that. Because more players will have C3C over time, I think we should have C3C GOTMs as soon as its main bugs are fixed. I think you should make a poll to see if people still want to play Vanilla/PTW games. If it's only another minority, then you should consider stopping Vanilla/PTW games. As for the MAC community, I really don't know ; I don't know if they're gonna get the add-on soon or never.

As for classes, it was a nice idea, but maybe newbies always took easier games (so they wouldn't improve as much as with open games), and I feel that predator games were sometimes somewhat easier than open games, like in the latest games : more free units support for the AIs made that they would research more easily, therefore accelerating the tech pace in the beginning of the game, and so we were able to ride the wave and finish the game faster than on open class (GOTM 24). Maybe I'm wrong here... I don't know, maybe you could consider having one class only, or 3 different rankings for each class, and then players would get their final score upped or downed for the Medal series rankings...

All in all, I'd be pleased if the first C3C GOTMs were a lot less complex !!! :) I may do my GOTM comeback if I feel something has been made this way (though my semi-retirement has little to do with this issue...).

ainwood, I hope that you'll do great ! :cool:

Its good to see that Matrix still follows GOTM. I agree with him about random games. I never managed to finish a game until Cracker took over, but tried out a lot of Matrix's games and found them very entertaining. I was sold on GOTM ever since reading about EEK the dogs bc win in gotm1. In addition more random games would presumably enable the staff to play more.

Cracker has given us some fantastic games but he has been spoiling us with all these settler factories. The main attraction of GOTM is comparing your game with others and this can be done without any fancy mods. I would rather have lots of clever analysis of play (like the qsc ).

Regarding the Predator/Open/Conquest games, it has been suggested that some superior players derive benefit from playing as Predator as they are helped by the stronger AI. It occurred to me that you could prevent that by leaving the AI alone and subtly altering the start terrain for predator players (eg no river, bonus +/or resource). Surely even SirPleb et al couldn't benefit from a rubbish start position?

It would be terrible to lose the Mac players. Have they thought about buying PCs?;)

My Feedback:

Tournament mixed with GOTM: I am ambivalent. I participated in one tourney game - the commercial domination one. Split it or keep it the way it is. Matters not to me.

Scenarios/Mods: I enjoyed the mods - to a degree. Towards the end I could have done away with the fog/squid...and especially the alternate lux. Having it one game to give it flavor is fine..but restrict it to that one game to make it unique. re-using them month after month lessened the impact. Furthermore, I would not object at all to the occasional GOTM with no mods at all. I think keeping it mixed would be best.

Conquest/Open/Predator:: Technically, this would be a mod..but I think this is one that was a great idea. Not everybody plays at the same level. I thought this was a great way of helping the players who needed it - without changing the difficulty level. personally, I think the predator level needs to made harder. It should be a significant challenge just to win on this level. I am nowhere near the best civ player, but even I found it no problem to consistantly win on predator.

Conquest: I understand the technical difficulty of moving the GOTM to this platform for all. I for one, think we should move to conquest sooner than later...even it it means two seperate GOTMs...one for conquest players and one for those without. Havinig played conquests...I really can't see myself going back.

If I can be frank for a moment - The most important thing to me though, to keep my interest, is getting the results back in a timely manner. For awhile, things were going great...and getting the feedback in time really helped you get excited about the next month..and trying to do better (maybe I am just too competitive). Not getting results back - or even been given a explanation on why it has taken so long has really dampened my spirit.

Maybe polls on each subject are in order?

Originally posted by Offa
It would be terrible to lose the Mac players. Have they thought about buying PCs?;)
Not as a home machine, not for a single heartbeat! You know not what you are suggesting. That's as futile as me asking you to get a Mac.

One other point to consider is that the mods do allow the creation & customisation makers to showcase the results of their efforts - giving the GOTM a site-wide appeal (for want of a better term) Do any of them have any thoughts on this?

I suspect that cracker combined the tournament games with the GOTM as a way to jump-start the tournament while still leaving himself 3.7 hours of sleep per month. There is otherwise no reason to keep the games together - particularly from a tournament perspective. This will allow players to play simple, unmodded games as well as compare specific victory conditions en masse.

Whether the GOTM should then return to its traditional all-victory-types-are-equal approach strikes me as a bit more complicated. I lean toward Kemal and others' view that comparing varying condition approaches to one game is more instructive, as well as more fun. I would vote for GOTMs without a tilt toward one victory condition over another. However, let's keep in mind that domination victories tended to dominate the top of the rankings. This seemed to be the case because this victory condition tends to produce higher scores than the non-military ones. (I also noticed that diplomatic victories tended to score higher than space race ones.) Of course, we could just say that this is the game, and accept that some victory types score higher than others. But as someone who really enjoyed the recent 100k Cultural GOTM, I wonder if there is there a way to adjust the Jason scoring system so that a player like SirPleb, for example, wouldn't frequently conclude that his best chance for a high score would be to go domination or conquest?

After reading this discussion, and several other recent posts, I have given this some thought to try and offer my opinions. First I want to say how much I have enjoyed the GOTM series, and how much it has improved my play. This has mostly been during Cracker’s administration, so I can’t really compare it to prior GOTMs. I have also just started the Medal Play series with this “season”, so I can’t compare to the old tournament either.

GOTM vs. Tournament: I like the way it is set up now, I know I rarely have time for more than 1-2 civ games a month, so having a separate tournament that did not include the GOTM would force me to chose one or the other, (and GOTM would win!). That is why I never got involved in Tournament prior to this. I like the “designated” victory conditions, it has encouraged me to play for new victory types that I hadn’t tried yet (i.e. Diplomacy in GOTM24). However, it also detracts from the variety of play styles in GOTM and can lead to some strange results, or having very few good games to compare against if you go for a non-specified victory.

For the tournament, I would like to see more flexibility in the scoring, so a game that is won with a different condition could still be worth some points, maybe increasing the weighting of the Jason score, and reducing the time component. After investing (for me at least) a couple dozen hours in a game, I would like to still be able to submit it even if I can’t achieve the desired victory condition. I’m not sure of the best answer, but my suggestion would be to keep the tournament games pretty focused on the victory objective (but maybe change the weighting of score to 75% victory date/25% Jason).

The GOTM would still be scored by Jason for pure GOTM purposes, with all of the various medals/etc. I would like to also be able to submit them for the tournament. For tournament scoring, maybe we could just use the Jason score as the “victory condition” for that game, with all games rated as a proportional score from the top Jason score.

Related to the GOTM/Tournament question is the Scenario/Out-of-the-box issue, at least for me. I enjoy the suprises in the GOTM, and the “atmosphere” changes to make the game experience more immersive. I also appreciate the efforts made to bring Civ3 and PTW in line (even though I have had PTW for a while). I agree with AlanH’s comments here, I think there are many more games available within the goodies that have been created, and we should continue to enjoy them, while minimizing the amount of new features added, until people can “catch their breath”. Also, ONE simplified, auto-install game pack, that includes all updates so far, would be a big help, and if it could be available on CD, so much the better. I would try to stick with the basic rules of the game, however. New units that replicate old ones with different graphics, or that equalize PTW units, are fine. I like the new resources, also, although that can be confusing for new people. It would be helpful to have a “help sheet” available for download that would list all the new resources/units and their in-game stats. I know I have seen tables posted, and someone did an excellent sheet for the Mongol units, but one “official” source, at the GOTM website, would help overcome a lot of confusion. (BTW, while I love the Mongol units, and it was a great game, they might be crossing the line of staying within the rules. Maybe as a once-a-year type thing).

Some of the other ideas, such as Differential Naval Movement or some discussions about changing wonders, I think should be left to specific scenarios, and not GOTM. While I might agree that some of those are more “realistic”, and improve the strategic thought process, they definitely add to the learning curve for new people, and don’t translate back to “regular” epic games. One of the recurring comments is how much GOTM has improved many people’s playing ability, particularily through the QSC. However, if GOTM has it’s own set of rules, we are teaching people tactics/etc that don’t apply to regular games, and when they go to play a normal game, they have more to “unlearn”.

The same is true with civ traits and goodie huts. While I understand, and agree with, the ‘unbalancing’ effect that the Scientific bug or settlers from huts can have, I don’t think it’s a good idea to just remove them from the game. GOTM25 was a good example, where SirPleb was able to take advantage of multiple Scientific AI’s and get all three Middle Age techs, an important strategic lesson for many players. The lack of huts can also develop bad habits. Exploration is an important part of the game, and huts are part of that. I do like the example from a recent GOTM, when Cracker gave certain set results to eveyrone based on the 2-3 huts within a certain radius of the start, to limit the random effect. But beyond that, huts ought to be a normal part of the game. In particular, the lack of huts can degrade an Expansionist civ. Admittedly, it allows another element of luck into the game, but no worse than an early Great Leader, or whether the Pyramids are completed by your weak neighbor or on another continent.

