Can we expect changes?

[Matrix]

The transition of me to cracker was huge. The whole website changed and the mods were added. What can we expect of our new man ainwood?

I, for one, definitely hope we will play normal games as GOTM's again, without any mods. That was also the original idea of the GOTM: playing a normal random game, but then the same, so that we could compare each other's results.

Or will you/ainwood simply continue cracker's vision?

 

[mad-bax]

Hmmm... a good discussion.

I think that priority 1 should be that the games should be playable by everybody, MAC, vanilla and PTW. If conquests can be accomodated then fine, but it can wait.

I am also coming round to the mods. I didn't like them at first, I had enough trouble learning the "Out of the Box" game without the added complexity. There is also the issue of the ever increasing download sizes. Above 4 or 5 Meg on a dialup is a RPITA. But there is no question that they add variety and interest to games. Also the themed game are atmospheric and very enjoyable.

So my view is that light modifications are welcome, so long as any game can be downloaded with a single standalone install of no more than 5MB.

Completely random games don't create a level playing field for all players. Huts, barbs, scientific civs are just a few examples of how a random game can be skewed to the advantage of certain sections of the community. GOTM needs engineering to keep the game fair for all.

My personal fear though is that GOTM will migrate swiftly to C3C, and that the effort required to engineer equivalent games for MAC, vanilla and PTW players will be just too time consuming and difficult. I only hope I am wrong.

 

[Kemal]

Though I see the amount of people that enjoy the current gotm format is quite large, I too hope we'd might have some normal games for the gotm again too.

Also, will the tournament-based designated victory condition still be maintained for the "classic" gotm? Though I think having games set up as the old tournament is a good thing, for the regular gotm it takes away the "compare your style with others" part of gotm a bit, as I know I won't see many people play the game like I did when not going for the victory condition set for that game.

As I play(ed) the gotm for comparison reasons too, to see how others approached problems posed by the map for each different victory type, can't we have an open game as far as victory conditions are concerned again for the regular gotm, so not counting for any tournament play?

 

[Ronald]

Originally posted by Kemal

Also, will the tournament-based designated victory condition still be maintained for the "classic" gotm? Though I think having games set up as the old tournament is a good thing, for the regular gotm it takes away the "compare your style with others" part of gotm a bit, as I know I won't see many people play the game like I did when not going for the victory condition set for that game.

As I play(ed) the gotm for comparison reasons too, to see how others approached problems posed by the map for each different victory type, can't we have an open game as far as victory conditions are concerned again for the regular gotm, so not counting for any tournament play?

I liked to play the old tournament, but I also agree with Kemal. My suggestion would be to have no set condition for the gotm and have the seperate medal play 5 games (one every month, the 3 best count). So a season would be longer, but that should not matter too much.

Ronald

 

[mad-bax]

I completely forgot about the tournament games, and I agree with Kemal, though I have a more complicated idea for the solution, which would be...

5 tournament games would be provided. Three of them specifically tournament games with set victory conditions.
2 would be GOTM games with no set victory condition.

To qualify for a tournament entry, a player would have to submit 4 games from the set with different victory conditions. I can see the objections to this, but it's my idea and I like it

 

[zagnut]

I don't particularly like the fact that the Tournament Games got mixed in with the GOTM. I would prefer to see them separate or just let the Tournament Games die if there is not enough support.

However, I like the modded games for GOTM. I agree with mad-bax that the downloads for them to work should be limited. It is a bit daunting for someone new to GOTM 26 to have to download game packs from 21, 24 and 25. A simpler system must be devised or we will not be encouraging new people to participate.

But the game pack issue does not mean that the games are too complicated. The games are interesting and challenging in their modded state. For the most part it seems to me that most of the games cracker designed were easier than the "out of box" games. Look at the scores most people got on Emperor and Deity games. They are pretty good and I don't mean the scores of the top players. Those will always be great. I mean the scores of the ordinary players. When I played my first game on Deity it was last year a couple of months after cracker took over. That was a non-mod game as far as I know. I lost early on. But I haven't lost an Emperor or Deity level game since.

I think the modded games have been good for the GOTM and would like to see them continue.

 

[Hergrom]

My Opinions:

Game mods - They certainly add flavor to the games. I didn't always think they were good from the beginning, but I have been swayed to the dark side, and really enjoy them now. It CAN be a pain with a dial-up connection, as has been mentioned. I would like to see the mods stay.

Tournament games - I think have one game double as a tournament and GOTM game was a bad idea (I thought that way from the very beginning). The results of the GOTM games have been severely scewed with most people going for the tournament victory condition. Case in point - I won the fastest conquest victory in GOTM 21 (22, 23?) with a victory in 2050 AD. That should not happen. Therefore I would like to see completely different GOTM and tournament games.

