Community Input on Peace and Diplomacy

[DaveShack]

As a relative newcomer to both Civ and GOTM, I certainly agree that looking at some of the scores makes me feel quite stupid. My two complete games were both losses, via space race in gotm17, and by getting conquered in gotm18 after something like 5 of the AIs ganged up on me.

My training games for this month were my first at Emporer level, and they weren't much better, even with random start locations and generating a new game whenever a hopeless position came up. I appear to have incredibly bad luck, at least compared to how some people talk, as my hut pops tend to be about 70% "angry warrior", when I find any huts at all...

I'm not so much of a competitor that placing above #100 will chase me away, but I would like to suggest something to help encourage newcomers and those of us who are not quite ready for Deity.

How about some way to recognize all who beat their personal best in either the QSC or GOTM score? Assuming that the scores are normalized to account for the different map conditions, this would give a way to reward people who consistently improve.

Another idea would be to have divisions, maybe the top 25% historical players and everyone else, and give a set of medals to the winners of each division. I know that sounds like the tournament and GOTM is meant to be different, but it would address some of the comments in this thread.

 

[Ambiorix]

@Foklens : I'd like to make a comparison with chess. A lot of people play chess (well, maybe not) but hardly anyone can compare to Kasparov. Still, that doesn't stop them from playing. Most people play in a league with their peers, but occasionally there are what they call 'open tournaments' where all players play in one big tournament. Sounds like the league system is similar to the tournament, while the 'open tournament' is more like the GOTM.

 

[Sirp]

I've never played in a GOTM, although I'm looking at playing in #19, I have started, and hopefully I'll finish. I started playing 17, but didn't get time to finish it. I may or may not play further games after GOTM 19, depending on my experience, and time commitments, enthusiasm etc etc, in the future.

I think that my biggest reservation is that the environment appears far too competitive. Each and every player gets ranked against other players.

Worse, the ranking system used is subjective. There is only one way to say that one player played a 'better' game than another: if one player wins and the other player loses. Anything beyond that is subjective. Sure, the rating system used is the rating system that shipped with the game: the Civilization III scoring system, but that has been proven to be a very poor determiner of who has a 'better' civilization, so much so that it has been partially dropped in favor of the Jason scoring system.

This 'QSC' system is good in so far as to compare opening styles, however when it ends up with you being 'told from on high' that your opening to the game is 'better' or 'worse' than someone else's, according to some subjective measurement, then I think that goes too far. I am yet to decide whether I will submit a QSC for GOTM 19, but the idea of someone coming and telling me that my opening to the game is 'worse' than someone else's turns me off. What I would much prefer is a thread to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different strategies that players used, with each player making up their own mind about who they think used the best strategies, and who is poised in the best situation.

Having to be ranked against other players, and the ranking being subjective, is difficult for any newcomer to overcome. There is also a worse problem: cheating.

The more competitive an environment becomes, the more prestige is attached to winning, the more people will cheat. There's nothing you can do about it. Being ranked against other people, some of whom may have cheated, and you know nothing about it, makes it even worse for a newcomer.

What I would prefer, is an environment without such competitiveness. Where players simply report on their games, and discuss the different strategies and approaches used. Learning off each other, but without the need to rank players and decide who is the 'best'.

I can understand that perhaps the best 10 players or so might be listed, if that's what they want. But for most people, I think that friendly comparison is what's best.

Perhaps at the very least, there could be an option for players to choose to submit their game, but not be ranked against other players. Then only the players who really want to can be listed in some kind of rankings against one another.

-Sirp.

 

[Bamspeedy]

As it is, the reason I did submit for 19 was because of the new scoring system......

Foklens brings up a good point. I think it was a good idea (and Cracker should continue to highlight this) that in the news reports on the civfanatics home page, he highlights the fact that the top scores with the new scoring system are from a variety of victory conditions and finishing times.

Some players in the past dropped out of the GOTM, because they didn't like the fact that 2050AD victories were grabbing all the medals. That just isn't the case anymore.

