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

adrianj said:

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?

Click to expand...

I hope the game code is not available. Nothing could shorten the shelf life of a new game quicker than revealing the code. Better yet, let's call the code what the early civilizations would -- 'sacred code' (he says with tongue firmly stuck in cheek.)

^@ Balthalion - we'll mark your vote as no.

Balthalion said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is the first and best lesson I learned from first starting to play GOTMs. I played with reloads all the way through civ I, II and III. But it wasn't until I started playing GOTMs when civ IV came out that I ever got any better at the game.

If anyone truly wants to get good at civ (not that I am, but I've come a long way) I think reloading cannot be part of that.

If anyone learns anything from this competition it should be how to play without reloading.

mushroomshirt said:

This is the first and best lesson I learned from first starting to play GOTMs. I played with reloads all the way through civ I, II and III. But it wasn't until I started playing GOTMs when civ IV came out that I ever got any better at the game.

If anyone truly wants to get good at civ (not that I am, but I've come a long way) I think reloading cannot be part of that.

If anyone learns anything from this competition it should be how to play without reloading.

Click to expand...

That's 3 for no.

How about when the new game comes out having a beginner's forum and allowing unrestricted game submission for the Freestyle, Adventurer or Open category, whatever we call it. In a year, any players who haven’t voluntarily graduated to the non-reroll categories are eligible to play in a special entry contest - touch move, no rerolls. At that time, the beginners category is replaced by an adventurer type category. Of course if the category and forum were highly liked.....

Taking on Risk

Keath said:

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

Click to expand...

Okay, well in this example, it sounds to me like you took the risk of building a Settler before building a defender for that City, or that you at least sent the Settler ahead of said defender.

Either way, you are knowingly taking on a risk.

There is not a 100% certainty that a Barb will appear to disrupt your plans, but neither is there a 0% certainty.

You are taking a calculated risk.

Sometimes, that risk will pay off. Let's say that it pays off 4 out of every 5 games.

In your interest of makings games fair, wouldn't it be acceptable for you to actually lose a City to a Barb in 20% of your GOTM games? Wouldn't that give you a better result than the average player in 80% of your games, at the cost of doing a bit worse in 20% of your games?

I see nothing wrong with that model.

You chose to play riskily and thus went against advice of the game's Hint about "Failing to escort your Settlers is taking on a big risk."

So, what is it that you see fair about you being able to reload in 20% of your games, so that in the balance of the other 80% of the games, you can submit in the "non reloading category" and thereby do better than the average player who never plans to reload and thus always sends a proper escort with their Settler?

How is that approach in any way fair?


Anyway, for this example, I would suggest multiple ideas for how to deal with this issue in the future:
1. Build more early Warriors and spawn-bust the hidden squares, so that Barbs will not spawn anywhere near where you plan to settle.
OR
2. Move your Settler at a slower pace so that your defender is always protecting it. You could also "start off" by sending your defender in the right direction a bit ahead of time, just before the Settler is completed, allowing the Settler to move its full movement points initially, but then move slowly as a team once the Settler "catches up" to your defending escort.
OR
3. Skip buiding a Wonder like Stonehenge or The Great Wall in favour of getting Settlers produced earlier in the game, so that the only Barbs that you are dealing with are Barb Animals. You can be a little more risky in your play this way, as you can settle next to a Barb Animal and not worry about it attacking you, as it will be ejected from your cultural borders upon the settling of your City. This way, you can still enjoy the benefits of your risky play, but you'll also have to live with the fact that you might still have your Settler get eaten by a 2-movement point Animal (just either plan for that with SOME spawn-busting to spot all squares that are two-squares away or else accept the fact that you might lose a Settler in some of your games).
OR
4. Don't build Settlers. Build Axemen or Chariots. Not only will you eat the Barb Warriors for lunch, but you can capture instead of settle your additional Cities and will not have to worry about a Settler dying to a Barb unit.


Code-digging

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.

Click to expand...

