The ethics of milking

[Aeson]

Sirian,

This thread is almost certainly started in response to a claim that milking is unethical, from another thread. This indirect insult to all of us who have milked out games was responded to by Moonsinger in a lighthearted and non-combative manner. Why you feel the need to add to the insults directed at milkers is beyond me.

Your posts on this subject tend to be condescending. I don't know if you realize it, but that is how they come across. You insinuate or straight out state in your post that anyone who milks is unimaginative, pretentious, missing the point of the game, missing the point of competition in general, exploiting the nature of the competition, and doing so in a manner which they don't enjoy. It's hardly up for you to decide these things for each and every one of us, anymore than it would be proper to state that anyone who doesn't milk was guilty of such.

If you were addressing someone who had stated that people who don't milk are just jealous, you would have a point. If you were addressing someone who had stated that people should respect them based off their milked games, you would have a point. In this case you are addressing no one, refuting arguments that you have conjured, and doing so in a manner which offers insults with no qualifications as to who they apply to.

[Yndy]

Aggie, The point that Sirian is trying to make is that there should be no straightforward winning/scoring strategies and refers to the mass upgrade as one of them.

But IMHO his point is flawed by the fact that he always sees/searches for exploits in the game. At the extreme it’s like saying that is a pity that everybody researches The Republic. Using that Government helps you score more so that means using it is a little exploitative.

Sirian, the players that are inexperienced cannot fully understand what do you mean because they do not know/ cannot take advantage of the straightforward situations that you despise. I think that most of the experienced players already know your point and are a little upset of you continuing playing the same song. OK, you convinced some of us to quit GOTM and join RBCiv but you know that the rest of us think differently.

Moreover I could use your own arguments to tell you that your approach is also flawed and that you too are playing a different game but I do not want this discussion to degenerate.

Hope nobody will feel offended and of course everybody is entitled to disagree with the generalization that I have just made.

[Aggie]

Originally posted by Yndy
Aggie, The point that Sirian is trying to make is that there should be no straightforward winning/scoring strategies and refers to the mass upgrade as one of them.

But IMHO his point is flawed by the fact that he always sees/searches for exploits in the game. At the extreme it’s like saying that is a pity that everybody researches The Republic. Using that Government helps you score more so that means using it is a little exploitative.

I had a feeling that he meant this. Well, I take the game as it is designed with all the flaws. It may be a shame that 'professional' players are able to find ways to optimise the result, but this can't be avoided. Anyway, I can compare my gotm submission with non-milkers if I want. And all I want to do is compare different playing styles.

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Sirian
I was struck by Dave's comment about GOTM14, where he said that the only winning strategy was to gather a large force of upgradable units and a big cash stockpile, upgrade and invade.

I think that's done well within the spirit of the game. I'm sorry to hear that you don't approve of it. For example: Imagining yourself as a musketeer, if your commander take away your musket and give you a M16 or AK47 instead. I'm sure you would do just fine; not only that you would do just fine, you would also have at least ten times more fire power as well. What is really the cost different between the musket and the M16 or AK47? Not much really! It may seem like cheap upgrade to you, but it's within the spirit of the game as well as in reality. The level of technology is really the main different between the musket and the M16 or AK47. Furthermore, it costs a fortune and countless hours of research in order to reach to the next level of technology (both in civ3 and in real life). Moreover, it also requires countless years of savings and micromanagement in order to save up enough money for such an important event. Therefore, I think it's done well within the spirit of the game.

Those who milk, yet don't understand why others don't value their results highly, are missing the point, I think. It's not about "unethical", it's about "unimaginative". Some of us are more interested in enjoying the experience than we are in being recognized for performance. The only reason to milk is the pursuit of global ranking: the competition. Those who disapprove of milking are not jealous. We're dumbfounded. We simply don't understand why people are attracted to competing in this way. The competition itself has overshadowed the game. Instead of seeking to make the game harder, to make it a worthy endeavor, you settle for leaving in almost all the exploits and competing over who destroys the broken game by the largest margin in any given month.