-

There is also another group that doesn't play the GOTM because we allow some things that they consider exploits (ROP abuse/rape, phony peace treaties, ICS for example). If you disallow these things to try and get these players back, you will lose other players. ICS is especially tricky, because sometimes building just 2 cities 1 tile apart may be called for due to terrain or special circumstances, but some would say this is technically ICS. Then it starts being a judgement call by those in charge, and when that happens you start getting hard feelings. Imagine playing a great game, then someone tells you that your game is unacceptable because of some rule that is very vague and not really written down in concrete (based solely on one person or a couple people's opinions).

Most, if not all of our rules are pretty well set, so that everything you do is either a.)in the 'white'-not breaking the rules, or b.) in the black-clearly breaking the rules. We don't have anything that would fall into a 'grey area' and be subject to someone's personal opinion.

-

Yes, some could argue that the new scoring system favors military (getting close to domination as soon as possible, while still devoting some resources to your victory condition), but I don't really see a way around it due to the limited things that the game gives points for. If you give points for wonders/improvements that would go back to favoring the milkers, as they would have more time to sit around and build those things. I think some players would like the scoring system to balance more towards their particular playing style, but I don't really see a reasonable alternative (the modifiers continue to be tweaked as they get more information/data to analyze, so it will continually get closer to being fair). But since warfare IS part of the game, players should expect to engage in some warfare if they want a high score.

 

[Phaedria]

As a relative newbie here . tho a lurker for some time before I dared to post, I have really enjoyed playing along with various GOTM, though last month was the first time i submitted my rather dismal effort.

I like the fact that it is tightly moderated and spoiler discussions are controlled, It IS a bit intimidating to start withplaying along side so many very very good players , but Ive learnt a lot

Just one small reason why I didnt post games for some time: Im not that computer/internet literate and its taken me some time to sort out the graphics/uploading files etc etc .

I dont think you can possily please everyone, and the hugely increased no of submissions does demonstrate how many people are participating with enjoyment

Keep up the good work, I think its fantastic !!

 

[Bamspeedy]

What I would prefer, is an environment without such competitiveness. Where players simply report on their games, and discuss the different strategies and approaches used. Learning off each other, but without the need to rank players and decide who is the 'best'.

Yes, another site does go by that standard, but I think it is the competitiveness that does attract many players. Some players take pride in say, moving up 10 positions in the rankings (whether it be from 15th to 5th, or 85th to 75th). That lets them know they are improving and know that they did accomplish something. Some of the newer players may have a hard time recognizing what is good game play and what is not, so they wouldn't know if they were getting better or not (except the basic standard of win/loss). With no scoring some players may think a person played a better game because that person can write up a more dramatic summary than another, actually better played game. Of course, no scoring system can accurately give proper credit for a 2 city conquest victory, or any other personal limitations someone gives themselves. Just because a person gives himself limitations, does that always automatically mean he played a better game than a person who played with no such limitations?

Worse, the ranking system used is subjective.

What alternatives are there (besides disbanding any scoring system entirely)? Players just need to learn the scoring system (which is clearly stated beforehand) and do what it takes to maximize that, if they care about ranking at all (some don't care how they rank, but happily continue to participate because of the fun factor). I certainly wouldn't like 1 person or a small group to decide based on his/her own opinions who played the 'best' game.

This 'QSC' system is good in so far as to compare opening styles, however when it ends up with you being 'told from on high' that your opening to the game is 'better' or 'worse' than someone else's, according to some subjective measurement, then I think that goes too far.

I'll make a deal with you- If anyone looks down on you and says your opening play sucks, then I'll give them a kick in the rear for you. Sometimes, those that are towards the bottom of the QSC rankings end up towards the top at the end of the game, and often times vice versa. So no one should take the QSC rankings TOO seriously. It's just a nice little tool to look at different starting strategies. Some of the best finishing scores don't have the best QSC scores because some things (granaries in some cases, partially completed wonders, a built-up invasion force, spacing cities further apart, etc.) don't pay off until after 1000 B.C.