Very few players here actually read through the SDK (software development kit) code. More players read through the XML, but even those players are a small minority. Many players, however, have read the info SHARED by people who have done these things, and this info is free available to you or anyone in the form of the War Academy, as well as by searching the forum for a particular subject (see the Custom Search textbox at the top right of this screen).

Further, for your convenience, there are summaries of the info that people have learned in the form of downloadable files. If you are interested in the results and implications of the discoveries made, as long as you can open and read a PDF file or a spreadsheet that someone else has already created, then you have access to this info for Civ 4 already, yourself.

It's very likely that this same type of info, once it becomes available for Civ 5, will also be published to the community on this web site and you will be able to fully absorb it at your leisure or pleasure.

I'm sure that if you asked nicely, someone could even provide you a couple of links to PDF files and spreadsheets on this web site that will give you a wealth of information about how the game works.

There is no way to be able to put a "ban on learning," nor would we want to do so if we could, so you might as well enjoy doing some learning of your own.

Dhoomstriker said:

Taking on Risk
There is no way to be able to put a "ban on learning," nor would we want to do so if we could, so you might as well enjoy doing some learning of your own.

Click to expand...

@Dhoomstriker --
First, I'm not a novice player and if you'll notice my first post:

Keath post#41 said:

I think the GOTM should have an award category for those who play without world builder trials, without using spreadsheets and without using game code.

I suggest that once the game is started, the game is played with only paper and pencil for making notes and the Civilopedia as the only reference.

Click to expand...

I am championing an Ironman category where it's you against the machine in the same way chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov played against the computer Deep Blue in 1996 and 1997. - His skill and his experience only versus the huge processing power of the Deep Blue supercomputer - the ultimate test.

However, I'm also championing having room for everyone to enjoy the game and compete on a fair playing ground. Therefore, I think beginners and cavalier players should be able to submit after recovering from a blunder, too. Let's say that their category is the DID NOT COMPETE category. These beginners might only want to see how their game compares - no expectation of awards.

I support using the same game save for everyone and most of all I support learning the game so I would never suggest a 'ban on learning'. Clearly, I am in favour of a fair playing ground during a GOTM game and the present GOTM is pretty unclear about what is and is not allowed.

I am also championing the AI! A good player shouldn't have to use any outside help.

Rather than banning various game styles, though, I support having a category for each style. Perhaps one category is the 'Garry Kasparov' category representing the Ironman concept and another, the Deep Blue category representing those players who like to use all the technological tools available to them.

I stated earlier that it might be interesting to compare scores and results. My bet is that rerolling by itself will not help a novice player get a high score. But I am interested to find out if using all the tech tools, wb saves, spreadsheets, etc. would produce better scores than those players who play by the seat of their pants.

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.

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

Click to expand...

In games were I am clearly losing, I could be interested in starting all over again after reading the spoilers. There is a learning in this, by doing things different, you will see how this choices affects the outcome. In a normal game I would start a new game with the same settings, but what's fun with GOTM is that everyone plays the same game, and you can compare and read which choices others did. But there is ofcourse no reason why I would need to submit such a game to have a fun and learning experience.

Keath said:

I am championing an Ironman category where it's you against the machine in the same way chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov played against the computer Deep Blue in 1996 and 1997. - His skill and his experience only versus the huge processing power of the Deep Blue supercomputer - the ultimate test.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of beauty in not knowing the game mechanics. But if you are not going to isolate yourself from the rest of the world you will get to know at least some of the mechanics. I doubt anyone can stay "clean". And if you learn some of them by accident, should you be expelled from the Ironman category? I doubt many players look in the sourcecode as they play, they already know whats there.

Code diving
I don't see what code diving has to do with the GOTM in particular. People are going to try to learn as much as possible about the game mechanics regardless, and the info will be used by many players to improve their game, and they will share it with the rest of us (such is the awesomeness of this site). And we might play GOTM with that knowledge.

