The GOTM SG games seem to be quite popular, and so I have decided that I will try to run them periodically.
In an effort to make the games as accessible as possible I am opening this discussion thread so that people that might like to play can voice their opinions and help me to set up the kinds of game that people want, rather than just the games that I want.

I would appreciate some feedback, and have listed some discussion points below, but there is no need to restrict yourselves to these.

1. How often should a new game be started?

2. Who should pick the teams and how?

3. Should teams be able to stay together and even have custom team names? If yes, then would a league table be a good idea?

4. Should games be exactly duplicated, or should they be changed with different playable civ, starting locations, respun resources etc?

5. Should victory conditions be specified? Would it be too extreme to specify a game as always war or 5 city challenge for example? We could even say that a game had to be played as either 5CC or AW and let the individual teams decide which they want to do... and which will give them the best score.

6. What rules should be used?

7. How will the game to be played be chosen.. by poll or by me or should we just play them in order from GOTM 1 up or something else?

8. How can we get more people playing? Should we make the games easier, or can we apply a handicap in some way? Maybe the GOTM staff would help promote the comptetition.

9. Would a game converted to C3C be interesting, and are there enough people interested with the software?

10. Finally, who should run it? I'm willing to do it, but I fully accept that I might not be the best person for the job. I won't take offense.

I've been thinking about this quite a lot recently and have some views of my own, but other people will have better ideas. I just want to know what they are please. :)

1. How often should a new game be started?
About 1 per month otherwise we’ll never get caught up :D . If you were to start the next one on March 15th, that would be about the time that the current one would be reaching the longer turn phase and a new one would have the new game buzz going for it. Most games (Not counting GOTM 24 PTW team) seem to run about 2 months.

2. Who should pick the teams and how?
Random draw is fine with a little tinkering for balance, but allow a group to stay together (or apart) if they request

3. Should teams be able to stay together and even have custom team names? If yes, then would a league table be a good idea?
If a group of people want to be a permanent team and that should be ok, but a league might be more commitment than many players are willing to make.

4. Should games be exactly duplicated, or should they be changed with different playable civ, starting locations, respun resources etc?
Resource relocation would be good to add flavor (and cancel some of the past knowledge), but switching Civ defeats the comparisons to past results.

5. Should victory conditions be specified? Would it be too extreme to specify a game as always war or 5 city challenge for example? We could even say that a game had to be played as either 5CC or AW and let the individual teams decide which they want to do... and which will give them the best score.
Normally no, however certain games lend themselves to a type of victory that forcing another would ruin the flavor (imagine a Mongol culture victory :eek: )

6. What rules should be used?
Either the GOTM rules in place when the game was originally played or todays rules. RBCIV are ok for penalties (similar to the current SG GOTM). As for victory determination, for the pre-Jason games, use the Firaxis score with a earliest victory special award.

7. How will the game to be played be chosen.. by poll or by me or should we just play them in order from GOTM 1 up or something else?
By poll is fine or starting at the beginning of the Cracker era and moving both directions (1 game forward and 1 backward)

8. How can we get more people playing? Should we make the games easier, or can we apply a handicap in some way? Maybe the GOTM staff would help promote the comptetition.
I think having the thread in both the GOTM & SG forums would help. Also try posting on the spoiler thread from the original game. That might stir some interest in players who have drifted away.

9. Would a game converted to C3C be interesting, and are there enough people interested with the software?
I think this would also be a way of drawing in new players. Using C3C would complicate the scoring and require team alignment based on version, but the more players involved, the more fun it is.

10. Finally, who should run it? I'm willing to do it, but I fully accept that I might not be the best person for the job. I won't take offense.
I think anyone brave enough to take on this task should be commended and be supported by all those playing.

1. How often should a new game be started?
It makes sense to start 1 every month I guess, but their always be overlap in that case since none will finish within the month.
So my guesstimate would be 1 per 1,5 month would be the maximum.

2. Who should pick the teams and how?
It comes down to whether you sign up as individual or as team. Things can get very complicated when there's a mix.
I for one would like to see teams sign up.

3. Should teams be able to stay together and even have custom team names? If yes, then would a league table be a good idea?
So my answer to this is Yes and yes. Team should be free to switch players if someone is not able to play for some reason.

4. Should games be exactly duplicated, or should they be changed with different playable civ, starting locations, respun resources etc?
We are seeing some of the drawbacks of well documented game being replayed. It's not a very fair comparison to the original players. So, yeah some resuffling is a pretty good idea. I liked was was done to GotM24.

5. Should victory conditions be specified? Would it be too extreme to specify a game as always war or 5 city challenge for example? We could even say that a game had to be played as either 5CC or AW and let the individual teams decide which they want to do... and which will give them the best score.
Hmm, we might alternate. For lurkers it's a good read to see the different teams handle the same kind of challenge. And in other games how the same map can be played in different ways.

6. What rules should be used?
I'm an RBCiv rule fan. :) With some exceptions (ship chaining... ;) )

7. How will the game to be played be chosen.. by poll or by me or should we just play them in order from GOTM 1 up or something else?
To save the organiser the hassle I'd say fixed sequence or chosen. Polls are an unnecessary complication. (Players might say I'll only play when this or that game is chosen :rolleyes: )

8. How can we get more people playing? Should we make the games easier, or can we apply a handicap in some way? Maybe the GOTM staff would help promote the comptetition.
Somehow I don't think this will be a problem... :D Just a steady stream of games will do the trick.

9. Would a game converted to C3C be interesting, and are there enough people interested with the software?
Like Denyd says, this could draw more people in. Complicated on scoring though since there are some major differences (the new traits for starters, MGL/SGL etc etc )

10. Finally, who should run it? I'm willing to do it, but I fully accept that I might not be the best person for the job. I won't take offense.
Hey folks we got a volunteer. :eek: [dance] :worship:

Same old faces :D

1. How often should a new game be started?
Probably the most difficult question on the list. I'd like the answer to be as simple as "When the current game ends" but that's problematic as we know :) On the other hand I think fixing a schedule raises it's own problems. So I'll pass on this one.

2. Who should pick the teams and how?
Another knotty one and it's tied to the teams question later on. I think a lot depends on how competitive we want to be with this.

Personally I use these SGs to get to play GotMs that I couldn't finish because I didn't have enough time. The competetive aspect doesn't really mean much to me so I haven't a strong view on this.

3. Should teams be able to stay together and even have custom team names? If yes, then would a league table be a good idea?
Notwithstanding my answer above this could be a fun thing. Again it depends on the competitiveness of the players.

4. Should games be exactly duplicated, or should they be changed with different playable civ, starting locations, respun resources etc?
I would be happy if the relative disposition of resources & luxuries were to remain balanced but the actual locations changed. The same applies to the start position. The civ we play as isn't perhaps so important except for "specials" like the Mongol Hordes.

Map knowledge, on the other hand, is more difficult to deal with. I've yet to play one of these SGs where I've actually played the original GotM so the problem hasn't arisen for me.

Reworking the map is a non-trivial exercise and probably beyond the scope of of what we can reasonably achieve at the moment so I suggest we take the map "As is" and simply relocate resources and luxuries.

5. Should victory conditions be specified? Would it be too extreme to specify a game as always war or 5 city challenge for example? We could even say that a game had to be played as either 5CC or AW and let the individual teams decide which they want to do... and which will give them the best score.
I'd rather leave this as loose as possible. That way different teams may come up with different plans/strategies for the same map and it would be more interesting to see how those strategies develop in -game.

6. What rules should be used?
I'm firmly in the RBCiv camp :D

7. How will the game to be played be chosen.. by poll or by me or should we just play them in order from GOTM 1 up or something else?
I have no strong preference but would expect polls to be too argumentative & time consuming. So you choose or pick a starting point and carry on from there.

8. How can we get more people playing? Should we make the games easier, or can we apply a handicap in some way? Maybe the GOTM staff would help promote the comptetition.
I think having the thread in both the GOTM & SG forums would help. Also try posting on the spoiler thread from the original game. That might stir some interest in players who have drifted away.
Should we get more people playing? Who are our target audience? GotM players who don't play SGs? SG players who don't play GotM? Or some other group of Civ players?

I think that if we want to encourage more players then one thing we ought to do is publish the results in the GotM and SG forums. Perhaps we could get a mod to sticky the results post for a week or so.

9. Would a game converted to C3C be interesting, and are there enough people interested with the software?
As has been said before, it might draw in new players but gives additional headaches. I think Gramphos' Multitool now supports saving as BIQ buut I'd have to check to be certain. I think it might be worth trying the idea out and see where it leads (although I'm not as convinced about C3C as some people :))

10. Finally, who should run it? I'm willing to do it, but I fully accept that I might not be the best person for the job. I won't take offense.
What's that old saying.... ah, yes: "One volunteer is worth ten pressed men" :D

But that puts all the onus on you. Which I don't feel is particularly fair. So if I can all chip in a bit of help, when needed, then feel free to ask.

I've played Devil's Advocate a little bit here but I'd really like to see these games continue.


Ted

If you asked really nicely, then a GOTM admin might just convert the original BIC / BIX to BIQ or a C3C save for you. :mischief:

Ainwood. Thanks very much for your offer. I don't know when the next game will start, or which game it will be. As soon as I do then I will PM you. Again, thanks. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by ainwood
If you asked really nicely, then a GOTM admin might just convert the original BIC / BIX to BIQ or a C3C save for you.

Please, oh, Noble Admin, is it possible to dig out BIC for GOTM14? There are SGs going on and I would like to try to play it in C3C in parallel. The save loads into C3C but the resulting game is PTW/C3C hybrid. For example, tech tree and upgrade costs are from C3C. Research limit is 40 turns and scientists/taxmen make 1 science/trade each instead of 3/2. And some other nonsense. Initial idea was to compare this old GOTM playability in C3C in terms of scoring as well and other things. So, please... I'll write a verse in your honor. Oh, thanks in advance.