Tournament games, on the other hand, should remain as straight out-of-the-box as possible, with the exception of equalizing for PTW when possible.

Classes: I like the concept, although I know it multiplies the amount of work for the staff (more versions to build/test, etc. I think I would prefer to see the classes based on difficulty level, with Open, then conquest one-two below and Predator one-two above. This also automatically adjusts the Firaxis score, so the Jason score should correlate. This (GOTM26-open) is my first experience with the chests, and they are cool, but again it may be teaching bad habits/crutches. At least the difficulty level translates to the normal game.

Conquests: I have had conquests for a couple weeks, and I enjoy the actual Conquest scenarios, but I haven’t even attempted an epic game until the bugs are fixed. However, based on the changes I see no way to equalize it as Cracker did with PTW. What I would suggest (which may be way off base) are two ideas. First, have a series of Parallel GOTMs, (say the first 6 months), where you design a Conquest game using all standard/PTW civs, identical map, etc. as the “real” GOTM for that month, and allow players to play it in Conquests, with all conquest rules. Scoring would be calculated and reported seperately, using Jason, but their ranking could be determined off of the top Conquest Jason score. This could provide a great comparison of the changes between the game dynamics without worrying about duplicating all the new civs and units. My second thought would be that after this initial series (maybe 6 months), we would start a GOTM-Conquests division playing through each of the new civs. We could decide at that point whether to just maintain a separate regular Civ/PTW GOTM each month, or by then we might know if it is possible to bring the games closer together. (Of course that is still more work for our new staff!)

Finally, I have to echo the comments about QSC, I certainly hope it can be revived/continued. If nothing else, posting the saves/timelines and allowing other players to do their own comparisons would be beneficial.

I know I went on longer than I intended, I hope at least some of this makes sense.

Tournament mixed with GOTM: I think they should be separated. Managing the GOTM is complicated and every additional factor added to the game increases the complexity. Let's implement the KISS doctrine - Keep It Simple, Stupid. Let the Tournament Games go back to being a separate concept.

Scenarios/Mods: I agree with rabies that we shouldn't have to use the same mods month after month. The current game requires new players to load game packs from games 21, 24 & 25. That makes it too complicated and discourages new players from participating. Simplify the mods, put them all in one game pack and have non-modded games periodically.

Conquest/Open/Predator:: The original concept was to set up an easier level in order to encourage new players to participate. This is a great idea and we should continue it if possible. Predator should also be made more difficult. More people should lose than win on that level.

Conquest: This is the future of Civ III and we must include it in GOTM. I don't have the game so I don't know what the bugs are. Did Firaxes' recent patch resolve most of the issues? If not, then we should wait until they are resolved.

The common wisdom seems to be that it will not be possible to have a single game that can be played on Conquests and also on 1.29/PTW. If that is the case then why not have 2 separate GOTMs. In keeping with my KISS doctrine, perhaps in alternate months one game can be modded while the other is a stock game. This will reduce the work for the game designers.

Game Results: Every effort should be made to get the results out early. Great strides are being made in this area and soon the results for recent games should be published. However, there is a great deal of frustration with this issue and we should try very hard to get the results published quickly.

Justus II, separating the GOTM from the Tournament wouldn't add more games each month - the Tournament would just run an extra two or three months.

The reason that cracker tended not to include scientific civs wasn't to equalize the luck factor so much as to equalize the version factor - 1.29 almost always gives the same bonuses, while PTW doesn't, resulting in a major advantage to the PTW player.

Having only submitted 3 games in the current format (2 GOTM and 1 Medal Play), not being remotely near the top players, and a mac player to boot, I may not carry much influence. But, yes the proverbial but, I've got to throw my support in for an additional option. I'll address it later in this post.

But first, concerning modded games v. out-of-the-box games: I personally prefer the mods. Now, this is not to mean changes cannot be made to how the GOTMs and medal play games are generated. They all do not have to be mods, which would at least address the preferences of everyone playing, now and then.

Secondly, I'm for continued support for all versions of the game: [civ3mac] , [civ3] , [ptw] , and [c3c] once a method becomes feasible.

In regards to difficulty, emperor level games are plenty for me. When a demigod, deity, and above game pops up, forget it. I'll read the spoilers, but its just not where my mind set is right now. I'm the fella who loves to play monarch and milk the game to the very end so I can enjoy all the techs, units, and wonders. I've gone through the "How quick can I win by domination at regent, monarch, and emperor?" phases. [crushed on deity] And, every now and then I get the bug to obtain a specific goal. Therefore, I would like to see an opportunity for those of us who: would like to play an identical save file, toward a specific or nonspecific goal; are not interested in gripping the seat w/ their buttchecks throughout the game; and would like to compare and contrast approaches to game-play with a larger community.

This may be just nostalgia for me, since its how we did it in the mac community before we were contacted by the outside world. ;) Btw Txurce, glad to see you're with the GOTM staff! :goodjob:

Originally posted by Txurce
Justus II, separating the GOTM from the Tournament wouldn't add more games each month - the Tournament would just run an extra two or three months.

The reason that cracker tended not to include scientific civs wasn't to equalize the luck factor so much as to equalize the version factor - 1.29 almost always gives the same bonuses, while PTW doesn't, resulting in a major advantage to the PTW player.

Maybe I wasn't clear about the luck factor, but that is what I meant, that on PTW 3 scientific civs might yeild 3 different techs, whereas regular civ they would all likely get monotheism. As you say, it is an advantage for PTW because they have better chances to get multiple techs at the beginning of each age by smart trading.

As to the tournament, if they can be seperated without increasing the number of games to be played, I would be all for that. I just know it is tough now trying to play 1-2 games a month, and I still want to eventually get through my Conquests CD too!

Originally posted by zagnut
Conquest: ....

The common wisdom seems to be that it will not be possible to have a single game that can be played on Conquests and also on 1.29/PTW.
It may not be possible to make them exactly the same, but it should be possible to make a Conquests game that has the same map and AI's as the Civ III/PTW games. The Conquests documentation (I've read it, is that sad or what!) claims that Conquests can read PTW .sav files. There would be differences in the way that Conquests plays relative to Civ III/PTW, but that could make for some interesting spoiler discussions. I don't know if Conquests would give an advantage/disadvantage in going for a high score, but maybe we could try using the existing scoring mechanism for a few months, then try to find a way of equalizing the scores later (if necessary)?

It might well be that the biggest problem with supporting Conquests is the lack of tools for the GOTM staff to look at the games!

Originally posted by Dianthus
It might well be that the biggest problem with supporting Conquests is the lack of tools for the GOTM staff to look at the games! Oh, we'll get there I think ;)

Originally posted by Matrix
I, for one, definitely hope we will play normal games as GOTM's again, without any mods. That was also the original idea of the GOTM: playing a normal random game, but then the same, so that we could compare each other's results.

My opinion exactly! :goodjob:

And like most other I also think it would be a good idea to seperate the GOTM and the tournament again, perhaps along the lines ronald suggested...

I like the mod-games and victory conditions because they renew your experience and you avoid replaying the same style of game.

Before GOTM / Tournament I never attempted Cultural Victory / Diplomatic / Commercial (that one was a nice invention) ...

I also think that you always need some limited modding just to even the luck factor for huts ...

But as said by Alan, I think it is not needed to alsways add 5 M for each GOTM and we have a good base for future games at this point of time.

I enjoyed the last year of gotms (the Macintosh compatible ones) very much. Big thanks to cracker for including us! :goodjob:

Why do I play gotms and not just games on my own?

For me (started Civ just 15 month ago) it was a great help to improve my gameplay by reading the spoilers and comparing my game with the other ones.

I consider this even more valuable than the competitive kick I get from competing for good results. This is present no doubt, but RL often gets precedence over sophisticated gameplay.

Regarding game skill improvement, I also like the idea of target victory conditions in the medal play series, because it focussed me on approaches never done before.

Obviously, I'm very much in favour of the mods making Macintosh Civ compatible to PC Civ. The fog, volcano, mediterranean resources added a nice touch, but IMHO are not essential for the gaming experience. Same is true for the added Civs and units: very nice, but not essential.

If it is possible to have them without unduly complicating game setup and without causing significant hassles switching between gotm/medal play and plain games: fine. I would not advocate to add more gotm-specific mods. OTOH having fog and volcanoes now and then would be nice. So would be games which can really be finished fast, e.g. tiny/small maps or games starting as a scenario with a limited target to achieve, eg. start Rome already developed till 100bc and kill Carthage.

To sum it up: do some changes to the game selection, but don't introduce a lot of new features/mods.

One of the biggest problems with GotM, for me, is the time factor. I know I'm not alone in this and without a retirement option the GotM is less appealing than it ought to be.