Am I "unimaginative"? Well, I let you be the judge of that. Based on my recent imaginary comparision between the musket and the M16 or AK47 (musketeer to infrantry upgrade in civ3 as well as in real life), I think my imagination is working within the normal parameter. Anyway, I think you are assuming too much. There are a lot more to milking that you may not aware of. It isn't about hitting the "end turn" key while trying to stay awake or pursuing high global ranking (althought some players may do that, but that doesn't apply to all of us). There is actually a lot of fun and satisfaction in well milked game. This is the stage where the players can let their creative juice run freely and not to worry too much about winning the game (becuase they already won the game a long time ago). For example, if they want to plant trees all over the world in such a pattern that may help aliens from other planet to recognize their name from orbit, they are free to do so.

[alamo]

I must admit that milking first seems to be cheating in a way. If you have the ability to claim a victory, then why not? How can you compare game results when there is the option of delaying the inevitable?

I guess it is really just another aspect of the game. Not necessarily an aspect that I want to explore right now, but something of intellectual interest. Of course I would rather review the tax code and balance last years checkbook first, but it's always there.

Just kidding about that green-eyeshade stuff. If you want to weigh that box of cereal to see if you got shorted then go ahead...

But seriously, the first order effects of the game is empire building and warfare. I am happy enough to play those lines for now. After about 12 hours I grow tired of the game, and start looking for the easiest way out (launch, culture or domination, usually).

[DaveMcW]

I don't recall ever saying there was only one winning strategy, do you have a link?

I'm sorry if I offended anyone by dismissing their strategy.

However, I'm not sorry for backstabbing AIs left and right - that is allowed by the GOTM rules. I certainly wouldn't do it in an RB game though.

[Bamspeedy]

Moonsinger-It's not upgrading the units, it's the upgrade of 'mass' units that Sirian feels is exploitive. I think part of his definition of an exploit is whether or not the AI would do that to you. The AI will upgrade units, but it won't build 50 horsemen just for the sole purpose of upgrading them to knights and then blitz you right after he got Chivalry. And building mass cheap units is so much easier with ICS, and Sirian despises ICS.

Another instance is the ROP abuse. The AI will break ROP treaties to sneak attack you. But it won't have large stacks parked outside several of your cities so that it can capture a bunch of cities in 1 turn like a human would, but rather the AI will send 1 unit or attack 1 city.
I certainly don't agree with some of the things that Sirian feels are exploits, with the mass upgrade being the latest one I think should be an acceptable tactic.

True, some are very creative in the milking phase, like making a huge 'National State Park' (forests) in an unclaimed area. Or doing things like a 'green' milk (no hospitals/factories), or Cracker's 'MA on every available tile', or timing it so you that all 6 victory conditions can be achieved at the same time. And there is an art-form to finding the most efficient way to milk. But there are other players who don't do that and just rush marketplaces and aqueducts in every city, irrigate every tile and press 'end turn'. And how do you really compare one milked game to another? Did you out-score someone because you reached domination sooner, or because you milked more efficiently? I don't see enough conversations about these kind of things to know who had reached the domination point earlier or had been further along in techs at certain stages of the game.

Milking was fun for awhile. I had lots of fun in my HoF games watching that score just go up and up. And it was fun timing it so I had ~160 cities expand their borders, all at once, right at 2050 A.D. and saving up over 1 million gold. But now I have 'milking burn-out' I guess you could call it. GOTM14 was fun for me because I varied my play style and built OCP and played until the modern ages, instead of the usual ICS-horseman stomp where the game is over by either knights or cavalry at the latest. OCP may get boring too, because it doesn't offer the quick conquest as ICS, usually (And sometimes I just want that AI blood early!).

P.S. In this post, I don't mean OCP or ICS as a strict formula of placing cities, but just using them as a broad term for whether you build cities close together or spaced further apart.

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Moonsinger-It's not upgrading the units, it's the upgrade of 'mass' units that Sirian feels is exploitive. I think part of his definition of an exploit is whether or not the AI would do that to you. The AI will upgrade units, but it won't build 50 horsemen just for the sole purpose of upgrading them to knights and then blitz you right after he got Chivalry.

