Community Input on Peace and Diplomacy

[mabellino]

Originally posted by Txurce

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.

what a great idea.... I'm about to start GOTM19 but since my usual level of play is lowly warlord I wasn't going to submit it... I'm hoping that participating in this will help me see where I'm going wrong (my major problem isn't keeping up in tech as such but actually building enough cities!)

On another note I feel slightly intimidated to post here as I don't want to be accused of post-whoring but I too have been a long-time lurker/seldom poster. One thing that's strange is recognising most of the posters here but not being recognised yourself! Takes some getting used to!

wish me luck!

 

[Txurce]

Good luck, Mabellino. It's understandably tough to ask warlord-level questions about an emperor-level game. That's part of what I was driving at. No one learns how to drive on a race course.

 

[Borealis]

Originally posted by Txurce
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.

I agree that the word should be spread, but I'd rather have a combination of announcements on the front page of CivFanatics and forum announcements, along with PMs of potential new players, than a mass mailing. Mass mailing smacks of too much for me to be entirely comfortable with it, and might irritate a new person enough to keep them away from the GOTM.

 

[Smirk]

I have two topics that concern me the most, the first is just about the general competitive nature and milking specifically. If you are easy offended please skip the first part.


* Topic One

I'll support the competitive nature of GOTM, which is the main reason I play and submit. I might play them every now and again if they were just put out there. But the AI offers no enjoyable challenge so the only reason I play Civ3 is to play the optimization game with other humans.

But I dislike milking, mostly because of its teasing nature. Even though the AI is stupid and doesn't actually care one way or the other, I don't want to delay my game goals in order to maximize any score (or to be forced to, to stay competitive). IMO a domination victory at 800AD is infinitely better than one at 2050AD regardless of the score. Call the difference style or class, teasing and playing with an inanimate stupid AI program shows no noteworthy skill IMO. I know some play that exact route to domination but hold the last strike and milk until 2050, they play cat and mouse, except the mouse is a simple algorithm that is much more stupid than even a mouse.

Kasparov could skool me in chess, but do you think he'll get any medals for it? No way, I suck at chess. But as long as milking is supported and uplifted (by high scores) you see this sort of meandering bullying of a simple AI. The bulk of the really unimaginable high scores are because of this.

True interesting competitive games do not have a single team/person always winning, the simple fact that the same people show up on the top of the list every month is a testament to the fact that you aren't challenging them to change at all. Pleb in particular has gotten so good at this type of game that he not only maximizes his score at 2050AD with milking, he also maintains the victory conditions of most every possible win. Outwardly this looks like incredible indecisiviness, but I won't judge his motives.

Now for those who want to compete, but will never get ultra high scores and top the list you need to offer them something else. Being 120 in a list of 140 people is nothing, I would expect most of the people that do in fact play and fall in that range get the same sort of personal growth by *not* submitting. And they also avoid any sort of personal embarrasment. That is, they see where they are in the list and perhaps look at some of the "better" games. There isn't much gained by submitting, however there is always something lost, time at the minimum.

Secondly as an onlooker, its also boring to see the same people winning. (Of course this appears to be what happened from say gotm6-gotm16. I, thankfully, missed all of that.) Solutions to those problems seem to be worthless to discuss, if its gone on for 2 years, what is different now that change for the better could happen? A few simple ones would be to handicap, or make some different leagues. Different leagues could also take advantage of the desire for different game difficulty settings. I see some of those being tested in the quick games so I expect maybe this will happen one day.



* Topic two


The biggest barrier I think gotm currently has is the difficult install procedure. I know people that used to play way back (when it was only downloading a save file and then playing) that now stare in mystification at the downloads page.

Along those lines, a lot could be gained by making the instructions a bit more clear and free of errors. I don't know who is writing it, or how rushed they may be or busy etc. All I am saying is that to impress upon people that they have to read the readme (and have the web link in it so they must) and then to have it filled with errors so that a person actually reading it is more confused than before is not such a good plan for getting more people to commit time and energy to compete.