 

[Skyfish]

I do not believe the "milker vs Honourable" issue is what is at hand here, I believe cracker is referring to players who were always great supporters of the GOTM, have no problem with its concept but are now not playing it anymore. I can think of 2 very notable players.
I am not speaking for them of course but I must say here why I feel the GOTM is not as good as it was.
My main issue against the new GOTM is the fact that it is a "modded" game now.
I strongly dislike modded games because any modifications as a huge "invisible" impact on the AIs.
One extreme example is the DyP mod which drew a large community of input and amazing ideas, however once all the nice programming was done, it turns out the AI is just totally lost as to how to handle all this information/modification : the AIs end up extremely weak.
On a smaller scale, this is what is happening in the last GOTMs.

Barbarians on GOTM16 and GOTM18 are good examples : the AI does not understand ANYTHING about those weird barbarians !
In GOTM18, the "regionally intense activity" was a disaster for the AIs : they sent ships after ships of settlers trying to conquer what for them is virgin territory, they overspent shields and money to get this horrible island set up when it was obvious to any human that the place was better left alone until you were strong enough. In my game 2 civs founded on it pre-1000AD and were attacked every turn which basically left them bankrupt for most of the game.
This is not normal and would never happen in a randomly generated 'unmodded' map.
These modifications seriously weaken the AIs and where I get my enjoyment is by fighting a strong (as in "as smart as possible") opponent, not a crippled one. Already the AI is at such a disadvantage compared to the human, why make it worse ?

Understand me right : the effort to "mod" PTW into Civ3 is extremely honourable and I really respect :worshp: cracker :worshp: and the amount of time that went into it : an admirable effort which allows for a huge participation to GOTMs which is the end goal right ?

However modifications that are beyond just "graphics enhancement" have too much of an impact on the game itself.
In short, stop using modified maps was a real huge progress (i.e the disaster of GOTM14 alleged Pangea) but going further and creating new units, new barbs, squids, volcanos and all the rest is just going too far and makes the GOTM less fun for me.

Of course I do not want to be too negative as I still participate in GOTM and I am attracted to the Emperor/small map of GOTM19.
It's just that I am worried about the "trend"...and cracker you did ask why some people were not happy with the game anymore, I do believe this is one of the main reasons.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Skyfish, I agree with you on the barbarians. Sure, it may be nice for some players to have the barbarians 'enclosed', and it does get rid of most of that nasty barbarian uprisings that happen when a second civ enters a new era. But, like you said, the AI can't handle it. I also had 2 AI settle up on that island while many barb camps remained (Japan receiving most of the damage). Early in the game, the 2 defense of the volcanos soaked up lots of AI warriors and archers. I probably could have gotten away with an always war game on that map. When the AI has only 3 cities, but one of them is building a wonder, while the other city(ies) are producing military to commit mass suicide against the volcano, they wouldn't have been too much trouble. Even England unloaded a warrior to trek across the mass continent just in hopes of getting a piece of the barbs....

But, like the fog from GOTM17, there are lessons to be learned after everyone played it and gave feedback, so Cracker will find out what works and what doesn't and in the future should end up being a more enjoyable game.

 

[Sirp]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy


Yes, another site does go by that standard, but I think it is the competitiveness that does attract many players. Some players take pride in say, moving up 10 positions in the rankings (whether it be from 15th to 5th, or 85th to 75th). That lets them know they are improving and know that they did accomplish something. Some of the newer players may have a hard time recognizing what is good game play and what is not, so they wouldn't know if they were getting better or not (except the basic standard of win/loss).

I find it very difficult to believe that someone could 'not know' if they're getting better or not. One knows if they won the game, and one knows how convincingly they won. I would imagine that ranking would detract as much as add to one's knowledge of how good they are, since rankings from one month to the next can be influenced by many other factors: which other players played, the time other players had to put into the game, etc etc.

With no scoring some players may think a person played a better game because that person can write up a more dramatic summary than another, actually better played game.

Indeed. Likewise, one can think that someone played a better game because they happen to know a little more about how the scoring system works, and because they played a game particularly conducive to score highly rather than simply a solid game of Civilization.

However, this attitude that some well-ordered relation can and must be applied to all games, so that we can say which games are 'better' than others is the very thing that I find unappealing.

Perhaps others do find it appealing, wanting to always determine who played the best, highly competitively. I don't know. I can only say what I find appealing and unappealing, and I find the level of competition unappealing. Perhaps I am one of a very small minority who feels this way, in which case I agree with your previous sentiment: you have to aim for the majority of players.

