Goody huts in GOTM good?

[Xarin]

Well, since no one else started this and I'm curious, I thought I'd go ahead and post this thread + poll. Eliminating random elements seems like a good thing to me. Even if you can't eliminate them all, eliminating some is still a plus. Of course, getting the Republic Slingshot in C3C Emperor+ is probably a bigger random element than getting an early settler. Anyway, I'd personally like to see no huts ever. Making the expansionist trait nearly worthless is fine with me. Just makes the game harder for that kind of civ.

[Dynamic]

I vote "Only for expansionist civ".
Goody huts is the big part of exp treit. In the other case I think be better to equalize player in huts luck factor.
Game with expansionist civ will be periodical crazy lottary.

[Tone]

I voted "yes" as I feel that it is just one of many aspects of the game that rely on an element of good fortune. The current SOTD shows a player with a very early GL. That will have a massive effect on their subsequent game but that player made a bold decision that paid off. In the same way an early settler can have a greater effect than other results from GHs but IMHO if a player goes looking for them, they deserve any good fortune that comes their way (even though it rarely seems to come my way with GHs in GOTM).

ainwood has tried to limit the effect of such lucky streaks but whether it is early GLs, settlers from huts, successful suicide galleys or numerous other chance events, it is part of the game which finds us feeling like one moment and the next but we still keep coming back for more!

[Ambiorix]

I like the current implementation where GH's are removed if they're too close to the starting location, but otherwise are left in the game. Ainwood got it spot-on in the current COTM6.

I know and understand the point that luck makes it more difficult (to some impossible) to compare games, but the factor 'fun' is more important to me. And despite a player getting a settler from a hut, I find it still very well possible to compare, analyse and learn from his or her game.

It seems to me that the root of the issue has to do with the competition-aspect of the game. I used to play the game almost for ranking only (over a year back), but lately play it mostly for fun.
I'm enjoying myself a lot more now.

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by Ambiorix

I like the current implementation where GH's are removed if they're too close to the starting location, but otherwise are left in the game. Ainwood got it spot-on in the current COTM6.

I know and understand the point that luck makes it more difficult (to some impossible) to compare games, but the factor 'fun' is more important to me. And despite a player getting a settler from a hut, I find it still very well possible to compare, analyse and learn from his or her game.

It seems to me that the root of the issue has to do with the competition-aspect of the game. I used to play the game almost for ranking only (over a year back), but lately play it mostly for fun.
I'm enjoying myself a lot more now.

My thoughts exactly!!!

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

The impact of GHs on any map can be huge. Why did bed_head7 manage to build the SoZ in CotM5, surely shaving off some turns from his 20k victory?
But is that really dumb luck, or proper maximizing the usefullness of a trait?
For me, it's the later.

And especially I don't want to see the huts removed for non-EXP Civs; here, it requires even more dedication (no military).

Keep it the way it is.

[socralynnek]

(crying) If you keep the goody huts then give me my SGLs back!!!!
I think getting a settler from a goody hut might be as unbalancing as getting an early SGL.
(Keep in mind that AI civs can also get SGLs, so keeping SGLs in can also have bad sides)
You were weakening one of my favourite traits(Sci), so I wouldn't have a problem, if you weakened Exp(it can't be weakened much, I think it is already weak if not playing a pangea map).

So since SGLs are not in, I voted "No".

[Hannabir]

Since I never get an early Settler from a goody hut: yes, by all means, dump them.

Seriously: I am for removing as many game-deciding random elements as possible. That includes slingshots and ships surviving on sea/ocean before the proper techs.

Expansionist civs could get an alternative bonus, for example a free Curragh at the start of the game.

[Ambiorix]

Originally Posted by socralynnek

(crying) If you keep the goody huts then give me my SGLs back!!!!

I must admit I'm more receptive to the idea of allowing SGL's than omitting GH's. It would also fit in the "no mods, please" mindset of many players.
But I must admit I probably don't know the full consequences of allowing SGL's...
Can we add this to the scope of the discussion ? (don't want to thread-jack).

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by Hannabir

Seriously: I am for removing as many game-deciding random elements as possible. That includes slingshots and ships surviving on sea/ocean before the proper techs.

Expansionist civs could get an alternative bonus, for example a free Curragh at the start of the game.

