Beyond the Sword: GOTM Implementation Issues

[dojoboy]

I don't play the GOTM often these days, at least don't complete them in time. But, when I read the ranom event feature in BtS, I wondered how it might effect, a likely, BtS GOTM.

# Events: New random events such as natural disasters, pleas for help, or demands from their citizens will challenge players to overcome obstacles in order for their civilizations to prosper.

Random events IMHO will probably be turned off - unless the player can manipulate them through game-play. But, then they wouldn't be random. They'd be predictable, like Great Persons.

I've not considered the other features fully, perhaps another might also present an issue.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Random events IMHO will probably be turned off - unless the player can manipulate them through game-play.

We'll have to wait and see exactly what the game does when it's released, but I strongly disagree. The GOTM philosophy has always (at least for many years) to play the game as designed by Firaxis, not to re-design it to meet some other set of preferences. I would expect and assume that random events of large magnitude will, by design, not happen very early in the game (when a volcano erupting under your capital could end your game right away!). Given that, the random events will be just one more thing for players to deal with. And there will always be the vanilla GOTM for players who don't like the features of BTS.

P.S. I'm very much looking forward to the addition of random events. I just hope they are substantial and not trivial.

 

[dojoboy]

We'll have to wait and see exactly what the game does when it's released, but I strongly disagree. The GOTM philosophy has always (at least for many years) to play the game as designed by Firaxis, not to re-design it to meet some other set of preferences.

How then was turning off Great Scientists in C3C GOTMs (Or did they begin w/ PtW?) not a re-design? I acknowledge that there may be mechanics behind Great Scientists I'm not familiar with. But, there was a random chance for them appearing.

 

[DaviddesJ]

How then was turning off Great Scientists in C3C GOTMs (Or did they begin w/ PtW?) not a re-design? I acknowledge that there may be mechanics behind Great Scientists I'm not familiar with. But, there was a random chance for them appearing.

OK, fair enough. I guess we'll have to wait and see just how random the "random events" are. I don't think they will be as wild and arbitrary as the SGLs were, but we'll see.

 

[da_Vinci]

So would the global ranking then be based on combining three game types, and would there now be three games a month (not to mention three flavors of SGOTM? )? The mind boggles!

Maybe the globals would have to evolve to include game-specific rankings (score, speed, and combined) for vanilla, warlords and swords (but if it is beyond the sword, maybe we should call it "guns") and a cross-game global (score, speed, and combined) like the current vanilla-warlords global.

Once the program is set up, I assume that game-specific rankings are not more work than the cross-game global, since both are output from the same raw data.

dV

 

[Obormot]

Will we have 3 games each month after BtS is released? IMHO that is a bit too much. It will split the players' attention, wich will lead to decreased cometition in each of the games. Perhaps we should run only vanilla GOTMs and BtS BOTMs since the difference between vanilla & warlords seems much less then the difference between warlords and BtS?

 

[TheArchduke]

Hmm, and how about finding a gold/silver mine early in the game, where there was none before? This seems very random, too.

 

[Harbourboy]

You've got to include the random events. The game already has randomness in the outcomes of battles so this should be no different. Luck is a part of the game - otherwise we are just robots diligently following a set path.

 

[ainwood]

We are considering only 2 competitions / month - maybe BTS & Warlords; dropping vanilla. But we're open to discussion.

RE events, it really depends on how they are implemented, and how game making/breaking they can be (especially early-on).

 

[scooter]

I don't know about dropping vanilla, here's the reason I say this, all those who have one or both of the expansion packs have vanilla, and those who have just vanilla don't necessarily have the other two. I'd say either pick one of the expansions or rotate between the two each month. That's just my thoughts...

 

[MarkM]

We are considering only 2 competitions / month - maybe BTS & Warlords; dropping vanilla. But we're open to discussion.

But then won't you be requiring any GOTM player to have bought at least two products before they can play? (since you will need to own vanilla to make BTS work, presumably, just like warlords).