This little chart gives a basic idea of the problem. If I religiously play 10 turns a day, every day, then if I can't achieve a victory before 1550AD I'm sunk :)
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/GotM_TurnsPerDay.gif
Not a problem for warmongers I know but if you're trying to reach a Spaceship or Diplomatic victory then a late war will cripple your chances of submitting :(

I realise that sessions are rarely exactly a set number of turns and that what's going on in the game will affect the speed of play and the number of turns you can actually play in a session. I built this model assuming the fast and slow play periods of the game would even out over the course of a whole game.

So I would like to suggest extending the deadline for submissions. Perhaps to the middle of the following month allowing around 45 days for play or even the end of the following month allowing around sixty days.

This would allow us slowcoaches to play and submit every other game. Which is a hell of a lot better than none.

I know this would delay the results but after the first few months I think people would become accustomed to the new schedule.

Thoughts and comments welcome (as usual)


Ted

Originally posted by ainwood
One other point to consider is that the mods do allow the creation & customisation makers to showcase the results of their efforts - giving the GOTM a site-wide appeal (for want of a better term) Do any of them have any thoughts on this?
I did. It's very nice for the makers, but I don't think the GOTM is the right tool for this. For some you sacrifice the GOTM with this.

Another consideration: while only some like to try out mods and play with them, actually everyone likes to play a normal game.

Look, a lot can be done with Civ3. But the basis is a normal game, and a normal game is also most balanced. When you talk about strategies, what one does wrong or why someone got the highest score, these discussions are 20x more interesting than when playing with mods, because you're talking about the game itself. And you're never finished talking about them, since every game is different!

Remember when Cartouche Bee ruled the GOTM? He often won because of an yet unknown exploit. Then we talked about that and usually said it spoils the game (because it became the one way of winning the game) and made it forbidden after that GOTM. But then he found another one and so on and so forth. "Those were the days" someone said to me once. I really miss these discussion. But not only these discussions, the spoiler talks are simply less fun.

With all respect to Matrix and co., but I don't think the departure of Cracker is by itself reason enough to reverse the whole process that was put in place. All the topics in this thread have been discussed before : about combining Gotm with the Tournament or not, about adding mods or not, about supporting different versions or not - you can easily find back the related threads.
With or without Cracker, the reasons why the changes were made are still valid. Of course the staff can deicde to alter the vision, the targets, the ways of providing the GOTM now, but I don't think it's necessary and if they do, I hope it will be based on the arguments that were used before, not just on personal preferences - after all, you can't do right for everyone all the time anyway.

In the mean time, the REAL message of Cracker's retirement (or what I think is the real message) goes unnoticed : the fact that the GOTM plus its administration takes up too much time to be able to support it over a longer period of time. Personally I stopped playing Civ altogether due to lack of time. I also notice that Spiderzord's scoring tool is long overdue, that scoring results come out late, that statistics and QSC-overview maps are dropped... Mind you - I'm not criticising anyone, how could I - it's all for free and unrewarded ! I just notice that it all takes up too much time from RL. I think THAT is the real problem that the GOTM-staff needs to tackle. Maybe by extending schedules (2 months for a Gotm, 6 per year, alternating with a tourny-game or so), or by shortening games (e.g. starting a scenario in 1500 or so - whatever). Hmm - perhaps this should go in a separate thread ?

Hi,

I'm rather new to the GOTM and tournaments but they were easily the most enjoyable games I've played in Civ in a long time. They were subtly modded: fog/squid to allow for seemingly larger oceans while keeping maps reasonably sized, extra luxury resources to allow increased trading, extra terrain resources that simulate the long overdue irrigation of hill/mountain by placing goats on them, very flavorful eastern style units (even if they are "just" a rename/ alternate graphic for an existing one they gave the thing a different flavor), even unique units which are very civ/scenario specific, each mod I've seen so far was done to achieve a specific purpose that enhanced gameplay and set additional challenges. It also set these games apart and a big notch above the usual random games.

The gotm should retain the modding (and if you consider how much work something like the mediterranean or asian modpack is, reuse a few times to make it worth the effort!). It can also serve as an excellent testing ground for various approaches to overcome in-game problems like the naval movement.

I hear the complaints about download size but don't agree. If I am willing to play many hours (>40 for the mongols in my case) I should be willing to invest a few minutes to get the setup packs. That we can download the needed packs incrementally already helps.

The victory condition should be an integral part of the scenario. The mongols HAD to play domination/conquest, other scenarios might be focussed on different challenges, and the victory condition is important. These games have also forced me to use different approaches based on VC, a medieval conquest would just not occur in my random builder games.

The conquests pack is a different story. I have not got it, and from what I read in the reviews/discussions I am very sceptical wether the changes introduced to the basic game will be adding to my fun. But even then, with C3C it will be unavoidable to have players in different versions on very different footings. Easy out: keep GOTM at the Civ3/PTW level, they are included in conquests, and if you want to play a game with C3C rules you can start your own random one, perhaps as a succession game if you want to compare how you did with others.

My suggestions on how to improve the gotm would be to limit mapsize to standard, and also occasionally throw in smaller maps. Specific challenges can still be incorporated and indeed be much more of a focus, and players with busy lives/slower machines still have a chance to finish without risking their marriages :) Sometimes the overall difficulty level could be much lower, but then the map might be stacked against us, desert or jungle island start, sparsity or monopoly on specific resources - give us weaker players a chance to attempt predator with a reasonable chance at having fun. Having said that, monarch (i.e. conquest) is rather appropriate for me...

Admin time is crucial and valuable - I really don't envy you guys your job and you do it well. But to keep the gotm alive the feedback needs to be in place. Spoiler threads for gotm and tournament games, reasonably timed final results, etc. are as vital as getting the next great game ready.

Enough ramble for one posting...

Cheers,
Hammurodi

Time is a factor for me to, and I would certainly welcome a 45 or 60 day gotm period. Trying to squeeze a game into a month has been a real problem for me.

Plus, imo, less mods in a given GOTM would mean less time spent developing/playtesting the map and more time for the admins to perform other administrative tasks.

This is a really good thread. I hope some good comes out of it.

Also don't forget to address this player question:;)

"Is GOTM's “Pantheon of Heroes” a Secret Society?!;)" by Eman

Originally posted by Dianthus

The Conquests documentation (I've read it, is that sad or what!) claims that Conquests can read PTW .sav files.

I can confirm that C3C will load vanilla Civ 3 or PTW save files. I used a PTW test save to verify that the RCP and FP/Palace bugs were changed. I would say fixed but they are now worse because building the FP will raise significantly the corruption around your palace.

I absolutely love the modded GOTM. It is a fabulous improvement over the basic game. The minor civs, new units and civilizations are great. The modified naval movement is another great change. The "commercial victory" was another interesting idea. The variety given by modding is great. If I wanted a non-modded game I could just create one myself.

I honestly don't see how to have C3C and PTW/CIV1.29 equivalent games in a GOTM. The AI has been upgraded (ie use artillery effectively) in C3C so there is no way for them to compare. I am firmly in the keep GOTM widely available camp.

I really like the idea of deleting resources for predator players. For example, in GOTM 25, the wheat just north of the start could have been deleted or some flood plains could have been converted to plains.

As stated by others the ONLY way to a high score is to expand to the domination limit and then win by the chosen method. This leads to predictable gameplay. There are no grand strategic choices. This is the only serious weakness to the current GOTM IMO. However this is fairly simple to solve ... add bonus points for culture and technology. This would make builder/trader grand strategies viable. Besides in a domination/conquest game there comes a point where victory is inevitable for the human player. Its just a mechanical exercise after that with the only variable being how fast it comes.

The games do take a very long time to play. I missed the GOTM 25 submit time. I just can't afford to put the time in to play to finish in a month. However since the end game is usually the boring mechanical exercise, I don't miss much. I still enjoy playing.

With regard to mixing the tournament/GOTM ... I think its fine. Realistically there is only so much time the team can devote to creating such interesting games and if they choose to use the games for dual purposes that's fine.

Plain Out-of-the-box games are boring and quite predictable, i myself dont play them anymore. GotM games are much more interesting.

GotM is excellent in its current form :goodjob: , i hope the Moderators will not backtrack us to stone age by forcing us to play "standard" 0% unmodified games.

After a while it gets boring to do the same old "Beeline to Mil.Trad. - kill everyone with Cavs" Its really refeshing to play with some new units and strategies from time to time.

Not that i would suggest that every game should be modified as heavily as the Mongol one, but hey, even in the Mongol game people had the chanse to use normal UU too, if they wanted.

Compliments to all on this thread. Some very well thought out points and some very interesting proposals. My critics eye view of the past:

GOTM Modifications : I really like these, from the Asian flavor units to the added luxuries and resources, they create the feeling of a special game as opposed to the just a random computer selected game. I’ll agree that the volcanoes and fog weren’t high points in this adventure, but the Minoans (w/ the Peltast) and the new Mongol units were great.

