News: Game of the month for Civ V - feedback appreciated

It seems that quite a few players would like to see everyone play the same save, so how about three categories:

1. Freestyle - these players can reroll as often as they want, even replay their game and no restrictions are put on their play.
2. Excel - these players hold to the present rules, no rerolls but no penalties for using spreadsheets, WB save trials, etc.
3. Ironman - these players play with no rerolls, just themselves versus the AI, a la Kasparov vs. Deep Blue.

In this way, players who don’t submit because they blunder or lose their way can try again, finish and still submit a game. Also, the Freestyle players could have access to a forum thread as Ribannah suggested where they can discuss the game as they are playing it, get help and share experiences.

If rerolling is allowed the Freestylers could score a few points for a game submission but they couldn’t win an award. Eventually they would produce a game without rerolling, submit it and see their rating and ranking improve. This would be good incentive to submit a failed effort, therefore more people would submit, the GOTM staff need not worry about people cheating and we all play the same save for comparison sake.

Spreadsheets

Keath said:

2. Excel - these players hold to the present rules, no rerolls but no penalties for using spreadsheets, WB save trials, etc.

Click to expand...

I'm just not really understanding where you're trying to go with this point.

Let's take an example: if you start with Fishing and Agriculture and you have both a Clam and a Corn beside a Lake within your fat cross, what should you build first? A Worker? A Work Boat? A Warrior?

Certainly, someone is going to figure out the optimal play. Some may chance upon it by luck, others may use experience, and someone might use a spreadsheet.

Wouldn't you want someone who used the spreadsheet to share the info with the community? Wouldn't you like to know the answer to the question without having to do the work yourself?

Honestly, just about anything that can be calculated by using a spreadsheet can be calculated in other ways. Use your head. Write some numbers down on paper. Use past experience to guide you. Use the experiences of others that you have read about from previous games to guide you.

My understanding is that most of the top players do not use spreadsheets on a regular basis.

Perhaps they did at one point in time, but then they likely decided upon a rule such as "always Worker first" or "I'll build a Work Boat first if I have access to a 2+ Hammer square."

If we start treating people who use spreadsheets in a different category of players, they are going to be far more unlikely to share the information that they learned. To me, that defeats the purpose--I'd rather that people share what they learned, so that we can all benefit from the information and can all make better-informed decisions in the future. Do you agree with this sentiment?

^ Thanks Dhoomstriker for the reply.

Everything I’ve been saying has to do with establishing a level playing field for the upcoming VOTM. I have nothing against spreadsheets or using them to play the game but in a contest, I think they give an advantage to the SS user.

So to have a fair playing field each player gets to choose what category to compete against. It might be interesting to see which category has the better games. By better, I don’t mean just scores, I mean more fun.

^ Keath, I don't think spreadsheets are a big enough problem that they should be singled out. Plus there is no way to enforce their ban.

Occasionally, I will look at the list of AIs that do/don't declare at pleased (or bulbing priorities). Is your ideal that players play without those (occasional in my case) aids? Thus rewarding those that have them memorized?



++++ edit
meant to say that I do like the idea of somehow recording/displaying (but not rewarding) results from the "Freestyle" class that allows replays etc

Deckhand said:

^ Keath, I don't think spreadsheets are a big enough problem that they should be singled out. Plus there is no way to enforce their ban.

Click to expand...

I agree - I am not a big spreadsheet player but that is mostly out of laziness. I don't think anyone should be penalized for using a spreadsheet or doing analysis.

I admire those (like my One Short Straw teammates this past SGOTM) who are disciplined enough to analyze strategies quantitatively. Civ is a turn-based game and because of that it especially lends itself to methodical, analytical play.

I've been thinking some more about the upcoming GOTM series for Civ5. Rather than add to the polyphony (thought hopefully not cacophony) of ideas, I want to try to step back and look at a trend that I believe underlies various suggestions and offer a compromise that might address various underlying problems.

I'm seeing two trends of problems right away: folks who, like jesusin, want to see more competition between the pool of players we do have for awards that mean more because more of the best players are competing. His proposition would result in fewer awards that mean more. At the same time, there are a lot of people who want to see more opportunities for all players no matter the skill level. It seems to me that these two trends of comments are at odds: with one arguing for more intense and rigorous competition and the other stressing a system that will even the playing field.

So I want to propose a system that might achieve both. Pardon me if this idea has been suggested elsewhere and I missed it. But anyway, I was thinking that the problem isn’t that we have too many medals. Winning medals is fun, and medals for all victory conditions give more opportunities for players of varying skill levels. But I do think we need a medal to answer jesusin’s concern for a better competition for the players who want to face it.