 

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by Smirk
The biggest barrier I think gotm currently has is the difficult install procedure. I know people that used to play way back (when it was only downloading a save file and then playing) that now stare in mystification at the downloads page.

Along those lines, a lot could be gained by making the instructions a bit more clear and free of errors. I don't know who is writing it, or how rushed they may be or busy etc. All I am saying is that to impress upon people that they have to read the readme (and have the web link in it so they must) and then to have it filled with errors so that a person actually reading it is more confused than before is not such a good plan for getting more people to commit time and energy to compete.

It wouldn't be too hard (would it?) to replace the new graphics with existing ones. Immortals as Mace, Galley as Squid, Marines as Rambo, etc. It might not look as nice but at least it would be a playable alternative to downloading the modpacks.

 

[Skyfish]

There is even a better solution Dave : an .exe file just like Sirp mentionned, it can easily be done.
Just download an install one single file.

 

[Ebomb808]

I have heard arguments on how modified games are bad, its hard to get started posting here because newbies are intimidated, mapsizes, difficulty levels, and to me this is all petty squabbling with zero results. Being a newbie myself (I just submitted my first victory for GOTM 19), i had no problems posting on these boards or figuring out how to play. I thought that a site named Civfanatics would be just that, Fanatics who like the game. No one should be complaining about mods, or mapsizes, or difficulty levels because it is the SAME for everybody. If someone cant play well on Deity level, usually it is because they have never tried it or havent tried it enough to practice and become successful which GOTM should help them out with by forcing people to play higher levels. I think the current system is great, easy to understand, and very fun to play. I am just looking to improve my score each month and enjoy some competition. If i dont win, thats fine, but i am not going to blame the system, the game, or anything else. I just want to become the best player i can be.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by 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?

That's already done. The Tournament.

 

[LKendter]

Well I am going through headaches trying to install GOTM on my desktop. Having to download and install graphcis from 16,17,18 and 19 is a pain. If I was a new person I might give up in frustration. We need ONE zip files that includings all graphics from inception of the modding.

 

[cracker]

We will consolidate the incremental changes into a single restrospective package that will cover all the play options for Gotm game 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.

We have been trying to hold the incremental download packs to under 2.0MB even for the Civ3v1.29 version as we have been addding all the support graphics and text files to add one or two new civilizations each month. Sometimes it is easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the task that we have been progressing through as we have been the only major game event forum to make a determined effort not to exclude players on either side of the PTW chasm that will continue to present logistical and performance problems for at least the next 4 to 6 months.

A self installing game pack to bring players from out-of-the-box up to fully functional Gotm20 level will be something we will do.

But then we will screw it up by adding Games 21 and 22 onto the top of the heap.

 

[Sirp]

cracker, why not just give users the options of downloading it all in one big package, or of downloading them in seperate packages as is currently done? That way users can do it whichever way they find easiest. May sites do this kind of thing with large downloads.

-Sirp.

 

[TedJackson]

@Cracker
Expanding on Sirp's suggestion above...

Perhaps adding a page to the GOTM site with links to the files (both singly and in packs) would be the answer. This would make life much simpler for new players as all the required info and files would be in one (logical) place.

<Edit> The page would also be the logical home for the self-installer when it's ready and the test saves.</Edit>

Hell, I'd even volunteer to create/maintain the page.

Ted

 

[Sirp]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy

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.

This is true. I think that there is a correlation between good players and vocal players. Thus it seems that 'most' of the players have progressed, when there are many current players, and potential players, who are still struggling on Warlord.

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 think it's a little incorrect to say that some people would be 'offended'. More likely they just don't feel challenged by Warlord level any longer, and so they choose not to play. And why should they? I think it's unfair to characterize a Deity-level player as being unreasonable for declining to play a Warlord-level game.

Anyhow, perhaps involvement of upper-level players could be induced by approaching them and asking them to be mentors of other players for that event?

