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

I do not like the idea of only awarding a medal for a single victory condition each game. It seems to me this would result in the same handful of people winning all of the awards. That's not likely to encourage participation, IMO, and participation seems like what we should be striving for. I think the current system of many different medals does a good job since it leaves some space for less-than-perfect players like me to aspire to (and on rare occasions, achieve) a medal.

Some sort of award for best spoiler would be neat. Encouraging folks to post is a good idea. I'm lukewarm about the idea of having a third spoiler thread. There's a fine line between encouraging folks to post, and having things spread out across so many different posts that it becomes a pain to keep track of them all. That's something which is easy enough to change on the fly though, so maybe do three for awhile and if the traffic per thread doesn't merit it, just go back to two.

My biggest headache is doing a write-up. There usually is something interesting that happens in my game, but sharing the story is always difficult. I'm not a good writer. It happens before spoiler threads are open. I didn't take notes. I didn't save the logs. Whatever the reason, it doesn't get done. If there were a way to address this, it would be a good thing. Maybe when a game is submitted, you could optionally submit spoiler write-ups, too. When the spoiler threads open, any submitted spoilers would be automatically posted.

My thoughts:

1) I like the idea of having a VC chosen by the game designer for a special award for that game. That would allow people who want to compare games a better opportunity to have a lot of games to compare to. It would also allow people who want to try to get a fastest finish award a chance to play a different VC and have a better chance (speaking as someone who does reasonably well but never manages to have the fastest finish). However, I dislike the idea of requiring a VC for the game. I think that would turn off a lot of people who don't want to play for that VC. I'm also fine with the current adventurer, contender, challenger saves system (although I almost always play contender). Overall, I would prefer having a lot of choices as to how to play the game, rather than a few.

2) Opening the spoiler threads at the same time the game save is available would be the single most likely thing that encourages posting in the threads, especially for the first spoiler. I think many people are well past the first spoiler cut-off when that thread opens. I have no objection to trying three spoiler threads and seeing how that works. I don't think an "award" for best spoiler is workable, too subjective. However, I think having the game designer recognize a couple of the best spoilers in the results thread would be good.

^ I like this (1)
keep all the current awards, have one save, and have the Map Designer designate a Challenge Victory condition with a new award going to the Challenge winner.

He could even add some conditions to it.

neilmeister said:

I disagree that this is a reasonable comparison. Kasparov had played chess from a very young age. Yes he did not play Big Blue before, but he knew how to play chess really well. It doesn;t matter how much you look at the code or use spreadsheets, you cannot predict exactly how the AI will behave. That is what the RNG is for. Otherwise, all of the top games would be nearly identical.

Click to expand...

Then banning these from the actual GOTM is no hardship.

Trying to stop world builder trials is not going to happen. If you really think about what you are suggesting, you are saying 'no practice or learning allowed'.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that while playing the GOTM, no WB trials, no code peaking, etc. Before the game prepare as you like -- practice, try WB trials and check whatever code you like, but during the actual execution of the game, these techniques should not be used by anyone. After submission you can replay the game any way you want.

The fact is that people learn what is a good move through experience.

Click to expand...

And that is what the GOTM should test, your experience, not how cleverly you can build a WB file.

Some people take that really far and determine what is best mathematically, either through spreadsheets and/or code diving, but this is no different to someone playing lots and learning.

Click to expand...

But there is a difference. The playing field is not level if some players are using their computer programming skills to figure out, with great exactness, what will happen if… But to non-programmer players the code might be meaningless and therefore they are at a disadvantage to those reading code during the game.

Some people don’t know how to work the world builder enough to help their game. They, too, would be at a disadvantage. So I'm saying prep for the game, analyze the game with all your tools before the game but not while you are playing the game, “no rerolls, no WB trials, no crib sheets and no peaking at the code,” just you and the computer, one on one, Kasparov rules.

Oh, and it is completely undetectable, so why even try. It would be the same as trying to ban left-handed people from playing.

Click to expand...

No matter what rules are in force, re-rolling not allowed, for example, it is the honour system to play to those rules. Winning by using a disallowed, undetectable technique is still unacceptable.