So why not have an official gauntlet style speed medal for one victory condition, as well as medals for the other conditions? Then the players that want the more intense competition (but who, like myself, have little or no interest in milking for the score) can have a context for the best competition, while others will have more of a chance to have their achievements recognized with the other medals? Then everyone benefits! Players seeking the most competition possible can select the option for a victory condition of the mapmaker’s choosing in a kind of Gauntlet within a GOTM (I use the word “gauntlet” in the Hall of Fame sense), while the other players will all have a better chance to win medals, since I’m guessing most of the hardcore players will go for the gauntlet option. The “gauntlet with the GOTM” (bad title, I know) would be announced in the pregame thread. Seems like a win, win situation to me.

Finally, I have another proposition to keep things interesting for players of all range of skill. I like the current system of offering three levels of games for adventurer, contender, and challenger. I want to suggest a simple tweak that would immediately offer more options for various skill levels. To whit, when the games are on the lowest spectrum of difficulty, make the challenger save TWO rather than ONE level higher, and when the games are at the highest end of difficulty, correspondingly, make the adventurer saves two levels lower.

What do you all think?

@Godotnut: I think all of your suggestions would make for improvements by both encouraging broader participation and intensifying the competition for top honours.

@Godotnut - I like your idea about awards to and I think you explained it in a logical manner.

On the other hand, I do not particular care for the idea of having the 3 levels of games. I have suggested getting rid of it altogether, with the exception of maybe having an easier "adventurer" type save that new players to the GOTM can play only 1 time. There's 2 reasons for my thinking on this: 1) i think challenges can be found at any level of difficulty 2) regardless of difficulty level, GOTMs should be something to aspire to - it should be a goal for getting better. I think the GOTM save should be universal and, well, if you are less experienced with the game then it can serve as a benchmark for improving your game. It makes winning a medal of any type - eventually - that much more rewarding.

Since the "adventurer" save would only be played 1 time by any individual, it would not count toward any awards in a given month. However, it could count toward an "improved player" type medal.

Basically, in my view, having all these different saves for one iteration of the GOTM just makes things confusing and seems to be a point of contention with many players. Let's just make it all the same playing field and let players rise to the challenge. Anyway, whether one is ready for a particular difficulty level or not, it is still a great learning experience to attempt GOTMs and read the write-ups. I know it has been for me since I've been playing. If the GOTM staff finally decides to market the GOTM on the other forums here via sticky threads, then this point can be emphasized for those wary of trying the GOTM.

Simplifying the number of different saves is a good idea as it makes the results more comparable and allows people to understand each others' strategies better.

At the same time, there needs to be an accommodation for lower level players, and I really like Keath's idea about the FREESTYLE category for novices (or those who are novices to the Deity level ) to be allowed to reload and try different strategies, rather than end their games at 800BC.

As others have pointed out, there is a very thin line between using spreadsheets and doing calculations in your head, the latter is difficult to rule against as most will at least do some calculations no matter how hard they try not to

The idea of having an "open class", were restarts and rerolling is allowed is a good idea. But should there be a rule on how much rerolling you are allowed? Or maybe how many times you rerolled should be specified on the result-list for this category?

Nah, just let them reroll as much as they want, but clarify that all those results go below a line, under everyone who tried the true level.

Deckhand said:

^ Keath, I don't think spreadsheets are a big enough problem that they should be singled out. Plus there is no way to enforce their ban.

Click to expand...

True, spreadsheets probably don't count as as exploit but what about reviewing the game code during a GOTM? Where do you draw the line? Is using an approximate WB file to parallel the game and run simulations an exploit?

@beestar - One save for all, unlimited rerolls for the Freestyle or Open players. Agree.

Another interest of the GOTM staff is the lack of entries. By having a Freestyle category, lots of players might submit. At present, not allowing rerolls dissuades a lot of players from submitting because after your blunder, you know you can’t win and most people don’t play for a humiliating loss.

By allowing everyone to submit, even the perennial Freestyle player might one game reach 1700ad with a great position and not a single reroll. Now he/she might play carefully enough to bring home a great win and submit in one of the other categories and maybe even get an award for his/her first successful submission. Because Freestyle players will have submitted regularly, they might be more apt to graduate to playing without rerolls at all and become regular participants.

Adventurer-level Save and an Upwards Transition Recognition

lymond said:

Since the "adventurer" save would only be played 1 time by any individual, it would not count toward any awards in a given month. However, it could count toward an "improved player" type medal.

Click to expand...

Think of your girlfriend, sister, dad, uncle, little brother, or whomever might not normally compete at as high of a level as your level of play, deciding to play a GOTM.

Wouldn't that level of a player (assuming that they are not as competitive a player as someone at your level) potentially benefit from multiple rounds of playing an Adventurer game?

