GOTM/WOTM/BOTM Schedule

[dannybe]

da Vinci, I think something like that would be helpful for those of us who enjoy the game but can't really compete with likes of some of the great players out there. I was thinking along the lines of something like a minor league where some of us could compete with others of a similiar skill level - for me I'm not very competitive above Noble. This may be too much to ask for since I'm sure there are more than a few volunteers out there who give up alot of their time to keep the monthly competitions goings. Asking for another level of play may not be fair or realistic to those dedicated & unselfish souls.

 

[ArcadicGamer]

Well, I had this idea about a Vanilla Training Game Series ... see this post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6277458&postcount=31

Does that meet the need you are expressing? If so, maybe worth a poll to see what the interest might be?

I envisioned this for minimal staff work ... in fact, I suppose a non-staff member could even do it as described. Or would it be bad form for a non-staff member to initiate such a thing?

The key to its simplicity is nothing to police ... just a shared learning experience. With the goal of getting players like yourself comfortable and competitive on monarch, which I think is the threshold where XOTM gets to be fun (even on higher levels, a monarch player is productive if not competitive).

dV

I would support the idea as a moderator/map maker should i be able to get one done a month. I think its an idea best suited outside the current structure as to not devalue it but set it as a goal from a easier launching point.

 

[Harbourboy]

So, I usually end up being defeated or retire (and I always play the easiest version of the game) & rarely submit.

You should always submit. I have lost 14 out of 16 games of the month since I started doing them, but I always submit my result. So you've got a fairly good chance of getting a better result than me. There is a prize for the highest place loser, but I'm not even good enough to win that.

 

[Mad Professor]

I continue to be impressed by the effort and work of the XOTM staff. I think you've done well on this one too. It seems you spend quite a bit of effort so we can have fun! Thankyou.

 

[MarkM]

Want to express my continuing appreciation as well. My desires were simple (BOTM only, every month) and I already pretty much knew you 'd end up with that based on those poll results. But I'm impressed that you didn't leave that handful of folks (I think it was like 5%) who indicated they weren't interested in playing BOTM. I personally think they don't know what they are missing and/or are nuts -- or they need to just pop for the 20 bucks already -- but it's nice you guys didn't leave them out in the cold, giving them instead of a "GOTM" a "GOSLTEM" (Game of something-less-than-every-month")

If you're one of those few people that voted that way in the poll, you guys should say thanks!

 

[da_Vinci]

Want to express my continuing appreciation as well. My desires were simple (BOTM only, every month) and I already pretty much knew you 'd end up with that based on those poll results. But I'm impressed that you didn't leave that handful of folks (I think it was like 5%) who indicated they weren't interested in playing BOTM. I personally think they don't know what they are missing and/or are nuts -- or they need to just pop for the 20 bucks already -- but it's nice you guys did leave them out in the cold, giving them instead of a "GOTM" a "GOSLTEM" (Game of something-less-than-every-month")

If you're one of those few people that voted that way in the poll, you guys should say thanks!

Don't forget the poll here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=255265 where 57% wanted to keep Warlords in some of the XOTM games. So maybe only 5% or so were not going to play BtS, but that did not mean that only 5% wanted other versions represented.

dV

 

[MarkM]

Understood dV. But I don't think that's what I said. I was pretty explicitly (I thought?) commenting only on the small number who said they wanted to play Warlords and not play BTS. I made no comment at all about those your comment primarlly address, the large group who want to play both Warlords and BTS. And my whole point was saying I thought it's great they still get to play WOTM. So I think we're good now on this? I was trying to convey I agreed with keeping WOTM, complimenting on a solution that I thought could make everyone happy -- yes, including me! -- but maybe I should have been clearer.

 

[da_Vinci]

So I think we're good now on this?

If by "we" you meant the two of us, sure we're good now and we were good before you clarified your meaning. It had seemed to me that you had congratulated the staff for accomodating a 5% fraction of the community, and I was just pointing out that the 12/6/12 really accomodates a much larger group. But it looks like that's what you meant all along.

Now if by "we" you mean you and the entire community, I can't speak to that ...

dV

 

[culdeus]

Not sure where to post this exactly or if it's been covered. Will the next botm be in .17?

 

[LowtherCastle]

(with both Noble and Deity being fairly rare)

I would heartily encourage the Management to have a deity game on some version at least once every three months. That seems perfectly reasonable and despite the recent results (2 victories in 2 deity games!) I think there was a lot of interested discussion and my impression is that there are a lot of us who are champing at the bit to try again and beat that damn AI!