Lag and Differing Hardware Setups lead to very poor Real-time Speed-based game Comparisons

karmina said:

I'm absolutely against any kind of real-/playing-time awards or restrictions. Not being an RTS game is probably the most important part of the civ experience.

Click to expand...

I would have to agree.

My computer hardware isn't the latest and greatest, but it's not incredibly outdated, either. Yet, between every turn and sometimes between every movement later in the game, there is a noticeable pause or "lag."

The HOF Mod makes the game just that much more laggy. In fact, at least on my computer, going from HOF Warlords to BUFFY BTS shows a noticeable greater lag, such that I experience a bit of lag after moving every single unit, even in the beginning of the game.


While I am able to still take enjoyment from the game, putting any sort of a real-time constraint on the game would simply favour those with the strongest hardware setups. That is, unless Civ 5 is programmed to have less resource constraints on a system and actually works as fast on an outdated Pentium 4 as on any of the best gaming hardware that money can buy--but when are sequels programmed to be less bloated and less of a resource hog than the earlier games in the series?


Note that I usually end up in the top players of any real-time strategy game that I play, and while computer hardware often plays a role in those games, allowing you to get "less moves per minute" due to real-time lag, the actual "pace" of the game against those that you are competing with is consistent. From one game to the next, the game may be slower or faster, due to connection latency, but within the same game (the same multiplayer game aka "mini-competition"), the pace of the game is the same for all players.

Here, where we all play on our own individual setups against the AIs, there is no way to equalize the pace of the game possible unless the software is coded really well to work on old hardware as well as new.


It's not that I can't make decisions quickly, but the hardware constrains me from being able to do things as fast as I can click.

If Civ 5 gets rid of almost all of the lag and allows us to actually click things and have the screen updated as fast as in a real-time strategy game, then sure, we can consider a time-based element to the competition, but otherwise, you're just ranking those players who have the best computer hardware. That's assuming that players aren't just intentionally going to "skip making moves" by advancing the turn prematurely just for the sake of ending the turn faster--that's a whole different issue.

Give me an interface that can keep up with my decision-making and I'll play faster. That said, for a lot of other people, they enjoy the opportunity of long contemplation offered by turn-based strategy games, so while a real-time strategy veteran like myself could make the change, too many others wouldn't want to do so, even if Civ 5 code is extremely streamlined and nearly lag-free.


As a final note, while I can and do play real-time strategy games really quickly and still compete with the best players in the world; in the XOTM Civ 4 series, I'm usually ranked as one of the players with the most real-time logged against the game. Perhaps it is time for me to update my hardware, or perhaps we want to have a more inclusive competition that doesn't have a "hidden entry fee" of buying a top-notch gaming computer in addition to buying the game itself.

A Pre-chosen Victory Condition

wwassme said:

1) I like the idea of having a VC chosen by the game designer for a special award for that game. That would allow people who want to compare games a better opportunity to have a lot of games to compare to. It would also allow people who want to try to get a fastest finish award a chance to play a different VC and have a better chance (speaking as someone who does reasonably well but never manages to have the fastest finish). However, I dislike the idea of requiring a VC for the game. I think that would turn off a lot of people who don't want to play for that VC.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that it should be up to the game designer to choose the victory condition. It might make the game designer focus a bit too much of gearing the map to either be easier or more challenging for that particular victory condition, to the exclusion of other victory conditions.

I think that we had some of the best successes with the year-long BOTM Challenger side-competitions that were player-sponsored.

People competed, had fun, compared their results, and didn't win any special Award for their victory. Yet, they still were awarded a minor subtle increase in status in the community, as other players looked on in awe for those 15 minutes of fame.

While it is my opinion that such a side competition shouldn't require a player to take the Challenger save just to participate, I think that it worked well as a player-sponsored competition. And this point in favour of a player-sponsored competition being better than a game-designer-sponsored competition is coming from a player who won one of the few XOTM game-designer-sponsored "single victory condition" XOTM games.