Alternatively, since the GOTM apparently doesn't intend to have another Warlord-level GOTM, I can't see a problem with running a parallel game on Warlord, for less experienced players.

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

The thing is, polls aren't always terribly accurate. The people who vote in polls are going to be GOTM players. If you're trying to find ways to attract new players, then asking existing players is like asking the choir what needs to be done for them to be converted.

Having a poll on whether changes made are good or not, and then proclaiming "75-85%" say yes is going to be innaccurate, because disaffected players are much less likely to even see the poll or be able to vote.

Not that I'm suggesting there is a better way to do it; just that one has to note that there can be very wide margins of error.

-Sirp.

 

[Capt Buttkick]

Originally posted by mad-bax
... it's also to do with people who haven't started. It's damn scary joining and taking part in this forum. A newbie has to be quite brave to take the plunge. I think the standard of play in GOTM is good, perhaps too good in that it is not representative of the actual ability of the civving community.

Agreed. I played 3 gotm's before posting (14, 15 and 16) or submitting anything. And I'm not easily intimidated.

Originally posted by mad-bax
As a fairly new player and poster I feel as if I am barely tolerated in this forum by some of the players and moderators alike... Typing this I feel as if I am writing an exam paper, why is that?

I think the community is divided on that. Some ppl only read and pay attention to what the top players write, others read everything and try to support their peers (non-top-players). There's also quite notably, and this is one of the reasons I decided to get more involved with the gotm, some truly skilled players here who are willing to share their wisdom with you. Quite remarkable really because many gamers often tend to be protective of their own, often hard-earned, secrets.

@ Foklens: I'm as competitive as anyone I know (that's the reason I didn't submit gotm's 14-16 despite everyone being encouraged to submit their losses). That said: I've recognized that I need to learn how to walk before I can run. So why not tap into the fountain of wisdom that the gotm is? And I've discovered I've learnt a lot more these two last games (submitted qsc 17 and gotm 18) by being activly involved than by just playing along on the outside. I feel compelled to ask the question: do you always make the choice not to compete at all when you realize from the offset that you can't win? It would seem kinda hard to go through life that way... I'm not a milker myself and never will be again (after having milked Civ2 games). I therefor find your idea to divide the finishes into periods compelling, but at the same time feel that it would just create too much confusion as to what game is the best. And I really like that about the gotm: have your name enscirbed in the annals of Civfanatics

Originally posted by Foklens
I've never been fond of being the outsider, and there's a tangible 'family' and group already established here who can communicate using vowels or strange abbreviations I've no clue about. Familiarity and all that. And that's not an indictment at all for them, I think it'd be great to be one of said group. But from the outside looking in, it's daunting and intimidating.

I felt the same way when I started posting here. Sometimes you feel like: why am I even bothering to post? But then you get small bursts of encouragement like Space Oddity's response to my type-up on gotm 18 (her response is a few posts further down):
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=931150#post931150
Maybe it's my nick that makes ppl shun any serious discussion with me I use it on purpose cause I've found that I like better being serious when someone expects all jokes from you than I like joking when ppl expects you to be serious...

Originally posted by Renata
I mean, I post stuff all the time, and I never know whether anyone's bothering to read it or not... So I give my reports just to share my pride in what I accomplished, however good or bad that may be in an absolute sense, and know in my heart that someone out there is reading it, because, heck *I* read every word of every report and I can't be the only one!

I read pretty much everything, Renata, and I think that one of the probs the community has is that, with it's rigid setup, you feel like you're spamming if all you want to do is send a

Originally posted by Renata
Personally I'd love to have everybody post strings of 'great game Renata!'s at the end of everyone of my posts

Great game Renata

Originally posted by SirPleb
I still remember clearly how I felt these things when I first started posting here. I barely brought myself to dive in.

See, even Sir Pleb has been there...

