Adventurer, Contender and Challenger!

[Smirk]

There were times when you could play predator and expect a much faster game or better score, especially when it was initially begun. Any time the AI was given a break on maintenance or unit cost generally meant they had more money to spend on tech and a knowledgable player could take advantage of that if their game was tech based. Of course this wasn't always the case as tech wasn't that important for every game. But say the Civ had a UU that required a lot of teching, the predator player in those cases would get the tech faster by way of AI help and most likely win faster than a non-predator game.
I don't believe that was the original intention and was only clearly apparent early on.

I'd vote that anyone that ever won a medal should have to play it, and anyone that ever complains about the difficulty during any pregame get added to a forced challenger list as well.

 

[Sid the Lucid]

Why not just use the built-in difficulty levels?

If a player is struggling on noble, then giving them a couple extra resources at start (or what have you) is not going to help them much in a monarch game.

Wouldn't the GOTM appeal to a *lot* more players if they could play at the difficulty level of their choosing?

 

[White Elk]

Darn. I was hoping the class system had been abolished and this would remain a level playing/comparing field. But on the other hand I'm glad that there are more options. I'm glad for the Noblers playing on Monarch. And I'm glad for the Monarchers playing on Noble. It's good that people can choose the class that best suits them.

But even so, these classes seem odd to me. I don't get it. The value of competition is diminished if my opponents aren't playing the same game. It's kind of hard to put much value in a Contender win when other players were handicapped by Challenger. And as I'm in the very bottom of the top.. I don't feel very competitive playing the Challenger game yet. I just don't understand how real competition can be maintained when people are basically playing differant games??

I played to medal the first two games just out of a play to win attitude. But the real competition for me, was to slowly and over time improve my global rankings. To compete against myself by comparing my games against the top scorers. So for each game, I would strive to improve my rankings in relation to the top scorers standings. But now with the class system back, there is not the consistency to do this. There is no real standard in which to gauge ones progress if people flip flop around the classes. Arbitrary adjustments would have to be made to try and judge one classes game against another. Lost would be the tangible consistency from which real comparisions could be made.

If each class had it's own medals, then that would make perfect sense to me. People play the class that best suits them. And people compete and compare a common game.

But thats just my humble opinion. I am just one of many and I will adapt; and then continue to enjoy the game. I very much appreciate the GOTM and am thankfull we have it. Many Thanks to those who make it happen.

 

[Samson]

I quite like the idea of classes. I presume it is based on some people saying "Prince is far too hard, I just die and it is no fun" and some saying "Prince is far too easy, every game is just a steam roller". I guess medals for the different classes makes sence, or just 1 (higest score chalenger class) to make the Ephiton (sp?) back up to 7. However, as all you are really after is that warm glow inside that you actually beat someone else, surely you can give yourself a medal if you get some form of best result. Would be fine for me, though I am not sure it is likely.

I also really like the idea of challenger being some imposed variant, determined by TPTB. It would be good to try 6CC (the new 5CC?) or always war against others who are playing the same.

 

[Obormot]

Well, these handicaps will never make a gotm game difficult for the top players, but they provide a challenge of a different kind making it more difficult to compete with other players. I still like the idea and i enjoyed playing predator in civ3 gotm/cotm (i played in the predator class in most of my games), but i agree with DaveMcW though that loosing to open players by a couple of turns isn't fun (But of course i don't blame anybody for taking open, my view on this is quite the opposite: i wanted to show off my skills, but those guys that beat me proved that i am not that good as i thought ).

I don't think that the changes made create such a big difference that make the games played in contender and challenger classes incomparable and i don't understand why are people complaining so much about that. Of course the challenger handicaps should be reasonable, not like the ones we had recently in civ3 cotm

As for the variants i think that it is a great idea (even though it would actually make different games incomparable ), because this way we can make the game difficult to win even for the top players - something that gotm always lacked. It'll also attract some new players who don't usually play gotm. I wouldn't play a variant game now because first i want to win by each victory condition at least once through normal game, but i think it would be awesome if we'll have some "sponsored variants" at some point later. Perahps we should include the award for winning the variant of the month into the epthatlon.

 

[bradleyfeanor]

I wouldn't play a variant game now because first i want to win by each victory condition at least once through normal game, but i think it would be awesome if we'll have some "sponsored variants" at some point later. Perahps we should include the award for winning the variant of the month into the epthatlon.

I feel the same way you do on all counts. I really like the idea of adding a variant award to the eptathlon because it seems a bit easy to acquire as it currently stands. But if the staff doesn't like the idea of running variants, perhaps an alternative could be to require at least one gold medal for the eptathlon.

 

[Obormot]

Perhaps even both . I think that the more difficult it is to win the epthatlon, the better. This is of course only if the gotm staff actually find some time to for doing the extra testing to se how those variants will play out. Already they are doing a great job.

 

[PaperBeetle]

the eptathlon ... seems a bit easy to acquire as it currently stands.

Seriuosly though, I think we'll have to wait a few months to see how many of you there are actually competing for the awards, and thus how hard the eptathlon will be. In the first game, some awards went to people we hadn't heard of before. I guess that will continue for a while, and I would be pretty surprised if anyone acheived a cIV eptathlon during 2006. I think it took over 3 years for the first to be awarded in Civ3...

