Well I'm DYING to know .... is BTS GOTM starting next week ??

Erkon said:

Personally I like to watch the graphical replay since it is very illustrative of the expansion of the player. This info is not available from the event log (city locations and cultural boundaries), is it? However, of course it's better to reduce the hassle for other players than keeping this fancy feature, although I will miss it. What about making it non-mandatory for submission, but mandatory for award/medal competition (perhaps not workable though...)

Click to expand...

It should be possible to reproduce the graphical replay from data in the save. I had already considered this, and I'll give it a go, but it will take a little effort. It will not be done until after we get the BtS systems in place and rolling. Are there any additional features you would like to see in the graphical replay, over and above what is provided by the current Replay file?

Alan,

If my dreams come true, the graphical replay feature would be like this:

• Map with cities and cultural boundaries (similar to the CivIV replay)
• Lines between capitals illustrating the diplomatic relation using the same colors as the diplomatic screen (white for contact, green for open borders, red for war etc)
• Cities captured are highlighted differently compared to cities built (e.g. flashing red instead of flashing white).
• Events are listed in a similar fashion as the current replay, with the enhancement of highlighting tech trades. This would at least be possible in theory (match the techs that are not learned at the end of a turn).

The above mentioned progress is then controlled by play/pause/rewind/fast fwd buttons.

Instead of the animated score distribution, which is too vague, it would be more interesting if the actual progress of each civ is illustrated:

• Amount of produced/whipped hammers
• Research Progress (sum of beaker cost of learned tech)

These graphs do not have to be animated, and perhaps only tracking the player. One interesting part of the current score graph is to see when an AI is defeated, so perhaps it serves it purpose. Still, it doesn't reveal the actual underlying progress since the population has too much influence. Also, it's very hard to determine from the score at what stage one player starts to outperform other players (when comparing games), since a high score does not necessarily mean good progress. Perhaps it would be possible to create a diagram similar to the succession games?

Does this make sense? I know it's a lot to ask for, but since you asked...

Erkon said:

Regarding lenght of games: I'm strongly against prolonging games to six weeks. Most players completes the game within two weeks. Then we currently wait at least four weeks for the results (no offense intended to staff). Adding another two weeks will not have any positive effects. IMHO.

BTW - to the staff regarding the BtS effort. I've had the expansion for several months, but playing civIV outside this competition is not very rewarding any longer. I'm probably cursed with GotM-addiction.

Click to expand...

I agree that 6 weeks as a standard game length is not something that I'd prefer...I suggested it as a test for this time of year, since in general the XOTMs during the winter holidays(christmas/new years) have been longer term games. I figured if we did longer term games, and ran all 3 versions, it could be determined whether to do all 3 games, or perhaps replace WOTM or GOTM with BOTM. Obviously it will depend on what the staff chooses and is able to keep up with, but I figured it might give them some kind of data to base their decision on.

Erkon said:

Personally I like to watch the graphical replay since it is very illustrative of the expansion of the player. This info is not available from the event log (city locations and cultural boundaries), is it?

Click to expand...

I have to admit part of me would love to get my hands on the save file format so I could write a graphical UI to display the game history. I've always found the standard replay offered by Civ pretty restrictive and not very visually attractive. Something that offers both map and graph-based pictures and allows you to filter by type of events, hover the mouse over cities to see information about them, etc. etc. would be well cool.

Erkon said:

Regarding lenght of games: I'm strongly against prolonging games to six weeks. Most players completes the game within two weeks. Then we currently wait at least four weeks for the results (no offense intended to staff). Adding another two weeks will not have any positive effects. IMHO.

Click to expand...

Agreed entirely.

Erkon said:

BTW - to the staff regarding the BtS effort. I've had the expansion for several months, but playing civIV outside this competition is not very rewarding any longer. I'm probably cursed with GotM-addiction.

Click to expand...

Me too. My first BSOTM is going to be a very pathetic entry I think, since, despite owning BtS for ages, I've only actually played one game, and that only up to around 500-1000 ADish, so my knowledge of how to use BtS features is close to zero.