Originally posted by SirPleb
1) New posters: Please do dive in! It isn't as clubby as it appears, that appearance is largely from the nature of the medium and the size of the group. People will enjoy reading your posts and reading about your adventures!

2) Is there a staff member who might undertake to notice when someone posts for the first time and welcome them?

1) Agreed.
2) Very good idea, but sometimes (like for me) ppl don't even post until they reach the point where they're ready to submit and they may have a long relationship with gotm before that.

Originally posted by MadScot
I understand the emphasis on helping people improve their games. But that does sort-of imply they aren't good enough, too.

M, but when you think about it, any competititive environment sort of implies that. We still enjoy the compatition despite, and for some ppl, because of that I think that some ppl here would benefit from easing up on their standards as to how good they need to be to enter gotm. But then again, I didn't submit until I could win a game played by the rules...

I like your idea about a 'newbie spoiler thread' where ppl can ask any questions they like at any time they like. After all, the rest of us manage to keep away from the other spoilers until the point we are allowed to enter them. Have a few veteran players who wouldn't likely get any usable information from the discussions, drop into the thread and answer the q's.

Originally posted by Sirp
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.

I feel like friendly comparison is just what the gotm is, with the current ranking system. But if you need to close the list a bit more, at least leave at least the top half of the rankings as is.

@ Bamspeedy: while I feel that ICS is a bit un-civ-like (what civ would REALLY posper with those small cities), I think that's a prob for the game developers, not for the civ community to deal with (as, I'm sure, your take on that is). The rules are good imo and I've never had any probs with them.

@ Skyfish: mods or no mods is very much a question of like or no. I kinda like the mods, also with the regional barbs and I settled on barb island in gotm 18 myself, before the AI did and before those camps were out of the way. I just made sure my coffers were empty when the raiders came... On how it influences AI level: I'm sure the gotm staff will figure that out, but some of us need all the help we can get lol

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
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.

NO, NO, NO!!! I do the buttkicking around here

 

[RedwoodTree]

Suggestion: like most sports tourneys, players compete against others of similar ability, so despite being more work for the preparers, etc, I'd recommend there be 2-3 GOTMs each month, each being the same game, but just different levels, then scores are grouped by level

e.g.
GOTM19 - Warlord
GOTM19 - Monarch
GOTM19 - Emperor
GOTM19 - Deity (for those so inclined

Use the same game setup/map/mods if you need, but then players can compete against others at/near their own levels, or step up a level if they want to try to when they are ready.

I think i'm an above average player, and the GOTM games, while definitely helping me, are quite difficult, and "stressful", so it might be better if people can play against other similar players, instead of trying to competing with the bamspeedy's, moon's, and pleb's all the time.

After all, I'm surely not going to enter a tourney where I have to compete against Tiger Woods and all...just wouldn't make sense.

I'd also like to see other "types" of games, that are fun and different...like a game where "you can't ever declare war!"...or a game where there are other unusual goals/etc...just to make it different at times.
-------------------------------------------------
And also, my $.02...

a) would be helpful if moderators were a bit more light handed, this is a "fun" game after all, and

b) I dislike milking...it doesn't happen in other competitions that I'm aware of (e..g does Andre Agassi let a match got to 5 sets when he could have won in 3 just to inrease the number of winners he would hit??)

There is a (theoretically) easy way to fix milking...

But first, let's define milking...it's the act of "not winning when you could for the sole purpose of increasing your score". Therefore, if it were possible to determine when someone "should/could" have won the game (e.g. there was a diplomacy vote that they KNEW they would win, the COULD have build that last spaceship part 300 years ago, etc), then the cure for milking is as follows:

for every year after you "SHOULD" have pulled the win trigger, you actually LOSE points! Now, let's see who would milk any more!

