Can we expect changes?

[denyd]

Compliments to all on this thread. Some very well thought out points and some very interesting proposals. My critics eye view of the past:

GOTM Modifications : I really like these, from the Asian flavor units to the added luxuries and resources, they create the feeling of a special game as opposed to the just a random computer selected game. I’ll agree that the volcanoes and fog weren’t high points in this adventure, but the Minoans (w/ the Peltast) and the new Mongol units were great.

Medal Play Games: I enjoyed these, though time prevented me from being able to play all of them, they were a great reminder of the out-of-the-box game. The new victory condition was especially enjoyable.

QSC & Jason Scoring: I think the QSC is a great learning tool and should be continued and expanded if possible. I’m a little unsure of the Jason scoring method (more on that later).

Since it’s the holiday season, I think I’ll take my turn on Santa’s lap and add my Christmas list to this discussion on what I’d wish for in the future:

GOTM: I’d like to see the GOTM grow with new flavors (terrains packs, new units, new opponents, etc). This is meant to be a special type game above and beyond the random computer generated ones. The GOTM should probably stick to standard size maps and 6-10 AI. No set victory condition. Games running from 1st of current month to 15th of next month. Develop a new scoring system that gives points for achievements (similar to QSC scoring) and victory date. This would allow retirements to be submitted for those unable to finish.

Medal Play Games: Keep these to out-of-the-box units/rules/opponents with special victory conditions for flavor (5CC, Economic Victory, Always at War, etc…). Playing 1 game per month (15th-15th schedule), with 2 tournaments per year. Use standard or smaller maps with 5-7 AI to allow for quicker games. Each game would have a large bonus (50%) for the targeted victory, with a quickness of completion bonus.

GOTQ: Add a new Game of the Quarter. This would be for the people with extra time or for those with only time for 1 game a quarter. Use large/huge maps with 16+ opponents. No targeted victory condition. Use a similar scoring method as GOTM without the victory date component to give those who enjoy milking a target. Modifications would be optional (without modifications, these could be High Score Hall of Fame candidates).

Rankings: I’d like to see 3 different sets of rankings:
1-GOTM Leader Board using a weighted system (current highest…) for GOTM games only
2-Medal Play Leaders by category (Predator, Open, Conquest) for the current Tournament only
3- All Around Leader Board combining 1&2 with GOTQ leaders

Conquests: After the FP & GPT bugs are fixed, I’d like to see conquests added to the GOTM, if possible. I don’t want to see the Mac community shut out, so the original Civ GOTM should continue until there is a CFC version for them. At some point (June), it might make sense to phase out the PTW component. With a new scoring method it should be possible to compare the different versions.

That’s my list :santa:, I know it’s a lot and I’d be happy if the GOTM just kept moving forward with what’s already there, but these are the holidays, so why not wish for it all.

 

[OneFastWarrior]

Originally posted by denyd
GOTQ: Add a new Game of the Quarter. This would be for the people with extra time or for those with only time for 1 game a quarter. Use large/huge maps with 16+ opponents. No targeted victory condition. Use a similar scoring method as GOTM without the victory date component to give those who enjoy milking a target. Modifications would be optional (without modifications, these could be High Score Hall of Fame candidates).
[/B]

This is a GREAT idea!!
I was wishing this exact same thing as I never feel that I have enough time in a month and I often feel rushed when playing gotm. Kinda why I don't try to finish anymore.

I don't particularly like the gotm being part of medal play, but that is how I acheived my 1st gotm victory(targeted victory condition)

I always liked the mods, but I kinda like something to the effect of what I read in an earlier post, like maybe use different mods in different months as opposed to just adding more and more.

 

[SirPleb]

Ainwood, thanks for encouraging this thread and soliciting our thoughts on these subjects! My two bits:

Tournament mixed with GOTM

I'd prefer to see tournament games separated from GOTM in future. Since they were combined I've played each GOTM for the designated tournament victory condition. But I've had mixed feelings about that - often the designated victory is at odds with getting the best Jason score.