:hmm: GOTM 14 may be a struggle! I belive that it was a random map, rather than a scenario. Hence it doesn't have a BIC file that can be readily converted.

It may be possible to recreate the BIC file from the Sav file, but I would need to write a utility to do that, which would be a bit too time consuming. One day I might, bit sorry, can't do it yet. :(

You know I am all for it. :)

We started discussing this topic in the staff thread too, so we will hopefully be able to use some of the GoTM infrastructure as the thing develops.

My take on these points.

1. How often should a new game be started?
I would say a couple of months -we saw in SG24 that some teams tend to take longer than others to complete the game :p
Besides, this SG was born to give an extra chance at playing to those who cannot finish their GOTM in one month, and I'd like to keep this approach: however, a deadline is necessary to keep track of the games, as well as for the competitive side of the event.

2. Who should pick the teams and how?
This is a big point. I think it would be easier to keep it free, as space pointed out -at least at the beginning.
If we end up with some form of team and/or player ranking, we can think of some restrictions on team formation based on those.

3. Should teams be able to stay together and even have custom team names? If yes, then would a league table be a good idea?
I would keep the possibility to change teams from game to game, but I definitely agree that a league table is a good idea.

4. Should games be exactly duplicated, or should they be changed with different playable civ, starting locations, respun resources etc?
As the others have said. With some reshuffling of resources and luxuries, or other modifications to be decided case by case. I would not in general like to change civs, especially for the later GOTMs that were more or less 'designed' for the specific civ, but that's not necessarily true -SG 24 was great fun with the Oda.
"Heavy" use of map knowledge would be diluted if several team members have not played that GOTM previously, and might be in any case spotted in the team thread.


5. Should victory conditions be specified? Would it be too extreme to specify a game as always war or 5 city challenge for example? We could even say that a game had to be played as either 5CC or AW and let the individual teams decide which they want to do... and which will give them the best score.
I'd rather go for variety: it may be nice to have games with a target victory condition, others with some restrictions or special rules, others completely free. We may want to have a poll for this.

6. What rules should be used?
I'd say GOTM rules as a minimum. Beyond that, I have no strong opinion.

7. How will the game to be played be chosen.. by poll or by me or should we just play them in order from GOTM 1 up or something else?
I'd find it more interesting to start from the modded GOTMs, say from 16 onwards -as I have understood, they would also be easier to 'translate' in C3C format.
Other than that, it probably is not that relevant. Let's just pick one and start from there: we will always have several to choose from

8. How can we get more people playing? Should we make the games easier, or can we apply a handicap in some way? Maybe the GOTM staff would help promote the competition.
I agree with Ted: posting in these two forums is a good start indeed. I'd wait a bit before thinking of further modifications.

9. Would a game converted to C3C be interesting, and are there enough people interested with the software?
Might be. It could also provide some interesting information on how the scores compare, although the C3C games would probably stay out of the "league table" (whatever it turns out to be).

10. Finally, who should run it? I'm willing to do it, but I fully accept that I might not be the best person for the job. I won't take offense.
I am personally enthusiast of the idea and will support you in this initiative.

The way teams will be set up is tricky I think. Ideally the teams would be evenly matched. Initially this can be guestimated using peoples results for the last few games. But if these teams stay together and then Moonsinger, DaveMCW, Sir Pleb, Qitai and Bremp decide they want to form a team, then it would kill it. So for balance, it's easier to select the teams from scratch each game. This of course means you can't have a league. The way I would probably do it would be to add new players to existing teams until there are enough players for a new team to be born. The players in the existing teams would then be split into say 5 groups (based on past performance) and one player from each group would then be selected (somehow) to fill the new team. Would it work? Dunno.

I want the element of competion, but I would like the teams to be evenly matched, and give the opportunity for inexperienced players to play with some of the great players.

If you look at the teams that are playing now, you have to say that they are not really representative of the average standard of play, and I think it might be a frightening prospect for an inexperienced player to throw his hat in the ring. I want to get over this obstacle somehow.

Not that I'd object to a Moonsinger joining. I'm sure I could find a few players to join her and me in that particular team ;)

You can still show the team ranks game by game, to save the competitive spice.
This may also lead to some kind of hall of fame for the best team results (based on some sorts of criteria that I can't imagine right now...).

In addition, you could rank the single players based on their team results, regardless of what team they played in.
This kind of 'ranking' could be used to form new teams with a hope that they would be evenly matched. Or you can use the GOTM Global Ranking.

Or you can think of short 'seasons' of three or four SGs, to be played by the same teams.

These are just ideas, more to give inputs to this discussion than to propose a final solution. There are lots of drawbacks and unclear points.

There have been discussions on a Team Play event in the GoTM, more than a year ago IIRC. And there have been ideas to set out rules for forming teams (which for instance would have to include at least a novice player or such), playing longer or shorter leagues.

I think it all depends on how many people are really interested and on what meaning we want to give to this event -i.e., how much stress on the 'relaxed GOTM' feeling or on the competitive side, or how structured the thing should be.

I would personally like to start with something quite basic, and try to define things as we keep on playing and -hopefully- more people join the GOTM SG.

Originally posted by akots
Please, oh, Noble Admin, is it possible to dig out BIC for GOTM14? There are SGs going on and I would like to try to play it in C3C in parallel.

Akots,

This request does not reflect good basic judgement or a minimal undestanding of what is going on the games.

There were several very inappropriate posts by you in those SG threads and thsi would just encourage the bad bahevaior.

C3C is radically different and considerabley reduced in its difficulty. It would be terribly disruptive to have you try an play what you consider to be the same game when it is not and then throw in your comments just to detract from the play of other people.

You have the ability to play the game in Civ4v1.29 and you have the ability to play game in PTWv1.27. Why would you insist on creating work for the admins and then taking the most disruptive course of action possible?

Originally posted by akots
Please, oh, Noble Admin, is it possible to dig out BIC for GOTM14? There are SGs going on and I would like to try to play it in C3C in parallel.

Akots,

This request does not reflect good basic judgement or a minimal undestanding of what is going on the games.

There were several very inappropriate posts by you in those SG threads and thsi would just encourage the bad bahevaior.

C3C is radically different and considerabley reduced in its difficulty. It would be terribly disruptive to have you try an play what you consider to be the same game when it is not and then throw in your comments just to detract from the play of other people.

You have the ability to play the game in Civ4v1.29 and you have the ability to play game in PTWv1.27. Why would you insist on creating work for the admins and then taking the most disruptive course of action possible?

We should probably THOUGHTFLLY put this ill conceived concept to bed once and for all. Games that were created int v1.29 and PTW were not designed to be played in parallel in C3C. This option does not logically exist. There is nothing parallel about C3C in any form.

cracker, I think you're being a bit harsh. Akots has shown he has a good (if not excellent) understanding of the game. His language isn't the best, but his English is infinitely better than my Russian so I think we can forgive him for that.

Akots just wants to try playing the GOTM in C3C to see what the differences are. I'm sure he's not expecting it to be all that similar. He's also not asking the admins to do anything about supporting C3C either in GOTM or in these GOTM SG's, he's just asking if he can have access to the BICs so he can play them in C3C as well. This doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me!

Originally posted by cracker
... We should probably THOUGHTFLLY put this ill conceived concept to bed once and for all. ...

OK, got the message. I thought it might increase interest in GOTM and SG. Well, at least it was of interest for me. If you think the opposite, it would be better to rely on your judgement.

Originally posted by cracker
... There were several very inappropriate posts by you in those SG threads and thsi would just encourage the bad bahevaior. ...

If you could be please more specific to indicate how exactly did these posts violate the forum rules. Otherwise please enlighten me on how these were inappropriate and encouraging bad behavior so that it is not repeated. I have no intention of posting something inappropriate or something that encourages bad behavior. However not pretending to be a good boy never intended to do any harm.

Originally posted by ainwood
... GOTM 14 may be a struggle! I belive that it was a random map, rather than a scenario. Hence it doesn't have a BIC file that can be readily converted. ...

Thanks for info and sorry for asking. It's probably not worth the hassle in this case.

Originally posted by Dianthus
cracker, I think you're being a bit harsh. Akots has shown he has a good (if not excellent) understanding of the game. His language isn't the best, but his English is infinitely better than my Russian so I think we can forgive him for that.

Akots just wants to try playing the GOTM in C3C to see what the differences are. I'm sure he's not expecting it to be all that similar. He's also not asking the admins to do anything about supporting C3C either in GOTM or in these GOTM SG's, he's just asking if he can have access to the BICs so he can play them in C3C as well. This doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me! I tend to agree - the issues can be managed.

It would actually be an interesting concept for two succession games to be played in parallel - one in (say) PTW, the other in Conquests. To avoid any disruption, the spoilers could be closed for contribution to those not playing. Has the possibility of allowing a more balanced comparison of the two game engines.

Slightly OT, Conquests is still undergoing some major tweaks. I'd be disinclined to be trying any comparisons just yet. ;)


FYI, as Karasu sort-of eluded to, this idea of succession GOTMs has been knocked around occasionally in the GOTM staff forum. First and foremost, the main requirement is that the succession games do not detract / spoil the single player games. There are various methods to manage this, which need a bit of fleshing out. We haven't really even touched on any rankings etc, but I'm more inclined to consider it a 'for interest only' component until we see how it all works out.

GOTM 14 has a certain status that may have attracted some players to the SGs. Me for one. Which makes me doubt their appeal.
I'm quite happy that you have chosen to volunteer MB, although, I liked the trash talk preceding GOTM 14 which you squished. But I appreciate that some players may not like that sort of stuff.
I would like there to be a competitive element but with that there needs to be strict rules of civility imposed within the individual teams such as teams being penalised for brow beating or ridiculing weaker players.
As far as team selection goes, this really only means anything if the consensus is to go competitive as opposed to comparitive. If it was decided that the SGs should be competitive I would be in favour of a draft from the pool of interested players.