In the end, however, I will probably continue to play no matter what Ainwood decides to do. I am an addict.

Hergrom

 

[Txurce]

There is clearly a lot of support (and logic) to separating the Tournament games from the GOTM. Doing so will not only provide players like Matrix the opportunity to play out-of-the-box games, but keep players like Kemal interested in the GOTM, which has clearly increased its popularity as a result of its mods and sophisticated game design.

 

[AlanH]

I have a few suggestions, based on my completely biased starting point on the Mac platform, coupled with a limited record of only three submitted GOTMs and a couple more QSCs:

1. Our primary goal has to be to provide THE Premier Civ competitive community game forum. That means the games have to be hard enough to provide a challenge to the top players while allowing us lesser players to achieve more than we thought we could. That's a three card trick that I believe Cracker played to perfection in his Game Master role.

2. I think we need to continue as long as possible to support the PTW and Civ3 communities with a single game set to get the widest comparison base. This is because (a) Conquests is not a prime-time competition platform yet as I understand it, (b) Conquests will only be available to those who can afford it and to players with PCs.

3. Given (2) we need some mods to provide the Civ3 players with the same range of civs and units as PTW players and not limit the PTW experience. We already have enough mods to achieve this, and to provide a rich range of experience for this community. I don't think the games we have played have by any means stretched the options available with this cast of characters, and we have not yet played several of them as the playable civs. I would therefore suggest we focus on making the existing mods more accessible and not create new ones, and that we build more games using them as they stand. We could consider ...

- CD distribution for players with bandwidth problems
- Downloads from more consistent servers, and/or split downloads
- More foolproof installations
- A more straightforward and consistent set of instructions, in fewer (eg one) places
- Investigate the performance issues reported by some players and decide whether to restrict the use of specific units or fix the root problem. (Fog never affected performance on my lowly Mac, BTW)

4. C3C will happen unless Firaxis completely loses the plot and fails to fix its problems as a competitive platform. We will probably not be able to combine C3C with the PTW/Civ3 game because of its major changes in game play. If we are to meet our #1 goal we will therefore want to provide a C3C challenge as a separate competition once the platform becomes stable and playable. Mods will not, presumably be necessary for this endeavour,

5. I think Medal Play should be separated from GOTM, though I'm not sure how.
GOTM, with the Jason scoring system, is all about trying to get the best result you can with your optimum style of play, and then learning and comparing alternative styles from other players. Mixing Medal Play with GOTM seemed like a good idea at the time, but in practice it reduces the range of victory targets for the GOTM players, since most players cannot guarantee to afford the time to play enough Medal games on top of GOTM, so they want to ensure their GOTM results are also eligible for the Medal Play tables.

6. QSC was a great way for newbies to cut their teeth and learn to improve their crucial first 80 turns. I know it was doing me a lot of good, and I was still learning from it when the results and feedback dried up. We need to reinstate the scoring and evaluation of this activity so that new players can learn how to build a base from which they can challenge the top players.

I hope I can get away with offering these suggestions as I'm still only an apprentice in the sorceror's cave, and so they are not necessarily the view of the "staff". They may be naive, but maybe they'll raise some discussion, and perhaps some hackles

My 2¢. Bring it on!

 

[ainwood]

Thanks for raising this Matrix. We were going to try and catch up on the results and then initiate this discussion, but seeing that it has started, lets keep it going!

It is definitely something that I believe needs to be discussed, but I fear it will be difficult to reach a consensus on. I will watch this thread with interest!

I won't say too much yet about my feelings, but will raise a few specifics on these issues I would like to see discussed (many of them have been touched on in the posts above)

Should the tournament be split out from the GOTM, kept the same, or done away with completely? Does the target victory condition detract from the GOTM in that the clear majority of players try for it, making it more difficult to compare playing styles of players on other conditions? Or conversely, does it make it much easier to compare the different strategies used to meet the given victory condition? Does it make the scoring comparisons better, or does the 'Jason' system accomplish this anyway?

Should we revert to out-of-the-box games, or continue with the scenario-type games? For those who like the scenario type games, what is it you like about them? For those who don't, what don't you like? Is there a clear preference amongst the masses either-way, or can we extract the best elements of the two and combine them? (as a random thought - without having studied the feasibility - we might be able to offer 'optional' add-on packs for people who want that). Should we continue with the three different classes, or do away with them? Should we follow the Civ2 GOTM style of providing diversity? - e.g. the game starts and you get a pre-built wonder, the AI has a non-despotic government, you start with more than one city (like this months GOTM ) etc etc.

And what about conquests? My first reaction is that it would be very difficult to transition-to in the way that cracker achieved the transition to PTW (setting up a Civ3 equivalent to each of the PTW civs, and allowing competition in parallel), because the game play is significantly different (new traits, corruption differences, new govts etc), but maybe we can look at this in more detail, especially once the corruption problems are patched.