The previous GOTM goal of a high Jason score was interesting and challenging, allowing for a wide range of approaches and play styles. It also allows for a variety of different awards each month. The tournament goal of earliest finish with a specified goal is much more focused and has its own appeal. But these two goals are distinct. I've been trying to go for both at once (with an emphasis on the tournament goal) and that hasn't been very satisfying. Going flat out for one goal or the other seems better. And to allow for that it seems best to keep GOTM and tournament games separate.

Scenarios/Mods

I have very much enjoyed the mods so far. They've added interest and diversity without (to me) changing the feel of the game.

I think that key issues with mods are that they retain the feel of the core game, that they are balanced, and that they can be explored and understood as the game progresses (no game altering changes which can't be seen coming.) I think that the GOTM mods so far have done well in all of those regards. The only case where the mods were quite game altering was the Mongol UUs and for that GOTM a practice game to explore the new units was provided.

But I also think that the mods should not be "cumulative". Each new GOTM should not use all the mods which have come before and add yet another twist. Carrying forward more and more mods in total results in a gradual shift away from the base game and, far worse, results in a larger and larger "barrier to entry" for new players. I think that each GOTM should have at most a couple of mods. The diversity from the base game should not be much higher for a new player than for a regular GOTM player. The mods which make CivIII compatible with PTW are an exception of course - they should be considered a core part of GOTM.

About custom maps: I very much like these. I think they can be used to enhance GOTM in at least three ways:
1) Provide a "fair" start. I don't necessarily mean a start with a bonus - it might as easily be a deliberately disadvantaged position. What I mean by fair is that good logical choices of opening move sequences lead to some of the best possible results. On random maps this sometimes isn't true - a totally illogical opening move can occasionally lead to the best initial build. I'd prefer GOTM to exclude such starts and it has been doing very well in that regard.
2) Prevent false starts. Tweaking and play testing of the maps can avoid situations where the player has a significant chance of being "blown away" by a single wrong move early in the game.
3) Provide a theme of play. This is a much larger issue, involving considerable thought and tweaking. I've been finding it very enjoyable to play on maps which have a deliberate overall plan. But this aspect of map making is clearly also a large amount of work.

Conquest/Open/Predator

I think the classes are great - they make it possible to keep the game challenging for experienced players at the same time as making it possible for new players to join.

I think that one key about the classes is that they should allow good comparison and sharing of experiences across all classes. If that is retained as a goal then the bonuses/challenges must be carefully chosen. For example, removing a food bonus tile from the Predator start seems a bad penalty to me - it could completely change the Predator's best choice of initial development, and that could make the Predator's spoiler posts of limited interest to Conquest and Open players. But there are many other possibilities which might be used. (E.g., at first glance I think starting Predators with a few turns wasted, i.e. at a later date with the AIs having already made some moves, might be a workable penalty.)

As others have mentioned, the additional challenges for Predator class so far have, in many games, not made it harder for Predators to acheive a high score. I think this has actually been a good thing. The additional Predator challenges have made the game trickier, requiring more careful play, and thus have attracted some players. But if the final result was a lower score, many Predators would probably revert to Open class - why play a harder game to get a lower score and be ranked below someone who played an easier game? Unless a scoring bonus is awarded to Predator class (a tricky thing to work out), the additional challenges placed on Predator should not be ones which significantly impact score.

Civ III/PTW/Conquests

It sure does seem impossible to consolidate Conquests into the same GOTM as was done with PTW. The changes are too large.

For the moment this doesn't seem like a big issue to me. Personally, I'm done with experimenting with Conquests for now. A couple of the bugs in it are so severe that I have no interest in playing serious flat-out games with Conquest, I'm back to PTW until the problems are fixed. But others may disagree with this and may switch to Conquests now despite the problems.

Certainly once a patch comes out and fixes the worst problems, Conquests will become a major issue. Some of the changes in Conquests are dramatic enough that flipping back and forth will be undesirable for most people. Once they've started playing with Conquests, they won't want to revert to CivIII/PTW to play the GOTM.