I see; thanks for clarifying that. However, I still fail to see why he would consider that as an exploit. What is the different between upgrading all 50 horsemen now or just do it 5 per turn, then attack them within about 10 turns later? Are you saying that the people in the RB don't upgrade their units at all???

Anyway, if that is really how Sirian feel, for the same argument, I would say that "he" as being human is an exploit. Let's think about this for a moment. The AI aren't thinking or planning way ahead like we do. Therefore, anyone who think and plan in advance would be clearly exploiting the game.

Let take the game of Chess as an example. If you are playing chess against an opponent who couldn't think as deep as you do, who couldn't think 32 turns in advance like you do, you are clearly exploiting his handicap, are you not? Of course, if his brain is working a lot slower than you, would you also feel that as an exploit? The bottom line is that where do we draw the line here. As long as it is not against the rule of engagement (in this case, the rule of the GOTM), I'm not speaking against it.

PS: For the record, I have never abused the ROP (not even one) in my entire history of playing civ. Just because I'm cool with whoever have done it, that doesn't mean that I'm doing it. And of course, I care deeply about the environment; for this reason alone, I would never rush a spaceship quickly (since it usually causes massive pollution to the core cities); therefore, I would never compete with Kemal for an early launch.

[Bifrost]

Amazing thread!
Even a newbie (after he reads it) will know how to milk and what to milk

[Kemal]

Originally posted by Moonsinger


And of course, I care deeply about the environment; for this reason alone, I would never rush a spaceship quickly (since it usually causes massive pollution to the core cities); therefore, I would never compete with Kemal for an early launch.

Hey, I care about the environment too!

Actually, I only experience global warming in my games in very rare cases, and usually the AI is to blame for it with its enviromentally unjustifiable coal plant construction plans ( ). Since most cities (and certainly the core cities) will have mass transit should they need to grow beyond size 12, my pollution mostly comes from factories only (I always get Hoover Dam).

And I certainly haven't experienced fish showing up in desert tiles, like in other people's games.

[Sirian]

"Exploit" is not a one-size-fits-all term, not for me. To me, exploits are items that make no sense within the context of the game. Nuking your own land to "improve" how much food you can get out it would be one such. There's no sense to it, but it's there in the game and can be exploited. Not everything I criticize is an exploit, folks. Don't get locked into either-or frameworks. Can we not analyze the game, and its shortcomings, in a more layered and graded manner, with varying degrees? Must everything be simplified to a level of "totally OK" and "totally unacceptable"? Not for me. I prefer a more complex analysis.

The unit upgrade is not an exploit. It does make sense within the context of the game. However, it IS an imbalance in the game flow. You can store up large amounts of cash and transform these into shields at a favorable rate. This is a decisive strategy if fully utilized, catapulting the player ahead of the AI on production through a combination of the Civ3 tech-deflation model (ability to keep up in tech by buying in or trading in late, while conserving your funds) and the Civ3 unit upgrade model. Neither of these were there in the original Civ game, and they combine to give the player a way to effectively lower the difficulty of ancient combat. To wage war in the ancient era in Civ1 or Civ2, you had to produce the units with the shields. Now you can triple your shield output and triple your army size, or thereabouts.

Yndy asserts that "using Republic" is the same sort of thing. It is not. Republic brings major benefits but it also costs you something, and the AI's are designed to use it effectively. It's an option equally balanced for any stage of the game, while the mass upgrade is only decisive for warrior to swords or horse to knight/cav, when the shield portion of the new unit is in the minority. It's the ability to more than double the shield output of your civ with cash, combined with the available gains at that stage of the game. The AI's are balanced to go up against players who use mostly shields to build their armies. This shortcut gives the player a much bigger army. There's no doubt that it is a winning move. The problem is, it's such a strong move it towers over everything else. I ask again, when was the last time any top score or early finish in the GOTM did NOT use this avenue to crush a neighbor civ in the ancient or early middle ages?

I don't have an easy solution for this. I'm only observing the state of the game.