Medal Play Games: I enjoyed these, though time prevented me from being able to play all of them, they were a great reminder of the out-of-the-box game. The new victory condition was especially enjoyable.

QSC & Jason Scoring: I think the QSC is a great learning tool and should be continued and expanded if possible. I’m a little unsure of the Jason scoring method (more on that later).

Since it’s the holiday season, I think I’ll take my turn on Santa’s lap and add my Christmas list to this discussion on what I’d wish for in the future:

GOTM: I’d like to see the GOTM grow with new flavors (terrains packs, new units, new opponents, etc). This is meant to be a special type game above and beyond the random computer generated ones. The GOTM should probably stick to standard size maps and 6-10 AI. No set victory condition. Games running from 1st of current month to 15th of next month. Develop a new scoring system that gives points for achievements (similar to QSC scoring) and victory date. This would allow retirements to be submitted for those unable to finish.

Medal Play Games: Keep these to out-of-the-box units/rules/opponents with special victory conditions for flavor (5CC, Economic Victory, Always at War, etc…). Playing 1 game per month (15th-15th schedule), with 2 tournaments per year. Use standard or smaller maps with 5-7 AI to allow for quicker games. Each game would have a large bonus (50%) for the targeted victory, with a quickness of completion bonus.

GOTQ: Add a new Game of the Quarter. This would be for the people with extra time or for those with only time for 1 game a quarter. Use large/huge maps with 16+ opponents. No targeted victory condition. Use a similar scoring method as GOTM without the victory date component to give those who enjoy milking a target. Modifications would be optional (without modifications, these could be High Score Hall of Fame candidates).

Rankings: I’d like to see 3 different sets of rankings:
1-GOTM Leader Board using a weighted system (current highest…) for GOTM games only
2-Medal Play Leaders by category (Predator, Open, Conquest) for the current Tournament only
3- All Around Leader Board combining 1&2 with GOTQ leaders

Conquests: After the FP & GPT bugs are fixed, I’d like to see conquests added to the GOTM, if possible. I don’t want to see the Mac community shut out, so the original Civ GOTM should continue until there is a CFC version for them. At some point (June), it might make sense to phase out the PTW component. With a new scoring method it should be possible to compare the different versions.

That’s my list :santa:, I know it’s a lot and I’d be happy if the GOTM just kept moving forward with what’s already there, but these are the holidays, so why not wish for it all.

Originally posted by denyd
GOTQ: Add a new Game of the Quarter. This would be for the people with extra time or for those with only time for 1 game a quarter. Use large/huge maps with 16+ opponents. No targeted victory condition. Use a similar scoring method as GOTM without the victory date component to give those who enjoy milking a target. Modifications would be optional (without modifications, these could be High Score Hall of Fame candidates).
[/B]

This is a GREAT idea!!
I was wishing this exact same thing as I never feel that I have enough time in a month and I often feel rushed when playing gotm. Kinda why I don't try to finish anymore.

I don't particularly like the gotm being part of medal play, but that is how I acheived my 1st gotm victory(targeted victory condition)

I always liked the mods, but I kinda like something to the effect of what I read in an earlier post, like maybe use different mods in different months as opposed to just adding more and more.

Ainwood, thanks for encouraging this thread and soliciting our thoughts on these subjects! My two bits: :)

Tournament mixed with GOTM

I'd prefer to see tournament games separated from GOTM in future. Since they were combined I've played each GOTM for the designated tournament victory condition. But I've had mixed feelings about that - often the designated victory is at odds with getting the best Jason score.

The previous GOTM goal of a high Jason score was interesting and challenging, allowing for a wide range of approaches and play styles. It also allows for a variety of different awards each month. The tournament goal of earliest finish with a specified goal is much more focused and has its own appeal. But these two goals are distinct. I've been trying to go for both at once (with an emphasis on the tournament goal) and that hasn't been very satisfying. Going flat out for one goal or the other seems better. And to allow for that it seems best to keep GOTM and tournament games separate.

Scenarios/Mods

I have very much enjoyed the mods so far. They've added interest and diversity without (to me) changing the feel of the game.

I think that key issues with mods are that they retain the feel of the core game, that they are balanced, and that they can be explored and understood as the game progresses (no game altering changes which can't be seen coming.) I think that the GOTM mods so far have done well in all of those regards. The only case where the mods were quite game altering was the Mongol UUs and for that GOTM a practice game to explore the new units was provided.

But I also think that the mods should not be "cumulative". Each new GOTM should not use all the mods which have come before and add yet another twist. Carrying forward more and more mods in total results in a gradual shift away from the base game and, far worse, results in a larger and larger "barrier to entry" for new players. I think that each GOTM should have at most a couple of mods. The diversity from the base game should not be much higher for a new player than for a regular GOTM player. The mods which make CivIII compatible with PTW are an exception of course - they should be considered a core part of GOTM.

About custom maps: I very much like these. I think they can be used to enhance GOTM in at least three ways:
1) Provide a "fair" start. I don't necessarily mean a start with a bonus - it might as easily be a deliberately disadvantaged position. What I mean by fair is that good logical choices of opening move sequences lead to some of the best possible results. On random maps this sometimes isn't true - a totally illogical opening move can occasionally lead to the best initial build. I'd prefer GOTM to exclude such starts and it has been doing very well in that regard.
2) Prevent false starts. Tweaking and play testing of the maps can avoid situations where the player has a significant chance of being "blown away" by a single wrong move early in the game.
3) Provide a theme of play. This is a much larger issue, involving considerable thought and tweaking. I've been finding it very enjoyable to play on maps which have a deliberate overall plan. But this aspect of map making is clearly also a large amount of work.

Conquest/Open/Predator

I think the classes are great - they make it possible to keep the game challenging for experienced players at the same time as making it possible for new players to join.

I think that one key about the classes is that they should allow good comparison and sharing of experiences across all classes. If that is retained as a goal then the bonuses/challenges must be carefully chosen. For example, removing a food bonus tile from the Predator start seems a bad penalty to me - it could completely change the Predator's best choice of initial development, and that could make the Predator's spoiler posts of limited interest to Conquest and Open players. But there are many other possibilities which might be used. (E.g., at first glance I think starting Predators with a few turns wasted, i.e. at a later date with the AIs having already made some moves, might be a workable penalty.)

As others have mentioned, the additional challenges for Predator class so far have, in many games, not made it harder for Predators to acheive a high score. I think this has actually been a good thing. The additional Predator challenges have made the game trickier, requiring more careful play, and thus have attracted some players. But if the final result was a lower score, many Predators would probably revert to Open class - why play a harder game to get a lower score and be ranked below someone who played an easier game? Unless a scoring bonus is awarded to Predator class (a tricky thing to work out), the additional challenges placed on Predator should not be ones which significantly impact score.

Civ III/PTW/Conquests

It sure does seem impossible to consolidate Conquests into the same GOTM as was done with PTW. The changes are too large.

For the moment this doesn't seem like a big issue to me. Personally, I'm done with experimenting with Conquests for now. A couple of the bugs in it are so severe that I have no interest in playing serious flat-out games with Conquest, I'm back to PTW until the problems are fixed. But others may disagree with this and may switch to Conquests now despite the problems.

Certainly once a patch comes out and fixes the worst problems, Conquests will become a major issue. Some of the changes in Conquests are dramatic enough that flipping back and forth will be undesirable for most people. Once they've started playing with Conquests, they won't want to revert to CivIII/PTW to play the GOTM.

I don't know how to deal with this. I like the idea Justus II and Dianthus have talked about, running Conquests in parallel for a few months to get an idea of how results might be combined. But I don't think there's any point even starting that process until the first Conquests patch - the bugs in the current version of Conquests will greatly affect results, they'll change a lot after the first patch.

QSC

The QSC seems to have been very helpful for many players and it would be nice to see it continued.

If it is continued, my preference would be that its scores are not included in the global rankings. The top QSC score(s) could be perhaps be separately recognized with medals in the Pantheon of Heroes.

It does seem like an particularly time consuming task to manage the QSC process. If the QSC is dropped, I'd like to see some structure which encourages posting of detailed logs up to 1000BC. I've always tried to post detailed logs of my games, even before QSC, and many people seem to find them of interest. Since the QSC was introduced, I and others have used that as a mechanism to separate detailed logs from the more general spoiler posts. If QSC is not continued it would be nice to have a designated place/structure for detailed logs so that we can keep them separate from spoiler threads.

Game Results

I'll add my voice to those who think the delayed posting of results may be hurting GOTM participation. I think that this subject might be more important than any of the others.