AlanH said:

Choosing the wrong files is the most common source of submission errors, and the file analysis system is now accurate enough to make the Replay file unnecessary. So I decided I'd try to simplify your lives, and reduce the volume of files we are storing on the server. I've also removed the need for you to enter the OS you used, as the HOF Mod tells us this.

Click to expand...

Funnily enough if you'd done that in time for WOTM14, it would've changed my entry somewhat... I got to a point around the 18th century I think where I had left the game for a while, lost enthusiasm to continue it, and was going to submit a retired game. The only reason I didn't do so then was that when I tried, the entry form refused to accept my submission without the replay file, and I was like, 'uhhh? How do I get one of 'em if I haven't finished the game?' In my frustration I opened my last save to look at it to try and figure it out and - umm - started playing again.

Still ended up retiring (no time left) but in 1950ish instead of 1750ish. (By that time I'd remembered that if I want to submit a retired entry, I have to actually retire in the game first then I get the replay file)

DynamicSpirit said:

I have to admit part of me would love to get my hands on the save file format so I could write a graphical UI to display the game history.

Click to expand...

The save file format for standard games is specified in the DLL source code in the SDK.

I almost never manage to complete a GOTM in 4 weeks, and I would be much more likely to manage it in 6 weeks.

However it's clear that there are others with very different experiences and priorities, and they participate more than I do so probably their opinions should count more.

If the idea is to INCREASE participation, then it could be argued that the exact opposite is true.

While I only play BTS since buying it (outside of GOTMs) I'd also consider dropping vanilla to be a mistake, as it's the one version everyone has, and therefore the maximum potential audience is still reached.

I really should submit more games, although they aren't of the quality of most entries. I know this shouldn't detract from my submission, but I wonder how many others play but don't submit for similar reasons.

Agree with the above.

INCREASING participation is the only way to keep the forum viable.

Then, vanilla can't be excluded, and BtS/Warlords can be alternated, or else.
To be honest i own BtS since July, and i barely have played 5 complete games.

Too many things, i like best warlords.

AlanH said:

The save file format for standard games is specified in the DLL source code in the SDK.

Click to expand...

lol! Thanks Alan! I'll have to go take a peek sometime (unfortunately I'm guessing that wouldn't help with HOF-modded games, which are the only games I ever play though, since I basically never play outside of GOTMs)

BLubmuz said:

Agree with the above.

INCREASING participation is the only way to keep the forum viable.

Click to expand...

The forum seems quite viable to me with current levels of participation

Of course I agree with you to the extent that it'd be much nicer to see participation levels go up rather than down, and yes, easier games seems to give higher participation from the figures I've seen. I suspect another of the main factors there would be if it were possible to pursuade more people who lose to submit their games anyway (or at least, to submit at the point where playing the losing game stops being fun). I get the feeling that there's an awful lot of people who enter but don't submit because of [some variant of] they don't want to have a loss sitting there in the scoreboard with their name on it. I'm also guessing there's a bit of a vicious circle here too: All those non-submissions skew the proportion of wins listed when the results are published, thus making people who don't win feel worse about entering and losing (and therefore not submitting, which means...)

DynamicSpirit said:

(unfortunately I'm guessing that wouldn't help with HOF-modded games, which are the only games I ever play though, since I basically never play outside of GOTMs)

Click to expand...

Yes, I did qualify my comment as relating to "standard" games.

@DynamicSpirit
This is one of the things i'm meaning.

And not submit can transform in "bah, those GotM are too difficult, i have more fun playing on my own."
As i posted in the 25 pre-game, i'd like to see the number increase or at least be stationary.

The submissions for the latest games are some 30% of say, GotM 09.

This would be a positive criticism for the - always appreciated - Staff.

DynamicSpirit said:

I get the feeling that there's an awful lot of people who enter but don't submit because of [some variant of] they don't want to have a loss sitting there in the scoreboard with their name on it. I'm also guessing there's a bit of a vicious circle here too

Click to expand...

How about offering some kind of bonus in the current game for the players who have submitted a game in the previous couple of months or so?

My 2 cents...

The reason I have stopped playing GotMs is because Civ IV doesn't feel right to me without BtS. I am a bit dismayed that after 4 months of BtS being out, we still don't have a projected date for the first BotM. Are random events really THAT big of an issue? Is there any indication that Firaxis will come out with a patch between now and the 15th?

