Game of the... Season?

If you're like me, you would like to play a "standardized" game of Civ and compare your success to others' to see how you stack up, and although this is offered beautifully in the GOTM, you don't have enough spare time in one month (or perhaps just not enough spare time that you're willing to spend playing Civ) to complete a full-fledged, competitive game of Civ.

Thus, I propose the GOTS (Game of the Season), in which each installment of the competition lasts three months. Alternatively, if the populace demands it, we could have it last two months, or four, or half a year, or whatever. We could even have it so that there is no set time limit for turning in saves.

Now, I know what you're thinking... Who will organize this? Well, I don't know. I'm pretty willing to dedicate a little time to running the show (perhaps doing everything but investigating the saves?), but I probably wouldn't be willing to do it all, but if enough interest is generated, perhaps a couple selfless souls will step up to the plate. Perhaps even some of you GOTM folk (ainwood et al) are willing? And if this needs to be handled completely by non-mods because the mods aren't willing, you might be wondering, are us non-mods really trustworthy enough to handle this? Well, I'd say that I am (not that that really means anything to anyone but myself), but even if not, does that really matter? What does anyone have to lose? (If TF wishes, he could write a clause explaining that the actions of the GOTS regulators don't reflect the opinions of CFC. ) And I'm sure if someone's screwing around with things, they'll get discovered.

I included a poll to see how much interest there is in this. Of course, site feedback might not be the best place. Thunderfall, if you're reading this and don't hate the idea, perhaps you could put the poll on the front page? But eh, that's probably asking for too much.

Thoughts?

I think it would be an ok addition, but since I haven't played civ in awhile I would not participate....

Nothing saying you have to do the GOTM every month. Just pick it up when you can.

Ainwood's already pretty busy with the GOTM and COTM. So are you volunteering to help out?

Turner_727 said:

Nothing saying you have to do the GOTM every month. Just pick it up when you can.

Click to expand...

But that'd be pretty much never. I'm not a speedy player, and so a game of Civ takes about 50 or so hours on average, and I can't really spend one and a half hours playing Civ each day for a month. Especially when I have a PBEM going.

Ainwood's already pretty busy with the GOTM and COTM. So are you volunteering to help out?

Click to expand...

I'd say "yes," but then again I have little knowledge of how much work it'd require.

PM Ainwood and ask him.

As for playing 50 hours....well, all I can say is you can d/l it, and check your results against the published listing. Of course, if you go past the turn in point, it wouldn't count, but you'd still know.

Turner_727 said:

PM Ainwood and ask him.

Click to expand...

Good idea, I guess I'll do that.

Of course his workload probably won't be quite the same as the workload for this, but I suppose it'd give me a nice estimate anyway.

As for playing 50 hours....well, all I can say is you can d/l it, and check your results against the published listing. Of course, if you go past the turn in point, it wouldn't count, but you'd still know.

Click to expand...

You're right, and I've actually thought about doing that. But then I realized that if I beat everyone else and couldn't turn in my save I'd probably go on a killing spree.

WillJ said:

But that'd be pretty much never. I'm not a speedy player, and so a game of Civ takes about 50 or so hours on average, and I can't really spend one and a half hours playing Civ each day for a month. Especially when I have a PBEM going.
I'd say "yes," but then again I have little knowledge of how much work it'd require.

Click to expand...

Well, the length of games has shortened considerably, because we now use a different scoring system (Aeson's creation, the "Jason" score). In short, this scoring system does away with the need to 'milk' games, so people can finish them much quicker.

I'll reply more re time commitments later.

ainwood said:

Well, the length of games has shortened considerably, because we now use a different scoring system (Aeson's creation, the "Jason" score). In short, this scoring system does away with the need to 'milk' games, so people can finish them much quicker.

I'll reply more re time commitments later.

Click to expand...

Well, I looked at the amounts of time played in the GOTM results charts (for example, here), and it looks like the average time taken (igorning games that ended as a loss) is somewhat more than 30 hours, so it's still kinda iffy as to whether or not I could make it. I suppose I might try (in the next game), though.

Oh, and could you let us know how much time/effort it takes to run the GOTM (is that what you meant by "time commitments"?)?

In terms of time commitments, we've been very fortunate to have Aeson (initially) and AlanH (latterly) who have automated a lot of systems for us.

The amount of time required depends on what you want to do. Do you want a random map, a designed map or a full scenario? I go for designed maps, and playtesting them to make sure that the balance OK takes quite a few hours. But its probably the bases tasks you are interested in.

I just snipped about 1/2 a page of random stuff.

Getting back to the point in hand, we started running the Conquest Of The Month, and thanks to the work done to automate systems, the incremental workload wasn't that great in terms of admin - maybe an extra 10-15 hours a month for me, not sure about the rest of the team. Play testing time has increased, and quality control has suffered ( ), but I've vowed to fix that.

