Can we expect changes?

[Txurce]

I suspect that cracker combined the tournament games with the GOTM as a way to jump-start the tournament while still leaving himself 3.7 hours of sleep per month. There is otherwise no reason to keep the games together - particularly from a tournament perspective. This will allow players to play simple, unmodded games as well as compare specific victory conditions en masse.

Whether the GOTM should then return to its traditional all-victory-types-are-equal approach strikes me as a bit more complicated. I lean toward Kemal and others' view that comparing varying condition approaches to one game is more instructive, as well as more fun. I would vote for GOTMs without a tilt toward one victory condition over another. However, let's keep in mind that domination victories tended to dominate the top of the rankings. This seemed to be the case because this victory condition tends to produce higher scores than the non-military ones. (I also noticed that diplomatic victories tended to score higher than space race ones.) Of course, we could just say that this is the game, and accept that some victory types score higher than others. But as someone who really enjoyed the recent 100k Cultural GOTM, I wonder if there is there a way to adjust the Jason scoring system so that a player like SirPleb, for example, wouldn't frequently conclude that his best chance for a high score would be to go domination or conquest?

 

[Justus II]

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 Cracker’s administration, so I can’t really compare it to prior GOTMs. I have also just started the Medal Play series with this “season”, so I can’t 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 hadn’t 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 can’t achieve the desired victory condition. I’m 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 AlanH’s 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 don’t translate back to “regular” epic games. One of the recurring comments is how much GOTM has improved many people’s playing ability, particularily through the QSC. However, if GOTM has it’s own set of rules, we are teaching people tactics/etc that don’t 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 don’t think it’s 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 AI’s 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 haven’t 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.

 

[zagnut]

Tournament mixed with GOTM: I think they should be separated. Managing the GOTM is complicated and every additional factor added to the game increases the complexity. Let's implement the KISS doctrine - Keep It Simple, Stupid. Let the Tournament Games go back to being a separate concept.

Scenarios/Mods: I agree with rabies that we shouldn't have to use the same mods month after month. The current game requires new players to load game packs from games 21, 24 & 25. That makes it too complicated and discourages new players from participating. Simplify the mods, put them all in one game pack and have non-modded games periodically.

Conquest/Open/Predator:: The original concept was to set up an easier level in order to encourage new players to participate. This is a great idea and we should continue it if possible. Predator should also be made more difficult. More people should lose than win on that level.

Conquest: This is the future of Civ III and we must include it in GOTM. I don't have the game so I don't know what the bugs are. Did Firaxes' recent patch resolve most of the issues? If not, then we should wait until they are resolved.

The common wisdom seems to be that it will not be possible to have a single game that can be played on Conquests and also on 1.29/PTW. If that is the case then why not have 2 separate GOTMs. In keeping with my KISS doctrine, perhaps in alternate months one game can be modded while the other is a stock game. This will reduce the work for the game designers.

Game Results: Every effort should be made to get the results out early. Great strides are being made in this area and soon the results for recent games should be published. However, there is a great deal of frustration with this issue and we should try very hard to get the results published quickly.

 

[Txurce]

Justus II, separating the GOTM from the Tournament wouldn't add more games each month - the Tournament would just run an extra two or three months.

The reason that cracker tended not to include scientific civs wasn't to equalize the luck factor so much as to equalize the version factor - 1.29 almost always gives the same bonuses, while PTW doesn't, resulting in a major advantage to the PTW player.

 

[dojoboy]

Having only submitted 3 games in the current format (2 GOTM and 1 Medal Play), not being remotely near the top players, and a mac player to boot, I may not carry much influence. But, yes the proverbial but, I've got to throw my support in for an additional option. I'll address it later in this post.

But first, concerning modded games v. out-of-the-box games: I personally prefer the mods. Now, this is not to mean changes cannot be made to how the GOTMs and medal play games are generated. They all do not have to be mods, which would at least address the preferences of everyone playing, now and then.

Secondly, I'm for continued support for all versions of the game: , , , and once a method becomes feasible.