Thanks to everyone for their input so far. :thumbsup:

I am beginning to turn my attention to the next SG, and would like to discuss some of the options available to us.

The last two SG's have been quite intense games at the more difficult end of the spectrum. I think it might be a good idea to back off the difficulty a little but add an optional element of difficulty for those teams that would prefer that. I hope this will encourage players to join who have been daunted by the previous games.

My proposal would therefore be to begin the next SG in the first week of April, well after the start of GOTM30. I would like to select one of the Regent level games, but offer a 25% score bonus to those teams that play it under Always War variant rules.

If there is enough interest, I will try to form a C3C team and will discuss with Ainwood if and how this might be impemented.

My aim for this game is to gain enough new players to form a 4th team.

If feedgack is positive I'll go ahead and set it up.

Sounds good.

That would mean choosing from:
- GOTM 1 - Persia - Small map - 5 rivals - restless barb
- GOTM 3 - China - Standard map - 8 rivals - raging barb
- GOTM 10 - France - Standard map - 7 rivals - restless barb

I would start from the first at this point.
The combination of Persia, the small map and Regent level should attract some players, and make for a nice quick game.
It also lends itself well to the AW variant.

In any case, the other games will be fine too.
So, yes, let's go! :thumbsup:

Yes, I think GOTM1 would be a good choice too for the reasons you state.

Now I just have to work out how to increase participation... any ideas?

Maybe you could get it mentioned on the CFC main page? I know this makes a big difference to the number of hits to my CIVReplay thread, and that's only a little entry in the new file announcements.

Now that is a great idea. Thnx... I'll do it. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by mad-bax
Yes, I think GOTM1 would be a good choice too for the reasons you state.



GOTM1 barely takes 3 hours to play so would seem an odd choice for a succession game.

I would be interested in trying a SG but have no real understanding how to go about it. How would I join up? How much time does it take? ...

I've not played GOTM1 so I don't know. I'll play-test it and if trivial I'll select another.

Offa: SG's are nothing to be frightened of. It's a little scary at first because you tend to feel that if you screw up then you are letting other people down, and not just yourself. But you get over this quite quickly.

About a week before the next GOTM SG starts I will post a game announcement thread. In that thread you will get a description of the game, and will be able to post your intention of participating. I will then assign you to a team. Depending on how many people want to play then there may be vanilla teams and PTW teams. You just pick which you want to play.

There are normally 5 or 6 people in a team and each player has three days to play his turns. On average though the games are turned around faster than this in the early game. Your turns will take around an hour at the start, but could lengthen to as much as three hours if you are into modern warfare at the end. If the turns become painfully long then you can cut them down to 5 per set. This is perfectly acceptable.

So in short you will probably need to spend a couple of hours every 10 days on the game. If you participate actively (which is encouraged) then you will download each save and examine the position so that you can offer informed advice on where the game should go. If you do this then you can spend as much time as you like. :)

The most difficult of the GOTM's that I've finished (probably completed 23-24) is the Iroquois diety game. That is one of my 3 losses in the GOTM. It's a real challenge.

I also enjoyed the Med Melee & the Asian Melee games.

I'd also like to mention that there are quite a few excellent tournament games and with those you'd be able to have regent/monarch team & a emperor/diety team for the different levels of players.

There's also the thought of playing one of the more recent games at Predator level.

However, I'm up for whichever is selected.

2 deity games in a row??!! Good grief. ;)

I'd like to drop the base difficulty this month to try to attract some people that may be put off by a deity game, but also I wanted to allow teams to optionally take on a bigger challenge by adopting one of the variants. If that variant is going to be AW then AWM is quite time consuming IMLE which is why I thought regent would be good. Because this is a discussion thread, I'm only flying a kite here and if people want something else then they'll get it.

Selection of the game to play is more complicated than I would like, and for the time being I have decided to restrict the choices to GOTM1 thru 14. There are certain advantages in playing an unmodded game in the early stages of this formats life. If and when the format gets taken over by the staff then things may change.

But yes, the games you mention would make for some entertaining games, and I myself look forward to playing them.

A hearty :thumbsup: to you mad-bax for your initiative on this project.

I like the idea of starting with GotM 1 and going forward. The idea of adding varient points is also a good idea. Imagine the scoce Dave McW would have had with his OCC win in the Med Melee. I would give the teams a few varient options. OCC, AW, 5CC, etc. You may get some very interesting games out of it.

Sir Bugsy: If we adopt your idea then we can just make a list of varients with the score bonus associated with each. In any of the SG's then, each team would have a free choice over which varient they would like to try. Getting the score bonuses right would be difficult for me, but I guess it could be done. There may be enough games like DaveMcW's OCC, and bamspeedys losing OCC in the Spanish game and Zwinglis 3CC in the celts game etc to get a feel for what some of the bonuses should be.

I heartily agree with this approach: only, let's be careful not to overdo things with too many variants right at the beginning.

It may be worth asking Aeson's opinion on the various bonuses.

In this regard, starting with GOTM1 makes sense as an "experimental" game; besides, an easy Regent game should attract many players.

I haven't played it though, so Offa may be right -have you got an idea of how many turns it can be expected to last? If it is in the range 100 to 150, it's a couple of rounds per player (assuming 5-player rosters). A bit short, but possibly a nice introductio to SGs for those who have never tried it.

I think that OCC, 5CC and AW are enough to start with. I'm also in favour of keeping the penalty for breaking RBCiv rules. I don't want to complicate things too much. I just want the games to appeal to as many people as possible.

The best Jason date for conquest in GOTM1 is 150AD, and domination is 370AD. So I would guess that teams going for a military win will finish around the 500AD mark. Played as AW the date could be put back to 1000AD tops I think. So it will be a short game, but that was kind of my intention. I will play test the game though as I've said.

I'll PM Aeson and ask for his input, and I'll start looking at some of the past games to see if I can set reasonable varient bonuses.

I'm sorry if I appear to be disparaging about GOTM1. It is a complete blast to play, and is one of the most enjoyable GOTMs. It's just that the settings Persia, Regent, Small Map make the game plan pretty simple, not to say brutal. I don't think any foreknowledge of the map is needed to predict how this will unfold.

In the early GOTMs the players at the time were able to do vast amounts of whipping, as this used to be very overpowered, and it will be interesting to see how much the loss of this will hinder players now.

MB: Some thoughts from a prospective player:

In reading this thread, the names are the same as are seen on the SGs page - which is great for experience, but will drive off many potential players just becuase they don't want to be 5th wheels or go up against experienced teams. I'd love a chance to play with some of these folks, but have had 2 things holding me back:

1 - I'm NOT a Diety-level player, and don't pretend to be. I've
been wanting to do an SG, but from the outside it seems very
much like a closed club of very high level players. Unless you
can break this up, you will be left with the same talent pool
to draw from. Teams of mixed skill levels might be a good way
to do that. It also seems that a lot of the "names" that were
in the earlier GOTMs have now left the fold to go to RBCiv -
Sirian, Charis, etc. If you want to keep the group in the upper
ranges, then perhaps you'd have to adopt their rules to draw
them back in. If not, then again, you're left with the same
talent pool. Rather than worrying about growing the
participation, you first need to decide on your target group.
2 - I don't have C3C, have no interest in migrating, and frankly
have found it to be driving me away from the site. Most of
the new user-developed maps are now C3C. Many of the
stories are C3C. And it seems inevitable that GOTM will go
that way too. I agree with Cracker that they are different
enough that they really can't be compared. While I recognize
that things will go that way as they have with each previous
revision, it's really too different to have been called Civ 3.

Other thougths on your questions: I'd like to see different civs, rather than just re-hashing the GOTM with a mixed team. I find it hard to believe that enyone could remember the resource placement enough to have an impact if they started in a different position - unless the look it up intentionally / cheat. Specific challenges (AW, OCC, etc.) would be fine, but I think you'd want to leave the time frame open, as many potential players (like me) have limits on their participation due to real life. I just can't fit a GOTM into a month... Again, it depends on who you want as your target group.

Good luck!

You are my target Group RAL. If you have followed the thread reasonably closely then you will see that the next game will be at a lower base difficulty than previously. All the games will be available in Civ3 1.29f. PTW and C3C will only be made available if there is enough interest AND the staff have the time to help us out.

You will be neither a fifth wheel or up against elite teams if you join. The formation of elite teams will kill the format IMO and I said so a few posts up. Sure, there may be higher ranking players than you in your team, but that's good isn't it?

The last thing I want is a closed shop. It isn't a closed shop. You just say you want to play, and you play, and if I make a decent job of balancing the teams you have as much chance of winning as anyone else, which may not be true in GOTM.

In my experience the best SG players are those that play their turns on time, write a good turnlog, and ask a lot of questions. Your standard of play is completely irrelevent.

You should play Row and live. You'll enjoy it, it won't take up al lot of your time, and you'll come out the other side a better player with half a dozen new friends. At least, that's what happened to me. :)

Originally posted by RowAndLive
I've been wanting to do an SG, but from the outside it seems very much like a closed club of very high level players.

I've been playing SGs since September. I don't consider myself a high level player. (i.e. I'll probably get my butt kicked on the curent Emperor level gotm)

Some folks talk a good game, and some folks really are high level.

But the cool thing about SGs are 1) comradery, 2) you learn different approaches to the various situations, 3) you get handed the game in all sorts of conditions, 4) you learn new strategies and techniques, and finally and most important 5) they're fun.