I'm not really sure whether you want us to take on this seasonal game, or you are looking to administrate one yourself. My own personal feeling is that to integrate it into our competition might be quite difficult - in terms of finding a timeslot and also the logistical and organisational issues such as whether it should contribute to our global rankings? Will it impact on people with limited time - given scarcity of time, which will they play? (COTM, GOTM, SGOTM & GOTS?) Is 3 months too long a period (note that some of our players finish the game within a day or so of it being released, and are waiting for the next one! ) - do they want to wait for 3+ months for the results?

ainwood said:

In terms of time commitments, we've been very fortunate to have Aeson (initially) and AlanH (latterly) who have automated a lot of systems for us.

The amount of time required depends on what you want to do. Do you want a random map, a designed map or a full scenario? I go for designed maps, and playtesting them to make sure that the balance OK takes quite a few hours. But its probably the bases tasks you are interested in.

I just snipped about 1/2 a page of random stuff.

Getting back to the point in hand, we started running the Conquest Of The Month, and thanks to the work done to automate systems, the incremental workload wasn't that great in terms of admin - maybe an extra 10-15 hours a month for me, not sure about the rest of the team. Play testing time has increased, and quality control has suffered ( ), but I've vowed to fix that.

I'm not really sure whether you want us to take on this seasonal game, or you are looking to administrate one yourself. My own personal feeling is that to integrate it into our competition might be quite difficult - in terms of finding a timeslot and also the logistical and organisational issues such as whether it should contribute to our global rankings? Will it impact on people with limited time - given scarcity of time, which will they play? (COTM, GOTM, SGOTM & GOTS?) Is 3 months too long a period (note that some of our players finish the game within a day or so of it being released, and are waiting for the next one! ) - do they want to wait for 3+ months for the results?

Click to expand...

For the most part, I don't expect this GOTS thing to be as serious/"hardcore" as the GOTM, at least not at first, when there won't be as much interest in it (at least I doubt there will). Thus, the admin would probably just start a game like he would if he were just playing for himself (making sure to note the conditions), and then save before he does anything in the game, upload this save to this site, and let other people play it, so that we can all compare our results (and discuss our strategies). The rules would pretty much just be standard Civ rules; the only thing you can't do is cheat / interefere with the save files. (Perhaps, though, there's a couple exploits that need to be prevented and/or a couple game mechanics that need to be changed. Whatever you recommend...) Then, when the deadline is reached and all the saves are turned in, someone (or someones) would investigate the saves to make sure no fishy stuff is going on. Once all the saves have been investigated, and any "bad" ones thrown out and the perpetrators handled accordingly, the admin will calculate the scores based on the Jason system (as well as note their regular scores) and post the results for all to see. But then, the Jason system raises a problem: Doesn't that require the admin to look at the entire map? If I'm the admin, I'd like to play the games as well as run them*, and thus it wouldn't be good if I investigated the map. Perhaps I could do so AFTER I play the game, or would that not work?

I don't really think this should be incorporated into the GOTM, especially if you GOTM folk are reluctant to do so. Rather, it should probably be a separate thing, and yep, I'm willing to help run it. I think I'd be willing to put in, say, 15 hours of work for each 3-month installment. And I guess I'll need to find a couple people to help me out.

As for whether this will force people to choose between one of the various GOTMs and the GOTS: Well, we're talking about people who can handle the GOTM, and thus can handle the GOTS in one month, so they'd be able to get in at least two out of three GOTMs, right? As for three months being too long, I doubt it would raise too many complaints, but I could be wrong.

*Don't worry, I won't take advantage of the fact that I'm running the thing. Hopefully everyone will trust me on this....

Well, we already have GOTM, COTM, and SGOTM. Running another game would be too much and confusing to our visitors I think.

The thing about GOTM and COTM is that players who don't have the time to complete the game in one month can still play the game and compare the results, on his own. In fact, I have seen some players who chose to play the GOTM from the beginning at his own pace and compare his score with the published results.

IMHO, it's kinda pointless.
Just like GoTM, only longer.
And more work for Ainwood, but still, the GoTM is fine

If there was a game of the season, I'd probobly do it as well, GOTM is too short.

Thunderfall said:

Well, we already have GOTM, COTM, and SGOTM. Running another game would be too much and confusing to our visitors I think.

Click to expand...

It'd certainly be confusing for any person at first sight, but I think anyone that's interested could fairly easily sort it out.

But there is a problem with these acronyms. We need to get more creative.

Thunderfall said:

The thing about GOTM and COTM is that players who don't have the time to complete the game in one month can still play the game and compare the results, on his own. In fact, I have seen some players who chose to play the GOTM from the beginning at his own pace and compare his score with the published results.

Click to expand...

But that's not as fun.

LLXerxes said:

IMHO, it's kinda pointless.
Just like GoTM, only longer.
And more work for Ainwood, but still, the GoTM is fine

Click to expand...

The fact that it's longer is the very point of it. It gives people more time to complete the game. And it wouldn't necessarily be more work for ainwood; like I said, I'm willing to volunteer, and I'd be surprised if there aren't a couple other people willing to help. This is assuming of course that TF trusts us.