I don't know how to deal with this. I like the idea Justus II and Dianthus have talked about, running Conquests in parallel for a few months to get an idea of how results might be combined. But I don't think there's any point even starting that process until the first Conquests patch - the bugs in the current version of Conquests will greatly affect results, they'll change a lot after the first patch.

QSC

The QSC seems to have been very helpful for many players and it would be nice to see it continued.

If it is continued, my preference would be that its scores are not included in the global rankings. The top QSC score(s) could be perhaps be separately recognized with medals in the Pantheon of Heroes.

It does seem like an particularly time consuming task to manage the QSC process. If the QSC is dropped, I'd like to see some structure which encourages posting of detailed logs up to 1000BC. I've always tried to post detailed logs of my games, even before QSC, and many people seem to find them of interest. Since the QSC was introduced, I and others have used that as a mechanism to separate detailed logs from the more general spoiler posts. If QSC is not continued it would be nice to have a designated place/structure for detailed logs so that we can keep them separate from spoiler threads.

Game Results

I'll add my voice to those who think the delayed posting of results may be hurting GOTM participation. I think that this subject might be more important than any of the others.

The sooner results can be posted, the better. It is best to have the results while the game is fresh in most people's minds. The longer the results are delayed, the less likely that there will be any interesting discussion of the elements of play. And people will lose competitive interest if they don't know how they're doing.

This subject crosses over with the question of allowing longer for submissions. I sympathize with people who have trouble completing the game in a month. I don't think there is a perfect solution - too long for some people still won't be long enough for others. Just have to saw off the submission date at some compromise time which you think is best.

I'd like to add to this subject a note about the web pages related to GOTM. Getting them up to date, and then keeping them so, would probably help a lot in bringing in new players. Currently a newbie to GOTM might click it on the left of the CFC main page, then see the current GOTM intro page with the notes dated Dec 2002. Among other things those notes include
o "happening behind the scenes to make the Games of the Month more exciting and enjoyable for the coming year"
o "We will actively be maintaining a 'Frequently Asked Questions' web page"
o "All the previous awards and trophies will be incorporated into the new 'Pantheon of Heroes'".
I wonder how many people have read that page and then left right away? Or perhaps clicked on the Pantheon of Heroes and then left. Or perhaps have stuck it out a bit, searched for information describing the scoring, and then left.
The year out of date information could be a turn off to many people, suggesting an obsolete or neglected site.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by Matrix
Remember when Cartouche Bee ruled the GOTM? He often won because of an yet unknown exploit. Then we talked about that and usually said it spoils the game (because it became the one way of winning the game) and made it forbidden after that GOTM.

I wasn't participating during most of that period but I do remember the start of it, and to tell the truth that was a big turn-off for me at the time. I prefer Cracker's approach of reserving the right to disallow a game which he considers to be based on an exploit, even if it wasn't explicitly disallowed before. I don't see any fun in looking for previously undiscovered loopholes which can be used to imbalance the game, and I find it even less fun to lose to a game which gets a higher score than mine on that basis. I far prefer the approach DaviddesJ, Qitai, and others have used to publish newly discovered loopholes without using GOTM to do it.

 

[Txurce]

Originally posted by Green Light
Plain Out-of-the-box games are boring and quite predictable, i myself dont play them anymore. GotM games are much more interesting...

Not that i would suggest that every game should be modified as heavily as the Mongol one, but hey, even in the Mongol game people had the chanse to use normal UU too, if they wanted.

Taking this one step further -

The Mongol game offered two options: an unmodded UU and a heavily modded one. How many chose one alternative over another offers an implicit poll on the GOTM community's opinion on mods.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Matrix

I did. It's very nice for the makers, but I don't think the GOTM is the right tool for this. For some you sacrifice the GOTM with this.

Another consideration: while only some like to try out mods and play with them, actually everyone likes to play a normal game.

Look, a lot can be done with Civ3. But the basis is a normal game, and a normal game is also most balanced. When you talk about strategies, what one does wrong or why someone got the highest score, these discussions are 20x more interesting than when playing with mods, because you're talking about the game itself. And you're never finished talking about them, since every game is different!