The sooner results can be posted, the better. It is best to have the results while the game is fresh in most people's minds. The longer the results are delayed, the less likely that there will be any interesting discussion of the elements of play. And people will lose competitive interest if they don't know how they're doing.

This subject crosses over with the question of allowing longer for submissions. I sympathize with people who have trouble completing the game in a month. I don't think there is a perfect solution - too long for some people still won't be long enough for others. Just have to saw off the submission date at some compromise time which you think is best.

I'd like to add to this subject a note about the web pages related to GOTM. Getting them up to date, and then keeping them so, would probably help a lot in bringing in new players. Currently a newbie to GOTM might click it on the left of the CFC main page, then see the current GOTM intro page with the notes dated Dec 2002. Among other things those notes include
o "happening behind the scenes to make the Games of the Month more exciting and enjoyable for the coming year"
o "We will actively be maintaining a 'Frequently Asked Questions' web page"
o "All the previous awards and trophies will be incorporated into the new 'Pantheon of Heroes'".
I wonder how many people have read that page and then left right away? Or perhaps clicked on the Pantheon of Heroes and then left. Or perhaps have stuck it out a bit, searched for information describing the scoring, and then left.
The year out of date information could be a turn off to many people, suggesting an obsolete or neglected site.

Originally posted by Matrix
Remember when Cartouche Bee ruled the GOTM? He often won because of an yet unknown exploit. Then we talked about that and usually said it spoils the game (because it became the one way of winning the game) and made it forbidden after that GOTM.
I wasn't participating during most of that period but I do remember the start of it, and to tell the truth that was a big turn-off for me at the time. I prefer Cracker's approach of reserving the right to disallow a game which he considers to be based on an exploit, even if it wasn't explicitly disallowed before. I don't see any fun in looking for previously undiscovered loopholes which can be used to imbalance the game, and I find it even less fun to lose to a game which gets a higher score than mine on that basis. I far prefer the approach DaviddesJ, Qitai, and others have used to publish newly discovered loopholes without using GOTM to do it.

Originally posted by Green Light
Plain Out-of-the-box games are boring and quite predictable, i myself dont play them anymore. GotM games are much more interesting...

Not that i would suggest that every game should be modified as heavily as the Mongol one, but hey, even in the Mongol game people had the chanse to use normal UU too, if they wanted.

Taking this one step further -

The Mongol game offered two options: an unmodded UU and a heavily modded one. How many chose one alternative over another offers an implicit poll on the GOTM community's opinion on mods.

Originally posted by Matrix

I did. It's very nice for the makers, but I don't think the GOTM is the right tool for this. For some you sacrifice the GOTM with this.

Another consideration: while only some like to try out mods and play with them, actually everyone likes to play a normal game.

Look, a lot can be done with Civ3. But the basis is a normal game, and a normal game is also most balanced. When you talk about strategies, what one does wrong or why someone got the highest score, these discussions are 20x more interesting than when playing with mods, because you're talking about the game itself. And you're never finished talking about them, since every game is different!
I'm a bit wary of putting too many of my thoughts out in the open, in case that people think that I'm just going to do it my way, regardless of public opinion. That's not correct - I can be swayed, and am the sort of person who wants to keep everyone happy. It may not (probably 'will not' :( ) be possible, but that's the goal I will work to.

In line with this, I would firstly like to state that my position on the mods is firmly in the "undecided" camp. There are some aspects that I really like (new civs with new UUs) and some that I'm less keen on (e.g. Extra luxury resources - I think it makes happiness a bit to easy to control, and there is less emphasis on luxury trading & denial). I am therefore especially interested in people's view on the mod-side.

Reading through, there is quite a bit of "I like them' or 'I don't like them', but not a lot as to what aspects people like or don't like. Can those strongly in either camp flesh a bit more detail on this? Are their some aspects that you like and others you don't? Is it just the new units & graphics, or is it the resources? The naval movement? The different abilities? The designed maps rather than random ones? The lack of goody huts near the start location on some maps? The map design that makes RCP 'more challenging'?

One idea that I was toying with that would certainly be feasible is a hybrid where there are purely optional mods that, overall, don't affect gameplay. For example, swapping out a given unit for a new animation, but retaining the A/D/M of that unit. Those who want the eye candy of new units can play with them, but those who don't can just play as normal, and the game play between the two options is identical and balanced.

I would disagree that a random game is completely balanced for all - for example getting a bonus settler from a goody hut early on can provide a massive disparity. But I feel that 'minor' tweaks can be made to work around that.

I must say that I am in favour of designed maps rather than random maps, but not to the point where the flavour of the game is compromised. There should be tweaks that require a bit more thought about city placement and tactics. For example, a narrow ithsmus between you and an aggressive civ opens up options for defensive positioning & carefull planning of attacks. :)

I think that the mods break down into three main categories:

A) "Compatibility Mods" that enable [civ3] players to play essentially the same game as [ptw] players.

B) "Flavour Mods" such as found in GotM 24, where a psuedo-historical scenario is explored.

C) "Experimental Mods" that include new or additional units or rules within the normal Civ framework. Examples of this genre include Volcanoes, Fog, altered unit movements/attributes & extra resources.

I think category A is essential (obviously), I'm in favour of and (and enjoy) categoriy B but I have my doubts about category C as I think this is where we are starting to drift away from the core game.

On the issue of maps I believe that a well-crafted custom map is definitely the way to go. Looking back at the games this year I find it hard to imagine that they would have been so much fun without those little tweaks to bring out the best of the game. But I may be in a minority here :)

One thing is for certain, you can't please everyone so perhaps you'll have to revert to a poll on these issues. Then, of course, you'll have to deal with those who don't vote because they didn't notice the poll, those who voted one way but now decide that they wanted to vote for something else etc... etc... etc... :D


Ted

Originally posted by TedJackson
One thing is for certain, you can't please everyone so perhaps you'll have to revert to a poll on these issues.
Ted

Or alternatively, bribery is perfectly acceptable. :)

Originally posted by ainwood
Are their some aspects that you like and others you don't? Is it just the new units & graphics, or is it the resources? The naval movement? ...
The aspects of mods I've enjoyed the most are:

1) Map design, for reasons described in my previous post (fair starts, predictable starts, and overall theme feel to the game.)

2) New obstacles/situations. E.g. the volcanoes, fog, squid, the concentrated barbarian regions, differential naval movement. Each of these things was an interesting puzzle the first time it was encountered. Thinking about how it should be handled was fun.

3) Modified Civilizations. In a sense this is just another example of (2) I suppose. E.g. a Civilization which doesn't build settlers, or one which starts with specific advantages.

4) Special units which require different tactics. I thought this last game with the Mongols was great fun.

In all of cases 2 to 4 above I think there's a fine line to be careful of - the mods must not be so large as to be imbalancing, and they must become visible to the player fairly. I.e. it should be possible for the player to see the mod and understand it before it becomes important to make decisions which are affected by the it.

I've also greatly enjoyed the artwork in the mods. But for me, if the mods were cosmetic only, with no change in function, I probably would choose the plain game - I like units which look different to behave differently :)

Specific mods which I haven't enjoyed:

1) Repeated use of the same thing. I feel that fog, volcanoes, and differential naval movement all got a bit overused. Also squid to some degree.

2) Added luxuries. They didn't seem to affect gameplay at all to me, but caused some annoying display glitches.

1. GOTM and Tournament should be separate. I didn't play for the tournament, but I always felt that the only valid comparison would be if I went for the "special victory".

2. GOTM Mods - I think that the GOTM should only be a modded game 1 out of every three or four games (every 3 or 4 months).
This is for 2 main reasons.
a. TIME - The time involved in modded games for the people who put them together is huge. As has been discussed, the GOTM team seems to get burnt out quickly. I think more un-modded games would mediate this effect.
b. Applicablity to the Normal Game - I usually find that if I play a non-GOTM game, I make mistakes that are due to mods in the GOTM. (Like mismapping my naval movement) This isn't a big deal, but it does make me question if I'm getting better at Civ3 or just at GOTM.

<soapbox>
I think that gotm spends too much time trying to "enforce" the rules. (removing war mobilization, replacing huts with "set contents", etc.)
We already have an honor based system, so leave these things in. They may be expoits, but why remove parts of the game when we have already said "don't do that"?
</soapbox>

3. Classes -
I personally would do away with the classes, but I don't feel strongly about it. In the past people played those GOTM that they felt they were ready for. The Conquest version is good because it gets people to try levels that they wouldn't have tried otherwise, but I personally think it cheats them. They beat deity, but started with extra settlers. Better to equip them to beat it on their own. I personally learned a lot from my Babylon Diety loss (even though it was humiliating).