I think that most of the experienced players already know your point and are a little upset of you continuing playing the same song. OK, you convinced some of us to quit GOTM and join RBCiv but you know that the rest of us think differently. - Yndy

I didn't start this thread, Yndy. I didn't open this topic, I didn't say a word of criticism in the spoiler thread. However, if others are going to broach the subject and open a thread specifically for this topic, am I not allowed to participate? I didn't see a sign on this thread when I entered saying "Only Those Who Agree Are Allowed to Post". You accuse me of "playing the same song", but I have only raised this issue once, back when the GOTM was new and I had a brief exchange with Aeson over whether or not it was worth his time to play No Holds Barred for a broken game. He made clear he thought it was, so I left it at that. I have since played in only two GOTM events, and both times somebody else raised the issue and a number of players were debating it back and forth. Only then did I say anything, and each time a chorus of

These Guys rise up to, uh, discourage me from speaking.

Perhaps it feels like "the same old song" to many of you, but it has been seven months since I was even here for a GOTM, so how can it be "the same old song"? If you guys are waging this debate with any number of folks month after month and are tired of it, I understand, but that's not my doing. If you don't want to discuss the issue, don't start new threads for the specific purpose of doing so.

You insinuate or straight out state in your post that anyone who milks is unimaginative, pretentious, missing the point of the game, missing the point of competition in general, exploiting the nature of the competition, and doing so in a manner which they don't enjoy. - Aeson

The only accusation there that is true and accurate is the one about "unimaginative". The rest of those are distortions. As for backing up my claim about unimaginative, where has there been a demonstration of imagination? Has anybody imagined a way to fix the broken game elements, to refocus the competition? Not yet. You're working on a way, Aeson, so you'd be the exception to that comment. The rest of the players content to sit and milk, where have they shown initiative and imagination? I see only conformity to a poorly designed contest. Cracker has come in and brought a big dose of imagination to the GOTM, and things are finally changing. The previous management was... less imaginative. How is observing this fact an insult to anybody?

Milking is a second game. It's not Civ3. SirPleb described it as fitting a jigsaw puzzle together. Now I have described it as Paint By Numbers. I didn't insinuate that folks don't enjoy it. I said that it has overshadowed Civ3 with something else. Some of you enjoy it, some don't. Those of us who don't should have the right to say so without all of you who do being defensive about it. The fact that THIS tournament plays by rules that completely tilt to the milked result may offer some players (those who don't enjoy milking) a reason to try other events. Or not. Up to them.

"The competition itself has overshadowed the game. Instead of seeking to make the game harder, to make it a worthy endeavor, you settle for leaving in almost all the exploits and competing over who destroys the broken game by the largest margin in any given month."

Where am I mistaken in that analysis? Has milking not overshadowed the game? Why are there a number of tactics agreed on by all as exploits that are still allowed? Why allow them? It's a choice. The game is much easier to play and beat if they are allowed. Preferring them is a choice to play with less difficulty. That's not right or wrong, ethical or unethical. It's a choice.

The part of the GOTM that most confuses me is the inherent contradiction in the two goals of appealing to the widest audience and measuring the best result. These two goals pull in opposite directions. At RB, we distinguish between these two poles. Some games are intended to be grueling contests, others to play to wider audiences. Some games are scored, some are not. Measuring results and comparing styles and strategic choices is a lot of fun. We just recognize that no global ranking system can do a better job of measuring as complex a game as Civ III as the human eye. If you try to simplify the measurements, you end up with a distorted result, with a system that can be "milked". You end up with players going way out of their way to maximize whatever elements are being measured. When that is the case, what do the measurements actually mean? What good are they? You get "official" recognition of performance, but the comparisons are limited to the portion of the game that can be measured. That means something to some folks -- means enough to some that they will milk games and work hard at perfecting the milking process. But it leaves a lot of potential fun on the cutting room floor, as only those aspects of the game that can be milked to maximize performance in the measured areas count for anything. The rest is lost, left behind. The potential of the game is reduced, and why? For what? All in pursuit of competition. The GOTM has turned into a ladder.

The widest audience will be attracted if the game difficulty is set lower. If that's the priority, then why have so much attention on the "medals" and "global rankings"? Those carry less weight when they include fully-milked warlord and regent games, won by some players in the early BC years. Those of you capable of beating Deity and destroying Emperor are sandbagging to go down to play in competition at Regent and Monarch level. I know it, you know it, everybody knows it, so where's the insult?