R&L - I would highly encourage you or anyone else to try an SG. If you don't like it, say so and walk away. I doubt that will happen. I know of several SGs that will be starting soon. Hope to see you there. :D

Originally posted by mad-bax
You will be neither a fifth wheel or up against elite teams if you join. The formation of elite teams will kill the format IMO and I said so a few posts up. Sure, there may be higher ranking players than you in your team, but that's good isn't it?

I'm not worried about being trounced - I can do that on my own. I just wanted to be sure that things would be balanced, due to the discussion on fixed teams.

The last thing I want is a closed shop. It isn't a closed shop. You just say you want to play, and you play, and if I make a decent job of balancing the teams you have as much chance of winning as anyone else, which may not be true in GOTM.

and you'll come out the other side a better player with half a dozen new friends. At least, that's what happened to me. :)

That is my goal. I've analyzed the games quite a bit, and can see that I have a lot to learn. Of those such as Sir Pleb, Charis and Moonsinger, I stand in awe, but realize that life calls each of us in a different way. Then again, I still miss the QSC analyses. They were valuable.

MB & Sir Bugsy, thank you for the invitation. I will find a place to count myself in!

This is just to say that I have play tested GOTM1. Karasu was spot on with his predicted number of turns to complete. It was difficult to decide whether there was enough in the map to interest a wide range of players, but have decided to go for it.

I think I'll keep the teams to four players in this game, just so everyone gets a go ;)

RowAndLive, Offa and others thinking about joining an SG - I strongly encourage you to give it a try !

This l'il ol' amateur Peanut played his first SG in the recently finished GOTM24 reprise, with 3 teams competing for glory **. If I can join in and do OK, well then anyone can ! I assure you !

So do it. You will enjoy it much more than a solo game, plus there is lots of scope to learn different tactics as you swap ideas on the forum thread. Everyone is welcome, and the more the merrier. Do it. Enjoy.

** and our team won even with me on board

Here are my tentative proposals in answer to the questions I posted at the top of this thread.

1. How often should games be started?
I think every 6 weeks sounds about right to begin with. Some games will take longer than others of course, and so a little common sense needs to be used. So some games may be delayed a little so that people are not overloaded.

2. Who should pick the teams and how?
My intention here is that people should be able to pick their own teams if they want to, but I will also draw up rosters for all other players. I will rank everybody who has played in a SGOTM and attempt to make the teams equal in terms of average rank. The rankings will be based on previous GOTM performance except where the player has no "record". In these cases I will look at other SG's the player has participated in and try to come to a judgement. When the GOTM Hall of fame is updated this will be considerably easier.

Where players want to form their own team then there will be certain restrictions.
a) teams must be of four players.
b) the combined ranking of all players must be no better than a certain value (to be determined).
c) where it suits the game I may add one or more players to the team. The team will not be able to choose the additional players.

3. Should there be a league table?
I do not intend to start a league table at the moment. Though I may implement it in the future depending on demand and participation levels.

4. Should games be exactly duplicated?
In the main (because it's easier for me), the games will be identical to the original. However, there are some games that have obvious scope to be played in other ways. Therefore, from time to time I will offer a game with some small modifications.

5. Should victory conditions be specified?
The idea that all teams go for the same victory condition is appealing from the point of view of comparison of parallel games. However, I think that placing such restrictions on a game may be detrimental as a whole and may cause teams to lose games they could have won by another victory condition. I think this is artificial. So all victory conditions will be permitted, except in the odd rare game.

SG's lend themselves to variant play. I would like to recognise the difficulty of these variants within SGOTM by providing a scoring bonus for playing them. The three I intend to include are "Always War" (AW), "One City Challenge" (OCC) and "Five City Challenge" (5CC). How the scoring bonuses should be set is problematic... but I'll do my best to provide for them. I am also toying with the idea of providing some (limited) recognition for multi-victory conditions (i.e. being able to win by more than one condition on the same turn). However, I am not intending to include this anytime soon.

6. Which rules should be used?
SGOTM will be played to GOTM rules. However, I think that a small scoring bonus for those that want to play to RBCiv rules should continue. The 10% penalty in the current game is probably a little heavy handed and may be adjusted for the next game.

7. How will the games be chosen?
This is the hardest question to answer. Unfortunatley I am restricted to choosing from games that I have not played, and it is difficult for me to choose the most interesting games. Denyd has posted his thoughts about previous games and this is very helpful to me. Any more feedback along those lines would be greatly appreciated.

Having said that... you will get what you are given! :D

8. How do we get more people playing?
There are lots of ways... but mainly it boils down to advertising, and wide ranging appeal. There are various ways of doing this, and I'll do as much as I can.

9. Should C3C games be provided?
I am not a fan of C3C games. They have no place in the team competition as they bear no comparison to the original. Also it would be hard work to implement. But laziness and personal prejudice can't stop me giving people what they want.. so if a team is formed that want to play C3C then I will do my best to provide it... Which really means getting the staff to provide it.

10. Who should run it?
I am not the best person for this job by a very long way. Personally I think that the games should be taken over by the staff as soon as is practical. I would like to see Alanh and Karasu take it on albeit in an unofficial capacity for now. Until I can persuade, cajole or bribe them into doing this I will do my best to stumble from game to game. Certainly in the next game I will be asking each team to elect a "leader". This person can then set the roster order of play, make sure the scores are posted, remind everyone who is supposed to play next etc. This would help me enourmously.

That's about it for now. Feedback is invited..... please be nice. :)

Looks good. :goodjob:
Thanks also to everyone's comments and enthusiasm -especially to Row for making so clear his worries.

Just to say I agree with all points...
...except #10 ;) I think you can run this thing and are doing it very well. I would be delighted to support it, that's for sure, but let's see how it develops.

And let's get SGOTM1 going! :jump:

Originally posted by Karasu
Looks good. :goodjob:
Thanks also to everyone's comments and enthusiasm -especially to Row for making so clear his worries.

Just to say I agree with all points...
...except #10 ;) I think you can run this thing and are doing it very well. I would be delighted to support it, that's for sure, but let's see how it develops.

And let's get SGOTM1 going! :jump:

What he said, specially re #10! I have just taken on the dubious task of trying to get the gotm results processsing up to date right now, so I suspect I'd be lynched if I volunteered for any other duties until that's sorted.

Originally posted by AlanH


I have just taken on the dubious task of trying to get the gotm results processsing up to date right now, so I suspect I'd be lynched if I volunteered for any other duties until that's sorted.

So you are responsible. Good luck.

Mad-Bax
I have been following this thread with interest and just now decided to post because I submitted GOTM 29. I am also interested in playing a SG but was unsure how to get involved in one. I think you have a great concept.

Perhaps a crazy suggestion from a mediocre player who used the QSC to try to get better, I read about SG's that have an experienced player lead a team of less experienced players and who helps them learn other strategies and improve their game while enjoying the fun of playing Civ3. Perhaps, if there are some more experienced players that would be willing to help us learn as we play, that would help draw more people to the SG's you are proposing. Reading through the forums at CivFanatics, there are many people who would like to improve their play but are not always sure how to do that. Comradery, learning the game and fun seem to be good ways to draw people to play.

Thanks for trying to think of ways to get us playing more.

Leif: Training day games are run periodically in the SG forum. In fact there is one about to start and you can join it >>here<< (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1658796#post1658796)

Because of the way it looks like SGOTM will work, the balancing of teams will naturally mean that the most experienced players will be spread across the teams, as indeed will be the inexperienced players. This is different from normal SG's where quite often the teams are made up of like minded individuals of roughly the same standard. As such SGOTM team play offers a new set of challenges to players of all abilities.

I hope and expect that SGOTM will play like TDG's because of this mix of ability. I cannot however make it a requirement that the games are run as formal TDG's as this will put off some people from playing. Rest assured though that merely participating in a game with this mix of players will be a great and entertaining learning experience.

I look forward to seeing you on the roster in SGOTM1 :)

Mad-Bax: Thanks for helping to understand succession games a little better. and offering me one. I intend to be on the roster for the SGOTM.

I think all that you said above is correct. I think the mix of abilities will result in a great deal of learning by all, and that is a really good thing.

One of the questions you asked was how to get more players involved in joining these SG's. The point I was trying to make is that if players understand the SG is a way to increase their skill while having fun and participating with others then more may show interest. I think that explaining it as a way to improve one's game may draw more people to participate.

I really miss the QSC results as this did more to teach me about the game than any other activity at CFC. Cracker did a great job of helping me and I really appreciate his efforts. I think the SG's could actually do even more for people like me. I have a pretty good handle on the QSC time now but need to improve beyond that time. I can win most GOTM's now but do not do so as eloquently or quickly as some of the truely great players can. They amaze me every month.

Thanks and see you in the SGOTM!

Yeah.. I miss the QSC. In fact I stopped playing GOTM when they dropped it. I started again recently, hoping the QSC will be revived now.

Mad-Bax,

I was wondering where you intend to announce the SGOTM? Will it be in the GOTM forum or the SG forum? I would hate to miss it!! Thanks.

I will post a game announcement thread a couple of days after the start of the next GOTM in this forum, and start the game around 7th April.

I will also put an announcement in the SG registry thread, and finally I intend to ask Thunderfall if he will mention the game on the front page of this site, more in hope than expectation.

If you are that frightened that you will miss the announcement I will PM you if you like.

Thanks!

You're doing enough. I won't miss it. I have been reading through the team threads for the Babylon Deity SG and found them most interesting. This sounds like it will be great fun. See you around April 7th. :crazyeye:

Originally posted by leif erikson
I really miss the QSC results as this did more to teach me about the game than any other activity at CFC. Cracker did a great job of helping me and I really appreciate his efforts.

I heartily concurr on both points!! I had just gotten it figured out, and submitted my first two at the same time that they stopped being processed. Since then, I've tried to keep on top of GOTM, but just don't have the spirit to keep up with it since: 1 - I don't usually have time to finish anyway, and QSC was the one way that I could learn and get some limited feedback. 2 - I'm not in the class of players who are going to be in the top 50% anway.
As such, even though I still try, lack of QSC is pushing me away too.