I'm a bit wary of putting too many of my thoughts out in the open, in case that people think that I'm just going to do it my way, regardless of public opinion. That's not correct - I can be swayed, and am the sort of person who wants to keep everyone happy. It may not (probably 'will not' ) be possible, but that's the goal I will work to.

In line with this, I would firstly like to state that my position on the mods is firmly in the "undecided" camp. There are some aspects that I really like (new civs with new UUs) and some that I'm less keen on (e.g. Extra luxury resources - I think it makes happiness a bit to easy to control, and there is less emphasis on luxury trading & denial). I am therefore especially interested in people's view on the mod-side.

Reading through, there is quite a bit of "I like them' or 'I don't like them', but not a lot as to what aspects people like or don't like. Can those strongly in either camp flesh a bit more detail on this? Are their some aspects that you like and others you don't? Is it just the new units & graphics, or is it the resources? The naval movement? The different abilities? The designed maps rather than random ones? The lack of goody huts near the start location on some maps? The map design that makes RCP 'more challenging'?

One idea that I was toying with that would certainly be feasible is a hybrid where there are purely optional mods that, overall, don't affect gameplay. For example, swapping out a given unit for a new animation, but retaining the A/D/M of that unit. Those who want the eye candy of new units can play with them, but those who don't can just play as normal, and the game play between the two options is identical and balanced.

I would disagree that a random game is completely balanced for all - for example getting a bonus settler from a goody hut early on can provide a massive disparity. But I feel that 'minor' tweaks can be made to work around that.

I must say that I am in favour of designed maps rather than random maps, but not to the point where the flavour of the game is compromised. There should be tweaks that require a bit more thought about city placement and tactics. For example, a narrow ithsmus between you and an aggressive civ opens up options for defensive positioning & carefull planning of attacks.

 

[TedJackson]

I think that the mods break down into three main categories:

A) "Compatibility Mods" that enable players to play essentially the same game as players.

B) "Flavour Mods" such as found in GotM 24, where a psuedo-historical scenario is explored.

C) "Experimental Mods" that include new or additional units or rules within the normal Civ framework. Examples of this genre include Volcanoes, Fog, altered unit movements/attributes & extra resources.

I think category A is essential (obviously), I'm in favour of and (and enjoy) categoriy B but I have my doubts about category C as I think this is where we are starting to drift away from the core game.

On the issue of maps I believe that a well-crafted custom map is definitely the way to go. Looking back at the games this year I find it hard to imagine that they would have been so much fun without those little tweaks to bring out the best of the game. But I may be in a minority here

One thing is for certain, you can't please everyone so perhaps you'll have to revert to a poll on these issues. Then, of course, you'll have to deal with those who don't vote because they didn't notice the poll, those who voted one way but now decide that they wanted to vote for something else etc... etc... etc...


Ted

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by TedJackson
One thing is for certain, you can't please everyone so perhaps you'll have to revert to a poll on these issues.
Ted

Or alternatively, bribery is perfectly acceptable.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by ainwood
Are their some aspects that you like and others you don't? Is it just the new units & graphics, or is it the resources? The naval movement? ...

The aspects of mods I've enjoyed the most are:

1) Map design, for reasons described in my previous post (fair starts, predictable starts, and overall theme feel to the game.)

2) New obstacles/situations. E.g. the volcanoes, fog, squid, the concentrated barbarian regions, differential naval movement. Each of these things was an interesting puzzle the first time it was encountered. Thinking about how it should be handled was fun.

3) Modified Civilizations. In a sense this is just another example of (2) I suppose. E.g. a Civilization which doesn't build settlers, or one which starts with specific advantages.

4) Special units which require different tactics. I thought this last game with the Mongols was great fun.

In all of cases 2 to 4 above I think there's a fine line to be careful of - the mods must not be so large as to be imbalancing, and they must become visible to the player fairly. I.e. it should be possible for the player to see the mod and understand it before it becomes important to make decisions which are affected by the it.