Of course, no scoring system can accurately give proper credit for a 2 city conquest victory, or any other personal limitations someone gives themselves. Just because a person gives himself limitations, does that always automatically mean he played a better game than a person who played with no such limitations?

No it doesn't. Once again you can't say who played a 'better' game. Personally I like 'variants' - 2 city conquest victory, Always War, 'pointy stick' variants, etc etc. As soon as someone chooses to play under such variant rules, they almost certainly rule themselves out of contention for a good ranking.

Ranking people discourages such variants. I would prefer to see them encouraged - to be able to compare with other people who played under different restrictions. But, perhaps I'm one of the minority in liking that.

This could be achieved with somewhat of a compromise, like I said: simply give submitters the option of not appearing in the rankings.

What alternatives are there (besides disbanding any scoring system entirely)?

There aren't any alternatives. Like I said, any scoring system is going to be subjective. That's why I proposed lessening the importance of the rankings by making them optional for players to enter, or by only showing the top 10 or so players.

Perhaps the top 10 players could be published, and others could be informed of their rankings privately if they so desire?

Players just need to learn the scoring system (which is clearly stated beforehand) and do what it takes to maximize that,

Yes, and then you're playing a game, which isn't, IMHO, as broad, strategically deep, or fun as Civilization III.

if they care about ranking at all (some don't care how they rank, but happily continue to participate because of the fun factor). I certainly wouldn't like 1 person or a small group to decide based on his/her own opinions who played the 'best' game.

But they do. Isn't the Jason scoring system done by a 'small group'?

I'll make a deal with you- If anyone looks down on you and says your opening play sucks, then I'll give them a kick in the rear for you.

So appearing at the bottom of the QSC rankings isn't meant to tell you that your opening play sucks? Could've fooled me...

Sometimes, those that are towards the bottom of the QSC rankings end up towards the top at the end of the game, and often times vice versa. So no one should take the QSC rankings TOO seriously. It's just a nice little tool to look at different starting strategies. Some of the best finishing scores don't have the best QSC scores because some things (granaries in some cases, partially completed wonders, a built-up invasion force, spacing cities further apart, etc.) don't pay off until after 1000 B.C.

Absolutely, and that's why as I said, I think it would be better being a friendly comparison of opening styles, rather than a 'ranking' system.

-Sirp.

 

[Sirp]

Oh yes, one other thing, for someone who hasn't played the GOTM previously, getting the GOTM working is rather intimidating. One has to download the readme, follow instructions, and then are told to install four different units, from four previous games of the month. I would imagine that for a less-technically-inclined player this would be a non-trivial, and rather tedious and error-prone task.

For a player that was already unsure whether or not they wanted to participate, I would imagine this could pose a not unsubstantial barrier to entry.

I would suggest that it'd be great if a setup.exe could be created that automatically installs all necessary components to play the GOTM. I shouldn't imagine this would be too hard. I'd even be interested in helping with doing that...

-Sirp.

 

[a space oddity]

Hi all,

I like to throw my 2 cents in as a relative newbie to the GOTM. I recognize the GOTM forum is a slightly intimidating environment, but in the other hand I do like to see how my games compare to those of others. For me that is the main reason to enter the GOTM. (Of course it helps that I know I'm am not the best player by far so I don't mind ending up in the middle of the pack with a lot less points then the winners. I don't have very high expectations ).

Of course you need to have some kind of scoring system to make the comparison. On the other hand one should not take this so very seriously as not to enter for fear of ending last. As Sirp said the scoring is very subjective and a better score will not mean you played a better game or even that you are a better player. The main thing about the GOTM (and the tourny) is that everyone starts the same game and will have some common experiences to chat about.

I too want to add my thanks to the persons that devote so much time to make this possible.

Renata is right about it being a pity that some of the new posters get ignored (or seem to be ignored). When one crosses the imagined line and enters a post and no-one answers it sure is a downer. But like she says: keep posting often enough and you will be answered .

 

[kryszcztov]

Originally posted by alamo
Why can't you just use the USA version for GOTM? Otherwise, if you know how to fix it then maybe you can post in a modification thread?