In regards to difficulty, emperor level games are plenty for me. When a demigod, deity, and above game pops up, forget it. I'll read the spoilers, but its just not where my mind set is right now. I'm the fella who loves to play monarch and milk the game to the very end so I can enjoy all the techs, units, and wonders. I've gone through the "How quick can I win by domination at regent, monarch, and emperor?" phases. [crushed on deity] And, every now and then I get the bug to obtain a specific goal. Therefore, I would like to see an opportunity for those of us who: would like to play an identical save file, toward a specific or nonspecific goal; are not interested in gripping the seat w/ their buttchecks throughout the game; and would like to compare and contrast approaches to game-play with a larger community.

This may be just nostalgia for me, since its how we did it in the mac community before we were contacted by the outside world. Btw Txurce, glad to see you're with the GOTM staff!

 

[Justus II]

Originally posted by Txurce
Justus II, separating the GOTM from the Tournament wouldn't add more games each month - the Tournament would just run an extra two or three months.

The reason that cracker tended not to include scientific civs wasn't to equalize the luck factor so much as to equalize the version factor - 1.29 almost always gives the same bonuses, while PTW doesn't, resulting in a major advantage to the PTW player.

Maybe I wasn't clear about the luck factor, but that is what I meant, that on PTW 3 scientific civs might yeild 3 different techs, whereas regular civ they would all likely get monotheism. As you say, it is an advantage for PTW because they have better chances to get multiple techs at the beginning of each age by smart trading.

As to the tournament, if they can be seperated without increasing the number of games to be played, I would be all for that. I just know it is tough now trying to play 1-2 games a month, and I still want to eventually get through my Conquests CD too!

 

[Dianthus]

Originally posted by zagnut
Conquest: ....

The common wisdom seems to be that it will not be possible to have a single game that can be played on Conquests and also on 1.29/PTW.

It may not be possible to make them exactly the same, but it should be possible to make a Conquests game that has the same map and AI's as the Civ III/PTW games. The Conquests documentation (I've read it, is that sad or what!) claims that Conquests can read PTW .sav files. There would be differences in the way that Conquests plays relative to Civ III/PTW, but that could make for some interesting spoiler discussions. I don't know if Conquests would give an advantage/disadvantage in going for a high score, but maybe we could try using the existing scoring mechanism for a few months, then try to find a way of equalizing the scores later (if necessary)?

It might well be that the biggest problem with supporting Conquests is the lack of tools for the GOTM staff to look at the games!

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Dianthus
It might well be that the biggest problem with supporting Conquests is the lack of tools for the GOTM staff to look at the games!

Oh, we'll get there I think

 

[Darkness]

Originally posted by Matrix
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.

My opinion exactly!

And like most other I also think it would be a good idea to seperate the GOTM and the tournament again, perhaps along the lines ronald suggested...

 

[CdB]

I like the mod-games and victory conditions because they renew your experience and you avoid replaying the same style of game.

Before GOTM / Tournament I never attempted Cultural Victory / Diplomatic / Commercial (that one was a nice invention) ...

I also think that you always need some limited modding just to even the luck factor for huts ...

But as said by Alan, I think it is not needed to alsways add 5 M for each GOTM and we have a good base for future games at this point of time.

 

[tao]

I enjoyed the last year of gotms (the Macintosh compatible ones) very much. Big thanks to cracker for including us!

Why do I play gotms and not just games on my own?

For me (started Civ just 15 month ago) it was a great help to improve my gameplay by reading the spoilers and comparing my game with the other ones.

I consider this even more valuable than the competitive kick I get from competing for good results. This is present no doubt, but RL often gets precedence over sophisticated gameplay.

Regarding game skill improvement, I also like the idea of target victory conditions in the medal play series, because it focussed me on approaches never done before.

Obviously, I'm very much in favour of the mods making Macintosh Civ compatible to PC Civ. The fog, volcano, mediterranean resources added a nice touch, but IMHO are not essential for the gaming experience. Same is true for the added Civs and units: very nice, but not essential.

If it is possible to have them without unduly complicating game setup and without causing significant hassles switching between gotm/medal play and plain games: fine. I would not advocate to add more gotm-specific mods. OTOH having fog and volcanoes now and then would be nice. So would be games which can really be finished fast, e.g. tiny/small maps or games starting as a scenario with a limited target to achieve, eg. start Rome already developed till 100bc and kill Carthage.

To sum it up: do some changes to the game selection, but don't introduce a lot of new features/mods.

 

[TedJackson]

One of the biggest problems with GotM, for me, is the time factor. I know I'm not alone in this and without a retirement option the GotM is less appealing than it ought to be.

This little chart gives a basic idea of the problem. If I religiously play 10 turns a day, every day, then if I can't achieve a victory before 1550AD I'm sunk

Not a problem for warmongers I know but if you're trying to reach a Spaceship or Diplomatic victory then a late war will cripple your chances of submitting

I realise that sessions are rarely exactly a set number of turns and that what's going on in the game will affect the speed of play and the number of turns you can actually play in a session. I built this model assuming the fast and slow play periods of the game would even out over the course of a whole game.

So I would like to suggest extending the deadline for submissions. Perhaps to the middle of the following month allowing around 45 days for play or even the end of the following month allowing around sixty days.

This would allow us slowcoaches to play and submit every other game. Which is a hell of a lot better than none.

I know this would delay the results but after the first few months I think people would become accustomed to the new schedule.

Thoughts and comments welcome (as usual)


Ted

 

[Matrix]

Originally posted by 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?

I did. It's very nice for the makers, but I don't think the GOTM is the right tool for this. For some you sacrifice the GOTM with this.

Another consideration: while only some like to try out mods and play with them, actually everyone likes to play a normal game.

Look, a lot can be done with Civ3. But the basis is a normal game, and a normal game is also most balanced. When you talk about strategies, what one does wrong or why someone got the highest score, these discussions are 20x more interesting than when playing with mods, because you're talking about the game itself. And you're never finished talking about them, since every game is different!

Remember when Cartouche Bee ruled the GOTM? He often won because of an yet unknown exploit. Then we talked about that and usually said it spoils the game (because it became the one way of winning the game) and made it forbidden after that GOTM. But then he found another one and so on and so forth. "Those were the days" someone said to me once. I really miss these discussion. But not only these discussions, the spoiler talks are simply less fun.

 

[Ambiorix]

With all respect to Matrix and co., but I don't think the departure of Cracker is by itself reason enough to reverse the whole process that was put in place. All the topics in this thread have been discussed before : about combining Gotm with the Tournament or not, about adding mods or not, about supporting different versions or not - you can easily find back the related threads.
With or without Cracker, the reasons why the changes were made are still valid. Of course the staff can deicde to alter the vision, the targets, the ways of providing the GOTM now, but I don't think it's necessary and if they do, I hope it will be based on the arguments that were used before, not just on personal preferences - after all, you can't do right for everyone all the time anyway.

In the mean time, the REAL message of Cracker's retirement (or what I think is the real message) goes unnoticed : the fact that the GOTM plus its administration takes up too much time to be able to support it over a longer period of time. Personally I stopped playing Civ altogether due to lack of time. I also notice that Spiderzord's scoring tool is long overdue, that scoring results come out late, that statistics and QSC-overview maps are dropped... Mind you - I'm not criticising anyone, how could I - it's all for free and unrewarded ! I just notice that it all takes up too much time from RL. I think THAT is the real problem that the GOTM-staff needs to tackle. Maybe by extending schedules (2 months for a Gotm, 6 per year, alternating with a tourny-game or so), or by shortening games (e.g. starting a scenario in 1500 or so - whatever). Hmm - perhaps this should go in a separate thread ?

 

[Hammurodi]

Hi,

I'm rather new to the GOTM and tournaments but they were easily the most enjoyable games I've played in Civ in a long time. They were subtly modded: fog/squid to allow for seemingly larger oceans while keeping maps reasonably sized, extra luxury resources to allow increased trading, extra terrain resources that simulate the long overdue irrigation of hill/mountain by placing goats on them, very flavorful eastern style units (even if they are "just" a rename/ alternate graphic for an existing one they gave the thing a different flavor), even unique units which are very civ/scenario specific, each mod I've seen so far was done to achieve a specific purpose that enhanced gameplay and set additional challenges. It also set these games apart and a big notch above the usual random games.

The gotm should retain the modding (and if you consider how much work something like the mediterranean or asian modpack is, reuse a few times to make it worth the effort!). It can also serve as an excellent testing ground for various approaches to overcome in-game problems like the naval movement.

I hear the complaints about download size but don't agree. If I am willing to play many hours (>40 for the mongols in my case) I should be willing to invest a few minutes to get the setup packs. That we can download the needed packs incrementally already helps.