I would rather play a BotM (with or without random events), with a specified version (3.13 official or 3.13 unofficial locked at a certain version, I don't care -- heck, I'd even retrograde down to 3.02 or the ugly 3.03 to play a BotM.)

The time for bickering over what the BotM should look like is long gone. I'd rather have a BotM, even if it's not perfect, than no BotM at all! Let the BotM begin already!

Sam

First many thanks to the XoTM staff for doing such a great job!! I too look forward to a BoTM.

A few thoughts.
1. Make it easier to post - how about the ability post while in the game. Perhaps a button on the options screen to capture necessary data and send off.
2. Ability to post at any point. The part I dislike is having to finish an obviously won or lost game. On the lost-side the retire option is fine, but I feel retiring a won game would be point deterimental. perhaps I am mistaken. I don't have a great suggestion on how to score.
3. Keep at 4 week post. For me, it is the only inspiration to finish games. If it turned to 6 weeks I would end up with even more uncompleted games. Also I would be less likely to analyze other if it was that long after I finished.
4. Best are games where it is a challenge right to the end (win or lose). On higher levels give more starting bonuses to adventurer save (and discount points to balance scoring if necessary). I tend to get crushed/embarrased at Emperor or above. And I seem to recall a rule on not being allowed to play the easier save at some point so i only play contender. This rule could be relaxed. Make the challenger save more difficult on easy levels to keep the strong player engaged. (two warriors no settlers).
5. I like the idea above of frequent flyer points for frequent game posters.
6. A better way to analyze the style of play from the saves of victorious would be awesome.

SteelHorse said:

Make the challenger save more difficult on easy levels to keep the strong player engaged. (two warriors no settlers).

Click to expand...

Hmmm ... that must be the no city challenge! That early warrior rush had better work, I suppose ... Up for this one, Erkon? (Kill 'em, kill 'em all!)

dV

da_Vinci said:

Hmmm ... that must be the no city challenge! That early warrior rush had better work, I suppose ... Up for this one, Erkon? (Kill 'em, kill 'em all!)

dV

Click to expand...

Sure! Capture the second city the AI settles (the capital will have two defenders, the second city will have one). The city will first have to grow to size two, else it will autoraze. Then you have one or two turns before the archer is completed. Perhaps not possible against creative civs...

Or if send the warriors to pop huts, if we play on Settler level and hope for a settler.

Seriously, I think that making the challenger level a pre-requisite for eptathlete awards is the only way to make that option attractive. Perhaps the BotM series is the best occasion to try out a new (better) formula for the eptathlete? And replace the cow award with the gold medal while you're at it.

There is one aspect of the challenger setting that has to be considered, and that is the pre-game discussion. It will be hard for new players to draw any conclusions from the advice provided by challenger-players, since that advice is not applicable to them. Most of the discussion in the pre-game thread covers the initial city settlement tile, the early production and the early research path. These three aspects are very different if you start without the warrior and with no techs.

One alternative would of course be to reduce the level for the AI one notch (warlord instead of noble). Still, the game will be different and hard to compare at the end. So, in order to attract skilled players, we end up with discussions that does not have much relevance to the average players

SteelHorse said:

5. I like the idea above of frequent flyer points for frequent game posters.

Click to expand...

Have you checked out the Global Rankings system? That rewards frequent submissions.

Erkon said:

Seriously, I think that making the challenger level a pre-requisite for eptathlete awards is the only way to make that option attractive. Perhaps the BotM series is the best occasion to try out a new (better) formula for the eptathlete? And replace the cow award with the gold medal while you're at it.

Click to expand...

Hard to do that after some eptathlete awards have already been given. But along that line ...

Just as you can't play adventure after finish in top half, how about you must play challenger after you are an eptathlete? Then create ultra-eptathlete award ... win fastest award in all types playing challenger save.

BOTM is a clean slate, so new options could be tested.

AlanH said:

Have you checked out the Global Rankings system? That rewards frequent submissions.

Click to expand...

Which is the core of my ranking ... the power of persistent mediocrity.

dV