4. QSC
Keep it. It is the most valuable learning tool available (assuming there is someone with time to put together the summaries and to do some analysis of the games)

5. Jason scoring - I have mentioned this before, so I don't know how to say anything more. I do not think the system rewards the kind of play that I personally enjoy persuing. I think a 1500 Cultural 20K victory is far more impressive than a 500AD conquest.
That said, other than upping the bonus for beating the best dates, I would say that the Jason system is as fair as I can ask for.

6. Conquests/PTW/Vanilla/Mac/French/etc
<shortversion> Make starts for all versions , but don't mod them to "even them out" </shortverson>
<soapbox>
I think we take too much effort supporting all 3 versions. I think it should just create start versions to support all of them. As has been discussed, currently GOTM makes all sorts of changes to the game files to "even" out the versions.

Not having scientific traits because they are treated differently in PTW is not right IMO.
</soapbox>
The different game versions are different. There are AI improvements (I think), barbarians behave differently, etc.
If you are worried about scores, maybe the best dates for Space and Diplomatic should be a few turns earlier in PTW calculations. That would offset the "quicker tech pace"

Originally posted by jeffelammar
I think that gotm spends too much time trying to "enforce" the rules. (removing war mobilization, replacing huts with "set contents", etc.)
We already have an honor based system, so leave these things in. They may be expoits, but why remove parts of the game when we have already said "don't do that"? Because in any competitive event you have to have rules or else the results are meaningless and/or subject to corruption :)

Originally posted by jeffelammar
QSC
Keep it. It is the most valuable learning tool available (assuming there is someone with time to put together the summaries and to do some analysis of the games) Abso-fragging-lutely!

Originally posted by jeffelammar
Make starts for all versions , but don't mod them to "even them out". I think we take too much effort supporting all 3 versions. I think it should just create start versions to support all of them. As has been discussed, currently GOTM makes all sorts of changes to the game files to "even" out the versions.

Not having scientific traits because they are treated differently in PTW is not right IMO.

The different game versions are different. There are AI improvements (I think), barbarians behave differently, etc.
If you are worried about scores, maybe the best dates for Space and Diplomatic should be a few turns earlier in PTW calculations. That would offset the "quicker tech pace"
Again, for GotM to be competitive there must be a "level" playing field. The idea of developing a handicap for PTW is not without merit but would take considerable time & effort and may discourage Civ players from entering the game in the first place.



Ted

Originally posted by SirPleb
I'd like to add to this subject a note about the web pages related to GOTM. Getting them up to date, and then keeping them so, would probably help a lot in bringing in new players. Currently a newbie to GOTM might click it on the left of the CFC main page, then see the current GOTM intro page with the notes dated Dec 2002. Among other things those notes include
o "happening behind the scenes to make the Games of the Month more exciting and enjoyable for the coming year"
o "We will actively be maintaining a 'Frequently Asked Questions' web page"
o "All the previous awards and trophies will be incorporated into the new 'Pantheon of Heroes'".
I wonder how many people have read that page and then left right away? Or perhaps clicked on the Pantheon of Heroes and then left. Or perhaps have stuck it out a bit, searched for information describing the scoring, and then left.
The year out of date information could be a turn off to many people, suggesting an obsolete or neglected site.

I agree with this completely. It struck me as odd that the paint-work on the GOTM front door was fading and peeling while inside it was a well oiled machine. Most of the items that Sir Pleb has listed would be quite easy to remedy as well.

I also agree with the players who brought up the issue of feedback. I think that getting the results back in a timely fashion and updating the GPR would be good - but I would also go further. I remember Cracker actually doing thumbnail assessments of the players in the top 30 of a GOTM, I wasn't one of them of course :) ,but I think that the players that did get the personalised feedback were quite pleased that their efforts were getting some recognition. It doesn't just have to be about the top players - some feedback on players down the ranks would be good as well - like which of the conquest players put their treasure chests to best use, who is most improved and who has moved up to Open etc.

I think it would be wise to apply the KISS principal. Things were very complicated and it must have been a ton of work.

Seems like a player poll weighting the things they liked to the things they didn't would be a good start.

Then let the GOTM team compare that result with the time each of those things take to accomplish. I'd say the workload should be cut in half right off the bat. The trains have to run on time or people will take a cab. I know I can't get motivated to play knowing the results might not be out until I am dead (not kidding, when you are my age six weeks can literally be a lifetime).

The whole forum needs to be much less heavily moderated, with light banter and moderate off topic meanderings allowed. As much as I wanted to participate, I hate having to take an anti-anxiety pill prior to posting. Heck, fully half of my posts have been edited or deleted here. That might be a slight exageration, although this is another one for you tally. This thread isn't about moderation style. If you have a problem with that, then please PM me, Aeson or Thunderfall - ainwood

It just needs to stop.

The scoring system needs to change. Civ3 gameplay is linear by nature, the current scoring system makes it more so. It would be fun to experiment with. Like take the current Jason score and divide by the total number of cities controlled in the game. That would make for some new strategy (and would require a new utility no doubt). Need something to break off the monotonous quick domination model.

More awards. Lots more awards to recognize other play styles rather than just going for the highest Jason score.

Here is my list going from most important to least:

1. Quick results
2. Loose forum moderation
3. Good custom maps
4. New scoring system with non-specific victory conditions and more award categories for differing playstyles.
5. Web pages kept up to date
6. Limited modifications
7. Support for all game platforms
8. Quick start challenge

I guess the things I left out are things I don't think are worth the effort. I don't think there will be sufficient manpower to do both GOTM and Tourney so I would like to see the Tourney supported by another group. I do not like the combination. I do not like the classes, I think we should all play the same game.

I think if the game is ready to release prior to the first of the month it should go out early. Releasing the January game in mid December would be fine.

And I think Moonsinger should come back.

OK, here are some observations from the bottom of the food chain, at least in playing strength... :rolleyes:

Things I really liked about the "cracker GOTMs"

The mods are extremely cool, and cracker stated himself on several occasions that the goal was exactly the experience I got. There were several games that I've reacted to with a "nothing will ever top that" -- at least until the next really strong one came along. I haven't had time to start this month's game, but just from the announcement page it is obvious that it is likely to top everything else I've ever seeen.

The QSC (when results were coming out on schedule) had a direct and very positive impact on my play. I learned more in the starting moves while losing the first 4 GOTMs I played than from all the random map wins combined.

Having an extra "medal play" game during mid-month provided an extra spark in the months where there was more available playing time. Sure beats repeatedly playing the first few turns of random games and giving up when it becomes obvious that you're in an unwinnable situation, like a 20 tile island on a huge map.

Things I really dislike about certain GOTM games

Being ranked in the 180's out of 200 or so players. I would prefer to have scores reported as separate divisions -- I'm in the top few of the bottom 1/7 of all players, not close to the bottom of a crowd of people for whom the Sid level had to be developed just to give them enough challenge.

Trying to use "bonuses" to make up for playing 2-3 levels above one's ability. A deity game plays like its deity, and a few treasure chests and some gold does not offset that. Like many others, I'm a monarch player who likes to occasionally play emporer, and would never have clicked on deity on my own. Let's play more games where lower level people can choose an actual lower game level.

Not getting results for months has been a major turnoff.

Originally posted by ltcoljt
The whole forum needs to be much less heavily moderated, with light banter and moderate off topic meanderings allowed. As much as I wanted to participate, I hate having to take an anti-anxiety pill prior to posting. Heck, fully half of my posts have been edited or deleted here.
It just needs to stop.

It never occurred to me that this was an issue worth addressing, but perhaps you are right. Out of all the posts and all the posters who grace these pages, how many have their posts edited or deleted for attitudinal reasons? If the number is much, much higher than I imagined, you may have a point.

As mentioned above, this isn't an issue for this thread. Thanks. :)

I appreciate this forum and would like to add my two cents.

The QSC was THE element that brought me to GOTM. The ability to get inside the head of the better players and compare my moves to theirs was both interesting and fun. To attract and keep new players, I think this is most important.

IMHO, when Cracker put a game together, he did so with a goal in mind. There was always a reason for what he did. Was it to teach us about our early decision making, or the importance of trading, or how best to accomplish early expansion, or .... The mods were used to help put us in different situations from which we could learn and grow. Without proper balancing of the map, this can never be accomplished. The flavor of the GOTM, to me, has been to learn new lessons from each of them.

The delay in results has been frustrating for me because the lessons that were planned for were not always evident until the results were posted. Reading the QSC and game results were as satisfying as playing the games at times. The feedback is a very important componet of the GOTM.

The forum has been important as well. I have not been a good poster because I have been so far back in the standings that I didn't think anyone would be interested in what I had to say. I am now learning that the story we each have to tell can be important to others. This is a lesson that we need all the GOTM players to understand and encourage them to post. However, these posts should be helpful and not moaning sessions because they were unable to load a game or they didn't understand something that was in the game announcement, which I sometimes question if they bothered to read.