The victory condition should be an integral part of the scenario. The mongols HAD to play domination/conquest, other scenarios might be focussed on different challenges, and the victory condition is important. These games have also forced me to use different approaches based on VC, a medieval conquest would just not occur in my random builder games.

The conquests pack is a different story. I have not got it, and from what I read in the reviews/discussions I am very sceptical wether the changes introduced to the basic game will be adding to my fun. But even then, with C3C it will be unavoidable to have players in different versions on very different footings. Easy out: keep GOTM at the Civ3/PTW level, they are included in conquests, and if you want to play a game with C3C rules you can start your own random one, perhaps as a succession game if you want to compare how you did with others.

My suggestions on how to improve the gotm would be to limit mapsize to standard, and also occasionally throw in smaller maps. Specific challenges can still be incorporated and indeed be much more of a focus, and players with busy lives/slower machines still have a chance to finish without risking their marriages Sometimes the overall difficulty level could be much lower, but then the map might be stacked against us, desert or jungle island start, sparsity or monopoly on specific resources - give us weaker players a chance to attempt predator with a reasonable chance at having fun. Having said that, monarch (i.e. conquest) is rather appropriate for me...

Admin time is crucial and valuable - I really don't envy you guys your job and you do it well. But to keep the gotm alive the feedback needs to be in place. Spoiler threads for gotm and tournament games, reasonably timed final results, etc. are as vital as getting the next great game ready.

Enough ramble for one posting...

Cheers,
Hammurodi

 

[rabies]

Time is a factor for me to, and I would certainly welcome a 45 or 60 day gotm period. Trying to squeeze a game into a month has been a real problem for me.

Plus, imo, less mods in a given GOTM would mean less time spent developing/playtesting the map and more time for the admins to perform other administrative tasks.

This is a really good thread. I hope some good comes out of it.

 

[Moonsinger]

Also don't forget to address this player question:

"Is GOTM's “Pantheon of Heroes” a Secret Society?!" by Eman

 

[Svar]

Originally posted by Dianthus

The Conquests documentation (I've read it, is that sad or what!) claims that Conquests can read PTW .sav files.

I can confirm that C3C will load vanilla Civ 3 or PTW save files. I used a PTW test save to verify that the RCP and FP/Palace bugs were changed. I would say fixed but they are now worse because building the FP will raise significantly the corruption around your palace.

 

[AdrianE]

I absolutely love the modded GOTM. It is a fabulous improvement over the basic game. The minor civs, new units and civilizations are great. The modified naval movement is another great change. The "commercial victory" was another interesting idea. The variety given by modding is great. If I wanted a non-modded game I could just create one myself.

I honestly don't see how to have C3C and PTW/CIV1.29 equivalent games in a GOTM. The AI has been upgraded (ie use artillery effectively) in C3C so there is no way for them to compare. I am firmly in the keep GOTM widely available camp.

I really like the idea of deleting resources for predator players. For example, in GOTM 25, the wheat just north of the start could have been deleted or some flood plains could have been converted to plains.

As stated by others the ONLY way to a high score is to expand to the domination limit and then win by the chosen method. This leads to predictable gameplay. There are no grand strategic choices. This is the only serious weakness to the current GOTM IMO. However this is fairly simple to solve ... add bonus points for culture and technology. This would make builder/trader grand strategies viable. Besides in a domination/conquest game there comes a point where victory is inevitable for the human player. Its just a mechanical exercise after that with the only variable being how fast it comes.

The games do take a very long time to play. I missed the GOTM 25 submit time. I just can't afford to put the time in to play to finish in a month. However since the end game is usually the boring mechanical exercise, I don't miss much. I still enjoy playing.

With regard to mixing the tournament/GOTM ... I think its fine. Realistically there is only so much time the team can devote to creating such interesting games and if they choose to use the games for dual purposes that's fine.

 

[Green Light]

Plain Out-of-the-box games are boring and quite predictable, i myself dont play them anymore. GotM games are much more interesting.

GotM is excellent in its current form , i hope the Moderators will not backtrack us to stone age by forcing us to play "standard" 0% unmodified games.

After a while it gets boring to do the same old "Beeline to Mil.Trad. - kill everyone with Cavs" Its really refeshing to play with some new units and strategies from time to time.

Not that i would suggest that every game should be modified as heavily as the Mongol one, but hey, even in the Mongol game people had the chanse to use normal UU too, if they wanted.