While yes, not having the game designer be the one to host the competition would make it harder to give out an official Award for such a side-competition, I think that the rewards of competing and the rewards of winning are good enough not to require a special Award. If you really want the chance to be recognized for your efforts in such a side-competition, volunteer your time to do what was done with the BTS Challenger Side-competition series and have a player (that being you, the volunteer) keep track of the Awards won in this side-competition throughout the year and give a table summarizing the results at the end of the year.


I appreciate it when a map designer takes all victory conditions into account when designing a map and I would think that too much of their focus could shift towards a particular victory condition if the game designer were to "host" this kind of a side-competition.


Choice

I'm also fine with the current adventurer, contender, challenger saves system (although I almost always play contender). Overall, I would prefer having a lot of choices as to how to play the game, rather than a few.

Click to expand...

Corporations understand this fact. People like having choices. Even if the choices are relatively meaningless. Shall I buy a small bottle of ketchup or a larger bottle of ketchup? Shall I buy the blue shirt or the green shirt? Would I like french fries with that?

While this reason shouldn't be the sole reason for having different saved games, and there are many other reasons that have been discussed as to why we could consider having different saved games, it's certainly a compelling argument in favour of giving people the choice.

Even if every single player choses to go for the Contender Class, having different saved games is NOT a failure, as people get to feel happy about having made a choice.

Dhoomstriker said:

I think that we had some of the best successes with the year-long BOTM Challenger side-competitions that were player-sponsored.

People competed, had fun, compared their results, and didn't win any special Award for their victory.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I liked about them - going for the same victory and being able to compare strategies.

It would be *nice* for these gauntlets to have special awards, but I don't think the map designer should decide what the goal is - it should be left up to the players. Perhaps each Pre-game discussion thread could also include a poll, determining the VC for that month's gauntlet?


Regarding the issues with posting writeups, I have two suggestions that might be changed for the Civ4 gotm also:

1. Open up spoiler threads earlier - eg, the same time saves are available. Personally, I'm always pretty keen to play the latest XOTM, and my play style is pretty fast (likely to the detriment of my date/score, but that's what I like) so I'll often have finished the game only a day or two after release. If the spoiler threads were open immediately I can post while it is still fresh in my mind.

2. I'm not sure all players know about the autologging ability of the BUFFY mod. Perhaps a mini educational thread linked to in the pregame discussion thread, outlining how to a) set up the autolog, and b) insert player comments during the game.

Actually, autologging does not work for me anymore since BUFFY was installed (it did before). I now use very long savefile names to remember what happened each turn.

Ribannah said:

Actually, autologging does not work for me anymore since BUFFY was installed (it did before). I now use very long savefile names to remember what happened each turn.

Click to expand...

Same for me. I get no autolog since we went to BUFFY. But maybe like Adrianj says, all I need is "Perhaps a mini educational thread linked to in the pregame discussion thread, outlining how to a) set up the autolog, and b) insert player comments during the game. "

Vynd said:

I do not like the idea of only awarding a medal for a single victory condition each game. It seems to me this would result in the same handful of people winning all of the awards. That's not likely to encourage participation, IMO, and participation seems like what we should be striving for. I think the current system of many different medals does a good job since it leaves some space for less-than-perfect players like me to aspire to (and on rare occasions, achieve) a medal.

Click to expand...

Without knowing how victory conditions will be in Civ5, my suggestion would be to have a lot different medals because it is more fun to win a medal than just get a number on the resultlist. Even if the medal is only some pixels.
If there are like 5 different victory conditions, the 5 best players for each victory condition could all get a medal (gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood)

This could potentially generate 30 medals (if one category is independent of victory conditions)

Vynd said:

Some sort of award for best spoiler would be neat. Encouraging folks to post is a good idea.

Click to expand...

There could be several categories: Funniest, most educational, etc. And 5 medals can be awarded in each category.

Yes, I know this will cause inflation on medals, but more people will get medals this way. And that will probably be more fun for those of us which never make it to top 3. And less fun for those who does.

This is of course just my opinion.