I've also greatly enjoyed the artwork in the mods. But for me, if the mods were cosmetic only, with no change in function, I probably would choose the plain game - I like units which look different to behave differently

Specific mods which I haven't enjoyed:

1) Repeated use of the same thing. I feel that fog, volcanoes, and differential naval movement all got a bit overused. Also squid to some degree.

2) Added luxuries. They didn't seem to affect gameplay at all to me, but caused some annoying display glitches.

 

[jeffelammar]

1. GOTM and Tournament should be separate. I didn't play for the tournament, but I always felt that the only valid comparison would be if I went for the "special victory".

2. GOTM Mods - I think that the GOTM should only be a modded game 1 out of every three or four games (every 3 or 4 months).
This is for 2 main reasons.
a. TIME - The time involved in modded games for the people who put them together is huge. As has been discussed, the GOTM team seems to get burnt out quickly. I think more un-modded games would mediate this effect.
b. Applicablity to the Normal Game - I usually find that if I play a non-GOTM game, I make mistakes that are due to mods in the GOTM. (Like mismapping my naval movement) This isn't a big deal, but it does make me question if I'm getting better at Civ3 or just at GOTM.

<soapbox>
I think that gotm spends too much time trying to "enforce" the rules. (removing war mobilization, replacing huts with "set contents", etc.)
We already have an honor based system, so leave these things in. They may be expoits, but why remove parts of the game when we have already said "don't do that"?
</soapbox>

3. Classes -
I personally would do away with the classes, but I don't feel strongly about it. In the past people played those GOTM that they felt they were ready for. The Conquest version is good because it gets people to try levels that they wouldn't have tried otherwise, but I personally think it cheats them. They beat deity, but started with extra settlers. Better to equip them to beat it on their own. I personally learned a lot from my Babylon Diety loss (even though it was humiliating).

4. QSC
Keep it. It is the most valuable learning tool available (assuming there is someone with time to put together the summaries and to do some analysis of the games)

5. Jason scoring - I have mentioned this before, so I don't know how to say anything more. I do not think the system rewards the kind of play that I personally enjoy persuing. I think a 1500 Cultural 20K victory is far more impressive than a 500AD conquest.
That said, other than upping the bonus for beating the best dates, I would say that the Jason system is as fair as I can ask for.

6. Conquests/PTW/Vanilla/Mac/French/etc
<shortversion> Make starts for all versions , but don't mod them to "even them out" </shortverson>
<soapbox>
I think we take too much effort supporting all 3 versions. I think it should just create start versions to support all of them. As has been discussed, currently GOTM makes all sorts of changes to the game files to "even" out the versions.

Not having scientific traits because they are treated differently in PTW is not right IMO.
</soapbox>
The different game versions are different. There are AI improvements (I think), barbarians behave differently, etc.
If you are worried about scores, maybe the best dates for Space and Diplomatic should be a few turns earlier in PTW calculations. That would offset the "quicker tech pace"

 

[TedJackson]

Originally posted by jeffelammar
I think that gotm spends too much time trying to "enforce" the rules. (removing war mobilization, replacing huts with "set contents", etc.)
We already have an honor based system, so leave these things in. They may be expoits, but why remove parts of the game when we have already said "don't do that"?

Because in any competitive event you have to have rules or else the results are meaningless and/or subject to corruption

Originally posted by jeffelammar
QSC
Keep it. It is the most valuable learning tool available (assuming there is someone with time to put together the summaries and to do some analysis of the games)

Abso-fragging-lutely!

Originally posted by jeffelammar
Make starts for all versions , but don't mod them to "even them out". I think we take too much effort supporting all 3 versions. I think it should just create start versions to support all of them. As has been discussed, currently GOTM makes all sorts of changes to the game files to "even" out the versions.

Not having scientific traits because they are treated differently in PTW is not right IMO.

The different game versions are different. There are AI improvements (I think), barbarians behave differently, etc.
If you are worried about scores, maybe the best dates for Space and Diplomatic should be a few turns earlier in PTW calculations. That would offset the "quicker tech pace"

Again, for GotM to be competitive there must be a "level" playing field. The idea of developing a handicap for PTW is not without merit but would take considerable time & effort and may discourage Civ players from entering the game in the first place.