Dhoomstriker is right, putting a ban on learning is impossible, and certainly not desirable. Reading the forums and sharing strategies and learning what other people have found out constitutes studying the game to improve. Kasparov certainly studies the game of chess too. People who study the game are more likely to be better at it. I fail to see the problem.

I hope the game code is not available. Nothing could shorten the shelf life of a new game quicker than revealing the code.

Click to expand...

Maybe if the game developer would understand that they should not parade information on the UI level that is actually wrong, then code diving would not change anything, since no new information would be revealed. But if code diving leads to realizations that the previously available information was untrue (sadly, not uncommon with C-IV), then I have a hard time seeing how this statement is justified. I certainly prefer playing a game where I am not penalized for trying to implement the available information.

Need for an adventurer like system
I think a lot of the incentive to play GOTM for newer players should come from the desire to become better at the game. The earlier spoiler (1000BC/Civ-IV equivalent) will do much to help that.
Reloading is counter-productive to learning. Replaying can be done without submitting if you want to compare your game anyway if you died from an early gamble in your first attempt.
I would not mind a lower level save if the "contender" save is on a high level, but generally I think people learn the best from playing the same game as the award winners.

jesusin said:

jesusin speaking as just another player:

I'd like to see more competition. IMO there are not enough players for tiers or even for the current system of competition. What is the value of a Fastest Cultural Award (or a Gold medal) when you were the only one aiming for Culture (or Points)?

So my proposal is to have a goal victory type for each game. Consequently, only 1 award per game. Everybody fighting for that award and ranks based on performance against each month's goal.

This way, everybody would be interested in everybody's writeups, since everybody would be aiming for the same goal.

Click to expand...

I agree. Often the warmongers are the winners, due to the high scores a warmongering game provides. A fixed condition like in the HoF Gauntlets for the medals can be a solution. The Participants can be free to pursue different VCs, with minor awards.

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

I'm probably one of the longer-time XOTM players around here. The "No reload" rule is something of a necessity. In previous Civs, the random-number-generator seed was not preserved on reload, and so, if you were allowed to reload, you could just constantly reload-your-way-to-victory in any battle. (The lower the odds, the more reloads you'd need, but your spear would beat that tank eventually...) But even with the RNG seed preserved on reload, reloading still lets you "try before you buy" with any battle, and by fiddling with the battle order or inserting a few RNG events you could still manipulate the battle if reloads were allowed. And "whoops, Spain beat me to that expensive wonder by a turn ... reload five turns back rejig a few citizen assignments and this time they didn't"...

So it's not just a matter of whether you learn from your mistakes -- reloading effectively gives you the ability to completely predict the future, and just changes the game beyond recognition.

Would someone be so kind as to post this magical medal-winning spreadsheet? I'd love to get my hands on it.

Keath said:

@Dhoomstriker --
I am championing an Ironman category where it's you against the machine in the same way chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov played against the computer Deep Blue in 1996 and 1997.

Click to expand...

Suggesting something more concrete: blitz-Civ.

A "single-session, less than 5 hours", or "two-sessions, less than 10 hours" category.

Would that help? While I don't think anyone can police whether you have Excel open, a blitz-style time-limit would mean you wouldn't have time to look at it for every micromanagement decision. A session-limit would make it harder to do all your investigations off-line. (And a HOF mod can record the real-time into the save to avoid pause-workarounds.) It'd also partially fulfil the hopes of those who'd been looking for a real-time award, without being quite so dependent on the speed of your computer.

Whaddayareckon?

magicgunnar said:

.... but what's fun with GOTM is that everyone plays the same game

Click to expand...

In fact, as soon as one group is playing the game on Monarch and another group on Emperor and a third group has a free scout and archer, they are not playing the same game.

There is a lot of beauty in not knowing the game mechanics. But if you are not going to isolate yourself from the rest of the world you will get to know at least some of the mechanics. I doubt anyone can stay "clean". And if you learn some of them by accident, should you be expelled from the Ironman category? I doubt many players look in the sourcecode as they play, they already know whats there.