I wonder how long it will take to complete my collection of wooden medals.

magicgunnar said:

Even if the medal is only some pixels.
This could potentially generate 30 medals (if one category is independent of victory conditions)

Click to expand...

magicgunnar - what? where do you think the GOTM staff will get all those pixels? do you think pixels grow on trees?

well, maybe with only one ciV GOTM (at first) instead of three, they might be able to free up some pixels. But enough for 30 rewards? We will be deluged with ads to pay for them.

more people will get medals this way. And that will probably be more fun for those of us which never make it to top 3.

Click to expand...

I like the idea - I like getting awards and am never likely to be in the top 3

I haven't read all the replies, but the one I like the most is a special award for a particular victory. One of the most fun SGOTM was even for a loss. I think it was have the fastest space race loss to a specific leader that you happened to be at always war with. Those games involve some creativity. I'd rather see that once a quarter than a diety game which just tests everyone's micromanagement skills.

I do think the GOTM ends up encouraging milking over fastest finishes as well, but there is nothing really to be done there. A score is a score, right?

Scores can be ignored. Anything that encourages milking is BAD.

Do the "shield awards" have any point? I don't think anyone has mentioned those here yet. Why would anyone care what the lowest scoring submission of a particular victory condition is? If anything, wouldn't it mean more to give the shields to the slowest victory submitted for each type? (Although even that would still feel more like a kick in the pants than an "award." )

kcd_swede said:

One possibility is to invent a handicapping system

Click to expand...

I thought this was an intriguing idea. If a workable mathematical formula could be found and applied automatically based on the score rank percentages already used in the global ranking system then it probably wouldn't take much effort to post each month. If score rank percentages were then modified by speed rank percentages in each victory category, perhaps the "shield" awards could be turned into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place "Overall Most Improved" Awards based on those players who's combined score and speed quotient most exceeded their own existing "average." New players wouldn't be eligible until they have submitted at least 3 times (in order to calculate that player's starting average). Perhaps running averages could be limited to the most recent 5 or 6 games. Gold, Silver, and Bronze shields could be awarded and would probably tend to go to the newer players (who are most likely to be improving by leaps and bounds after their first 3 or 4 submissions.) That would be good for encouraging new players to participate and it would give all players at least some reason to submit relatively bad outcomes along with the good ones. I suspect it would also make getting a "Shield Award" feel a lot better than a kick in the pants too...

Just in case, let me be clear that I do not think any such system should ever be used to replace the more competitive award system. Everyone is still going to want to know who was able to do it the best for each current medal category. (Okay, except the cow... )

Balthalion said:

perhaps the "shield" awards could be turned into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place "Overall Most Improved" Awards based on those players who's combined score and speed quotient most exceeded their own existing "average." I suspect it would also make getting a "Shield Award" feel a lot better than a kick in the pants too...

Just in case, let me be clear that I do not think any such system should ever be used to replace the more competitive award system. Everyone is still going to want to know who was able to do it the best for each current medal category. (Okay, except the cow... )

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's kind of what I had in mind! (I just didn't realize it until you said it).

The cow award should probably apply to the Time victory condition only. Early on, I remember that the cow was one of the few awards I thought was actually within my reach. Now... I just don't think it is especially fun to drag out victory once the game is decided.

But for folks who still can just barely get a spaceship done before the clock runs out, it might be nice to have some kind of recognition for the highest scoring Time victory. (On the higher difficulty levels, I might even suggest that Time Victory is one of the hardest victories to acheive).

kcd_swede said:

Yeah, that's kind of what I had in mind! (I just didn't realize it until you said it).

Click to expand...

Yeah, after a second look at your initial post I think I mostly just copied what you said. Oh well... it was late. The shield part may have been new though... and I do like the idea.

Shields--Slowest Date vs Lowest Score

Balthalion said:

If anything, wouldn't it mean more to give the shields to the slowest victory submitted for each type?

Click to expand...

I have thought so a few times, when I had a challenging game and submitted a near-defeat that got turned into a victory. But, every time that I thought that, I realised that a player could equally have intentionally delayed victory until near the end of the game just to obtain such a Shield.

We have to be careful about setting up a system that rewards such behaviour, and it's not always easy to tell the difference between a player that intentionally delayed victory compared to a player that just had a tough time of it.