Ted

 

[samildanach]

Originally posted by SirPleb
I'd like to add to this subject a note about the web pages related to GOTM. Getting them up to date, and then keeping them so, would probably help a lot in bringing in new players. Currently a newbie to GOTM might click it on the left of the CFC main page, then see the current GOTM intro page with the notes dated Dec 2002. Among other things those notes include
o "happening behind the scenes to make the Games of the Month more exciting and enjoyable for the coming year"
o "We will actively be maintaining a 'Frequently Asked Questions' web page"
o "All the previous awards and trophies will be incorporated into the new 'Pantheon of Heroes'".
I wonder how many people have read that page and then left right away? Or perhaps clicked on the Pantheon of Heroes and then left. Or perhaps have stuck it out a bit, searched for information describing the scoring, and then left.
The year out of date information could be a turn off to many people, suggesting an obsolete or neglected site.

I agree with this completely. It struck me as odd that the paint-work on the GOTM front door was fading and peeling while inside it was a well oiled machine. Most of the items that Sir Pleb has listed would be quite easy to remedy as well.

I also agree with the players who brought up the issue of feedback. I think that getting the results back in a timely fashion and updating the GPR would be good - but I would also go further. I remember Cracker actually doing thumbnail assessments of the players in the top 30 of a GOTM, I wasn't one of them of course ,but I think that the players that did get the personalised feedback were quite pleased that their efforts were getting some recognition. It doesn't just have to be about the top players - some feedback on players down the ranks would be good as well - like which of the conquest players put their treasure chests to best use, who is most improved and who has moved up to Open etc.

 

[ltcoljt]

I think it would be wise to apply the KISS principal. Things were very complicated and it must have been a ton of work.

Seems like a player poll weighting the things they liked to the things they didn't would be a good start.

Then let the GOTM team compare that result with the time each of those things take to accomplish. I'd say the workload should be cut in half right off the bat. The trains have to run on time or people will take a cab. I know I can't get motivated to play knowing the results might not be out until I am dead (not kidding, when you are my age six weeks can literally be a lifetime).

The whole forum needs to be much less heavily moderated, with light banter and moderate off topic meanderings allowed. As much as I wanted to participate, I hate having to take an anti-anxiety pill prior to posting. Heck, fully half of my posts have been edited or deleted here. That might be a slight exageration, although this is another one for you tally. This thread isn't about moderation style. If you have a problem with that, then please PM me, Aeson or Thunderfall - ainwood

It just needs to stop.

The scoring system needs to change. Civ3 gameplay is linear by nature, the current scoring system makes it more so. It would be fun to experiment with. Like take the current Jason score and divide by the total number of cities controlled in the game. That would make for some new strategy (and would require a new utility no doubt). Need something to break off the monotonous quick domination model.

More awards. Lots more awards to recognize other play styles rather than just going for the highest Jason score.

Here is my list going from most important to least:

1. Quick results
2. Loose forum moderation
3. Good custom maps
4. New scoring system with non-specific victory conditions and more award categories for differing playstyles.
5. Web pages kept up to date
6. Limited modifications
7. Support for all game platforms
8. Quick start challenge

I guess the things I left out are things I don't think are worth the effort. I don't think there will be sufficient manpower to do both GOTM and Tourney so I would like to see the Tourney supported by another group. I do not like the combination. I do not like the classes, I think we should all play the same game.

I think if the game is ready to release prior to the first of the month it should go out early. Releasing the January game in mid December would be fine.

And I think Moonsinger should come back.

 

[DaveShack]

OK, here are some observations from the bottom of the food chain, at least in playing strength...

Things I really liked about the "cracker GOTMs"

The mods are extremely cool, and cracker stated himself on several occasions that the goal was exactly the experience I got. There were several games that I've reacted to with a "nothing will ever top that" -- at least until the next really strong one came along. I haven't had time to start this month's game, but just from the announcement page it is obvious that it is likely to top everything else I've ever seeen.