 

[Lexad]

I would heartily encourage the Management to have a deity game on some version at least once every three months

I totally support the suggestion - a fair odd as we have 7-8 XOTMs each 3 months.

 

[da_Vinci]

Something relvant to game scheduling ...

The term "sawtooth" is pretty ambiguous to describe difficulty pattern, as all are a sawtooth of sorts.

1,2,3,4,5,6,5,4,3,2,1,2,3,4,5,6,5,4,3,2,1 could be called an isosceles sawtooth (peak is an isosceles triangle)

1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6 could be called a right sawtooth (vertical drop creates a right triangle)

But it seems that some mean by sawtooth something like 1,3,2,4,3,5,4,6,1,3,2,4,3,5,4,6 which could be called a layered sawtooth (a minor sawtooth within the major sawtooth).

Each pattern differs in the frequency of the various difficulty levels ... right sawtooth is even distribution, isosceles limits highest and lowest one, and the layered sawtooth increases the frequency of the middle two difficulties (3 and 4 in this case)

If 6= diety, 5= immortal, 4= emperor, 3= monarch, 2= prince, 1 = noble, which pattern do we prefer? Maybe the higher frequency of monarch and emperor of layered sawtooth is best?

But does this produce the deity per quarter that is being requested by some?

dV

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's all getting far too complicated I can categorically state that I have no intention of introducing a layered sawtooth into the BOTMs

I think you'll find the most important causal influence on the frequency of deity games has nothing to do with the pattern, but is how often the sawtooth instance gets cut off at immortal or emperor! (Used to happen almost every time until about a year ago, I guess we've now hit the point where we consider the community sufficiently mature to have more deity games).

 

[Ronnie1]

Thank you DS for keeping it simple, I'll try to keep dV reigned in a little bit!

 

[AlanH]

I'll try to keep dV reigned in a little bit!

Good luck with that!

 

[da_Vinci]

That's all getting far too complicated

I would think this is pretty simple stuff for those who can sort out the details of running the XOTMs

So, call it cycle, osscilation, and layered sawtooth if you prefer ...

And ... keeping things complex is how I maintain job security!

Thank you DS for keeping it simple, I'll try to keep dV reigned in a little bit!

In the reigns but chomping at the bit!

Good luck with that!

Well, just because YOU haven't been successful ...

dV

 

[reuster]

dV: The term "sawtooth" is pretty ambiguous to describe difficulty pattern, as all are a sawtooth of sorts.

1,2,3,4,5,6,5,4,3,2,1,2,3,4,5,6,5,4,3,2,1 could be called an isosceles sawtooth (peak is an isosceles triangle)

1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6 could be called a right sawtooth (vertical drop creates a right triangle)

But it seems that some mean by sawtooth something like 1,3,2,4,3,5,4,6,1,3,2,4,3,5,4,6 which could be called a layered sawtooth (a minor sawtooth within the major sawtooth).

dV, I for one appreciate your reductionist approach to the problem and will attempt to carry it one step further. From what I can tell, the way XOTM difficulties are managed currently is that each series (GOTM, WOTM, BOTM) loosely follows its own right sawtooth, though each starts at a different difficulty. The fact that each series follows an independent sawtooth leads to occasional concentrations of high or low difficulty (for example, GOTM and WOTM were both on deity and BOTM was on emperor about 2 months ago). If one goal of the XOTMs is to serve a range of players from, say, noble to deity by offering the greatest amount of choice with respect to difficulty level, then having each series follow a separate sawtooth may not be the most effective option.

Consider this proposal: the three XOTM series all follow a common, right sawtooth beginning at noble and leading up to deity. It would work like this: a noble GOTM on the 1st of the month, a prince BOTM on the 15th, a monarch WOTM on the 20th, an emperor GOTM on the 1st of the next month, etc. This sequence is plotted graphically in the attached spreadsheet, which compares, over a 1-year period, the current setup (more or less) of 3 individual sawtooths (sawteeth?) vs. the proposed common sawtooth.

The first part shows the difficulties of GOTMs, WOTMs, and BOTMs over time (each column represents roughly 2 weeks, or 2 columns per month, with WOTMs assumed to start and end in the middle of the month for simplicity). The second part (in blue) is a graphical representation of the difficulties availiable at any given time, with difficulty on the vertical axis. A blue cell means that there is a game of that particular difficulty running during that particular 2-week window. One way to interpret this second part is that the more blue area there is, the greater choice people have in what difficulty they play.

