Can we expect changes?
- Thread starter Matrix
- Start date
samildanach
Necrophile
Agreed Txurce including discussions from reloaders would in all probability devalue the legitimate games and also possibly lead to confusing threads. But I see a pretty clear advantage, apart from the reasons I gave earlier, to introducing some sort of system for reloading to become admissable. That reason being is that the vast majority of civ players are reloaders - most of them have trouble winning on Regent without recourse to reload. I have recommended the GOTM to players I know in RL - they have downloaded the game- played it but have trouble with the discipline of the honour system which precludes them from submitting and contributing in any meaningful way to the site. What I am suggesting is that we could use a reload option to lure alot of players into the GOTM where they can be developed into better players and have fun comparing games before they try and step up to the GOTM proper.
A strategy article award is an excellent idea Ainwood. I think the person who won shoud be given the title "Strategos" for the month
I think it should be awarded to players who give detailed descriptions of scenarios within the game - not for the pre-game discussion. And should include why they targetted a particular objective, how they prepared to achieve it, how they executed it and any particularly cute things they did along the way.
A strategy article award is an excellent idea Ainwood. I think the person who won shoud be given the title "Strategos" for the month
I think it should be awarded to players who give detailed descriptions of scenarios within the game - not for the pre-game discussion. And should include why they targetted a particular objective, how they prepared to achieve it, how they executed it and any particularly cute things they did along the way.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,085
Just as another point: I am not at all keen on having any sort of reloaders contest.
I am a firm believer that in the long-run, reloading doesn't actually benefit the player in a game. All it really does is encourage sloppiness - no need to think about your moves: you can just reload the bad ones.
I am a firm believer that in the long-run, reloading doesn't actually benefit the player in a game. All it really does is encourage sloppiness - no need to think about your moves: you can just reload the bad ones.
samildanach
Necrophile
Yes you are probably right Ainwood. Reloading to replay bad turns wouldn't encourage player development in a positive way.
But what we have here is a forum dedicated to a strategy game where there is very little strategy discussion. The only reasons to submit a game is if you think you have played a good game and to beat your chest about it. I don't really see the point of playing a game for 30 + hours to teach myself a lesson about sloppy play and then write a report about it.
Anyway suggesting reloading was a bad idea. What about extending the QSC to cover a longer time frame say up to around 500 BC which will include most players early wars and therefore provide a framework for more strategic discussions as well as micromanagement discussions.
But what we have here is a forum dedicated to a strategy game where there is very little strategy discussion. The only reasons to submit a game is if you think you have played a good game and to beat your chest about it. I don't really see the point of playing a game for 30 + hours to teach myself a lesson about sloppy play and then write a report about it.
Anyway suggesting reloading was a bad idea. What about extending the QSC to cover a longer time frame say up to around 500 BC which will include most players early wars and therefore provide a framework for more strategic discussions as well as micromanagement discussions.
DaviddesJ
Deity
With this attitude, it's no wonder that you're not enjoying the GOTM.
samildanach
Necrophile
The spoiler threads at the moment are nothing more than a glorified results boards - what purpose do they serve other than to contain the monuments to players games? What purpose do you think they have in your opinion DDJ?
Sandman2003
Prince
samildanach,
In my view, SirPleb shared a lot of information in GOTM 25 spolier 1 that went a lot further than merely being a monument to his game. It certainly was of value to me!
In my view, SirPleb shared a lot of information in GOTM 25 spolier 1 that went a lot further than merely being a monument to his game. It certainly was of value to me!
DaviddesJ
Deity
I haven't played the last few GOTMs; perhaps there has been a huge change? In the recent past, GOTM threads contained timelines and descriptions by many players of what happened in their different games. The most important effect is a sense of community: it's not just me alone in my room playing my game, I'm sharing an experience with lots of other players. The second effect is that I can learn from, and appreciate, the different choices that people made, or the random variations between games.
The "results" are pretty irrelevant to me, except to the extent that they do tend to illustrate how certain strategies and approaches to the game work consistently better than others.
It sounds like one thing that you want is for players to not just say what they did (e.g., "I did a palace jump to X", or, "I disconnected my saltpeter and iron to build horsemen for a mass upgrade to cavalry") but you want them to say more about "why". Personally, I don't see a strong need for this. It's pretty obvious "why" one would build horsemen and upgrade them to cavalry, rather than building cavalry directly. If I couldn't figure it out, I would just think about it for a while, and perhaps try it in some of my own games.