This is in no way a comment on the abilities and efforts of Ainwood, who is doing a great job!

Originally posted by mad-bax
I will post a game announcement thread a couple of days after the start of the next GOTM in this forum, and start the game around 7th April.

I will also put an announcement in the SG registry thread, and finally I intend to ask Thunderfall if he will mention the game on the front page of this site, more in hope than expectation.

If you are that frightened that you will miss the announcement I will PM you if you like. I can sort out the admin stuff for you if you like (post the news announcement & stickify the game announcement).

Seeing as there are a couple of strong supporters on the GOTM staff, then it looks like this is an officially supported event.... ;)

Originally posted by ainwood
Seeing as there are a couple of strong supporters on the GOTM staff, then it looks like this is an officially supported event.... ;) That's good to hear ainwood :thumbsup:


Ted

That is good news ainwood. Thanks very much.

Of course I'll take you up on all offers of help and I'll be in touch as soon as I can.

Since the next game will be GOTM1 it shouldn't be too much of a strain for you I hope. The following game however... well I've had this idea... :mischief:

If some help is needed please sign me in. I will do whatever I can. These SGs are very exciting experience indeed! Probably not less that GOTM itself.

Great akots: you've just volunteered to be a team leader. Thanks :thumbsup:

This sounds very intresting, ive not long started playing SGs, but i really enjoy playing them. They are helping my play improve immensely.

I've always wanted to play a GOTM but have always been put off by the difficulty level of the games, I would be very intrested in joining this set of games for this reason.

I'd also like to join this SG. although I am not very good: I only played on regent so far. :(

The next game has you guys in mind... and you will be made very welcome. :)

Further to awards M.B. I suggest just jacking the existing ones from the GOTM plus a few new ones for the SGOTM variant games.
Such as a purple heart for the highest scoring victorious AW game and a paracetamol or cyanide capsule ( the prefered method for warmongers to check out when their wheels fall off :) ) for the lowest scoring AW loss.
Can't think of anything suitable for OCC, though, I'm sure somone can.

edit: the purple heart might not be so good as it may be confused with the purple shield for the lowest scoring diplo win.

Originally posted by samildanach
Can't think of anything suitable for OCC, though, I'm sure somone can. Well, thinking real life single-city states ... A Monte Carlo gambling chip? A spare MEP from the Luxembourg European Assembly? An Autobahn map of Lichtenstein?

I hate rules, but we probably need them. I thought I'd open the discussion up with this draft. It isn't final, and I invite comment (please).

SGOTM rules.
The Game administrator will decide who plays in which teams. Teams may pick themselves, but the game administrator will have the right to strengthen or weaken a team in the interests of balance.
The teams may decide on the order of play themselves.
The first person in the roster plays to the end of the 3000BC turn.
Everyone plays ten turns each after this. In some games the team may decide that five turns/player would be better. This is fine.
When a save is posted, the next player in the roster must post a "got it" within 24hrs and post a new save within 72hrs. If you are late you will be auto-skipped unless you have asked for an extension.
If you are auto-skipped twice in succession you will be removed from the roster.
The threads used by other teams are off-limits unless otherwise stated.
The discussion of information from spoiler threads relevant to the original game is not permitted.

SGOTM ettiquette
Ask to be skipped, or play your turns on time. Please don't just go missing in action.
Do not automate workers.
Do not use city governors.
Do not leave units on goto orders that extend beyond your set of turns.
Do not make trades on your last turn, but by all means offer advice to the following player.
Finish all your turns and upload the game saved at the END of the last turn.
Stick rigidly to the saved game naming convention.
Include the turn number and the in-game date for each turn in your log. Note: you receive the game at turn 0
Do not change build orders wholesale on your inherited turn. One or two is OK, more is irritating for the preceding player.
Include a summary at the end of the turnlog that communicates your intentions. (Where is that galley going?)
Please post your Firaxis score at the end of your turn.
Finally, Mac users are very welcome to play, but should ensure that their browsers do not upload files in MacBinary format. Please PM AlanH if in doubt about how to do this.

Originally posted by mad-bax
... The Game administrator will decide who plays in which teams. Teams may pick themselves, but the game administrator will have the right to strengthen or weaken a team in the interests of balance.

Seems fair but IMO team members are allowed to settle dispute with game administrator in a peaceful manner. There is no way to force people play together if they don't want for some reason.

GOTM Scoring

How a combination of various conditions would be scored? For example 5CC+AW or OCC+AW?

My Interpretation of RBCiv Rules

Plus all RBC exploits and all GOTM exploits are banned?

AW Variant Rules.

No peace ever! Not "war by the end of turn". Start the war after first diplo screen and stay at war forever.

Combinations of these varients may also be used, however blatant attempts to exploit the scoring system ...

Please explain, this is unclear.

Otherwise looks great.

Originally posted by mad-bax

SGOTM rules.
The Game administrator will decide who plays in which teams. Teams may pick themselves, but the game administrator will have the right to strengthen or weaken a team in the interests of balance.


Good. There are two declared teams so far- both of them quite strong which may need to be diluted as a large number of players have expressed an interest in playing.
Also, I think you were right about limiting the teams to four players for this map - given that it is small and at regent. Of course my team the barbies and the Motley Crew have already challenged your god given right to maintain parity and player participation within the SGOTM. I think its in everyones interest and in the interest of an enjoyable game if you enforce this.....use a gun only if you have to:)

I'm not going to change the staff team. I think it is a really good idea to have a staff team, and it is right that it should be strong. It makes them a traget however...

If they are too strong then I will find a way of handicapping them. ;)

Your team samildanach is a little strong and has 5 players. If it only had 4 players then I would be able to add a less experienced player to the team. This would balance the team better and be of enormous benefit to the player I add. My problem now is how do I go about this without perambulators being emptied of toys? Maybe Gozpel would volunteer to join the OCC team as he expressed an interest in it.

akots: The point about scoring abuse is that the scoring bonuses have not been arrived at scientifically. I've just held a finger in the air and made a judgement. So the bonuses will be wrong. I don't want people artificially selecting combinations of bonuses that will give them a score that is not representative of how well they played the game, because of my inadequate performance in setting those bonuses.

At the moment, and because I don't know how else to do it I am just going to add the bonuses together before plugging into Jason. Is 5CC + AW roughly equivalent to OCC. Well, it depends on the map doesn't it?

I hope that a straight game will still be capable of acheiving the highest score. The bonuses are for fun and interest and encouragement to try something other than a straight race to domination.

Originally posted by mad-bax
I'm not going to change the staff team. I think it is a really good idea to have a staff team, and it is right that it should be strong. It makes them a traget however...

If they are too strong then I will find a way of handicapping them. ;)


:mwaha: :mwaha: :mischief:

Originally posted by mad-bax

Your team samildanach is a little strong and has 5 players. If it only had 4 players then I would be able to add a less experienced player to the team. This would balance the team better and be of enormous benefit to the player I add. My problem now is how do I go about this without perambulators being emptied of toys? Maybe Gozpel would volunteer to join the OCC team as he expressed an interest in it.


I don't mind being moved either - my perambulator has been denuded of toys in previous episodes so no need to worry. I think that if player numbers stay at 32 we should go with 8 teams of four - if we get 33 sign ups then we should accomodate the staff team as is. But if it stays at 32 then it means we will have 4 teams of 5 players, 5 players is too many for this map IMO and people may not get enough opportuinities to play or for newer players to learn. I agree that the staff team makes an interesting "target" but not at the price of being detrimental to other team compositions or other players opportuinities to play.

As I seem to be holding the spare keys to the gotm databases and scoring tools and database-driven web pages at the moment, if you want any assistance with presenting the progress and results, let me know. I'm sure I can twist Ainwood's arm into letting me publish one or two pages to assist :rolleyes:

Originally posted by samildanach
I agree that the staff team makes an interesting "target" but not at the price of being detrimental to other team compositions or other players opportuinities to play.
Well it just got stronger! I've jumped ship because I only play Civ3. So I'm on mad-bax's transfer market stall right now and the staff team is the right size. If we're not careful you and I could end up in that team that's always made up of the left-overs in the playground.

Originally posted by AlanH

Well it just got stronger! I've jumped ship because I only play Civ3. So I'm on mad-bax's transfer market stall right now and the staff team is the right size. If we're not careful you and I could end up in that team that's always made up of the left-overs in the playground.

I don't mind playing vanilla civ. I would prefer not to play OCC though. I''l leave it up to M.B to decide who he wants to move out of the Barbies - I don't have a problem if its me though.

Originally posted by mad-bax

1. How often should a new game be started?every month

2. Who should pick the teams and how?veterans can sort themselves out and newbies can be routed by the host into new teams or fit into existing teams as requested

3. Should teams be able to stay together and even have custom team names? If yes, then would a league table be a good idea?absolutely

4. Should games be exactly duplicated, or should they be changed with different playable civ, starting locations, respun resources etc?no changes from original GOTM

5. Should victory conditions be specified? Would it be too extreme to specify a game as always war or 5 city challenge for example? We could even say that a game had to be played as either 5CC or AW and let the individual teams decide which they want to do... and which will give them the best score.laizze faire

6. What rules should be used?password protect team threads

7. How will the game to be played be chosen.. by poll or by me or should we just play them in order from GOTM 1 up or something else?1, 2, 3 ....

9. Would a game converted to C3C be interesting, and are there enough people interested with the software?no interest here

OK guys, lets put some thought into the awards for this competition.

Firstly, let me say right off the bat that there is an inherent problem with awards for SGOTM. The problem is that teams play at different speeds, and some games played to extreme variants or where the team get themselves in trouble can last a long time.

Some ideas on how to deal with that would be appreciated.