The CF Tournament attempts to address this with the various divisions, so that the big league players are not judging themselves by the same standards as the less experienced or less talented. The RB Tournament aims for high difficulty and improved game balance. The GOTM just sort of plugs along, meandering, even wandering, and it has wandered off into milking land. The unimaginative aspect lies mainly in the tournament leadership, to have led the competition that far down the road of the built-in scoring system. How can I be going wrong in criticizing that when you, yourself, feel that the scoring system is inadequate to the task, Aeson? If you really loved milking that much, you'd not be seeking to change the scoring system around. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? The emperor has no clothes.


- Sirian

[kojimanard]

I agree with BiFrost, this thread has been very interesting. Aeson, I think you over-reacted; everyone said it was not unethical, which was Moonsingers original point. Sirian had some objections, but I dont they were intended to insult anyone who milks. I, for one, would love to be skilled enough that I could win, let alone milk, at Deity.

[Sirian]

This is so important! Give your cities a granary or barracks depending on their specialty and pump out units until your first war starts. This is probably the single biggest factor in victory/defeat on this map. - DaveMcW

There was the quote, Dave, from GOTM14 spoiler thread. You did say "probably", and did not say "only". You certainly didn't insult any other strategy, and I never took any insult. I only said that it showed how far down the path of specialized ancient warfare the GOTM has gone. You didn't mention the mass upgrade, but you did intend to include that in the idea here, yes? No? You tell me.

This is the comment to which I was referring.


- Sirian

[zagnut]

This is a great thread. Moonsinger, thank you very much for starting it.

I am far from being a professional player. I play to beat the game but don’t seem to be able to put together a coherent strategy from the beginning. I try my best but am always a little amazed if and when I start to pull ahead at the end of the Middle Ages. To me the game isn’t broken. Perhaps it is to players such as Sirian and Aeson. To me I am still competing against many other civs in a life and death struggle for domination of the world. As a result the finer points that are being debated in this thread are a bit beyond me. HOWEVER, they serve to focus our attention on what is important - how to improve the game play of Civ III. If Aeson and Cracker can come up with a more balanced scoring system, I would be all for it. The high scores should not only be achieved by the milkers. If possible, all of the ways of winning should have a fair chance at the high scores.

I really don’t care that Moonsinger can milk the hell out of the game. She is just a better player than I. If she didn’t milk she would just win in some other way. She has played enough that she has learned all of the exploits and strategies and can take advantage of them to maximize her score. More power to her. I am not in the same league. But I can still take great pleasure in playing the game and seeing how I end up in the overall scoring. Her posts have improved my ability to play the game. Recently she posted an opening play strategy that I really like and have adopted. Does that mean that I am mindlessly exploiting the game? I don’t think so. Everything we learn helps us to do better in the game. To a newbie I may look like an experienced player, but there are gurus that I listen to in order to learn how to play the game better. A new player would never think of setting science to 0 in Deity or Emperor and buying techs from the AI. Is that an exploit? I don’t think so.

So let us allow players to play the way they want. If those players become so experienced that they want to participate in games that have a stricter set of rules then perhaps they would want to try Realms Beyond Civ. But I am not there yet. I can still get a great deal of pleasure out of matching wits with the AI. In theory I think a better scoring system should be developed, but I am not passionate about criticizing others who want to play the game in a certain way.

[Aeson]

The only accusation there that is true and accurate is the one about "unimaginative". The rest of those are distortions.

Like it or not, this is how your post comes across to me...

That appeals to some players, but not to me.

I'm more the type that demands more from my gaming.

Condescending tone. Insinuation that somehow what you demand from your gaming is more important or better (the word 'more' in this context seems to denote 'better') than what other players (in the context of this argument, milkers) demand from their games. This is a ludicrous insinuation. Each person is their own guide on this path, as they are the only ones with firsthand knowlege of what is fun and rewarding for them. This fits in "condescending", "missing the point of the game", and "doing so in a manner in which they don't enjoy" categories.