Indeed, I think there is, if anything, "too much" strategy information about Civ3 out there. I've not played recent GOTMs partly because I feel I know too much about how to beat the game, it's too easy to do consistently by exploiting certain strategies. If I play future GOTMs, I expect I'll only do so while specifically avoiding certain key strategies (like resource disconnects) that for me take some of the fun out of the game. It doesn't particularly bother me that this won't put me at the top of the "results boards".
RowAndLive
RAMMING SPEED!
Separating them would be fine, as they draw different bodies of players. I personally like the GOTM features / add-ons, and especially value the QSC as I can not devote the time to completing a game, nor then going through all of those save files.
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?
I like the scenarios. I can play a random map on my own at any time. This way, the challenges are designed-in and you can then learn more from a review of different methods of handling. I think optional mod-packs would detract, as you'd then have apples and oranges.
And what about conquests? ... once the corruption problems are patched.
Due to the differences, I'd say skip C3C. It's different enough mods Mac, vanilla & PTW to have too then worry about the mechanics being different, different tech trees, etc... We should continue to support Macs, as cutting off addictions cold turkey can be devestating! Beware of patches!
Nad
Known Troublemaker
Hello people!
I haven't played a GOTM before but now, following the leaving of cracker, I would be interested in playing some GOTM games.
Moderator Action: Nad - watch how you refer to mods; past & present. Ainwood
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
As I understand, this thread is about feedback and discussion to improving the way the game is played, so this is my 2 cents worth of opinion. I don't know if this will be of any use, since it is an outsider's perspective, but then again, maybe that is what you are looking for if you are trying to encourage more people to play?
1) A foray into GOTM is too intimidating!! The first thing I notice as I enter this forum is that there are about 15 sticky threads, each very similar to the other but slightly different, each having its own role. I haven't even begun to read all the GOTM rules, but there seem to be tons of them about what is or is not acceptable. This is too much
Some streamlining is a must. Maybe if you are a veteran of GOTM you understand exactly what each thread is for, but this is not the case for a casual or newbie player!
As far as I can tell, most of the threads seem to be concerned with spoilers...how many do we need? Surely there could be a simple system to use to deal with spoilers, along the lines of:
a) No spoilers whatsoever until the game closes
b) Spoilers allowed
c) Spoilers allowed only if you have completed and submitted the game or you do not intend to submit.
[I would favour (a) or (c)]
2) You should not have to download any extras apart from the save file to play. The more you mod, the less the game is "comparable", since you are no longer playing Civ 3 but a modpack. It is also extremely fiddly and annoying to have all these extras to add to your files each month. I would be much more inclined to play if I could simply pick up the save file, load and play, instead of having to install x, y and z, read such-and-such instructions etc.
3) This may be the hardest of the lot to implement, but I think the "ethos" of GOTM needs to shift. As far as I can tell GOTM seems to be about getting the highest score possible rather than having the most fun possible. This, in turn, leads to a whole raft of associated problems, such as possible cheating, reloads, milking, having to have extensive validation checks to vet save files etc. This, to me, is not what such a tournament should be about.
Perhaps people forget that when they play, they are competing against the AIs, not against other human players that are playing the save game!!
This may sound drastic, but I would suggest abandoning the scoring system altogether! Do we really need some sort of ranking league table to determine who the "best" player is? Or are we all playing our own game for our own enjoyment, and then seeing how other community members fared with the same challenges?
4) To iterate, the above is my own humble opinion. I like to play Civ 3 for fun. I like difficult games and variant games and I like to play hard but play fair. At the moment, GOTM is not suited to those criteria. The suggestions I make I think would make GOTM more attractive to casual players, who enjoy overcoming a challenge themselves and then reading about how others fared, and seeing what the possible solutions to a given dilemma were. Thus, for people like me score is unimportant, irrelevant even, it is the shared experience that matters, and that is why i propose a liberalization of the current rules that shackle GOTM.
Regards
Moderator Action: You are develping a history of flaming, which you shall find less well regarded in the game forums then in the OT, Lefty
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I haven't played a GOTM before but now, following the leaving of cracker, I would be interested in playing some GOTM games.
Moderator Action: Nad - watch how you refer to mods; past & present. Ainwood
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
As I understand, this thread is about feedback and discussion to improving the way the game is played, so this is my 2 cents worth of opinion. I don't know if this will be of any use, since it is an outsider's perspective, but then again, maybe that is what you are looking for if you are trying to encourage more people to play?
1) A foray into GOTM is too intimidating!! The first thing I notice as I enter this forum is that there are about 15 sticky threads, each very similar to the other but slightly different, each having its own role. I haven't even begun to read all the GOTM rules, but there seem to be tons of them about what is or is not acceptable. This is too much
Some streamlining is a must. Maybe if you are a veteran of GOTM you understand exactly what each thread is for, but this is not the case for a casual or newbie player!As far as I can tell, most of the threads seem to be concerned with spoilers...how many do we need? Surely there could be a simple system to use to deal with spoilers, along the lines of:
a) No spoilers whatsoever until the game closes
b) Spoilers allowed
c) Spoilers allowed only if you have completed and submitted the game or you do not intend to submit.
[I would favour (a) or (c)]
2) You should not have to download any extras apart from the save file to play. The more you mod, the less the game is "comparable", since you are no longer playing Civ 3 but a modpack. It is also extremely fiddly and annoying to have all these extras to add to your files each month. I would be much more inclined to play if I could simply pick up the save file, load and play, instead of having to install x, y and z, read such-and-such instructions etc.
3) This may be the hardest of the lot to implement, but I think the "ethos" of GOTM needs to shift. As far as I can tell GOTM seems to be about getting the highest score possible rather than having the most fun possible. This, in turn, leads to a whole raft of associated problems, such as possible cheating, reloads, milking, having to have extensive validation checks to vet save files etc. This, to me, is not what such a tournament should be about.
Perhaps people forget that when they play, they are competing against the AIs, not against other human players that are playing the save game!!
This may sound drastic, but I would suggest abandoning the scoring system altogether! Do we really need some sort of ranking league table to determine who the "best" player is? Or are we all playing our own game for our own enjoyment, and then seeing how other community members fared with the same challenges?
4) To iterate, the above is my own humble opinion. I like to play Civ 3 for fun. I like difficult games and variant games and I like to play hard but play fair. At the moment, GOTM is not suited to those criteria. The suggestions I make I think would make GOTM more attractive to casual players, who enjoy overcoming a challenge themselves and then reading about how others fared, and seeing what the possible solutions to a given dilemma were. Thus, for people like me score is unimportant, irrelevant even, it is the shared experience that matters, and that is why i propose a liberalization of the current rules that shackle GOTM.
Regards
Moderator Action: You are develping a history of flaming, which you shall find less well regarded in the game forums then in the OT, Lefty
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Txurce
Deity
Nad, by introducing yourself as someone who ignores forum rules about insulting moderators, you did an excellent job of explaining why the GOTM community may not be for you. I was less clear, however, about the following points:
There is usually one spoiler thread for each era. Its purpose is in line with the purpose of the GOTM as a whole - to provide an entertaining gaming experience, along with a comparative educational one. The spoilers - particularly the QSC - are instrumental in improving the quality of the games of many of our players, starting with me.
You may prefer to play a game without mods, but the modded GOTM game is - by definition - as comparable to its participants as any other communal game. Beyond that, there is a good case to be made for the mods being the only available way for players of PTW and Civ 1.29 to play nearly identical games.
As far as I can tell, the GOTM is getting the highest score possible, while having fun and learning how to score even higher, through the use of the spoiler system. If you had spent any time reading the threads here, you would have seen that virtually all GOTM players compete against themselves - and are aided in that competition by the posts of their fellow players. This seems to jibe perfectly with your preference for games played for their own enjoyment... unless, of course, you've hacked your own game to eliminate scores altogether.
The GOTM can be difficult, is certainly variant, requires playing hard to do well, and is more fair than any other comparative gaming experience in the Civ world. After reading your post, my only guess as to why you think it isn't is that (as you note) entry into the GOTM "feels" intimidating, and this throws you for a permanent loop. We intend to streamline the entry process, in an effort to make it less so. However, I think you can rest assured that the GOTM will continue to be a comparative gaming experience, with ranking tables by which players can measure their own improvement in a quantifiable manner. Again, if you had taken the time to read some of the threads of the community which you're considering joining, you would have seen that there are just too many players who enjoy these very aspects to seriously consider changing them.
There is usually one spoiler thread for each era. Its purpose is in line with the purpose of the GOTM as a whole - to provide an entertaining gaming experience, along with a comparative educational one. The spoilers - particularly the QSC - are instrumental in improving the quality of the games of many of our players, starting with me.
You may prefer to play a game without mods, but the modded GOTM game is - by definition - as comparable to its participants as any other communal game. Beyond that, there is a good case to be made for the mods being the only available way for players of PTW and Civ 1.29 to play nearly identical games.
As far as I can tell, the GOTM is getting the highest score possible, while having fun and learning how to score even higher, through the use of the spoiler system. If you had spent any time reading the threads here, you would have seen that virtually all GOTM players compete against themselves - and are aided in that competition by the posts of their fellow players. This seems to jibe perfectly with your preference for games played for their own enjoyment... unless, of course, you've hacked your own game to eliminate scores altogether.
The GOTM can be difficult, is certainly variant, requires playing hard to do well, and is more fair than any other comparative gaming experience in the Civ world. After reading your post, my only guess as to why you think it isn't is that (as you note) entry into the GOTM "feels" intimidating, and this throws you for a permanent loop. We intend to streamline the entry process, in an effort to make it less so. However, I think you can rest assured that the GOTM will continue to be a comparative gaming experience, with ranking tables by which players can measure their own improvement in a quantifiable manner. Again, if you had taken the time to read some of the threads of the community which you're considering joining, you would have seen that there are just too many players who enjoy these very aspects to seriously consider changing them.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Wow. If that's how GotM staff "welcome" newbies I really can't see myself wanting to play GotM, ever. 
Is there any chance the staff could be a little more understanding of others viewpoints? I am watching this thread with interest, and I really want to join in the GotM, but if all staff are now required to be this hostile I most defintely won't.
Saying you don't like mods is one of the things this thread is for, as is saying you think the forum is too complex! Why are you jumping down someone's throat for suggesting something in the SUGGESTIONS thread!?!?!!
Moderator Action: You already Know better than than posting comment on moderator action, Annares, having had your own experiences on the subject. Lefty
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Is there any chance the staff could be a little more understanding of others viewpoints? I am watching this thread with interest, and I really want to join in the GotM, but if all staff are now required to be this hostile I most defintely won't.
Saying you don't like mods is one of the things this thread is for, as is saying you think the forum is too complex! Why are you jumping down someone's throat for suggesting something in the SUGGESTIONS thread!?!?!!
Moderator Action: You already Know better than than posting comment on moderator action, Annares, having had your own experiences on the subject. Lefty
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Well, Anarres, it really doesn't help if someone starts his/her post by insulting a staff member. But the points raised are answered, choises explained. It *is* a discussion and arguments are welcome, but if you start trowing around insults, don't be surprised if the tone is less friendly than it could be.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
The discussion about mods is a valid one. I personally like modded games, but I feel for a tournament like GotM it should be an occasional thing, not the norm. Saying that using mods is the only way to compare PTW and Civ3 games is sidestepping the issue that GotM games have become heavily modded (well above the 'required' modding to compare games). I for one would welcome a change back to the 'old days', as would many in this thread.
The only real thing that puts me off at the moment is the plethera of mods you have to download and install to get it up and running, and all the new things you have to learn about to play the game well.
The only real thing that puts me off at the moment is the plethera of mods you have to download and install to get it up and running, and all the new things you have to learn about to play the game well.
I agree, and we want the GOTM to be inviting to all players. For some the mods are the *reason* they play the GOTM.
Believe me, we are aware of the intimidating effect of the downloads and we will do our utmost to have as many people involved in the GOTM as possible, but it's hard to accomodate everyone.
Believe me, we are aware of the intimidating effect of the downloads and we will do our utmost to have as many people involved in the GOTM as possible, but it's hard to accomodate everyone.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
I would think having a mix of 'vanilla' games (with Civ3->modding as minimum) and 'mod' games (with lots of modding) would satisfy those who like to play mods and those who don't.
I also think an 'informal' scoring appraoach would work where people can opt out of the scoring mechanism and just play the games and post in the spoilers (which I believe is currently disallowed or at least 'frowned' upon). This would allow people to play by 'honorable' rules (or any rules they decide on) without feeling they were being 'punished' in the rankings.