Assuming we have awards then which awards will we have?

Gold, silver and bronze seem reasonable. But because of the lower number of games being played, the other awards such as fastest diplo etc are a nonsense really. (IMHO).

Are there any other SG related awards that could be used instead.

I have a couple of ideas, like

1. Most extreme variant (must win game)
2. Most entertaining in-game thread (voted on)
3. Warmongers award. Fastest finish (AW, NOW or OW)

Any other suggestions?

Good suggestions.

We might think about awards to try to smoothen the process, like fastest finish measured in real time or an award for least longest turnaroud time. ;) In addition to that we might have to impose a fixed end-date.

Hi Mad,

Where do I need to go to sign up for a team? I can't seem to locate a "place me on a team" thread. If it's too late for the current game, no problem. But I'd like to know for next month. THX. :D :D

handy900:

The current month is closed already, but you might consider lurking on the threads and see if any of the teams loses a player, you might be able to step in.

Check on the GOTM Forum, SGOTM Sub-Forum for the game threads (there are 10 games going at last count).

Best of luck

Originally posted by denyd
handy900:

The current month is closed already, but you might consider lurking on the threads and see if any of the teams loses a player, you might be able to step in.

Check on the GOTM Forum, SGOTM Sub-Forum for the game threads (there are 10 games going at last count).

Best of luck

Thanks. :D

Another discussion topic.

Ideally, I would like everyone to stay out of each others threads and the original spoiler threads. Unfortunately it's not going to happen unless I start banning people. At this embryonic stage I don't want to do that. Therefore rather than penalise the cross-lurkers by banning, or penalise the non-cross-lurkers by doing nothing I decided to allow everyone to read each others threads.

I'm beginning to regret it.

Since I have done this, conversation in some of the game threads is now centred around what other teams are doing, and how to beat them, even though this is specifically prohibited.

So the question is.... How do I convince to people to play their own games without the benefit of foresight and without exploiting every . .. .. .. .. . and microscopic perforation in what is supposed to be a relaxed and laid back set of guidelines?

Do I really have to police this fun event?

Maybe threaten give them a score penatly. Is there a way that you can put a password on the thread and only the people that know it can enter.

Also if your game is done like my team's are we allowed to lurk in other threads?

Unfortunately there are always players who will try to beat the rules rather than beat the game :(

Score penalties might deter some but how about a "Sneaks" award, given to the team that has cribbed most from other threads :)


Ted

Originally posted by conehead234
Maybe threaten give them a score penatly. Is there a way that you can put a password on the thread and only the people that know it can enter.

Also if your game is done like my team's are we allowed to lurk in other threads?

I like the idea of a password if that is possible. IMHO you should be able to read the other threads if your team has finished.

There has to be some mechanical process, such as a password, to stop the lurking. We are people and the tempation to get intelligence that can make us look good is much more powerful than playing by the rules. This is especially true if we think we won't be caught or if there are no consequences. Even after 2 1/2 years of the GOTM, when everybody knows the rules on reloading, there are still people who try to get away with reloading every month.

There is pressure on players during a SG because there are different levels of experience on the various teams. Nobody wants to look bad to his or her teammates, or let the team down by making a mistake, so it is hard to resist the tempation to just have a peek at the other team's games. In order to prevent this it is not enough to just say "don't do it".

Either the threads have to be private or there must be consequences if someone is caught reading another team's thread. I favor the private threads because it is much easier to administer. Having consequences means that there has to be a police force, much time spent, embarrassment, public flogging, etc. All too time consuming.

Originally posted by a space oddity

[/i] or an award for least longest turnaroud time. ;)

:cool: Another award I have no chance of winning. That award is going to be won by gung-ho rambo type players like you and Ted. While thoughtful, intelligent players like me for instance :smug: will be barely into our zen like meditative strategic trance;)

As far as other teams spying on the Egotistical Swine is concerned. Who can blame them? We are brilliant :D
But we could have been more brilliant. You come to my team M.B and take one of our stud players - Ted - saying that you need him for one of the new teams. And what happens - I expected to see him captaining one of the new squads - but NOOOOOOOOoooooo I find to my utter disbeleif that you have taken "the hammer" and put him on your team. You are a complete rascal M.B and I think your game should be scored at level or two below chieftain. I would hope that all other players would completely agree with this:D Even the staff team wouldn't stoop to this level of skullduggery.....at least not everyday:)

But can vBulletin 3.0 handle threads that are open to everyone except certain named people, or does it work by allowing certain people in? In other words would genuine lurkers be able to access the game threads?

If you want to be picky... how would you stop a player deleting his cookie and browsing as guest, or using someone elses cookie.

I fear that the only solution may be completely private threads as zagnut says. :(

Since you won't be able to lurk, you'll just have to play instead :)

I just had an idea for an award system. What about an SGOTM ALL STAR team, a named squad of players selected from all the competeing teams. And selected on the basis of who planned and executed the most cunning, daring or entertaining game plays. A selection of an All Star team might also cut down on cribbing as players will have to show some originality to get on it:)
Just so you know M.B I would honoured to be named to the ALL STAR Team.....not that i'm expecting anything of course:D ;)

I can do cunning :D


Ted

@ Mad-Bax: Following the threads, etc., it is apparent that you are putting a lot of work into SGOTM...(and not getting much time to play some Civ). As one who played in a SGOTM for the first time this month, I just want you to know I appreciate the hard work you've done so that the rest of us can have some fun.

You can take a peek at the vbulletin web site for more info (or actually wait for some knowledgeable people here to reply ;) ).

In fact, the whole point is to decide whether it is worth sacrificing some of the 'fun', the free lurking and so on for a more 'honest' event.
Either way, of course, you loose something.

As zagnut says, the same thing occurred in the GOTM with the reloading issue.
There have been lots of discussions some time ago, very similar to this one: should we keep the GOTM as an open, friendly competition or set up a 'police-like' force to prevent at least the most blatant violations?
In that case it turned out that in order to give a sense to the competition -friendly as it may be- some monitoring was indeed necessary.

So, if we want to run the SGOTM in the form of a competition, even a loose one, I am afraid that we will unavoidably reach similar conclusions. Which will bring some form of control over the threads, and some metric to define when a game is so heavily cheated that it cannot be accepted for the final ranking.

This would really turn the SGOTM into another 'official competition', potentially loosing some of its appeal for some groups of players (on the other hand, it may attract others... :hmm: ).
Still, this is not what I would like to see -at least, not yet.

The SGOTM is clearly different from its parent, and in my understanding the competitive side of the event is of lesser importance, being more a way to spice up the team play and to allow more teams to play the same SG than anything valuable by itself.
From this point of view, I think that some cross-lurking can be tolerated: I like a lot the idea of the 'snake' award for the obvious cases -it may actually be a good deterrent.

My feeling is that if it is clear that 'cheating' this way is not rewarded, the impact of cross-lurking can be limited. If on the other hand, the SGOTM turns into a competition to picking someone else's good idea as quickly as possible, then we will need some form of control.

Just my very humble opinion. In any case, we certainly need to define an approach regarding this point.

Originally posted by mad-bax
Another discussion topic.

Ideally, I would like everyone to stay out of each others threads and the original spoiler threads. Unfortunately it's not going to happen unless I start banning people. At this embryonic stage I don't want to do that. Therefore rather than penalise the cross-lurkers by banning, or penalise the non-cross-lurkers by doing nothing I decided to allow everyone to read each others threads.

I'm beginning to regret it.





Why not just tell people not to read the other teams threads? You have to trust them. I don't think any enforcement should be needed. If you specifically tell people they can read the other threads, then they are bound to. Dividing threads up as for GOTM would be good as it would enable people to read non spoiler parts of other teams efforts, which would be fun.

Did you tell people the settings for GOTM1 (ie map size, no of opponents, pangea/continent/archipelago?). These were certainly available for the original players, and wouldn't have been a spoiler. It would have placed those of us who had some prior knowledge of the map (probably only you and me), in a more equal position with everyone else.

I think this has been an enormous success, and you deserve a pat on the back/ medal.

I agree with Offa, cross-lurking should be officially discouraged.
That will stop much of it, on its own. Also this is a team sport and there will be members of most if all teams that will not want to have their accomplishments tainted by using information that would give them an unfair advantage.

I also want to say thank you, this continues to be enjoyable. I am gaining insights in playing as part of a team.

I would also say that I would rather have a very poor showing without gaining knowledge from another teams thread, than to have a very good showing after having taken advantage of information gained from lurking in another teams thread.

In short I would like to do as well as possible without cheats, exploits, or other questionable means. If someone feels that they need those to enjoy the game, let them. They are hurting themselves most of all.

So are we still allowed to look at other teams threads?
I don't know what misconduct has M.B upset as I've only looked at a few of the opposing team threads and those teams look to be playing their own games.
I think that one has to put any percieved misconduct in the context that many of the players who have signed up for the SGOTM are not familiar with the GOTM and its rules. And are probably only now aware of the GOTM because of the sign up thread in the succession game forum.
Originally when CF and others were bouncing around the idea of GOTM succession game I was for it because I saw it as a way to recruit players to the GOTM and increase the depth of the player pool. So long as the newer players understand the difference between the SGOTM and GOTM if they are tempted to do the GOTM then I don't see much of a problem.
I do happen to think that to approve cross lurking was a bad move as players may also get the idea that it is O.K to check out the spoilers in the GOTM prior to playing.
I think that awarding a "snake" ,as Karusa would have it, to players who have been cribbing ideas from the other threads is completely offside and unfriendly given that code of conduct for the SGOTM has been in a state of flux to say the least.

I think if cross-lurking is going to be permitted it opens up a whole new area of counter-intelligence. Just imagine the fun a team could have, if it was in the lead, by putting disinformation in its thread. The team could agree not to post copies of its map, perhaps just exchange them by PM, and have a code word that only they knew. They could insert the code word at the beginning of a disinformation paragraph so that everyone on their team would ignore it. However, none of the lurkers would know that and they would rely on it.