By comparing the two cases, especially the blue charts, one can see that a common sawtooth for all 3 XOTMs gives more options for difficulty at any given time than the current setup of 3 individual sawteeth. For example, consider someone who is comfortable at monarch and wants to try an emperor game for a challenge. What is the maximum amount of time that person would have to wait under each system before encountering an emperor-level XOTM? In the current setup, they could wait up to 2.5 months (if they started searching in mid-july on the chart, for instance), while with a common sawtooth, the maximum wait for emperor (or any difficulty) is 1.5 months. Also, note that in the current setup, occasionally there will be two simultaneous XOTMs at the same difficulty (indicated by the darker blue cells), while with a common sawtooth, this never happens.

In conclusion, using a common sawtooth for all XOTMs may help satisfy people on both ends of the spectrum by ensuring a greater spread of difficulties and a shorter maximum wait of 1.5 months for those who want a particular difficulty.

dV, they can't keep us both reined in!

 

[Orry]

Those look like some interesting ideas. I think your setup looks good reuster, I think the reasoning behind having seperate sawtooths is that if people choose to only play one version then they still experience the sawtooth effect. One quirk in your spreadsheet is that the WOTM level goes down by 1 each time.
I'd rather have it your way though.

 

[da_Vinci]

Orry has a good point, that the system has to account for the players who don't have all of the civ versions.

reuster, what would your plot look like if when GOTM was at Noble, BOTM was at emperor, with both running a right sawtooth, otherwise independent of eacy other? WOTM would run its own, unrelated right sawtooth. That might be the best compromise of your idea that accomidates cycling through all levels of all games.

Nice work, by the way! Come join me on the buckboard hitch!

dV

 

[reuster]

Orry: Those look like some interesting ideas. I think your setup looks good reuster,

Orry: I think the reasoning behind having seperate sawtooths is that if people choose to only play one version then they still experience the sawtooth effect.

dV: Orry has a good point, that the system has to account for the players who don't have all of the civ versions.

Indeed, you are quite right. I think there are two important factors for single-version players: the 1) distribution and 2) trend of difficulties over time within a single version.

For GOTMs only, the two schedules are as follows:

separate sawteeth: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 etc.
common sawtooth: 1 4 6 3 5 2 4 1 3 6 2 5 etc.

If you just got done with a monarch (3) GOTM and want to play another, in the current system you will have to wait 5 months. With a common sawtooth, the wait will either be 4 months (May-Sept. in above example) or 6 months (Oct.-Apr. of the following year). The same is true for any difficulty: separate sawteeth means always a 5 month wait while a common sawtooth means either 4 or 6 months. Thus, with respect to the distribution of GOTM difficulties over time, the two systems are fairly similar, though not quite the same.

But I think Orry's point is that many people want to challenge themselves by gradually stepping up the difficulty (experience the sawtooth effect). With a separate GOTM sawtooth, you can finish a monarch game and the next emperor game starts immediately by definition, so there is no wait. However, with a common sawtooth, the wait is either 2 or 4 months. For someone who only plays one version and values the trend of increasing difficulty each month, the separate sawteeth are much better. Of course, this benefit comes at a cost to those who play all the versions, for reasons noted in previous posts.

dV: reuster, what would your plot look like if when GOTM was at Noble, BOTM was at emperor, with both running a right sawtooth, otherwise independent of eacy other? WOTM would run its own, unrelated right sawtooth. That might be the best compromise of your idea that accomidates cycling through all levels of all games.

@ dV, I uploaded another spreadsheet with your suggestion (I think I got it right, but let me know if I misunderstood). I think your suggestion improves the situation for everyone, but like the current setup it still favors those who only play a particular version. The single-versioners get the sawtooth trend, while the multi-versioners still experience some relatively long intervals between games of a particular difficulty and the occasional overlap between (G/B)OTM and WOTM. That said, the multi-versioners still have more options and shorter intervals than the single-versioners no matter how you slice it, so do they really need more help?

In the end, I guess it's up to the staff, like any government, to decide whether to favor the disadvantaged minority or streamline the system to better serve the majority. (I'm assuming the single-versioners are the minority, but I don't really know for sure). I wouldn't presume to make this decision for them, of course, just making people aware of the options.

dV: Nice work, by the way! Come join me on the buckboard hitch!

Yee-haw!

Edit: Oops, here's the file: