After reading this discussion, and several other recent posts, I have given this some thought to try and offer my opinions. First I want to say how much I have enjoyed the GOTM series, and how much it has improved my play. This has mostly been during Crackers administration, so I cant really compare it to prior GOTMs. I have also just started the Medal Play series with this season, so I cant compare to the old tournament either.
GOTM vs. Tournament: I like the way it is set up now, I know I rarely have time for more than 1-2 civ games a month, so having a separate tournament that did not include the GOTM would force me to chose one or the other, (and GOTM would win!). That is why I never got involved in Tournament prior to this. I like the designated victory conditions, it has encouraged me to play for new victory types that I hadnt tried yet (i.e. Diplomacy in GOTM24). However, it also detracts from the variety of play styles in GOTM and can lead to some strange results, or having very few good games to compare against if you go for a non-specified victory.
For the tournament, I would like to see more flexibility in the scoring, so a game that is won with a different condition could still be worth some points, maybe increasing the weighting of the Jason score, and reducing the time component. After investing (for me at least) a couple dozen hours in a game, I would like to still be able to submit it even if I cant achieve the desired victory condition. Im not sure of the best answer, but my suggestion would be to keep the tournament games pretty focused on the victory objective (but maybe change the weighting of score to 75% victory date/25% Jason).
The GOTM would still be scored by Jason for pure GOTM purposes, with all of the various medals/etc. I would like to also be able to submit them for the tournament. For tournament scoring, maybe we could just use the Jason score as the victory condition for that game, with all games rated as a proportional score from the top Jason score.
Related to the GOTM/Tournament question is the Scenario/Out-of-the-box issue, at least for me. I enjoy the suprises in the GOTM, and the atmosphere changes to make the game experience more immersive. I also appreciate the efforts made to bring Civ3 and PTW in line (even though I have had PTW for a while). I agree with AlanHs comments here, I think there are many more games available within the goodies that have been created, and we should continue to enjoy them, while minimizing the amount of new features added, until people can catch their breath. Also, ONE simplified, auto-install game pack, that includes all updates so far, would be a big help, and if it could be available on CD, so much the better. I would try to stick with the basic rules of the game, however. New units that replicate old ones with different graphics, or that equalize PTW units, are fine. I like the new resources, also, although that can be confusing for new people. It would be helpful to have a help sheet available for download that would list all the new resources/units and their in-game stats. I know I have seen tables posted, and someone did an excellent sheet for the Mongol units, but one official source, at the GOTM website, would help overcome a lot of confusion. (BTW, while I love the Mongol units, and it was a great game, they might be crossing the line of staying within the rules. Maybe as a once-a-year type thing).
Some of the other ideas, such as Differential Naval Movement or some discussions about changing wonders, I think should be left to specific scenarios, and not GOTM. While I might agree that some of those are more realistic, and improve the strategic thought process, they definitely add to the learning curve for new people, and dont translate back to regular epic games. One of the recurring comments is how much GOTM has improved many peoples playing ability, particularily through the QSC. However, if GOTM has its own set of rules, we are teaching people tactics/etc that dont apply to regular games, and when they go to play a normal game, they have more to unlearn.
The same is true with civ traits and goodie huts. While I understand, and agree with, the unbalancing effect that the Scientific bug or settlers from huts can have, I dont think its a good idea to just remove them from the game. GOTM25 was a good example, where SirPleb was able to take advantage of multiple Scientific AIs and get all three Middle Age techs, an important strategic lesson for many players. The lack of huts can also develop bad habits. Exploration is an important part of the game, and huts are part of that. I do like the example from a recent GOTM, when Cracker gave certain set results to eveyrone based on the 2-3 huts within a certain radius of the start, to limit the random effect. But beyond that, huts ought to be a normal part of the game. In particular, the lack of huts can degrade an Expansionist civ. Admittedly, it allows another element of luck into the game, but no worse than an early Great Leader, or whether the Pyramids are completed by your weak neighbor or on another continent.
Tournament games, on the other hand, should remain as straight out-of-the-box as possible, with the exception of equalizing for PTW when possible.
Classes: I like the concept, although I know it multiplies the amount of work for the staff (more versions to build/test, etc. I think I would prefer to see the classes based on difficulty level, with Open, then conquest one-two below and Predator one-two above. This also automatically adjusts the Firaxis score, so the Jason score should correlate. This (GOTM26-open) is my first experience with the chests, and they are cool, but again it may be teaching bad habits/crutches. At least the difficulty level translates to the normal game.
Conquests: I have had conquests for a couple weeks, and I enjoy the actual Conquest scenarios, but I havent even attempted an epic game until the bugs are fixed. However, based on the changes I see no way to equalize it as Cracker did with PTW. What I would suggest (which may be way off base) are two ideas. First, have a series of Parallel GOTMs, (say the first 6 months), where you design a Conquest game using all standard/PTW civs, identical map, etc. as the real GOTM for that month, and allow players to play it in Conquests, with all conquest rules. Scoring would be calculated and reported seperately, using Jason, but their ranking could be determined off of the top Conquest Jason score. This could provide a great comparison of the changes between the game dynamics without worrying about duplicating all the new civs and units. My second thought would be that after this initial series (maybe 6 months), we would start a GOTM-Conquests division playing through each of the new civs. We could decide at that point whether to just maintain a separate regular Civ/PTW GOTM each month, or by then we might know if it is possible to bring the games closer together. (Of course that is still more work for our new staff!)
Finally, I have to echo the comments about QSC, I certainly hope it can be revived/continued. If nothing else, posting the saves/timelines and allowing other players to do their own comparisons would be beneficial.
I know I went on longer than I intended, I hope at least some of this makes sense.