Click to expand...

The only restriction for the Ironman category is that you do not use any outside resources to help you with your game while you are playing, start to finish. However, if you wish to consult the Civ forums or anything else outside of what the game offers, then there is a category for you - the Excel or tech using category.

Flourescent said:

Dhoomstriker is right, putting a ban on learning is impossible, and certainly not desirable.

Click to expand...

I have never said anything about banning learning. Do your learning before and after the contest or submit in a different category.

Think of the game as a test - a conTEST, which it is. You are testing your knowledge and skill against the computer, not testing your ability to find useful information.

@babybluepants - never underestimate the power of a math expert with an Excel spreadsheet.

For what it's worth, I think the whole "looking at the code thing" is a bit of a red herring. How many award winners really abuse this? I have never looked at the code. Also, most of the useful information gleaned from looking at the code gets shared in the forums, leading to better games for all, if you take the time to search to have your code-related question answered. See for example, the thread about great leader gift techs. Someone looked at the code, and now everyone benefits. Plus here's another argument against trying to create a rule against looking at the code: the rule is unenforceable, and in addition, once the "genie is out of the bag" so to speak, such as with regard to great leader gift techs, the info becomes part of the common knowledge this site promotes. So the line between looking at code and not looking at code becomes rather fuzzy. Do we really want to pretend that we don't know info gleaned from looking at code after it becomes common knowledge, such as with great leader gift techs? Are we going to outlaw posts in all forums revealing information gleaned from code (I think not). Are we going to try to ban GOTM players from reading such posts, thus rendering us in a strategic disadvantage in our GOTM games, compared to the games of players who don't play GOTM, intentionally limiting our own knowledge about the game and gimping our games? That just doesn't make sense.

whb said:

Suggesting something more concrete: blitz-Civ.

A "single-session, less than 5 hours", or "two-sessions, less than 10 hours" category.

Would that help? While I don't think anyone can police whether you have Excel open, a blitz-style time-limit would mean you wouldn't have time to look at it for every micromanagement decision. A session-limit would make it harder to do all your investigations off-line. (And a HOF mod can record the real-time into the save to avoid pause-workarounds.) It'd also partially fulfil the hopes of those who'd been looking for a real-time award, without being quite so dependent on the speed of your computer.

Whaddayareckon?

Click to expand...

Great stuff! But I would think that time constraints would add that extra difficulty level that might attract the Challenger players. As you say, there wouldn't be time to do extensive research. The in game clock should work the same for different speeds of computer. Definitely speed of finish would be a good equalizer.

And as far as having Excel open or accessing the Forum for advice goes - be honest and submit to a different category. If Kasparov had his book on the Caro-Kann Defense with him on game 6, 1997, he would surely have avoided the well known trap he fell into, losing to a knight sacrifice and having to resign before move 20.

This was a sad day for mankind because now we know that computer AI is superior to the best human players in the world. Remember that when computers first started analyzing chess to develop AI, a lot of chess masters said a computer would never beat a human.

But, now we have a chance to get some revenge against the AI by crushing them in a fair contest - mano a mano.

Surely the GOTMs are, first and foremost, a way to test your skills against other human players, not against the computer. You can play the computer any time, any way you like, you don't need a GOTM to do that.

In a GOTM, the computer just provides a playing field for you to explore. The other players are your competitors, playing same field.

godotnut said:

For what it's worth, I think the whole "looking at the code thing" is a bit of a red herring. How many award winners really abuse this?

Click to expand...

Perhaps we should ask how many do use this information.

I have never looked at the code. Also, most of the useful information gleaned from looking at the code gets shared in the forums, leading to better games for all, if you take the time to search to have your code-related question answered. See for example, the thread about great leader gift techs. Someone looked at the code, and now everyone benefits.

Click to expand...

Is it really a benefit? Surely playing a game should have some mystery, some surprises.

Plus here's another argument against trying to create a rule against looking at the code: the rule is unenforceable,

Click to expand...