It's not unethical, but it is twisted, or rather, allowing your own gameplay to be twisted by a broken set of rules.

Again, insinuating that milkers could not possibly be enjoying the actual playing of the game. That all they are concerned about is scoring and thus being 'recognized'.

Fits in "pretentious", "missing the point of the game, missing the point of the competition", and "doing so in a manner in which they do not enjoy".

The broken Civ3 scoring system is like the outline of the Paint by Numbers. If you limit yourself to that, the painting is going to be tedious work, instead of art. Mechanical, not creative. The creativity is what is missing from the milking. It is a demanding management process that takes a wide variety of expertise, but to what end?

Same as above minus the "pretentious", while adding the demeaning of milker's creativity.

When Firaxis took away the endless whipping, Aeson was adding workers to size 1 cities within days, and getting around it.

Just an aside, but I was 'adding workers to size 1 cities' within minutes of reading the readme for that patch. And no, I've never done so in an actual game, it was all just theoretical, as the decision to exclude it as an exploit was made before I even installed that patch version (I had to finish up my 1.17f HOF game first).

Paint By Numbers

The whole analogy you go into on this point is demeaning to anyone who plays the game IMO. Most victory types and playstyles have been hashed out until a 'best' method or methods of achieving them been basically settled. You are insinuating that only your goals are worthwhile, and everyone else is wasting their time. Either that or just everyone is wasting their time, because the game has already been figured out.

Fits into "condescending".

They had a one-dimensional experience. The rest of us had a richer, broader, deeper gaming competition which evolved to world class skill levels.

Your analogy here is that people who don't milk have a richer, broader, deeper gaming competition. You may have a rich, broader, deeper gaming competition when you don't milk, but it isn't up for you to decide that for the rest of us.

Those who milk, yet don't understand why others don't value their results highly, are missing the point, I think. It's not about "unethical", it's about "unimaginative".

You are refuting a statement which no one has made here, and doing so in a manner which targets anyone who milks with 'unimaginative'. This is the crux of my problem with your post, and posting style in general. If you want to insult someone, direct it properly, and don't rely on conjured statements on your part to 'lead into' your insults. They don't apply.

Some of us are more interested in enjoying the experience than we are in being recognized for performance.

Condescending tone. "Some of us" is usually a dead giveaway in this area. You are insinuating here that nobody who milks enjoys their experience in game, and that all they care about is being recognized for their performance. Falls into "condescending", "pretentious", and "doing so in a manner in which they don't enjoy".

The only reason to milk is the pursuit of global ranking: the competition.

There are many other reasons to milk.

This falls under "missing the point of the game, missing the point of the competition" and "doing so in a manner in which they don't enjoy".

The competition itself has overshadowed the game.

Insinuation: Those who are competing in a manner in which you are not competing aren't playing the game in the 'accepted' manner. In spite of the fact that they are playing the game through in game mechanisms, and being ranking based on the competitions ranking system.

This fits in "missing the point of the game, missing the point of the competition".

Instead of seeking to make the game harder, to make it a worthy endeavor, you settle for leaving in almost all the exploits and competing over who destroys the broken game by the largest margin in any given month.

Insinuation: It isn't a worthy endeavor to milk. Those who milk are exploiting the game.

A player's mind is their own, as are their desires, their enjoyment. It is not based on your desires or your enjoyment. You are condemning people for playing the game the way they want to, because you don't want to play the game that way.

This falls under "missing the point of the game, missing the point of the competition" and "doing so in a manner in which they don't enjoy".

I've said it before, I'll say it again. It's like a bunch of adults competing in little league vs ten-year-olds.

You seem to think that only external competition, or competition against the AI, is competition. There is internal competition, doing your best at achieving a set goal, regardless of how it compares to other people's results. The only person I compete against in the GOTM is myself, although I do enjoy the comparison of games afterward. You are insinuating that either I and everyone else is incapable of this type of competition (almost definitely this one), or that I am a a 'ten-year-old'. Either way I find it insulting.

This falls under "missing the point of competition".

The competition isn't even against the other team (the AI's), but to see who hits the longest home-run ball.

Same as above.

We can't have that, now can we?