I am very much opposed to this!
This will mean the return of excessive modding to the G/COTM, which will change the game at an elemental level, and thus making it uncomparable to the normal epic game. That would be a bad move, IMHO.
We're all here to play a competitive game of Civilization 3 each month. Not a mod of the month loosely based on Civilization 3. (with the last sentence being a 'slight' overformulation... )

@all those advocating huge changes (and these are definately huge changes in gameplay):
Please don't take this the wrong way, but why do you want to change so much in this game? If you're not liking it the way it is, why do you play? The G/COTM is about a competitive game of Civ3, not a mod of the month that resembles a maths examination!

Just my 2 cents...

[Darkness]

@Ambiorix: I am one of those with the 'no mods' mindset, but I fully support the exclusion of SGL in the COTM. This was the worst addition to C3C Firaxis makes. Totally unbalancing. Imagine, for example, SirPleb and Drazek playing exactly the same first 20 turns, but upon research of writing SirPleb gets and SGL while Drazek does not. Who do you think will get the gold medal? This makes comparison of their two games completely useless, whereas a remote settler in 3000BC helps a lot, but it's not nearly as devastating for comparison as the free Pyramids between 3000-2500BC...

Random luck in small events is fine, but an early BC's SGL is just too big a random factor. The exclusion of the SGL's is just drawing a line in the 'battlefield' between random events and the maths contest, and it is drawn at exactly the right point, IMHO.

[Dynamic]

I could be happy with total removing huts if the war leaders can rush wonders in Conquests.

[Megalou]

Getting a city or a settler from a goody hut is not just a matter of luck, just like beating a spearman with a knight is not just a matter of luck. Do you build 0, 1, 2 or 3 scouts before you start on your precious granary? Do you remember not to build a settler while you are popping a hut?

I trust Master Ainwood not to create a map with 5 goody huts in the core area and all the other huts on the other side of the world. The expansionist AI are good competitors when it comes to finding goody huts quickly enough. If we are born alone on an island I think it's wise to remove huts, however.

(Edited because of a minor clumsy spoiler)

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Fully agree with Darkness. When I want to play a mod, guess you know what I'll do then...but CotM should stay unmodded. Could enjoy a random map with some of the Conquest rulesets, but aside from that, keep it clean.
The excessive number of modpacks required was one of the 2 reasons that kept me from ever participating in a GotM.

[grs]

I voted for yes. If huts would be taken out, the whiners would lose a feature to blame a result on, they are not satisfied with .

[TheArchduke]

Originally Posted by Tone

I voted "yes" as I feel that it is just one of many aspects of the game that rely on an element of good fortune. The current SOTD shows a player with a very early GL. That will have a massive effect on their subsequent game but that player made a bold decision that paid off. In the same way an early settler can have a greater effect than other results from GHs but IMHO if a player goes looking for them, they deserve any good fortune that comes their way (even though it rarely seems to come my way with GHs in GOTM).

ainwood has tried to limit the effect of such lucky streaks but whether it is early GLs, settlers from huts, successful suicide galleys or numerous other chance events, it is part of the game which finds us feeling like one moment and the next but we still keep coming back for more!

Second that and voted yes.

[Roland Ehnström]

I would like to see goody-huts always be completely removed from the starting island/continent, but at the same time I'd like to see a lot of them on OTHER islands/continents (hidden away in far-away places where the AI will not likely go). This removes the luck-factor from the early game (where I think it can be pretty unbalancing) but at the same time it promotes early exploration of the world.

What do you think?

-- Roland

[dmanakho]

I voted "Yes" for GH.
I call it goody hut hunting and it's just a part of the game that makes it fun.

[AlanH]

I voted Yes. I like it as it is, with no goody huts close by, and a random factor that gives me an element of surprise, whatever I get from a hut. Without surprises the game would get rather monotonous for me.

No nice surprise I get from a goody hut is going to make a big enough difference to my result to get me into the medals, but an early settler might get me a slightly higher ranking one month. And no doubt it'll be compensated the following month by my next combination of bad luck and incompetence.

[denyd]

AlanH: The other way to look at is give me a GH or 2 visible when the game starts, that way all the players get the same results.

To remove the GH, severely cripples a somewhat weaker trait. Siince expanionists get no cheap buildings and starts with the cheapest tech, the only benefit would be scouts and with the exception of earlier contacts and earlier knowledge of the terrain (both very valuable but limited to the first 10-15% of the game), the trait would have no positives at all.