Imagine if my team is in the lead and sends a Galley west to discover a new continent. Then we post in the thread that the Galley went east and found a new continent. What fun to watch the other teams commit suicide on the wide, empty ocean to the east.

This could open up an entire new aspect to the game. It could become a game in itself.

Originally posted by zagnut
I think if cross-lurking is going to be permitted it opens up a whole new area of counter-intelligence. Just imagine the fun a team could have, if it was in the lead, by putting disinformation in its thread. The team could agree not to post copies of its map, perhaps just exchange them by PM, and have a code word that only they knew. They could insert the code word at the beginning of a disinformation paragraph so that everyone on their team would ignore it. However, none of the lurkers would know that and they would rely on it.



WAAAY AHEAD OF YOU !!!!:smug:;)

Glad to see you are trying to keep us honest, samildanach!

Or Mad-Bax can punish thread trepassers by taking their hand for the first offense, a foot for a second, an arm for the third, and etc.

With the exception of finding out where the resources and the AI are located (which can be done many ways without reading the other teams threads), I'm not sure what can be learned from trolling through the other postings. First of all, I don't have the time to keep up with what 10 different teams are doing. Keeping track of who killed who and when is something of no interest to me. Secondly, unless you take the time to read each thread posting by posting, the amount of different directions being taken will leave your mind a big bowl of porridge. Lastly, if you are going a down a path less taken (we've yet to swing a sword at anyone), the other paths have no information to brighten the way of these enlightened travellers.

In summary, if you're reading the other threads to gain an edge, you're probably fooling yourself and wasting time that could be better spent reading strategy articles by SirPleib & Cracker. If you're perusing them for fun and enlightenment then my my view of the world, happy reading.

Originally posted by denyd
With the exception of finding out where the resources and the AI are located (which can be done many ways without reading the other teams threads), I'm not sure what can be learned from trolling through the other postings. ...

Must completely agree with this. How can you ban CivReplay Viewer? Guess, just have to have some trust in people. Especially considering existing spoilers and those who played the actual GOTM. Otherwise, lurking is completely useless. These issues are not so important compared with the impact of actual player strength or discipline in following the discussed and approved strategies. The game is rather delicate on its own and proper micromanagement is usually more important than general way or development even at a certain crucial point. Also, stronger teams might have better discipline and move faster through the turns. Weaker teams cannot catch up in strength of play but can greatly benefit by lurking. It's just like anyone at all can go and do the same game as the brilliant SirPleb's Sid HOF attempt right away even with the same map. Well, nobody can but some stronger player who would probably choose his own way to win aiming to improve the things. Yet, SirPleb knows what he's doing and is not afraid of competition but takes the challenge with a wide-open visor of his horned war helmet. "Let them come, read, know, and try to beat me". I like his attitude and would like to see more of it in SGOTM. Private threads, closed teams, lurker awards, disinformation ... It all would kill the idea.

I like the SGOTM idea very much, thanks for starting it!

Just my few ideas about SGOTM rules:

1. I would forbid players from one team to look in other peoples threads and I would trust them to obey this rule.

2. I would not again like to see an old gotm map replayed, as some people know something about the map beforehand. Maybe even a random generated map without editing would be nice!?

3. I would like to have less emphasis on the aw, 5cc, occ bonusses then it is now, or we will have an "5cc aw" competition soon.

4. I like the idea about rbciv rules very much.

--
grs

The discussion about rules and spoilers and cross-lurking is very interesting to me, and because this is a fun competition I will go with the flow I think. But for the record I just want to reiterate that the reason for me throwing the game threads open was that it was *very* obvious that people were cross lurking and probably discussing the games through PM or some other method that they believe to be invisible to me. Rather than start laying down stringent rules I thought I would take the more relaxed approach, and just require people not to discuss other peoples threads in their own.

It's a similar argument to the drugs in sport question. Do you police it and accept that some people will escape detection, or do you just allow everyone to do it?

The variant bonuses seem large in the context of SGOTM1, but this is only because of the map and dificulty level. On more difficult settings and larger maps the bonuses will not compensate for the additional difficulty.

As for random maps... well, I like building maps, but this isn't SGOTM for nothing. Some people like replaying the old maps, and some would like new maps. SGOTM will always be based on prior GOTM games for as far as I can see into the future. Sometimes the games will be an exact duplicate, and sometimes not. I (rather arrogantly) believe that I can make the event fairly interesting over the coming months, but it needs to just get off the ground first before we start too much tinkering IMO.

I would certainly like it if you could tweak the old GOTM maps to prevent anyone who might have followed the game originally from gaining an unfair advantage. This could be done in a way that wouldn't change the game play unduly, and still permit comparison with the original players. However, I am also perfectly happy to play the original maps too.

Originally posted by mad-bax
... I (rather arrogantly) believe that I can make the event fairly interesting over the coming months ...

The brilliant example was the GOTM24 replay as a Japanese (Oda). That was really of great interest and challenge. Also, if possible, the difficulty can be increased for some games similar to a predator setting for current GOTMs.

Edited: Another thought occurred to me: What if one or two games (different variants if two) are kept as open SG. There are some people who would be willing to play current SGOTM even now in SG forum. Having an open SG allows them to participate if it is too late to play with a fixed team. And open SG is also a great fun.

Well... I'll take the credit for the idea of playing as the Oda with slower research in that game, but the architect and engineer of the entire experience was cracker.

From game 16 onwards the scenarios became more and more modified, and now to "mod up" from scratch is (IIRC) around 15MB. How many of the new players we have this month would wear such a larg download I wonder?

It's worth the download, definitely... but how do you go about convincing someone with a dodgy dial-up of that?

@ Mad Bax - I'm playing my first GOTM this month as well, and tolerated the downloads at dial-up speeds. The downloads are not any worse than getting patches. I did run into a problem trying to run a PTW game with the C3C version of PTW, but that is a separate issue... Ainwood was looking into that.

It might be helpful if someone involved in maintaining the GOTM site went through the instructions and built a page with explicit instructions for first time players. (Several still had questions if you look at the GOTMXXX threads...)

For the SGOTM, you might want to consider skipping 16-20, since the update for GOTM21 has everything that preceded it. Alternatively, you could go straight to 25... doing all the patching at once. This would get everybody "in synch" with current GOTM stuff, and avoid confusing setup swapping between a current GOTM and a "partial patchup" for an SGOTM. Swapping between vanilla and patched up is confusing enough. It would be a bit annoying to keep track of vanilla and 2 or more sets of patch-ups...

Another thing that would be helpful is to see how some of the transitional games behave with later updates... This could get sticky, and I don't envy your position in this. IMO, some players might be forced to "patch down", and that is not something I would enjoy.

Originally posted by mad-bax
... How many of the new players we have this month would wear such a larg download I wonder? It's worth the download, definitely... but how do you go about convincing someone with a dodgy dial-up of that?

Well, I did it from Moscow and believe me, it was not easy. Took a couple of days running 3-4 hours with a few hour brakes. But this is CivFanatics site after all. Must be a fanatic at least to that extent. Also, many people have PTW which is supposed to decrease the download.

This game is certainly great fun, combining the attractions of GOTM and SGs. Slightly outside the SGOTM idea, but I believe still more or less in its spirit, I think it would be fun to try a conquests game at Sid level with the same format. Given a friendly start map this wouldn't be impossible (?) and I think it would be great fun. Is anyone interested?

Originally posted by Offa
... I think it would be fun to try a conquests game at Sid level with the same format. Given a friendly start map this wouldn't be impossible (?) and I think it would be great fun. Is anyone interested?

You can sign up here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1769807#post1769807) for a not-so friendly Sid SG. Discussion of C3C-related issues is frowned upon in this forum. :rolleyes:

This is a discussion thread, and discussion of C3C is welcomed.
At some point SGOTM will have to meet the C3C challenge, and all ideas on the subject are very welcome here :)

But akots is right... If you want to play a deity SG then the SG forum is where I'd go. Getting enough players to fill 2 teams for a Sid game is a big ask though. If only I had time... :(

Just for those enquiring minds (like me), would you post a starting game (Tribe, Level, Map size...) schedule (if you know it).

Some people (again like me) are involved in GOTM and a couple of SG's and it would be helpful to have an idea of what's coming so the plate doesn't get to full (or empty).

BTW: A BIG THANKS TO RUNNING THE THIS - YOU ARE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB :thumbsup: :goodjob: :band:

I would really rather not paint myself into a corner too much.

All I will admit to is that the next game will be either monarch or emperor, and may be altered superficially to minimise spoiler information.

At the moment we are looking at week 3 in May for the next game, which will be looked after mainly by Karasu, since my children will be dragging me round theme parks for the better part of June. :cringe:

There is a recent superb article about variant games by Arathorn:
here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=85350)

I'm still thinking how fare are the bonuses for the variants. Based on what is suggested in the Arathorn's article:

AW - 1.0-2.0 level up
Defiant - 0.5-1.0 level up
Fast or slow moving - 0.25-0.5 level up
5CC - 0.25-0.5 level up
5CC Conquest - 0.75 level up
OCC - 0.25-0.75 level up
Tactless - 0.5-1.0 level up

Obviously, 5CC and OCC bonuses depend on map size.

Also, very rough estimation based on very limited experience:

RBC exploits - 0.1-0.25 level up
RBC honorable rules - 0.25-1.0 level up but may be up to 2.0
Mad-bax's modification of rules - 0.1-0.25 level up

Also, a crazy idea: How to discourage "closed" teams. If all team members have more than average 200 (may be 150 or 100 or 300 or 250) "Global Player Ranking" points per player at the date the game starts, all bonuses are either gone or severely diminished, lets say, become 2 or 5-fold less. This may stimulate incorporation of unranked or low-ranked players in the teams and would make a "dream-team" less profitable enterprise.