I think that this reason is why we go by Lowest Score. However, going with the Lowest Score has its own set of flaws, which sometimes leads to weird results. For example, a player who gets the fastest Diplo Victory or fastest Religious Victory will sometimes "steal" the Shield, since they won with a small amount of population relative to those who won later in the game with bigger empires but had slower victory dates.


Shields and Awards in the same category--maybe only one of each?
I admit that it feels fun to win a Fastest Finish Award at the same time as winning a Shield.

However, maybe we should have a rule against that situation.

This way, you won't have the above-mentioned situation with a lean-and-fast empire like a Diplo game with a small amount of population won early on "stealing" the Shield from a player that didn't do as well but still won a Diplo Victory later on in the game and thus at a point where populations were bigger and their score was bigger.

Also, in Deity games, you wouldn't have a ton of Shields being awarded to players that were the only ones to submit a victory of a certain Victory Type.

It's fun to get Shields, but it's probably MORE FUN for the players that didn't get an Award to receive a Shield than for a player who got an Award to ALSO get a Shield. Make sense?

Also, it's kind of silly to get both an Award and a Shield just because no one else went for a victory condition in a particular month. So, I would say that if you win an Award, you aren't eligible to win a Shield of the same type as the Award in the same game.

You just have to be really clear about the rules here--if someone wins a Medal, or some other Award that wasn't the Fastest Finish Award, it would need to be decided and spelled-out ahead of time whether they'd be eligible to win a Shield, too. But, this little exception case doesn't disprove the suggestion, it just means that some thought needs to be put into executing it properly.


Most Improved Award--Do you mind if the Top Players win it at first?

If score rank percentages were then modified by speed rank percentages in each victory category, perhaps the "shield" awards could be turned into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place "Overall Most Improved" Awards based on those players who's combined score and speed quotient most exceeded their own existing "average."

Click to expand...

Would you be okay with the fact that after the first few 5OTM games, many of the players that placed as "top players" in the 3rd or 4th 5OTM actually also received the "most improved" awards?

Likely, players who submit a mediocre submisison for the first 5OTM and then win a top spot in the 3rd or 4th one would receive such an award.

Does this situation defeat the purpose of the award for you?


Most Improved Award--Discarding a Player's first few Submissions?

New players wouldn't be eligible until they have submitted at least 3 times (in order to calculate that player's starting average). Perhaps running averages could be limited to the most recent 5 or 6 games.

Click to expand...

Another way to do things could be that a player's first 3 games won't count at all, then their next 3 games will actually count as their average, followed by them being eligible to win a "most improved" award.

While this point helps to deal with the awarding to "wolves in sheep's clothing"--i.e. not giving the "most improved" awards to players who quickly distinguish themselves as top players after the first couple of games, it might take too long for a player to be able to receive an award?

Maybe this kind of award isn't really fair in its nature at all--"most improved" can be faked--I've seen kids do so in their highschool fitness tests, by pretending to suck at the start of a term and then by the end of the term being magically able to do double the number of push-ups, sit-ups, etc. It can also be fickle, in that a player may have a really great game as one of their first but then have mediocre play for later games, but could be ineligible for such a reward as a result.


Most Improved Award--Maybe make it a Subjective Award assigned by a Staff Member?
I like the idea of crediting other players, but I'm also hoping that the system will be one that will reward the players that deserve to be rewarded.

Perhaps in that sense, we shouldn't make it a "most improved" award but something more like "an awesome effort was made" kind of award. It would be a subjective award that a staff member would manually award, based on following the progress of players. That way, we could have a human judging the "strong effort" put in a player, despite the fact that they only achieved medicre result. Is that the kind of player that you would like to see rewarded? I certainly would, as I think that we want to encourage people who try really hard, despite their final results.

Perhaps it could only be awarded to a player that wrote a spoiler, so that a staff member has enough info to go on and also to encourage players to write.

In fact, you could give out such an award even starting from the first game, as the idea would be to award a player who tried hard but didn't place all that well. Yes, some people may feel left out, but if you award someone who did something obvious, such as wrote a well-written spoiler, then it's easier for others to "accept" the fact that they didn't beat out this other player and it also gives them a goal (writing a better spoiler) for the next time.