The QSC (when results were coming out on schedule) had a direct and very positive impact on my play. I learned more in the starting moves while losing the first 4 GOTMs I played than from all the random map wins combined.

Having an extra "medal play" game during mid-month provided an extra spark in the months where there was more available playing time. Sure beats repeatedly playing the first few turns of random games and giving up when it becomes obvious that you're in an unwinnable situation, like a 20 tile island on a huge map.

Things I really dislike about certain GOTM games

Being ranked in the 180's out of 200 or so players. I would prefer to have scores reported as separate divisions -- I'm in the top few of the bottom 1/7 of all players, not close to the bottom of a crowd of people for whom the Sid level had to be developed just to give them enough challenge.

Trying to use "bonuses" to make up for playing 2-3 levels above one's ability. A deity game plays like its deity, and a few treasure chests and some gold does not offset that. Like many others, I'm a monarch player who likes to occasionally play emporer, and would never have clicked on deity on my own. Let's play more games where lower level people can choose an actual lower game level.

Not getting results for months has been a major turnoff.

 

[Txurce]

Originally posted by ltcoljt
The whole forum needs to be much less heavily moderated, with light banter and moderate off topic meanderings allowed. As much as I wanted to participate, I hate having to take an anti-anxiety pill prior to posting. Heck, fully half of my posts have been edited or deleted here.
It just needs to stop.

It never occurred to me that this was an issue worth addressing, but perhaps you are right. Out of all the posts and all the posters who grace these pages, how many have their posts edited or deleted for attitudinal reasons? If the number is much, much higher than I imagined, you may have a point.

As mentioned above, this isn't an issue for this thread. Thanks.

 

[leif erikson]

I appreciate this forum and would like to add my two cents.

The QSC was THE element that brought me to GOTM. The ability to get inside the head of the better players and compare my moves to theirs was both interesting and fun. To attract and keep new players, I think this is most important.

IMHO, when Cracker put a game together, he did so with a goal in mind. There was always a reason for what he did. Was it to teach us about our early decision making, or the importance of trading, or how best to accomplish early expansion, or .... The mods were used to help put us in different situations from which we could learn and grow. Without proper balancing of the map, this can never be accomplished. The flavor of the GOTM, to me, has been to learn new lessons from each of them.

The delay in results has been frustrating for me because the lessons that were planned for were not always evident until the results were posted. Reading the QSC and game results were as satisfying as playing the games at times. The feedback is a very important componet of the GOTM.

The forum has been important as well. I have not been a good poster because I have been so far back in the standings that I didn't think anyone would be interested in what I had to say. I am now learning that the story we each have to tell can be important to others. This is a lesson that we need all the GOTM players to understand and encourage them to post. However, these posts should be helpful and not moaning sessions because they were unable to load a game or they didn't understand something that was in the game announcement, which I sometimes question if they bothered to read.

As far as Conquerers is concerned, the GOTM, IMHO, is all about shared experience. If the MAC community (and I have a PC) does not have C3C, then we should not use it for comparative purposes. Cracker has shown us that a lot can be done with Civ3 to make the game more comparable with PTW. We should build on this. Perhaps, since C3C is so different from PTW, CFC should start a Conquerers section of the site and run a separate GOTM there.

The GOTM goals should be defined before changes are made. Without a framework, I fear GOTM may fall prey to trying to please everyone and that may lead to pleasing no one.

Thanks for the discussion Ainwood.

 

[Shevek]

Tournament
As it currently stands I can only manage 1 game per month timewise. So I do not really get to play the additional tourny games. I do like the pre-set victory condition as this focuses the game and results are better comparable.
Maybe we could do away with the tournament and have every 2. or 3. GOTM with a victory condition?

Mods and scenarios
Now on the mods I am divided. The downloads and so on are a pain. Also if I get any detail wrong my normal games might be affected. And as I am not that good with computers that is always daunting.
On the other hand the games are certainly enjoyable.
I would like to see more 'normal' games and the occational modded one (as a special treat). But please keep the downloads small.