As far as Conquerers is concerned, the GOTM, IMHO, is all about shared experience. If the MAC community (and I have a PC) does not have C3C, then we should not use it for comparative purposes. Cracker has shown us that a lot can be done with Civ3 to make the game more comparable with PTW. We should build on this. Perhaps, since C3C is so different from PTW, CFC should start a Conquerers section of the site and run a separate GOTM there.

The GOTM goals should be defined before changes are made. Without a framework, I fear GOTM may fall prey to trying to please everyone and that may lead to pleasing no one.

Thanks for the discussion Ainwood.

Tournament
As it currently stands I can only manage 1 game per month timewise. So I do not really get to play the additional tourny games. I do like the pre-set victory condition as this focuses the game and results are better comparable.
Maybe we could do away with the tournament and have every 2. or 3. GOTM with a victory condition?

Mods and scenarios
Now on the mods I am divided. The downloads and so on are a pain. Also if I get any detail wrong my normal games might be affected. And as I am not that good with computers that is always daunting.
On the other hand the games are certainly enjoyable.
I would like to see more 'normal' games and the occational modded one (as a special treat). But please keep the downloads small.

Classes
Please, please keep them. I did start with conquest and worked my way up to open now. But I do not feel confident enough to play predator just yet. The different difficult levels can give each player a feeling of achievement. I would hate to see the level rise to where I have no chance of winning at all. With the classes we can pick one we seem fit for our own level.

C3C
I am not going to get C3C anytime soon. I would be quite unhappy if PTW were not supported anymore.
OTOH if C3C gets an own platform that would probably split the community.

Speaking only for myself (i.e., what would interest me in playing GOTM):

Mods are essential. I'm not going to spend 50+ hours playing a game that's hardly any different from the game before or the one after. I've fallen out of GOTM because there's not enough variety, not too much. I think it would be almost impossible to have too much.

A quick transition to Conquests would be great, if the bugs in the initial release are fixed in a patch. Conquests has some substantial improvements to the underlying game. But I don't mind if different attempts are made to cater to different groups (e.g., GOTM some months could be Conquests, other months could be Civ3/PTW, and I would just play in some months---I don't have time to play every month anyway). Maybe the positive features of Conquests can be backported to Civ3/PTW; I'm not sure. I'd also be glad to see Conquests-style scenarios for GOTM, that are shorter/different from a full 540-turn game. This could get more people involved by making the time commitment less.

Finding a way to crank up the difficulty would also be good. I don't know exactly how to do this, but maybe some of the new Conquests features would help. I'd like to play a game that's hard to win, not one where the only question is how fast I can win and how high I can run up my score.
My first idea of how to do this would be to find ways to selectively disable some options for the human player, that the computer players have (e.g., no FP for the human player, no trading contacts for the human player while the computer players can trade contacts, maybe some way to have special developments later in the game that selectively help the computer players or hurt the human). The main problem with adjusting difficulty is that the game is difficult at first, but becomes easy when the human "catches up". So there need to be more difficulty adjustments that only kick in later in the game. Ideally these would change a lot from game to game, to give different challenges to adapt to.

I'd like to change the scoring. Unfortunately I think the Jason score causes people to focus too much on a particular style of play. I think maybe a new scoring system could promote more diversity (e.g., perhaps by having not just a single ranking, but ranking players on several different scales).

I also think the fairly strict moderation of the forums is important. There are a few troublemakers who try to ruin the atmosphere for the rest of us, and unfortunately they need to be controlled.

@DaviddesJ

Just one small point.

I believe C3C is less suited to comparative gameplay than Civ/PTW due to the addition of more random factors to the base game. Scientific GLs, Volcanos and the Statue of Zeus' dependence on Ivory to name some of the more obvious culprits.

This would devalue the "Play along with SirPleb" learning process for newcomers/improvers even further as the games will diverge faster and further than they do with the current version of PTW.


Ted

Originally posted by TedJackson
Because in any competitive event you have to have rules or else the results are meaningless and/or subject to corruption :)

I agree completely that we need to have rules. I just don't feel that we need to spend so much effort enforcing them. We're already vulnerable to someone re-loading to replay a turn, so why spend lots of effort policing other "cheats"?

Originally posted by TedJackson
Again, for GotM to be competitive there must be a "level" playing field. The idea of developing a handicap for PTW is not without merit but would take considerable time & effort and may discourage Civ players from entering the game in the first place. [/B]
I may not be communicating my Idea completely (I tend to jump from a start to a conclusion without the intermediate steps in my posts).
I was thinking that instead of creating situations where you have only one scientific civilization (Often done in GOTM by changing normal civs to different traits), you would have a set of "Vanilla Civ" best dates and a set of "PTW 1.21 and later" best dates.
So if the "Vanilla" Best date for space was 1555, then the "PTW"one might be 1515 to represent the 2 extra techs at the beginning of each era.
This would all be done in the Jason Calulator.

As a Note: Most of my ideas on this come from my fundamental dislike for changing the "rules of the game" for GOTM.
I just felt that GOTM was getting farther and farther from actually playing Civ.

Originally posted by ainwood
Reading through, there is quite a bit of "I like them' or 'I don't like them', but not a lot as to what aspects people like or don't like. Can those strongly in either camp flesh a bit more detail on this? Are their some aspects that you like and others you don't? Is it just the new units & graphics, or is it the resources? The naval movement? The different abilities? The designed maps rather than random ones? The lack of goody huts near the start location on some maps? The map design that makes RCP 'more challenging'?



OK

Love the effort that goes into the maps. A fair start is great (I don't expect too have too much bonus resources around every time though) but it's the well-crafted terrain with the position of the other civs that I appreciate most. I can play a random map anytime I like but these maps are something else.

Not too bothered about the new luxuries (fairer if they replace another regular one to maintain the game balance?) but the occasional food bonus to create an oasis in the desert was a nice touch.

New graphics for existing units add to the atmosphere when playing the game as do the other cosmetic additions such as the latin names for city improvements when playing Rome or the regional names for the Spanish game. It brought a smile to my face without affecting gameplay (but maybe simple things please simple minds!;) )

I'm not so sure about the fog, volcano, squid, etc. They were very interesting when encountered for the first time but once the surprise is over they often become just a minor inconvenience.

Some new units and differential naval movement I'm not so sure about. In this respect I agree with Matrix in that they can alter game balance.

However, having stated my preferences on these features I'll take the parts that I don't like with the bits I love every time if it gives me a uniquely enjoyable game and the GOTM staff have succeeded every time since I found this site and gave GOTM 16 a try. I'm sure that you'll build on the strengths of the existing set-up and add your own flavour to what's been developed so far, ainwood. Best of luck to you!:)

ps QSC is a must IMO. The chance to see other peoples attempts up to 1000BC whilst the game is still fresh enough in my mind would be my top priority. Not so worried about the publication of the final results (it's the actual game I enjoy) though maybe that's just because I'm yet to break into the top 50!:D

Originally posted by denyd
GOTQ: Add a new Game of the Quarter. This would be for the people with extra time or for those with only time for 1 game a quarter. Use large/huge maps with 16+ opponents. No targeted victory condition. Use a similar scoring method as GOTM without the victory date component to give those who enjoy milking a target. Modifications would be optional (without modifications, these could be High Score Hall of Fame candidates).

That's a great idea! :goodjob: May be the Game of the Year too?;)

At first I didn't play the GotM because I didn't like the scoring system (never been a milker).

Then the tournament started, fuelled (IIRC) from a thread with Beammeuppy, Aeson and GreyFox. They used a scoring system weighted much more towards time rather than score. I was comfortable playing for speed, as that was the kind of game I enjoyed.

Relatively recently Aeson completely rethought the scoring and came up with the Jason system. This was a good system, and I started my first GotM just after cracker took over. This was at the beginning of the 'modded' movement - there were downloads and the game wasn't what I expected it to be. Since then I haven't wanted to play, and this was partly because of the huge modding done to the game. (I have to admit this was not the only reason for not playing, but it was one of them).

Now I see the chance that the GotM may evolve again, and I am very hopeful that something will emerge that I again want to take part in.

Please note my ramble above is subject to the usual errors of memory (and maybe a few more ;)). Here are my (very) subjective thoughts:

QSC
I really liked the QSC and I would very much like it to stay - I thought this was a very good part of the GotM. I think there needs to be more discussion of the scoring and the reasons behind it - discussion of this has been somewhat limited (I may be wrong here, but it didn't seem like I could post about it before).

Time Problems
I take a long time micro-managing my empire and I can't play it for more than an hour or two a day, so I think a game with a 6 week period would be much better. You can overlap 2 weeks in to the next month - that way I could still submit once every 2 months. I also like the idea of a "Game of the Quarter" - another chance for a slow player like me to join in. :)

Mods
I like playing mods! They are fun and make a nice change. Change however is the operative word. A modded GotM should not be the norm, but at the very least the mods should be different in each new game. If you play with the same mods every month you move away from the "core" game more and more. If the GotM stays heavily modded every game I doubt I will join in.