Maybe I was not well understood... I'm pretty sure that, if correctly explained what to change in my files and everything, I'll be able to do it, but for the moment I have no clue to what to change/add...
The USA version ? I bought both Civ3 and PTW in French versions, and was advised in the CFC download section to get the French patches, so I don't know what you mean.

@ CruddyLeper : I'm already using PTW 1.14f, everything in French (both Civ3 & PTW CDs, and 1.14f patch downloaded here). The game crashed when I loaded the GOTM #17 save, and I bet it will be the same with GOTM to come. This may be due to additionnal units. So there, I'd rather see GOTM come back to a standard game, with nothing added/changed !
Also, I can play USA games (like succession games), but all key-words are displayed in English ; it's a minor annoyment, but if anyone can tell me what to fix to have everything displayed in French (or in English ! that would be a full translation patch)...

Again, sorry for kind of spamming. PM me instead if you think you can be of any help.

 

[Grey Fox]

The biggest reason why I don't play the GOTM every month is because I don't have the time anymore, and also becuase it's an competetive environment. I automatically get more stressed out of playing a GOTM game then a normal game.

The new scoring system improves the GOTM, yes. But it's still competetive, and the way to play a "good" game hasn't changed much.

 

[OneFastWarrior]

Originally posted by d8575
As a relative newcomer to both Civ and GOTM, I certainly agree that looking at some of the scores makes me feel quite stupid. My two complete games were both losses, via space race in gotm17, and by getting conquered in gotm18 after something like 5 of the AIs ganged up on me.

These are just like me, space race and conquest in my 1st 2 and also some rough waters in practice games.

I play these games and read alot of the posts for my own improvement. I do like to see where I am ranked and hopefully one day I can move up. I personally can't believe all that I have learned avout the game in just the last 2 months

I don't take it as a bad thing if I am ranked low or last.
I consider myself a competitive person, but I am doing these games to learn how to better play. I consider them fun, I like all the mods and additions for the gotm's, they make it interesting

I will continue to play and with the help of the "GREAT ONES" you know who you are , I will improve and maybe even win something someday?!

 

[Bamspeedy]

Ok, bear with me here, and don't jump all over me until you read all of this-

Well, if you really want to attract the largest number of participants, the GOTM should have another warlord game. If you look at various polls, more people play chieftain than deity. More people play warlord than emperor.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/poll.php?s=&action=showresults&pollid=3384

If I'm not mistaken, there won't ever be another warlord game. Part of the reasoning behind this is the belief that the GOTM should move forward and not play those lower levels anymore because most people have progressed to a much higher difficulty level. But, there are still many players who are stuck at chieftain-warlord level and feel lost trying to play at regent-monarch level game, let alone emperor. There are continually people who only recently purchased the game and entered the Civ3 world, so they would be starting at those lower levels. Up until Cracker came on board and brought all of his own tweaks to the game to make it more fun, a warlord game had the highest turnout. Perhaps 1 warlord game a year? And we can go on a big 'sales pitch' campaign, like what happened for the last warlord game. Some GOTM participants when they saw someone posting a newbie question, they would inform/invite them to the GOTM, and tell them that for that particular month it is warlord level. The new player would be much more comfortable playing a warlord game then trying to jump into an emperor game.

But, unfortunately, if you do have a warlord game, there are some players who feel offended by playing a low difficulty game, that they would refuse to play. You can't please everyone.

I suggest more polls. On various things there may be a minority, but it helps out a great deal if you can get a grasp for how much of a minority they are (or surprisingly, find out they are NOT a minority). If only 5% of people want one thing, then it would be too hard to accomodate them. But if 40% of people want something, though technically they are in the minority, they represent a very large group of people and some compromise should be made to try and accomodate them.

 

[LKendter]

I think the polls idea is a good one. You can try to please most of the people. It will be impossible to get 100% happy players.


On the issue that I have seen several times about scoring:
If you drop the scoring I would drop GOTM. The main reason I play is the competition against other players. I doubt I will ever beat a few of the players like Moonslinger, Bamspeedy, SirPleb, etc. However, I do want to see how close I can come to the goal.