Some players don't really focus on improving but just want a chance to play the same game and have fun. Others try but aren't able to improve as quickly or adapt as easily to the GOTM format.

Thus, I'm not sure of the need to restrict the number of times that a player can play on an Adventurer save beyond the already-in-place restriction upon placing in the top half of the results table at a given difficulty level. I think that this guideline is already sufficient.


However, you do touch upon an interesting point, in that Admins can certainly "publically recognize" players that "advance" from the Adventurer level to the Contender level. After an Adventurer-level player chooses to play and submits a Contender-level game (victory or loss), an attentive staff member could certainly make note of this fact in the first message of the Game Results and Congratulations thread.

That would be yet one more method of recognizing a player's efforts to improve, giving them positive encouragement, without anyone else feeling bitter about the awarding of an extremely subjective "most improved" Award.

The FREESTYLE version could possibly bring about an entirely new competition: Fastest freestyle conquest. The challenge is which player can get 1 warrior to each AI in as short a time as possible. Killing them all with one warrior each is just a matter of patience .

Still, I actually quite like the idea if it encourages more players to play and submit. Provided the freestyle players aren't aiming for awards.

Reloading

Keath said:

Another interest of the GOTM staff is the lack of entries. By having a Freestyle category, lots of players might submit. At present, not allowing rerolls dissuades a lot of players

Click to expand...

I do not have statistics or figures on how many players would actually play if they could reload, but what I can do is ask you to explain under what circumstances you might feel the need to reload.

If people can explain the conditions under which they would reload, then perhaps we'll find other ways to accomodate these reasons.

I honestly find it highly unlikely that submissions with reloading will ever be accepted for display in a Results table, as doing so encourages behaviour that the staff wish to discourage.


Learning from your Mistakes instead of Hiding them

from submitting because after your blunder, you know you can’t win and most people don’t play for a humiliating loss.

Click to expand...

I think that most long-time XOTM players here will agree with me that if you don't accept your mistakes, don't admit them, and don't own up to them, you won't be learning how not to make those mistakes again in the future anywhere close to as quickly or as effectively as if you allow yourself to make those mistakes and submit anyway.

Some of the best stories of inspiring comments and feedback that players have received on their games come from them facing a challenging situation, owning up to it, and then getting help and suggestions for avoiding that situation in the future.

For example, if you often find yourself getting beaten to a World Wonder, I would suggest that reloading until you get to build it will not improve your playstyle.

On the other hand, if you share your experience of missing the World Wonder in the thread, and ask for help on how to improve (so that people know that you want their help), I think that you will receive a multitude of suggestions that will greatly improve your gameplay.

Perhaps you could tweak your tech path. Perhaps your choice of Worker actions made it harder to achieve the Wonder. Perhaps you're just trying to build a Wonder at too-high a difficulty level and thus have to PLAN to be able to be beaten by the AIs in building it.

Whatever the suggestions you receive, your gameplay will be able to improve. If you just "reload away" all of your problems, then you'll encounter the same problems time after time in future games, as you won't be changing the method that got you into trouble in the first place.


Participation

Because Freestyle players will have submitted regularly, they might be more apt to graduate to playing without rerolls at all and become regular participants.

Click to expand...

It is my belief that participation of the right form is just as important, if not more important, than sheer numbers of people participating.

Ultimately, the XOTM has been founded on the no-reload approach. You might say that it makes the games more fairly comparable, but I would say that what it really does is that it forces players to own up to their mistakes, to learn from them, and to improve their gameplay.

Regardless of the reason, accepting submissions that endorse the opposite type of play--allowing players to "reload away" their mistakes instead of accepting them and learning from them--will probably never happen, no matter how much you ask for it.


Thus, I ask for you to explain the reasons for why you might want to use reloading. Then, we can help to design a competition to deal with those reasons.

For example, you might never want to play at Deity, so you think that it's fair to reload in a Deity level game. In such a case, we might stay away from hosting a Deity level game for a long time, or we might give you an Immortal-level Adventurer option, or we might just try to stagger the various XOTM expansions' competitions in terms of difficulty levels, so that there will be an easier version in a different expansion pack available (it's not too hard to believe that we'll have at least 1 expansion pack out by the time that the first Deity-equivalent Civ 5 GOTM is hosted).

So, share your reasoning behind when you'd want to use reloading and I think that you'll get far more success in having your concerns heard than you will in attempting to fundamentally change the way that this event is set up.

Keath said:

True, spreadsheets probably don't count as as exploit but what about reviewing the game code during a GOTM? Where do you draw the line? Is using an approximate WB file to parallel the game and run simulations an exploit?

Click to expand...