Conquests
I can't see the changes in C3C being replicated in any way in PTW/Civ3 - they are just too different to allow it (like new traits). It is a tough decision, but I can't imagine going back to PTW now, and I would think most people with C3C think the same. Maybe running 2 games could be possible, but comparing the scoring between them would be impossible.

Originally posted by anarres

Conquests
I can't see the changes in C3C being replicated in any way in PTW/Civ3 - they are just too different to allow it (like new traits). It is a tough decision, but I can't imagine going back to PTW now, and I would think most people with C3C think the same. Maybe running 2 games could be possible, but comparing the scoring between them would be impossible.

I agree with anarres on this, once I got C3C I quit playing PTW and the GotM. I really love the GotM and all the mods but the changes in C3C were very close to what I wanted in Civ3 in the first place (corruption bugs not included) so there is no going back for me. I'll return to GotM when or if it includes C3C.

Originally posted by TedJackson
[B]I believe C3C is less suited to comparative gameplay than Civ/PTW due to the addition of more random factors to the base game. Scientific GLs, Volcanos and the Statue of Zeus' dependence on Ivory to name some of the more obvious culprits.


Why is Ivory a "random factor"? The GOTM designer can choose where to put Ivory on the map. The designer can also choose where to put Volcanos, right? I think Scientific Leaders can be turned off.

Personally, I'm fine with plenty of random variation. But even if you aren't, I don't think it's an inevitable consequence of playing in C3C.

@DaviddesJ

You miss the point or I expressed it badly. The mere presence of Volcanos on a map will churn the RNG for every Volcano every turn. This will lead to the divergence I spoke of.


Ted

Originally posted by TedJackson
You miss the point or I expressed it badly. The mere presence of Volcanos on a map will churn the RNG for every Volcano every turn. This will lead to the divergence I spoke of.

Well, you could easily just not put volcanoes on the map.

But I personally don't think trying to keep the random number generator in sync, among different players, is important. I think diversity of random outcomes is fine; it's interesting to see how different games can diverge a bit. I also think this is good, not bad, for somewhat "less skilled" players, as they have more chance to "get lucky" relative to the "more skilled" players. Just IMHO, of course.

Originally posted by DaviddesJ
...
I think diversity of random outcomes is fine
...

I don't think Ted was worried about the game in general, only the QSC portion.

In his earlier post he wrote :
Originally posted by TedJackson
This would devalue the "Play along with SirPleb" learning process for newcomers/improvers even further as the games will diverge faster and further than they do with the current version of PTW.


He is referring to how possible it is to repeat another person's QSC by following the turns in their timeline. The more the game's diverge due to the RNG the harder this is to do.

I like anarres idea of having six weeks to complete a GOTM, despite the delay to publishing the scores. If I had six weeks to complete it then I could play again. A GOTM takes me roughly 40 hours of gameplay, and if I play GOTM I can't play SG's, or do anything in what I laughingly refer to as my RL. Even 5 weeks would help a lot.

my 2 groats.

I just wanted to echoe something that I read in some earlier posts. The main page on gotm should be updated more often. Even if it is just to update the date where it says last updated.

When I 1st came to CFC, I was looking for the GOTM to play and compare my results to others and also to improve my game.
I arrived in February 2003 and it said last updated in December of 2002. only 3 months had passed.
Now it still says December 2002 which is 1 year, If it were like this when I had showed up, It might have turned me off and I might have just went away unsatisfied. And I am afraid that may be what could be happening to newcomers ATM.

Also I had read something that I think SirPleb had said about updating the Pantheon of Heroes, this would also be good on a regular basis.

The Mods are really cool and when playing them I really like the different names and Like the roman one that was latin, this makes ya think about what your doing and I like that.

I played the Korean gotm24(I think) and I did not finish or submit, but the reason I played any of it at all was to check out the new units, they were soo cool looking.

I also like the new resourses, especially when it makes Oasis in deserts. I liked the fog and squid the 1st time I saw them but later just got annoyed by them.
I do like the volcanoes, especially if you get something out of them when you defeat them, prizes if you will.

I also truly believe that the maps should never be randomly generated, that someone should make the maps for each gotm, just like it has been for awhile.

Those are my thoughts, Thanks for letting us talk about this Ainwood and Goodluck to you!:goodjob:

Originally posted by mad-bax
I like anarres idea of having six weeks to complete a GOTM, despite the delay to publishing the scores.
Actually I proposed that > here < (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1406947#post1406947) :)


Ted

Indeed Ted - your post was one of the ones that made me think it was worth adding to this thread (also as a potential 'newcomer' to the GotM).

anarres,

my post was just a friendly dig in the ribs for mad-bax not a proprietorial stance so no worries :)

I started playing with GotM 16 but haven't been able to finish & submit since 19. I've made up for it somewhat by taking part in the SG replays (23 & 24) but I would like to get back into the real thing.

I'm making an effort with 26 as we've got an extra week although Christmas & New Year will wipe that out.


Ted

denyd: I also like the idea of a GOTQ! I submitted an idea for GOTQ back in Mar of 2002 in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=230175#post230175) , but the response was ... less than enthusiastic. Perhaps now is a better time to suggest the idea. More on this later.

One issue is that of the player who barely has time to finish the month's game. I reviewed the submission list site for GOTM for the last few months, and it appears that as much as 20% of the submittals happen on the last day of the month. And another 10%, or so, are submitted on the 2nd to last day of the month. I have to believe that just as many players either do not submit or do not participate because of the month end limitation. And (being a player who routinely submits on the last day) the quality of that late submitted game degrades rapidly as the deadline approaches because the player is trying everything just to finish. It would be greatly appreciated to get some relief in this area. Several suggestions to extend the submission deadline have been made, any of which would be great IMO, and I'd suggest a GOTQ would provide another avenue for these late submitting players to participate in a less stressed manner, and it would provide an additional game opportunity for the quick player who submits in the first week of the month.

Another issue is that of mods. I've enjoyed them greatly, and I feel that my game experience has been more rich because of them. I understand the issue of the new player being turned off, and of other players having to 'relearn' basic out-of-the-box civ3 to play other games. I wanted to point out that part of the reason all these mods were introduced was to goad players (especially NEW players) into learning to use the Civilapedia, which is a great learning tool that many players overlook and fail to use. This was in line with the desire to make GOTM an educational experience for new players as well as a competition for all. I think GOTM should be a unique gaming experience, and the mods are an integral part of this. After all, anyone can play out-of-the-box, and any group of players can share an unmodded game and compare results; GOTM should be a step or two beyond that. If this is a significant issue, the GOTQ (if adopted) could be the highly prepared for, moderately modded game, the GOTM could be a slightly modded (including map) game and the MedalSeries only games could be the unmodded, random map game. Players would have their choice of which to participate in.

So ... back to GOTQ. This could be a way to prepare a highly modded, seasonal game, allow for Larger Maps with more Rivals, and provide an avenue for time-crunched players to participate more fully (including current-moderators ex-GOTMer's ;) ).

MedalPlay vs GOTM? I liked the defined victory condition. The fact that a large number of players submitted games of the same victory type allowed for a large base of comparison, and it lead some players to pursue victory types they had never done before. (Part of the 'educational' side of GOTM.) I also understand the turnoff. Perhaps the victories can be grouped into 3 types: the Conquest/Domination type (focusing on combat), the Spaceship/Diplomacy type (focusing on research), and the Cultural 20K/100k. Rather than say a player has to submit a certain victory type for each game (3 best count), say that the player has to submit at least 1 game from each Victory type, and the best submittal from each Victory type counts towards a final score. This would give full freedom to each player to play for the victory they feel will give the best score in a given game, and still support a wide range of victory types being submitted. And this would still allow the GOTM's to do double-duty as MedalSeries games without requiring a specific victory condition for each month's game.

Scoring: Jason is a vast improvement, but it still greatly rewards players who play a certain way, especially as the game year get's later. I also believe that gaining the Pyramids (for many games) is crucial to scoring high; if so, than this also forces players who play for score to do things a certain way, and introduces the placement of the Pyramids as a critical element of the final game score. I know that a player who launches a spaceship and controls 66.5% of the landmass and 99.99% of the population has done more and maybe deserves to be called a 'better' player than one who simply launches their spaceship; I'm just concerned about being forced to consider playing that way if I want to play for a high score.

QSC: a crucial element of the educational value of GOTM, and a great way to increase the competition. I hope it can be retained.

There's a bit more, but this is already a long post. I apoligize in advance for rambling.

Originally posted by civ_steve
One issue is that of the player who barely has time to finish the month's game. I reviewed the submission list site for GOTM for