These are two changes that would be more inculsive, not less.
Personally, it's just the level of modding (in the game
) for me - it's simply too much for me to want to 'drop in' one month and play a game. I can't play every month, but occasionally I may want to pick up a GotM and have a go. I am much less likely to do this if I have to spend several hours familiarising myself with the new ruleset and the downloads. One helpful step would be to have just 1 download for the month in addition to the .sav, which would contain all the required mod files. Another helpful step would be not to make mods cumlative as this benifits those who have played the mods before compared to those who are new.
Edit: I have to admit that it was a while since I last checked the GotM downloads/moding levels. I am very happy to be proved wrong by the last couple of months GotM's.
I also think an 'informal' scoring appraoach would work where people can opt out of the scoring mechanism and just play the games and post in the spoilers (which I believe is currently disallowed or at least 'frowned' upon). This would allow people to play by 'honorable' rules (or any rules they decide on) without feeling they were being 'punished' in the rankings.
These are two changes that would be more inculsive, not less.
Personally, it's just the level of modding (in the game
) for me - it's simply too much for me to want to 'drop in' one month and play a game. I can't play every month, but occasionally I may want to pick up a GotM and have a go. I am much less likely to do this if I have to spend several hours familiarising myself with the new ruleset and the downloads. One helpful step would be to have just 1 download for the month in addition to the .sav, which would contain all the required mod files. Another helpful step would be not to make mods cumlative as this benifits those who have played the mods before compared to those who are new.Edit: I have to admit that it was a while since I last checked the GotM downloads/moding levels. I am very happy to be proved wrong by the last couple of months GotM's.
Grotius
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 409
I've never participated in the GOTM, but I'd like to give it a whirl. Now that I have Conquests, though, I can't really see going back to PTW or vanilla Civ 3. Bugs and all, Conquests is still neat.
At the same time, I understand that the GOTM administrators want to appeal to the widest possible audience, so I'm all for maintaining support for vanilla Civ 3. I suspect, though, that there are a lot of people like me -- anxious to play with their new Conquests toy, and anxious to compare their results with others. And I'm doubtful that C3C games can be compared fairly with Vanilla Civ games.
I guess I'd lean toward a separate GOTM for Conquests. The Conquests themselves give us nine interesting scenarios to work with. I'd sure like to see how others play the Pacific War scenario. But if it's administratively too burdensome to run two GOTMs, I'll certainly understand.
At the same time, I understand that the GOTM administrators want to appeal to the widest possible audience, so I'm all for maintaining support for vanilla Civ 3. I suspect, though, that there are a lot of people like me -- anxious to play with their new Conquests toy, and anxious to compare their results with others. And I'm doubtful that C3C games can be compared fairly with Vanilla Civ games.
I guess I'd lean toward a separate GOTM for Conquests. The Conquests themselves give us nine interesting scenarios to work with. I'd sure like to see how others play the Pacific War scenario. But if it's administratively too burdensome to run two GOTMs, I'll certainly understand.
Nad
Known Troublemaker
Hey, I was referring to the capture of Saddam Hussein . Now that Iraq is in peace it means I can start more civving...
About spoilers: I can understand having a quick start type of game specifically geared towards the early turns but why do we need threads for each era? Once you're into the game, if you want to play fair surely you should avoid all spoilers until you finish? Even though you may have completed an era you can still gain extra knowledge by looking at spoilers for that era. I think this half-hearted compromise skirts the central issue...should players be allowed any sort of spoiler knowledge? If you think the answer is yes then you can allow spoiler threads. If (as I suspect) the answer is no, then you should ban all spoiler threads or have a spoiler thread where people are allowed only after playing and submitting their games...of course, this would rely on players being honest and not looking at such a thread until they have finished, but that's a separate issue and even at the moment, you still rely on honesty.
Annares' point about the competeitive element is very important, I think. If you are prepared to have different difficulty classes why not also have two categories of submissions?...competitive, for those who want to go for high scores and be measured in a league table format, and friendly, for people (like me) who just want to play for fun and then see how friends and others got along.
To answer Txurce's point about modded games being comparable...yes, they are still relatively comparable (to each other) but they're not absolutely comparable, because they do not relate to other games of Civ 3. If you want to make the point about people improving their gameplay, using the modded rules and maps is not an accurate indicator since that is not the same as a real game of Civ 3. Elements in the modded game may not exist in the original game, and vice versa.