Here's another POV: though warlords is an expansion, in a way it's more an improvement over vanilla (vanilla froze forever with 1.61 apparently?) and will never get better AI, etc in an official version. Right now it's therefore the "best implementation" of Civ4 and obviously deserves a GOTM. But once BTS comes out -- and assuming it incorporates all the additions of warlords -- it will no longer be a cutting edge version. BTS will be, and for the same reason warlords has a WOTM now, we will need a BTSOTM (?)

So that's one GOTM line for civ4 that I think is a no-brainer. If there are only to be two, then what's the other? To me it makes more sense to be vanilla not warlords. I figure there are two types of civ players -- the hardcore/monied who will buy the most current expansion (particularly if it is as significant as BTS is promised to be), and those that are not. I think the slice of players who have/will buy warlords, almost all will buy BTS too (if they are still playing). So most people playing any continuingg WOTM would have BTS, and probably would prefer to play BTS even if configured like a warlord game, just to get the better AI. So keeping WOTM going over vanilla GOTM might be a compromise that would excite few, the hardcore'd prefer the BTS most will own & the rest will resent having to buy warlords to play any GOTM at all (anyone who hasn't bought warlords yet and is playing GOTM will almost certainly buy BTS if they want to keep playing and not buy warlords)

Just some thoughts. Again, all of this is assuming BTS incorporates all warlords features of main game, something I think many are assuming?

 

[ainwood]

Good points. We'll check submissions to see how many people are playing both vanilla & warlords.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Another key indicator will be how many first time entries are vanilla vs warlords.

My feeling though is you'll probably need to drop the WOTM and carry on a vanilla and a BTS GOTM. Vanilla is important as it's the way into GOTMs for people who've recently bought Civ and not (yet) bought an expansion pack, so I'd think very carefully about dropping the vanilla GOTM. Also, keeping vanilla and BTS maximizes the variety between the different games.

 

[caeru71]

If we stay with two gotms, I agree with cds above, keep vanilla and rotate expansions or drop warlords if its features are contained in BtS.

 

[wwassme]

I would prefer to keep vanilla. My time is limited due to a wife, two small children and a more than full time job, so I sometimes barely finish the GOTM in a month. I haven't bought warlords, both because of my time constraints and because I feel that I'm still learning the strategies and nuances of vanilla and don't want to muck my brain up with a different set of rules.

My impression is also that there are more submissions of the GOTM than there are of the WOTM. Keeping vanilla would probably result in more participation than a warlords/BTS selection.

I was considering buying warlords and playing the WOTM as a "fast" game without much micromanaging and on-the-fly strategic thinking, but with the announcement of BTS, I will now wait until that comes out.

Assuming BTS is a more advanced and better product than warlords, I would think that dropping warlords and using BTS as the second game would be better. I would think that almost everyone who now has warlords will buy and play BTS as the latest thing and there would be greater participation with BTS as the second game.

 

[Harbourboy]

I think the answer is reasonably simple.

First, you'll wait to see if Beyond the Sword is any good and whether people are buying it and playing it. Once there is enough critical mass for it, you implement 3 versions of GOTM for a little while.

After a few months, you'll get a feel for the playing patterns. If one of the versions becomes noticeably less popular, then reduce the frequency of that GOTM.

Balance it all out in a way that keeps the load on administrators to an acceptable level (e.g. maybe make them all a bit more spaced out).

 

[uberfish]

Warlords and vanilla are almost identical in gameplay - I think running games on BTS and vanilla and dropping warlords would provide the greatest variety and satisfy the most players.

 

[Sarek]

I know it will mean additional time & effort, but...
1st of month Vanilla
15th BOTH a BTS and WOTM?

Or the alternating BTS & WOTM on the 15th (as mentioned earlier) is a good compromise?

Or 1st, 10th, 20th to do all three in a month!
* Then re-evaluate at the next expansion

Some players will try to do it all...some will naturally gravitate to their faves?

 

[da_Vinci]

All three raises an interesting question about scoring for global rankings ... keep best one of the three played in a given month?

If all three are done each month, maybe wait to start the BtS until the series is GOTM 21, WOTM 11, BOTM 1 in the same month?

dV

 

[Lexad]

My vote (zero weight as it has) would go for either all three or dropping out vanilla - simply because Warlords are more balanced. Maybe it's biased since I have both.