One real concern with conquests is whether it will be available to Mac players. There is quite a strong Mac community here, and I'd hate to see them left out in the cold....

Please everyone, feedback on your preferences!

 

[ProPain]

It's been a while for me, think I didnt finish a gotm for a year or so. Started only a few.

I very much agree with Kemal. I like the comparison between games. I'd also like to see a less modded game once in a while. The waiting for the fog and volcanoes was a bit too much for my old pc. Although I have upgraded now

 

[gozpel]

I think GOTM should be separated from the tournament.

GOTM is the strong foundation and can stay modded and in the different classes, for what I care. Yes, the games are very different considering the classes, but it gives choices for the experienced players and to those that are new to to games as well.
Perhaps classes could be league based or something, e.g. Predators compared against predators? Or would that be too messy?

Tournament should be simple games...give us 5 game saves and say: You have now 90 days to finish at least 3 of these games to take part in the MP.

Bear with me, I'm only brainstorming

Of course Mac players has to be involved as much as possible, so if they can't play C3C, then don't implement that in GOTM.

 

[Matrix]

Wow, thanks for your openness.

My preference is as stated before: playing with normal rules. The power of Civ3 is that no game is the same - and this is more the case than with other strategy games -, but only has the same rules. When you keep playing with different rules there's no fun in telling what's happening, while when playing with standard rules you can actually learn from it.

But I'm afraid it's simply a matter of taste whether someone likes to play with mods or not.

 

[Dianthus]

OK, some feedback.

Tournament mixed with GOTM:
For me I have really enjoyed having a prescribed Victory condition to aim at. This was introduced at just about the point where I could think of winning, up to that point I was just trying to survive! I find that having lots of other people trying for the same victory condition helps because it makes it easier for me to compare my game with others when there are lots of others aiming for the same condition. I think the pre-game discussions have been a lot better since the tournament Victory condition was added as people have been thinking further than just the 1st few moves. Whether or not the Tournament/GOTM is seperated out I for one would definitely prefer to be given a Victory condition to aim for.

Scenarios/Mods
I have enjoyed playing the Scenarios/Mods, and appreciated every one of them. I can also understand other people's reluctance to use them. It is nice to have something different in the game to add a bit of interest. It doesn't necessarily have to be anything too big. The idea of a Commercial Domination victory condition (am I hung up on victory conditions or what ) made for a very interesting game in 5-6 France, and I believe that was just an unmodded random map. Ideas such as this and starting with more than one settler are good in my opinion.

Conquest/Open/Predator
I think the Conquest level is essential to make GOTM accessible to new users. My own initial experience was quite hard, losing the first 3 GOTMs (17-19). I would have continued trying due to my rather large stubborn streak, but I really appreciated the Conquest level for GOTM20. I'm now quite happy to plod along at Open level for a while. The only concern I have about these levels is whether they are still comparable. There have been numerous discussions about whether playing Predator makes it possible to finish earlier. On the other hand if that's a perk of playing a much harder game, those players that are brave enough to take on the Predator level deserve it!

Civ III/PTW/Conquests
I now have Conquests (though I haven't done much yet other than look at the file format ), so I'm ready if you want to introduce a Conquests game. Your concerns make sense though, and I will be happy to continue to support GOTM even if you only support Civ III/PTW.

 

[Tone]

Here's my opinion for what it's worth...

I like the modded games for GOTM. A little surprise every so often keeps the games fresh and I enjoy that added dimension that you don't get from a random game more than the idea of comparing my games with others. I would like to separate it from medal play though to avoid too many players following the same victory conditions. (BTW why did the old tourney die? Was it lack of support from players or is there too much expected of civfanatics staff?)

Originally posted by AlanH

6. QSC was a great way for newbies to cut their teeth and learn to improve their crucial first 80 turns. I know it was doing me a lot of good, and I was still learning from it when the results and feedback dried up. We need to reinstate the scoring and evaluation of this activity so that new players can learn how to build a base from which they can challenge the top players.

Couldn't agree more. As you're now on the GOTM team, Alan is there any chance of a relaunch of QSC?

 

[kryszcztov]

MY 2 cents, all the more as I won't play the very next games to completion (not past QSC periods for sure)...

I like some parts of modded games. What I didn't like at first is that I couldn't even play the games with my French version !! Thanks Firaxis... Now with C3C I believe this issue is fixed, but I'm not sure at all... since I lack experiments. Otherwise, I enjoyed how cracker designed the maps (special kudos for GOTM 24 - Korea : I was stunned when I first got the WM, though I didn't take advantage of it, since I didn't take over my whole continent (spaceship victory)). Placements of terrain and resources around our starting positions made for interesting pre-game discussions. I quite liked some of the new stuff that was added, like the new Mediterranean resources... But I have to say that I was disappointed to see that some of the latest stuff didn't receive full explanation : the Asian tribes were unknown tribes, no UUs nor traits explained. I'd like some non-modded games back, in terms of rules. Maps should be modded in any game IMO.