Yes, now I've sort of altered the idea back to what we were talking about with awarding well-written spoilers, but honestly, this approach would be a lot easier to implement than a handicapping system. Anyone is free to develop a handicapping system, but unless someone volunteers to do so, I don't foresee the staff magically coming up with one that will work. However, subjectively assigning an award is something that just about anyone who puts some effort into examining the games of players can do, and if our goal is also to encourage people to write spoilers, then perhaps the criteron isn't a "well-written spoiler" but just "a spoiler was written" and the "player tried hard but didn't quite make a top spot." That way, it would still be different in concept from a "well-written spoiler" award.

The Cow Award

kcd_swede said:

Early on, I remember that the cow was one of the few awards I thought was actually within my reach. Now... I just don't think it is especially fun to drag out victory once the game is decided.

Click to expand...

Like it or hate it, the Cow Award often goes to a player with builder-like tendencies.

A player who spams a lot of units gets their choice of Conquest and Domination Victories. A player who spams a lot of buildings everywhere is more likely to get a Cow.

So, it really is the "Builder's Paradise" type of Award.


Three Categories of Awards--those in the Pantheon of Heroes that count towards and Eptathelon, those in the Pantheon of Heroes but without "credit" towards an Eptathelon (like the Cow), and those not in the Pantheon of Heroes at all (like the Ambulances)
We marginalized the Cow Award in BTS, but we still kept it around. In fact, this Award, as it stands in BTS, is probably the best use case that we have for introducing other Awards that are either subjective in nature, or are some kind of a "special Award" that doesn't count towards an Eptathelon. It demonstrates that a player CAN win an Award and have it appear in the Pantheon of Heroes' table of Awards, without getting "credit" towards an eptathelon.

It might, of course, be confusing to see a ton of Awards for a player and them only having 0/5 for their Eptathelon requirements, but we have that situation now with the Cow, so it's not too much of a stretch to consider "recording" some of these additional Awards that we're talking about in the Pantheon of Heroes.


That said, the Red and Green Ambulance Awards are "fun" Awards that are NOT recorded in the Pantheon of Heroes. So, certainly, each additional Award, especially the subjective-based ones, needs to be considered as an Award that should or should not go in the table of Awards in the Pantheon of Heroes.

Basically, the staff have a lot of decisions to make before the first 5OTM is even played!


Time Victory

The cow award should probably apply to the Time victory condition only.

But for folks who still can just barely get a spaceship done before the clock runs out, it might be nice to have some kind of recognition for the highest scoring Time victory. (On the higher difficulty levels, I might even suggest that Time Victory is one of the hardest victories to acheive).

Click to expand...

I do not think that the Cow and a Time Victory Award are synonymous. We could certainly consider introducing a Time Victory Award. Yet, the two concepts are distinct enough for them to be considered separately.

Would a Time Victory Award only apply to someone winning on the last turn of the game but not having fulfilled any other victory condition? That's my understanding of what is meant by a Time Victory.

If yes, how do you break ties (as everyone who gets it will have the same victory date). Final Score? Base Score? (Assuming that Civ 5 distinguishes between those two).

I would think that a Time Victory would not be awarded to someone who finishes last for the month but didn't play it out until the end (2050 AD or whenever "the end" is), such as someone who won a Space Victory in 2020 AD, before the end of the game.

So, it sounds to me like a Time Victory Award, while it could potentially go to a player that couldn't manage to win the game, would be a Score-based Award and thus would have the potential to inspire Milking Competitions. I'm pretty sure that the general sentiment is that:

Ribannah said:

Anything that encourages milking is BAD.

Click to expand...

Thus, if we do introduce a Time Victory Award, I would think that it would be one of the Awards that DOES NOT get recorded in the Pantheon of Heroes. That way, you wouldn't have players INTENTIONALLY going for it, while you'd still be able to give out an Award to the newbie players that play through the 5OTM but are unable to make a victory work.

When you have such an Award (like the ambulances), it rewards players for submitting, by giving them some kind of credit, but it also encourages them to improve, because the Award won't be one that will be generally sought-after.