Fine_Distinction
King
Come on - if you are not gonna finish, not much “risk” of getting an award
and if you do finish, you can team up with @ksc_swede if you want to remove any appearance of conflict. Although players did not mind anyway
News: BOTM 252: Roosevelt, Noble - Starts May 2, 2023
- Thread starter MarleysGh0st
- Start date
Come on - if you are not gonna finish, not much “risk” of getting an award
and if you do finish, you can team up with @ksc_swede if you want to remove any appearance of conflict. Although players did not mind anyway
Frederiksberg
Deity
Yes you're right - the first part of the game is much quicker, and definitely the most enjoyable. Once you get to 1000AD, then I usually find I'm engaged in or gearing up for wars with lots of units, which is fun and challenging but really takes ages - as much as 10 minutes just to do one turn. Once I'm at 1500AD, that's when the game starts to get tedious, and it begins to feel like an endless round of, optimising which tiles the workers should improve next, and continuously deciding what to build next in cities that turn out a new building every 2-3 turns. I guess, even though the first turns are fun, at some point I got demotivated from starting games that I knew there was no possibility of finishing. But you're right - maybe I should play a few sometimes just to experience the BC years and then retire
(Of course, if I did that for this game, then I'd be the one risking a conflict of interest if I also have to publish the results haha)
This is exactly why I advocate for small maps. You will end up with fewer cities in the late game and fewer cities you need to capture.
I agree... I am sure if you played you did it in the full spirit of the competition, so should be no conflict except for mapmakers. Besides, I would probably rat you out if you did anything nefarious.Come on - if you are not gonna finish, not much “risk” of getting an award
Fine_Distinction
King
Yeah, that is a great point - exploring larger maps is fun, but completing those games can become too tedious or not compatible with rl requirements. Couple of times, I had to take sudden detours eg from space to diplo or religion victory due to the lack of time, but it is frustrating. I played a dozen BOTMs or more but never had time to attempt a space victory so far
LowtherCastle
Deity
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,631
Dhoomstriker
Girlie Builder
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 13,457
Since the results were not yet published, it would be amazing if we were to re-open submissions for BOTM 252 and tack on, say, +1 week from the original deadline.
We went into such an involved discussion about getting +1 participant out of a staff member. We might get a couple of additional submissions this way.
Smaller-sized maps are generally appreciated.
That said, there is often less of a challenge when run-away AIs get limited in their expansion by a map's smaller size, which I feel can be a noticeable tradeoff, making games easier than they would have been on a Standard-Sized map. Thus, games may need to be made just a little bit harder, to compensate.
While I also offer my agreement with more often seeing smaller maps, in addition, we could also try doing something else:
Change the GOTM acronym's meaning to Game Of Two Months.
We did it before with sometimes having 1.5 months and sometimes having 2 months for Vanilla and Warlords games. I don't recall having heard any significant complaints.
There are multiple possible positive reasons. When coming back from a real-life break, there often isn't sufficient time to finish a game that has already started. How many people feel that they can start up again, only to get disappointed that the game which they started cannot be submitted on time, and then leave the forums in frustration for another hiatus? If we were to, say, release 1 game per month and have a 2-month playing window, then at any time when coming back to the forums, there would be a playable game with at least 1 month of time to play it in.
It might also be a bit less hectic for the staff members, who have their own real-life commitments. If submissions come in over time over a longer period of time, there will be more real-life time to process some of the earlier submissions.
Further, it seems that perhaps the schedule of releasing two games per month isn't tenable, and this way, we'd be relaxing that schedule, while still maintaining the ability to have a playable game with at least several weeks' worth of submission time. To those who complete a game in a day and demand more, I say: slow down, savour the ability to more closely examine your game as it progresses, and aim to further develop your skills.
Finally, some Victory Conditions really do take a long time to execute, and knowing that a player can have as much as 2 months available to play for such a Victory Condition can open up more varied submissions. Contrast that thinking with the situations that often lead to us seeing a large number of Domination Victories, such as the "accidental Domination Victory because I did not have time to check the Domination Land Area Limit every turn" or the "I'll just trigger a Domination Victory to get it over with, since the playing-time window is too small to do that other fun thing which I wanted to do."
We went into such an involved discussion about getting +1 participant out of a staff member. We might get a couple of additional submissions this way.
Smaller-sized maps are generally appreciated.
That said, there is often less of a challenge when run-away AIs get limited in their expansion by a map's smaller size, which I feel can be a noticeable tradeoff, making games easier than they would have been on a Standard-Sized map. Thus, games may need to be made just a little bit harder, to compensate.
While I also offer my agreement with more often seeing smaller maps, in addition, we could also try doing something else:
Change the GOTM acronym's meaning to Game Of Two Months.
We did it before with sometimes having 1.5 months and sometimes having 2 months for Vanilla and Warlords games. I don't recall having heard any significant complaints.
There are multiple possible positive reasons. When coming back from a real-life break, there often isn't sufficient time to finish a game that has already started. How many people feel that they can start up again, only to get disappointed that the game which they started cannot be submitted on time, and then leave the forums in frustration for another hiatus? If we were to, say, release 1 game per month and have a 2-month playing window, then at any time when coming back to the forums, there would be a playable game with at least 1 month of time to play it in.
It might also be a bit less hectic for the staff members, who have their own real-life commitments. If submissions come in over time over a longer period of time, there will be more real-life time to process some of the earlier submissions.
Further, it seems that perhaps the schedule of releasing two games per month isn't tenable, and this way, we'd be relaxing that schedule, while still maintaining the ability to have a playable game with at least several weeks' worth of submission time. To those who complete a game in a day and demand more, I say: slow down, savour the ability to more closely examine your game as it progresses, and aim to further develop your skills.
Finally, some Victory Conditions really do take a long time to execute, and knowing that a player can have as much as 2 months available to play for such a Victory Condition can open up more varied submissions. Contrast that thinking with the situations that often lead to us seeing a large number of Domination Victories, such as the "accidental Domination Victory because I did not have time to check the Domination Land Area Limit every turn" or the "I'll just trigger a Domination Victory to get it over with, since the playing-time window is too small to do that other fun thing which I wanted to do."
Last edited:
Fine_Distinction
King
Since we started discussion here on GOTM future, it is clear that easier games have more participation, you can always add deity challenge save to satisfy "pros".
I think since we are getting games less frequently now it will be great to always offer all three difficulty levels for each game, it seems much easier than have separate easy and hard games. I understand that it is not perfect, but should be good enough. Maybe even for the current BOTM 251.
I think since we are getting games less frequently now it will be great to always offer all three difficulty levels for each game, it seems much easier than have separate easy and hard games. I understand that it is not perfect, but should be good enough. Maybe even for the current BOTM 251.
It is my intention to see that the community is supplied with plenty of games, back to 2 per month. Note, due to summer vacations, that might mean I flood you with games to keep pace with our insatiable passion, even as we are getting sand between our toes.
Fine_Distinction
King
It is my intention to see that the community is supplied with plenty of games, back to 2 per month. Note, due to summer vacations, that might mean I flood you with games to keep pace with our insatiable passion, even as we are getting sand between our toes.
flood us then - I think I speak for community here - we are ready 
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