To me neither one is an exploit, as it's just a lot of tedious, hard work rather than a cheat. If anyone has the patience to do that kind of thing they deserve the top awards!

beestar said:

To me neither one is an exploit, as it's just a lot of tedious, hard work rather than a cheat. If anyone has the patience to do that kind of thing they deserve the top awards!

Click to expand...

Isn't looking at the game code a little bit like peeking into another card players hand during a poker game? Whatever info you get is an advantage. That is why I suggest the Excel category so that those who get a thrill from using the full extent of their technological superiority can compete fairly with others.

Keath said:

Isn't looking at the game code a little bit like peeking into another card players hand during a poker game?

Click to expand...

Looking into the game code isn't that common for most games is it? This is Civ5 we're talking about - are they even likely to give the unwashed masses access to the code?

godotnut said:

So why not have an official gauntlet style speed medal for one victory condition, as well as medals for the other conditions? Then the players that want the more intense competition (but who, like myself, have little or no interest in milking for the score) can have a context for the best competition, while others will have more of a chance to have their achievements recognized with the other medals? ... Seems like a win, win situation to me.

Click to expand...

Well said and I agree...

...I also think there ought to be some kind of additional posting requirement for participating in the gauntlet though. Perhaps a certain set of data points could be required for specific dates set by the game designer ahead of time. Requiring full-fledged strategic spoilers would be nice, but I don't think it would be right to risk allowing language barriers to restrict participation in the gauntlet. Alternatively (and I think better) would be a requirement to submit specific game saves (say, 1000 BC, 1AD, and 1000 AD) by certain pre-set calendar dates. Perhaps by the 10th, 17th, and 24th of a given month, all to be unveiled to the community together a day or two later. Tightening up the playing time might restrict the field a bit, but we are talking about a "elite" -type gauntlet here and not the regular xOTM... participation ought to be fairly restricted anyway.

Dhoomstriker said:

Reloading

...I think that most long-time XOTM players here will agree with me that if you don't accept your mistakes, don't admit them, and don't own up to them, you won't be learning how not to make those mistakes again in the future anywhere close to as quickly or as effectively as if you allow yourself to make those mistakes and submit anyway...

Ultimately, the XOTM has been founded on the no-reload approach. You might say that it makes the games more fairly comparable, but I would say that what it really does is that it forces players to own up to their mistakes, to learn from them, and to improve their gameplay...

Click to expand...

Normally I try to be pretty open-minded about things, but I'm totally in Doomstriker's camp on this issue. Reloading is a bad habit and one of the single best things the CivFanatics site can do for new players is help them break that bad habit. Learning how not to reload is intrinsically way more valuable than any medal or slot on the Hall of Fame board. I doubt the staff would ever seriously consider doing it, but just to do my part to make sure it doesn't happen because no one objected I feel compelled to voice my opposition loudly and clearly here.

Dhoomstriker said:

Reloading

I do not have statistics or figures on how many players would actually play if they could reload, but what I can do is ask you to explain under what circumstances you might feel the need to reload.

Click to expand...

One example would be losing a city in the early game to a barb because your warrior was one turn late to defend.

I honestly find it highly unlikely that submissions with reloading will ever be accepted for display in a Results table, as doing so encourages behaviour that the staff wish to discourage.

Click to expand...

Why not? It's not like the reloaders are trying to steal away someone elses legitimate award. Maybe they just want to submit a game to see how their strategy compares but one mistake and no submission under present rules.

....
Participation

It is my belief that participation of the right form is just as important, if not more important, than sheer numbers of people participating.

Click to expand...

Civ is a very complex game. What better learning experience than to play your game and follow a special Freestylers Forum thread, asking questions when necessary. Presently the spoilers are closed until a later date, often too late for the novice to recover from a blunder or get any help at all.

Ultimately, the XOTM has been founded on the no-reload approach. You might say that it makes the games more fairly comparable,

Click to expand...

And this is my whole point of posting -- are the existing rules fair? If I'm not a programmer and can't read code, I'm a second class player if some code savvy player does read the code during their game.

Regardless of the reason, accepting submissions that endorse the opposite type of play--allowing players to "reload away" their mistakes instead of accepting them and learning from them--will probably never happen, no matter how much you ask for it.

Click to expand...

It seems quite a few posters like this idea.

So, share your reasoning behind when you'd want to use reloading and I think that you'll get far more success in having your concerns heard than you will in attempting to fundamentally change the way that this event is set up.

Click to expand...

Isn't change what this whole thread is about?

Erkon said:

News: Game of the month for Civ V - feedback appreciated
Civ 5 will soon be released and I would like to invite everyone to share their ideas and proposals on how we can improve the way we run the Game of the Month competition. Please use this thread to voice your opinion, don't be afraid to post silly ideas, and be kind to each other

Click to expand...