If I were to roll my eyes here, it certainly should be considered condescending on my part. Your use of smileys is part of what message you are sending. Look at everyone else's smileys in this thread and see if you find any discrepancies between your use and their's.

This falls under "condescending".

Of course, it's a whole different thing to hit a pitch thrown by a ten year old vs trying to hit one thrown by a professional.

I see the milkers as those content to stay in there and snore through a game against ten-year-olds so they can point up to the scoreboard at how many runs they batted in.

Again, condescending use of smileys. At least here you use 'I see' as a qualifier. It still is insinuating the same as the previous 'ten-year-old' reference. Also it is insinuating that milkers are pretentious and only play for recognition.

This falls under "condescending", "pretentious", and "missing the point of the game, missing the point of the competition".

The emperor has no clothes.

This reference is basically saying 'pretentious'. That's the whole point of the story. The emperor struting about in his fabulous 'clothes' even though there aren't any clothes. Using it here in the context of your thread is no different than calling milkers pretentious. It also is indirectly referencing the lack of skill used in milking, or at least demeaning any skill there is.

This falls under "pretentious".

[civ_steve]

While I agree with much of Sirian's discussion, its obvious that GOTM has been very successful. The shared experience of playing the same game from the beginning, and then comparing notes, is quite enjoyable and the participation has consistently grown month by month.

The only reason we're having this serious of a discussion is because of the results table and the global standings table. If it weren't for this desire for some 'bragging rights', this discussion wouldn't matter, organized Spoiler theads wouldn't matter, exploits and abuses wouldn't matter, and cheaters would be laughed at rather than expelled. (Why don't you try winning without reloading 5000 times, you LOSER!, or words to that effect.)

Since the purpose of the results table is to organize who's game result is better than the next person's game result, it's worthwhile to define the meaning of 'better'. The current definition is based on the scoring system within Civ3. Consistently, the answer to 'who is better' has been the player who wipes out the AI civs early in the game, down to 1 city, builds their empire up to the domination limit, than limps along (or rushes along) to the year 2050, accumulating the highest average score per turn. (I know, this is just a simplification.) These type of game submittals dominate the top 10 results.

While this does take certain skills to do well, is this game result 'better' than that of a player who has maintained a close competition with one or more AI civs through the entire game to arrive at a tense but successful conclusion? In the earlier case, the player has stomped the AI right away (showing good Ancient to Medieval Age game skills) and the game coasts to an inevitable conclusion where the only unknown is the final score and final victory type. In the competitive case, the player will have to demonstrate good game skills at all Ages and phases of the game: resource usage, city placement and development, military development and use, science research and especially diplomacy.

The scoring system would give an average score to this competitive approach at best, and really penalizes the OCC game which is one of the toughest ways to play. A factor to equalize these different types of play would allow every player to play the game they wish to and still allow competition for the top rungs of the results table. (The problem is, what is this factor and how is it applied?!) Still, if implemented, the results would really be shaken up, and some pretty interesting Spoiler entries would be generated.

At this point, this is just a thought based on the earlier discussion. Perhaps there's a better way to define which game result is 'better'.

[Aeson]

How can I be going wrong in criticizing that when you, yourself, feel that the scoring system is inadequate to the task, Aeson?

Because of the tone and direction of your posts, along with ancillary comments that directly or indirectly target the players themselves rather the gaming concepts involved.

I haven't touched on the 'content' (as relates to the general mechanics of the GOTM scoring and nature of CivIII) of your post, most of which I agree with.

If you really loved milking that much, you'd not be seeking to change the scoring system around.

I enjoy playing a well milked game on most maps. Huge maps get a bit tedious, but in every game I've played I like to 'max out' the game in various ways according to my skill level. This is done purely in a competition with myself. One of those methods happens to be the Huge/Deity game fully milked. I do it whether or not there is any recognition involved. Submission or making such games public are for my own reasons, not the ones you seem to imply, and I find your implications condescending.