Bamspeedy is right about the game level problem. I would be bored to death playing a warlord game. I have started to get use to deity and I despite my best efforts I am playing a bit sloppy below that level.

At the same time there is a need for low level games. The Civ tournament solves that problem by offering the same game at multiple levels. However, even that can be a challenge. What seems a reasonable game for Monarchy could be almost impossible at deity. I still remember game that I didn't finish in the tournament where you were stuck on an island having to archer rushing enemies who had the needed resources for their UU including Persia. I stopped due to lack of time. However, if it were a deity game I would have quit due to the impossible situation.

You will always get some gripes no matter what you do.

 

[CruddyLeper]

How about releasing the same map at different difficulty levels (OK, maybe leave Chieftan out).

You could rank players by division that way - and if a player wins or gets in say, top 3 of a division, they have to move up to the next harder difficulty level for the next game.

Any comments?

 

[LKendter]

Add some more thoughts:

Give us an up front warning of the break points for the spoilers before the game. I keep notes as I play, but I am getting ahead of the spoilers. It has been a pain to backtrack the notes to retrofit to the spoilers. I already had to load various old saves to check (NO RELOADS) to figure out when I crossed a certain point.

A clear rule on the reload count would help. I just realized that I am rushing somewhat to avoid reload count issues. I try to squeeze a few more turns in during a setting to avoid that problem. This is hurting my play and it would really help to know the limits. At least one player has been rejected for excess reloads and I still don't know what is considered "reasonable".

 

[Phaedria]

How about releasing the same map at different difficulty levels (OK, maybe leave Chieftan out).


I think that would be great. Would it mean 5 different spoiler threads for each 'time frame' or ciould it all be one ??

 

[Txurce]

To address Cracker’s specific question: I don’t know how to lure Aeson back to the GOTM.

Much more encouraging is the variety and usefulness of commentary in this thread. It could almost be used as advertising for the vitality of the GOTM environment. As a Mac player who only recently joined the GOTM’s ranks thanks to Cracker’s awesome determination, I can’t say enough about its positive inclusive and educational aspects.

How to make it even more inclusive? It’s pretty obvious that the intimidation factor generated by the competitiveness of the games and the large number of posts – never mind the published rankings - keeps a lot of players away.

In my own case, I played GOTM17 in an uncharacteristically hesitant manner, because I knew my game would be compared to that of others. I barely made the top third, but found a way to feel good about my specific game: playing for fastest launch, I came in 11th in a field of about 75. In GOTM18 I played my traditional domination strat and think I did better; in GOTM19 I applied some of what I have recently learned about early play in the GOTM threads, and I’m doing better still.

That seems to be the idea - compete, learn, focus on the positive, and improve – but what about people who aren’t as obsessive about the game, or are uncomfortable with public competition? Just about every player is someone who spends hours alone before a computer. A lot of these players have a very hard time transposing their solitary experience into a virtual spectator sport, no matter how much they enjoy the sense of community to be found in a site like this one.

To make these players – in all likelihood, the majority of CFC’s membership – feel more comfortable playing on the same field as more dedicated and exceptional gamers, I would suggest two changes, one of which has already been noted.

First, limit the size of the public rankings to a number no larger than the top half, with a lower-ranked individual’s rating available upon request. This will satisfy all of the truly competitive players, while still giving the lower-ranked ones something to shoot for, if they so desire, without the risk of being embarrassed.

Second, initiate a second GOTM limited to chieftain and warlord level. Again, this is the level that the majority of gamers play, and their enjoyment is not being sufficiently addressed at this time. In effect, this second GOTM would become either an arena where gamers who like to play at this popular level could have a sense of excelling, or a training ground for those who want to improve their games to monarch level and beyond. To keep the sense of fun and competition for those who prefer the AI-handicap levels, there could be high-score cutoffs, so players in the highest bracket couldn’t dominate month after month. To help those who want to improve their games, more experienced players could take turns advising each month.

A second, AI-handicap GOTM has the potential to dramatically increase the number of players engaged in the GOTM community. Given that it would be aimed largely at players who are not particularly active in the forums, it would probably be a good idea to spread the word for this - or any inclusive change in the GOTM process - via a mass mailing.