Not if the players have enough honour to submit their save in the right category. You are either testing your ability to beat the AI or you are using outside information.

and in addition, once the "genie is out of the bag" so to speak, such as with regard to great leader gift techs, the info becomes part of the common knowledge this site promotes. So the line between looking at code and not looking at code becomes rather fuzzy. Do we really want to pretend that we don't know info gleaned from looking at code after it becomes common knowledge, such as with great leader gift techs? Are we going to outlaw posts in all forums revealing information gleaned from code (I think not). Are we going to try to ban GOTM players from reading such posts, thus rendering us in a strategic disadvantage in our GOTM games, compared to the games of players who don't play GOTM, intentionally limiting our own knowledge about the game and gimping our games? That just doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

Yes, once the "genie is out of the bag", the game is changed forever, some of the magic is gone and, alas, the AI power is eventually reduced to wimp. Then we'll all be looking to Civ VI and we can do it all over again. Sad.

But, we have an opportunity with Civ V release to set some guidelines - 'sacred code' anyone, anyone...?

AlanH said:

Surely the GOTMs are, first and foremost, a way to test your skills against other human players, not against the computer. You can play the computer any time, any way you like, you don't need a GOTM to do that.

In a GOTM, the computer just provides a playing field for you to explore. The other players are your competitors, playing same field.

Click to expand...

And hopefully playing by the same ruleset for the submitted category.

Sure, but you normally define "mano a mano" with respect to your competitors, not against the playing field.

babybluepants said:

Would someone be so kind as to post this magical medal-winning spreadsheet? I'd love to get my hands on it.

Click to expand...

No promises of magic and no guarantees of medal-winning, but here you can find a spreadsheet about the various AIs' Personalities in the game.

Besides the Great Person Tech Preferences link that godotnut provided, it's probably the reference that I utilise the most for my games.

It's up to you to figure out how you would apply this knowledge, and many players already attest to actively looking at this kind of info (derived from the XML) when they play, so it's probably nothing new for many players.

A couple of words about that link: 1) the .zip file contains an .xlr file--it opens in a spreadsheet program but you might want to first rename the file's extension to .xls so that it will open automatically without needing to go to File -> Open in your spreadsheet program and 2) it's info for BTS--the values are different for Vanilla and Warlords for some Leaders, so you'll need to search this web site for comparable versions of the spreadsheet for the other game versions (they exist, I just don't have links to them).

Still, my example just gives one example of some of the great pieces of info that you can find on this site if you keep digging through the War Academy, the strategy sections, and even by simply using web searches for content on this site.


@ Keath: I have a lot of the most important info from the link that I provided already memorized, so I would qualify for the Ironman competition, but I would also have access to this knowledge in my memory that another player might not have, because they'd have to look it up as they played.

How would you suggest to resolve this discrepancy for your proposed Ironman challenge?

1. I think we should also discuss the global rankings. I don't have any suggestions here but think it should be part of the "how should VOTM be conducted" discussion.

2. I would like to see a discussion thread about the game design. First the map maker would describe what he was trying to achieve, why he selected the AIs, the map, and game settings. What changes he made to the map. etc Then the players would comment on how his objective were satisfied.
I've wanted this for a while, but with Pre, Post, and Results threads, it could be too much to add another. Maybe have the map maker put a commentary in the results thread.

3. I appreciate it when the (albeit untrustworthy) map makers provide some spoiler information in the pre game discussion. e.g. in the current BOTM it was revealed that metals have been removed from our starting area. If all the AIs are industrious with stone, then I'd like a heads up not to try for the Great Wall. OTOH, if the map maker's objective is to see what we do with our fail gold then that spoiler wouldn't be provided. In the Ice Wall map, several posters objected to the surprise that we couldn't reach the AIs by sailing west.

4. Posting in and Reading the Spoilers is its own reward - not sure we need to encourage it. Maybe when the map maker thanks all the posters, he could single out a couple (as has been done).

more work for the map makers - that's why they get the big bucks