My attempts at fixing the scoring system are not for myself at all, I know how well I've played and that is all that I care about in regards to my own games. It's for the competition in general, to foster more diversity in playstyles and goals. I think your goals are much the same, and that is why your posts frustrate me so much. The tone and argument methods which you use do a disservice to the attempt being made to fix things in this competition. Your intellect would be much more helpful in the scoring discussion, focused on the actual game and scoring system mechanics, rather than here focused on conjectures of player's motivations. I realize that you have basically given up on there being any 'good' scoring system and so probably aren't interested in doing such. It blinds you to the rest of what is going on in the GOTM community though.

The GOTM is, as you say, currently scored in a manner which usually means milking is the 'best' approach for scoring well. Your comments that this somehow demeans the friendly competition and comparison going in this community is an insult to the community in general. It only shows insight into your own motivations for playing, or some conjecture on your part about what motivates others, don't try to pass those off on the rest of us as our own. Some may agree with you, and that is their right, but your attempts to project your own opinions onto the rest of us, to describe our individual motivations, is still intellectually dishonest.

[cracker]

Sirian and Aeson,

It may be time to realize that every player has something that they can contribute to the greater community of Civ3 game play. "Milking" of the options for making the GOTM outcomes into a challenge to explore the limits of your own skills.

Using alot of words like "unimaginative", "pretentious", "elitest", "condescending", "self-absorbed", and other terms that truly are just veiled insults really does you no favor.

Disparging comments about what was wrong the GOTM when you walked away from the process, or what continued to be wrong with the process while you were away only serves to illustrate that you may have contributed nothing to the process of fixing the problems that may or may not have existed. If this was not your intent, feel free to let me know how you would like to help us implement the changes and improvements that are already in the process of being implemented.

I can only assure you that the mission of the GOTM remains to foster a larger community of players who come together to share aspects of the Civ3 game by playing monthly games in a common setting. I can also assure you that there is now no shortage of leadership skills to both identify and address the key issues that need to be addressed in accomplishing this mission.

If we could reload the last 9 turns of the GOTM world, it is likely that we would be able to play them differently. In all likelihood a great leader or two would have emerged earlier in the game and we would have been able to rush improvements that we are now building one shield at a time. If all of this leadership and these improvements would have been in place back in April or May it is likely that many of the alternative venues were players have wandered off may not have found the current levels of support and participation that they enjoy. All this is hindsight driven and may not actually lead us to a better place in the future if we choose to just pick at the past rather than focus on the future.

Ultimately participating in the games and promoting discussion with the other players will be the standard that sets great players and great people apart from the crowd.

I can only ask that you look to the bigger aspects of the process and try to demonstrate a bit more vision combined with patience and tolerance for those players who want to be associated with and emulate your prowess at the game but may not want to have to be just like you in every aspect of their personality.

Try to be a bit more respectful to each other and the general community as well!!
(or the mighty red ink shall reemerge. )

-- cracker

[Aeson]

Cracker,

I don't have any problem with Sirian being allowed to respond to my post, and he should have that opportunity if he so desires.

Moderator Comment:
Good. I hope Sirian will continue to respond and help us highlight areas that can be improved. Your are exactly right that some of his posts are "prickly" at best but that should not be an invitation to join him a spit war.

My point in the last line of my message is that both of you should make an attempt to be more courteous to each other so that you sound like noble knights instead of snarling dogs. This befits the level of esteem that you both deserve.

At the extreme ends of this opinionated discussion every participant will get more out of the process if they make an effort to be nice to each other. - cracker

[Yndy]

Originally posted by Yndy
Moreover I could use your own arguments to tell you that your approach is also flawed and that you too are playing a different game

I'd rather not go into a debate with you.

I now remember why I thought that you are playing an old song. It was only one in GOTM but it was a long one like this thread is turning into.

Also I saw your debates in the SG area and on the RBCiv site. You seem to like those debates and get into them 'although you are only exercising you free speech rights and every monkey throws stones at you for that'. Those debates touched the same gray areas of what is not OK or not fair.

I remembered that your point is that humans should not do what the AI is not programmed to do/deal with and to rephrase the Republic example I am sure that another strategy documented (if not developed) by Moonsinger, namely the "Effective use of Artillery" is in the same category with the mass upgrade.

Having said that I appreciate any suggestion that you might have.