As far as Conquests/vanilla/PTW are concerned, I'd quite happily play on any of the formats, PTW 1.27 being favoured until conquests is fixed properly. I understand about the difficulties this poses in that choosing one format may exclude players that do not have that format, I don't know the solution to that except to have a transition period and give notice about when GOTM will move onto Conquests, and maybe have alternate games available for people who do not have Conquests.
. Now that Iraq is in peace it means I can start more civving...About spoilers: I can understand having a quick start type of game specifically geared towards the early turns but why do we need threads for each era? Once you're into the game, if you want to play fair surely you should avoid all spoilers until you finish? Even though you may have completed an era you can still gain extra knowledge by looking at spoilers for that era. I think this half-hearted compromise skirts the central issue...should players be allowed any sort of spoiler knowledge? If you think the answer is yes then you can allow spoiler threads. If (as I suspect) the answer is no, then you should ban all spoiler threads or have a spoiler thread where people are allowed only after playing and submitting their games...of course, this would rely on players being honest and not looking at such a thread until they have finished, but that's a separate issue and even at the moment, you still rely on honesty.
Annares' point about the competeitive element is very important, I think. If you are prepared to have different difficulty classes why not also have two categories of submissions?...competitive, for those who want to go for high scores and be measured in a league table format, and friendly, for people (like me) who just want to play for fun and then see how friends and others got along.
To answer Txurce's point about modded games being comparable...yes, they are still relatively comparable (to each other) but they're not absolutely comparable, because they do not relate to other games of Civ 3. If you want to make the point about people improving their gameplay, using the modded rules and maps is not an accurate indicator since that is not the same as a real game of Civ 3. Elements in the modded game may not exist in the original game, and vice versa.
As far as Conquests/vanilla/PTW are concerned, I'd quite happily play on any of the formats, PTW 1.27 being favoured until conquests is fixed properly. I understand about the difficulties this poses in that choosing one format may exclude players that do not have that format, I don't know the solution to that except to have a transition period and give notice about when GOTM will move onto Conquests, and maybe have alternate games available for people who do not have Conquests.
DaviddesJ
Deity
You can already play for fun, submit your game (or not, as you choose), and see how friends and others got along. What in the present system keeps you from doing that? Changing or eliminating the scoring won't make it any easier for you to play "for fun", since there's no effort on your part associated with computing the score.
I would be glad if there were more people who played the GOTM without particular regard to their scores, and discussed their experiences however they choose. But nothing the mods can do will make that happen. People just have to choose to do it.
Qitai
.
(1) Is three Spoiler compared to one spoiler really that difficult to read? I guess if you are trying to track one person's game, it maybe. A number of posters do link up their later age post so you can reference easily. So, that should solve this problem. Other than this, I can't really see what is the big deal about having three spoilers compared to one. I do agree, however, that there is too many sticky threads there. A number could be consolidated and/or move to the GOTM official webpage.
(2) Scoring. My feeling is that the motivation to play a common game here is sharing and comparing games. It is thus, unavoidable that a yardstick needs to be establish to determine which game is better played. So, scoring is inevitable. Taking away the jason scoring would just means people will start comparing the build-in scoring again and that means milking. As for annares impression that playing just for fun disregarding scoring is frown upon, where did you get that impression? DaveMcW does not seems to be affected. Neither does Bamspeedy. Each has played OCC and such in the GOTM and I did not hear any complains about that. As for myself, I just gave myself a challenge for the current GOTM by doing nothing until 10AD. My scores are probably screwed by doing this, but I am not disturb by that.
(2) Scoring. My feeling is that the motivation to play a common game here is sharing and comparing games. It is thus, unavoidable that a yardstick needs to be establish to determine which game is better played. So, scoring is inevitable. Taking away the jason scoring would just means people will start comparing the build-in scoring again and that means milking. As for annares impression that playing just for fun disregarding scoring is frown upon, where did you get that impression? DaveMcW does not seems to be affected. Neither does Bamspeedy. Each has played OCC and such in the GOTM and I did not hear any complains about that. As for myself, I just gave myself a challenge for the current GOTM by doing nothing until 10AD. My scores are probably screwed by doing this, but I am not disturb by that.
Similar threads