Yes, I've read the article. My concern about Arathorns difficulty rating is that I don't believe it translates to score. Jason works on how quickly you can acquire land and finish the game. Arathorns ratings are based on (extensive) experience about how difficult a victory is to achieve. It is fairly obvious that a 25% bonus for an OCC game would not nearly compensate for the lack of land and population against a "straight" game.

Similarly, the diffierence in scoring potential between AWM and AWE is greater than one level because of the starting units the AI get in Emperor games.

In short, I think it is beyond me to make a fair system of bonuses. But what I can do is make the process of deciding which bonuses (or combination of bonuses) will be the most profitable when balanced against the strengths and weaknesses of a team an interesting challenge.

The bonuses are there purely as a mechanism for allowing games played to a variant (as most SG's are) to win the competition, and chosing those bonuses (for now) is part of the game IMO.

If someone comes up with a creditable bonus system then great. Unfortunately Arathorns numbers relate to difficulty rather than score IMO and would not lead to an equitable or long lasting solution. :)

I do appreciate your input akots, and much of what you say influences me, but in this case I only want to play with the bonuses once.

This is exactly as it was intended: clarification about possible difficulty under various variant games. Since Jason's score has 2 components, fraction of maximal per-turn score and early finish bonus, and both of these depend on difficulty, this might be a way to go.

How to compensate to base score as well as maximal score, this is a big question indeed. For example, with OCC, maximal base score is achieved very rapidly as well as with 5CC. At least, more rapidly, than the maximal base per-turn score for a bigger country. If ratio of per-turn score to maximal per-turn score is used, then OCC and 5CC become too powerful compared to normal game. And early finish, when all these per-turn scores are not important (similar to SGOTM1), is not always possible. The easiest way is just to disregard the OCC-5CC problem thus discouraging people to play these variants. Otherwise, a different table of Jason's coefficients is needed for these games.

Perhaps just stick with the Jasons and remove variant bonuses completely? You could make variants rules rather than options. :)

Yes, this is an option certainly. As with all the options I can conceive of, there a pro's and con's. A forced variant makes the scoring system fairer, but removes player choice.

Another option is to give the choice of a single chosen variant or a straight game with an award for each. The risk with this is that most of the teams opt for one of the options leaving one or two teams competing for the other award.

The third choice is to keep the bonuses and accept that they are mickey mouse for the moment, and once we have a body of data after a few games make an empirical evaluation of the bonuses and change them. Participants get choice and the ability to compete for the "clean" Jason award if they like. On the other hand the variant award is pretty much meaningless.

My personal opinion is that ainwoods suggestion is the only fair way of proceeding, but... I think the bonuses are fun and encourage people to broaden their horizons a little.

It all might greatly depend on the particulars of the game. Just imagined somebody playing AW or X-CC (less than 10-CC) in SGOTM14 and cannot stop laughing.

If variants would be an occasional possibility, predominantly intended to have more fun, then removal of bonuses is the best thing to do, probably. Unless some cheesy Regent setup will happen again. In general, GOTM is supposed to be played for score and not for some extra excitement. There is enough excitement already. Most of the games (all in my very limited experience) are great fun by themselves and getting high score is extreme challenge by itself. Hence, RBC bonus and multiple victory bonus would be more than enough, IMHO. If variant bonuses are kept as they are now, X-CC and AW would generally score substantially less than a normal game even with all bonuses. However, I may be very wrong and having more experience is a very strong point.

I think it is probably needlessly complicated to give bonuses, as it is very difficult to make them fair. If teams want to do something really clever like a 1CC AW or a 2CC conquest, I think we can all respect their achievement even if if the score isn't that good.

The bonuses for sgotm1 work out in a particularly absurd way of course as 5CC AW is almost an optimal way to play. That won't be the case very often. The only more extreme case in common use are the tiny map conquests carried out for the HOF played as the Aztecs, which are essentially a 1CC AW conquest (great fun to try if anyone wants a high score, and only have 20 minutes to spare for the whole game).

And really, how will we know if we can even play with the same teams over and over? madbax removed samildanach from the Slinger team to strengthen another team.

So will Offa go next from our when enough new people joins up? Or any other decent player in any team, for what that matters?

I want the teams evened out too, as madbax tries to do, but we would probably want to know how this will be ascertained in the future. Teams are supposed to be exactly that - teams, but as in every club in any sport or competition, there is a change of staff.

This kind of takes away the "thrill" if a team is constantly depleted of its members because they are too good for the overall "competition".

I would like some input in this matter. I felt very strongly to play alone first and do the OCC AW variant, but SG's are SG's and it's not much of that if you play by yourself, right? :)

Btw, I won my try on that theme yesterday around 1100AD, pretending I didn't know where the other island was :lol:

Yes, I'm an idiot, but I don't hide it. :)

I too think that the boni don't add any particular flavour to the games. It would be nice to incorporate them into the actual game setup sometimes, i.e. SGOTM3 may be setup as an 5cc, SGOTM6 may be an AW game, etc. These setup rules would then be mandatory for all teams and won't require any bonus calculations.

--
grs

Well, as far as teams are concerned, I operated the idea proposed on the first page of this thread. That is, teams could pick themselves with two restrictions. First that the team must be four members (so that I could add a stronger or weaker player for balance), and second, that the team must not be a "dream team" of elite players. This is for two reasons. To give everyone an equal chance of winning (as far as possible) and to share the elite players around to the benefit of as many weaker players as possible. The problem with your team was that team (Offa, microbe, gozpel, Samildanach and barbslinger) broke both rules. I couldn't strenghten or weaken the team by adding a player because then you would have had 6 players where other teams only had 4 or even 3 players. And secondly the team contained the two highest rated GOTM players and a couple of very strong SG deity variant players too. That is why I broke up the team, and even so I gave you the option of keeping Sam.

As far as the bonuses go... perhaps they were ill conceived. When I started this I thought the SG's would be a bit of fun, and a chance to play some of the GOTM's in a different way, rather than just go for score. I have to learn that what I want is rarely what other people want. So it looks like we just have to make SGOTM score driven, rather than challenge driven. It will help with the process though as everyone going for fast domination will keep the games shorter.

Fair enough madbax!

So we're getting a league? Cool! (jk)

I just don't want to lose Offa, I want to make him a builder. :)

I do like the directed victory type games or a bonus for variants.

It seemed like there was a 6 month stretch, when GOTM had a preferred victory type as the games were also part of the Tournament game set (remember that?). Each games victory condition seemed to have a lesson about the game that could be learned by winning to that goal. How many people would play the Vikings to a 20K culture victory if there was no benefit. I'd really rather these games not always be a race to see who can kill all the AI first. As opposed to having a bonus multiplier, maybe a fixed point award can be added (similar to QSC). Take the Jason score and add 1000 if OCC, 500 if AW, 1000 if multi-type, etc.

What I would really like to see, is a the full game scored in a method similar to the QSC + Jason, so builders and warmongers would be a little more even, but that's a whole different discussion.

Once again, thank you to MB for a very enjoyable game.

Originally posted by mad-bax
As far as the bonuses go... perhaps they were ill conceived. When I started this I thought the SG's would be a bit of fun, and a chance to play some of the GOTM's in a different way, rather than just go for score. I have to learn that what I want is rarely what other people want. So it looks like we just have to make SGOTM score driven, rather than challenge driven. It will help with the process though as everyone going for fast domination will keep the games shorter.

Thank you for the great job you did putting this together M-B. It was very well done. I think your goal of making the game more interesting by trying to use things other than the final score is very good. Are the bonuses perfect, probably not, for the reasons you have already gone over. Does this mean we should abandon them? I would say not yet. Perhaps we should play some more games, as you have asked, and think of it as a project to see how players meet challenges and take some time to develop more meaningful bonuses over a span or 5 or 6 games. I would not be for abandoning the current format so quickly in the name of comparing scores and competition. Just my 2 cents.

What about this then...?

One variant per game. Two awards. One for highest Jason and one for fastest finish.

The winner of the fastest finish award gets to pick the next games variant from a list. The staff will then select a map they consider suitable for that variant.

Would that work?

One variant per game. Two awards. One for highest Jason and one for fastest finish.

This sounds like an excellent idea. It combines being able to play variants (and beeing rewarded for it), with still being possible to play a straight game and get a high score (if not a highscore) - sorry for the pun :p
--
grs

It would still be nice to have some "iron fist" regarding game setup. If only just to satisfy mad-bax and keep him doing what he is doing. :thumbsup:

However, if this "iron fist" can be limited to preset victory condition, like it was in Medal Play series, that is an option which can be considered IMO. As well as team assignement to a certain extent.

I have also a question. How is the Jason's score calculated precisely with the bonuses? I'm still trying to do it myself and still failing miserably to get the same numbers as in the maintenance thread. The most obvious thing is that adding bonuses to Firaxis score actually can decrease Jason's score because the calculator is still fixed at the Regent level.

The whole reason that the Jason system was adopted was an endeavour to make different game victory conditions give comparable final scores. This had the additional benefit of removing the need for milking.

IMHO, the 'problem' with variant bonuses is simply that its very difficult to define that the scoring bonus should be. How many points is a 5CC really worth compared to an unrestricted game? How much is Always War worth compared to a game where you set your own variants?

I see a few possibilities:
* Define a robust scoring system that does reflect the handicaps added by these variants (very difficult to achieve fairly, I fear :( )
* Make everyone play the same variant.
* Do away with variants altogether.
* Only compare scores played under the same variants.

I think MBs idea above is a good workable compromise. :)

When will next SGOTM start? :)

We're looking at week 3 in May. The sign-up thread and announcement will probably go up a week before that.

Can you wait that long?