As for victory conditions, I liked this a lot ; I went for every victory condition for the Medal series. I think they add a lot for comparing games, and the maps should reflect that. Of course it's nice to have the choice to go for another victory, so I guess we should get two seperate competitions, one with free victory conditions, another one with a set victory condition, but which one is which I dunno.

No GOTMs before the big bugs in C3C are gone ! That should let you some time, given the time it may take for Firaxis or whoever to make a patch. Then of course I urge you not to make a same competition for C3C and Vanilla/PTW. This will be a total mess, I mean it, you should spend your efforts on giving us results more often and quicker, if you see my point. Seriously, don't plan to do that. Because more players will have C3C over time, I think we should have C3C GOTMs as soon as its main bugs are fixed. I think you should make a poll to see if people still want to play Vanilla/PTW games. If it's only another minority, then you should consider stopping Vanilla/PTW games. As for the MAC community, I really don't know ; I don't know if they're gonna get the add-on soon or never.

As for classes, it was a nice idea, but maybe newbies always took easier games (so they wouldn't improve as much as with open games), and I feel that predator games were sometimes somewhat easier than open games, like in the latest games : more free units support for the AIs made that they would research more easily, therefore accelerating the tech pace in the beginning of the game, and so we were able to ride the wave and finish the game faster than on open class (GOTM 24). Maybe I'm wrong here... I don't know, maybe you could consider having one class only, or 3 different rankings for each class, and then players would get their final score upped or downed for the Medal series rankings...

All in all, I'd be pleased if the first C3C GOTMs were a lot less complex !!! I may do my GOTM comeback if I feel something has been made this way (though my semi-retirement has little to do with this issue...).

ainwood, I hope that you'll do great !

 

[Offa]

Its good to see that Matrix still follows GOTM. I agree with him about random games. I never managed to finish a game until Cracker took over, but tried out a lot of Matrix's games and found them very entertaining. I was sold on GOTM ever since reading about EEK the dogs bc win in gotm1. In addition more random games would presumably enable the staff to play more.

Cracker has given us some fantastic games but he has been spoiling us with all these settler factories. The main attraction of GOTM is comparing your game with others and this can be done without any fancy mods. I would rather have lots of clever analysis of play (like the qsc ).

Regarding the Predator/Open/Conquest games, it has been suggested that some superior players derive benefit from playing as Predator as they are helped by the stronger AI. It occurred to me that you could prevent that by leaving the AI alone and subtly altering the start terrain for predator players (eg no river, bonus +/or resource). Surely even SirPleb et al couldn't benefit from a rubbish start position?

It would be terrible to lose the Mac players. Have they thought about buying PCs?

 

[rabies]

My Feedback:

Tournament mixed with GOTM: I am ambivalent. I participated in one tourney game - the commercial domination one. Split it or keep it the way it is. Matters not to me.

Scenarios/Mods: I enjoyed the mods - to a degree. Towards the end I could have done away with the fog/squid...and especially the alternate lux. Having it one game to give it flavor is fine..but restrict it to that one game to make it unique. re-using them month after month lessened the impact. Furthermore, I would not object at all to the occasional GOTM with no mods at all. I think keeping it mixed would be best.

Conquest/Open/Predator:: Technically, this would be a mod..but I think this is one that was a great idea. Not everybody plays at the same level. I thought this was a great way of helping the players who needed it - without changing the difficulty level. personally, I think the predator level needs to made harder. It should be a significant challenge just to win on this level. I am nowhere near the best civ player, but even I found it no problem to consistantly win on predator.

Conquest: I understand the technical difficulty of moving the GOTM to this platform for all. I for one, think we should move to conquest sooner than later...even it it means two seperate GOTMs...one for conquest players and one for those without. Havinig played conquests...I really can't see myself going back.

If I can be frank for a moment - The most important thing to me though, to keep my interest, is getting the results back in a timely manner. For awhile, things were going great...and getting the feedback in time really helped you get excited about the next month..and trying to do better (maybe I am just too competitive). Not getting results back - or even been given a explanation on why it has taken so long has really dampened my spirit.

Maybe polls on each subject are in order?

 

[AlanH]

Originally posted by Offa
It would be terrible to lose the Mac players. Have they thought about buying PCs?

Not as a home machine, not for a single heartbeat! You know not what you are suggesting. That's as futile as me asking you to get a Mac.

 

[ainwood]

One other point to consider is that the mods do allow the creation & customisation makers to showcase the results of their efforts - giving the GOTM a site-wide appeal (for want of a better term) Do any of them have any thoughts on this?