Classes
Please, please keep them. I did start with conquest and worked my way up to open now. But I do not feel confident enough to play predator just yet. The different difficult levels can give each player a feeling of achievement. I would hate to see the level rise to where I have no chance of winning at all. With the classes we can pick one we seem fit for our own level.

C3C
I am not going to get C3C anytime soon. I would be quite unhappy if PTW were not supported anymore.
OTOH if C3C gets an own platform that would probably split the community.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Speaking only for myself (i.e., what would interest me in playing GOTM):

Mods are essential. I'm not going to spend 50+ hours playing a game that's hardly any different from the game before or the one after. I've fallen out of GOTM because there's not enough variety, not too much. I think it would be almost impossible to have too much.

A quick transition to Conquests would be great, if the bugs in the initial release are fixed in a patch. Conquests has some substantial improvements to the underlying game. But I don't mind if different attempts are made to cater to different groups (e.g., GOTM some months could be Conquests, other months could be Civ3/PTW, and I would just play in some months---I don't have time to play every month anyway). Maybe the positive features of Conquests can be backported to Civ3/PTW; I'm not sure. I'd also be glad to see Conquests-style scenarios for GOTM, that are shorter/different from a full 540-turn game. This could get more people involved by making the time commitment less.

Finding a way to crank up the difficulty would also be good. I don't know exactly how to do this, but maybe some of the new Conquests features would help. I'd like to play a game that's hard to win, not one where the only question is how fast I can win and how high I can run up my score.
My first idea of how to do this would be to find ways to selectively disable some options for the human player, that the computer players have (e.g., no FP for the human player, no trading contacts for the human player while the computer players can trade contacts, maybe some way to have special developments later in the game that selectively help the computer players or hurt the human). The main problem with adjusting difficulty is that the game is difficult at first, but becomes easy when the human "catches up". So there need to be more difficulty adjustments that only kick in later in the game. Ideally these would change a lot from game to game, to give different challenges to adapt to.

I'd like to change the scoring. Unfortunately I think the Jason score causes people to focus too much on a particular style of play. I think maybe a new scoring system could promote more diversity (e.g., perhaps by having not just a single ranking, but ranking players on several different scales).

I also think the fairly strict moderation of the forums is important. There are a few troublemakers who try to ruin the atmosphere for the rest of us, and unfortunately they need to be controlled.

 

[TedJackson]

@DaviddesJ

Just one small point.

I believe C3C is less suited to comparative gameplay than Civ/PTW due to the addition of more random factors to the base game. Scientific GLs, Volcanos and the Statue of Zeus' dependence on Ivory to name some of the more obvious culprits.

This would devalue the "Play along with SirPleb" learning process for newcomers/improvers even further as the games will diverge faster and further than they do with the current version of PTW.


Ted

 

[jeffelammar]

Originally posted by TedJackson
Because in any competitive event you have to have rules or else the results are meaningless and/or subject to corruption

I agree completely that we need to have rules. I just don't feel that we need to spend so much effort enforcing them. We're already vulnerable to someone re-loading to replay a turn, so why spend lots of effort policing other "cheats"?

Originally posted by TedJackson
Again, for GotM to be competitive there must be a "level" playing field. The idea of developing a handicap for PTW is not without merit but would take considerable time & effort and may discourage Civ players from entering the game in the first place. [/B]

I may not be communicating my Idea completely (I tend to jump from a start to a conclusion without the intermediate steps in my posts).
I was thinking that instead of creating situations where you have only one scientific civilization (Often done in GOTM by changing normal civs to different traits), you would have a set of "Vanilla Civ" best dates and a set of "PTW 1.21 and later" best dates.
So if the "Vanilla" Best date for space was 1555, then the "PTW"one might be 1515 to represent the 2 extra techs at the beginning of each era.
This would all be done in the Jason Calulator.

As a Note: Most of my ideas on this come from my fundamental dislike for changing the "rules of the game" for GOTM.
I just felt that GOTM was getting farther and farther from actually playing Civ.