 

[ScubaRoo]

Bout time I contributed something as I've got so much from you guys.

It's perhaps obvious but starting with no techs is much more of a penalty in CivIV than III, principally because of the pre-requisites for worker actions.
In the same way, one of the side-effects of an Adventurer start is having a two-move unit to give a much wider area view on the first move.

I'm all in favour of the varied levels. Despite being with Civ since it had any numbers I'm struggling with IV at higher levels. There is still plenty of room for folks to compare with others doing the same thing or with their previous efforts. It just gives more room for us slow learners.

 

[inkydoo]

Why not just use the built-in difficulty levels?

If a player is struggling on noble, then giving them a couple extra resources at start (or what have you) is not going to help them much in a monarch game.

Wouldn't the GOTM appeal to a *lot* more players if they could play at the difficulty level of their choosing?

I tend to agree. I've been playing Civ a long time, but I just got into the GOTM with Civ IV. I'm not nearly as good as most of the people here, so giving me the archer and worker on Monarch level was nearly useless (I did way better in my test game preparing for the GOTM3 when I didn't have this advantage, so it might even have made me play sloppier).

I recognize that you can learn a lot by playing above your comfort zone (difficulty-wise) because mistakes can often teach you more about what to do right than winning. On the other hand, when you get trounced too quickly it's hard to know which actions were mistakes, which didn't really make a difference, and which were correct but unlucky.

Perhaps it's too complicated to have identical GOTMs with one at a higher (or lower depending on your perspective) difficulty and still handle the scores properly, but it doesn't seem like that would be any harder than adjusting scores as per the adventurer class game. In any case, based on the fact that I at least survived to the end of the GOTM-2, I probably would have enjoyed this more at prince. As it was I didn't enjoy it at all (I can enjoy losing if it's challenging, but this was beyond challenging for me).

 

[KingdomBrunel]

First of all, this sounds like a fantastic competition, and many thanks to those who've obviously put in lots of effort in setting it up. I've not played GOTM before, or at Monarch level, but I'll be giving it a go at Contender level. No doubt I'll get annihilated by a horde of marauding barbarians and their personal pride of settler savaging lions, but I fancy a challenge and figure that I'll learn most at this level. I do think Adventurer class has its place though, if this was up at Emperor or Deity level that's the class I'd be having a go at.

 

[White Elk]

As I play this current game and think more on these three classes; I have grown to support them even more. Comparing player styles and strategies is still valid. And competition is still preserved. So I think it is a good thing for the game and I'm happy for it's implementation.

Though I still wish there were victory medals granted to the players of each class. And how about creating new medals for subjective contests.. Such as Best Builder game, Best use of UU etc.. These medals would open the door for more variety in gameplay, and so would allow players more competitive options for the GOTM. These medals could be voted on by the GOTM players.

 

[DaveMcW]

We had some voting awards in the past (best spoiler story, best pregame prediction). But it's a huge effort picking the best 10 or so posters to put in a poll, and the staff member that organized it eventually gave up. I imagine picking nominees for a "best playstyle" poll would be even harder.

If you really feel strongly about recognizing a certain playstyle, you are welcome to highlight it after the results are released. Phillip_martin created the Philibuster Awards, which eventually became part of the official GOTM system.

 

[bradleyfeanor]

Phillip_martin created the Philibuster Awards, which eventually became part of the official GOTM system.

Sounds interesting. This must have been before my time. I get a "no search results found" page when I click on the link though.

 

[White Elk]

Thats a good idea DaveMcW. In fact, it's really the only possibility as the GOTM staff already have their hands overfilled with work. Though I wouldn't presume to initiate a medal victories for each class. Just some player voted on awards for aspects of the GOTM not related to victory.

I know that some GOTMrs are builders that are more interested in their city structure than in victory. And I for one have become interested in attempting to use the UU's to their fullest potential. In my GOTM2 domination victory, my Redcoats took most of the world, and they were my most advanced military unit. And then for GOTM3 I have the same goal. This flavor focus trumps victory points for me atm. And has added an interesting aspect to the game. I think it would be cool to have informal awards for gameplay not focused on just scoring.

 

[solenoozerec]

I get a "no search results found" page when I click on the link though.

Same here.

Anyway a poll award for the best spoiler is a good idea. It fits GOTM spirit. How to pick up the best 10 for the poll? ... I believe there should be a fair way

 

[White Elk]

I think that nominations would be the best and simplest route.
Then poll vote the top nominations.

 

[White Elk]

I would suggest that nominations be made by the GOTMrs and not some governing body. This should make things easier for the organizers, and it will lessen the complexity required for the judging standards. Each GOTMr will have their own criteria as to what constitutes best game. Organizers would only have to lay out a general set of criteria, and then the public would make the final determination of what it takes to be the best game in each catagory. Then a poll is posted for top nominees and the public decides which game wins. It appears simple enough.

 

[dr_strangelove]

thank you - i hope, this class-system will bring my focus back to civ - bf2 is getting boring with the new patch

 

[TylerDurdon]

Thank you! Thank you very very much!! This might makes me try GOTM again(if times allow me)