Just finished GOTM19, and COULD have delayed my WIN, was in NO danger from other remaining CIVS, etc, to just improve score, but it's a game of winning fastest, so didn't do that "delay the vote" to improve scores...milking by far contributes to the "apparent" demoralization of newcomers/want-to-posters, again, imho

soapbox off.
----------------------------------------
one more refinement of last post

there is an even easier way to remove "milking"...

solution above is pragmatically difficult to implement (for a number of reasons), so I'd recommend this:

Simply post results by victory type/year...

No scores...players are just ranked by year of victory, grouped by victory type. Add to this grouping by level (monarch, etc) and you have a nice matrix of results. Now if top players can achieve space race victory in 600BC, then so be it...

This doesn't address submissions of losing games however, so some way must still be made to account for those (maybe again, for losers, those who surivived longest rank higher)

So eliminate "score" altogether...just order by result year.
-----------------------------
Redwoodtree,

I just consolidated your three separate posts into one and want you to recognize that most of what you posted was really offtopic and really belongs in other discussions that relate to scoring systems and miking issues. Many otehr posters have flirted with this going too far off-topic issue but you sorted of jumped into the pool with all four left feet.

Milking is no longer a major dysfunctional issue in the GOTM games and this may be a hangover issue that you could have inherited from someone who has a lingering bias or who could be just uninformed.

Hope you will read up and see how some of your issues are being addressed. - cracker

--------------------------
cracker, again I think you missed the point entirely, and your comments to my post are indeed one of the problems with GOTM... if you can see the forest for the trees. Thanks.

--------------------------
and, for the record, my post(s) were NOT off-topic...so it might be beneficial to stop using such a heavy-handed moderating hammer...they were DIRECTLY related to GOTM participation and why people may or may not post games, participate, etc. Just because YOU deem it to be off-topic does not mean it IS off-topic. Now perhaps you can see why many others are "afraid" to post...so, there you go...

Moderator Action: Redwoodtree, there really is no call for conduct of this type plus I have now had to despam this thread twice on your account. Express you concerns in a way that gives other people the opportunity to recognize and acknowledge your issues without having to make a herculean effort to separate these concerns from conduct and behavior problems. If you have an external set of issues that you have failed to resolve, try not to carry them into this forum in a way that diminishes you ability to contribute in a positive way.

Since this is a diplomacy and peace thread I will let you determine if you feel that this message might be the same as a warning or not.

Make an effort to be nice. - cracker
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Thanks, you have achieved your objective...it will be peace, as I will no longer post or contribute to this or any forums. Thanks kindly for your feedback.

 

[Renata]

@ Capt Buttkick: TY.

As far as the issue of drawing more players by including games at different levels, the same month, I disagree with the recent opinions, for two reasons.

First: the tournament already had that as one of its features. GOTM should be and is a different sort of competition, where everybody plays the same game. That's its point of separation from the tournament (well, that and the tournament's forced victory types).

Second: Too much work for the GOTM staff.

Renata

 

[Bamspeedy]

Yes, making 5-6 different games (for the different difficulty levels) would be alot of work.

But, I still think it wouldn't be too much work to make 2 games. (one game of the higher levels of monarch-deity, and one game of chieftain-warlord), and then every once in awhile have both leagues play regent, so we get back to everyone playing the exact same game, and allow the lower level players to once again compare their games more directly to the higher-skilled players and see how they stack up. Or you could have 1 level of warlord-regent and the main group of monarch+.

New players can play these lower levels to build up their confidence and then progress to the next level when they feel confortable, instead of being destroyed in the B.C.'s and giving up on all GOTMs.

Everyone has their own preference or desire on how much they want to improve their Civ3 game. Some do want to progress rapidly and 'be the best they can be', so will gladly jump into high level games to learn at a faster rate from the better players. Other players want to just play casually and don't want to learn every possible tactic/strategy/micromanaging tip there is available in this game (or at least not in their first few weeks of playing the game). So they will have a slower learning curve, but they desire this to keep the fun factor in the game for them. There is so much to this game, that the very basic concepts can take some players a long time to grasp, and then when you throw all these other strategies at them, it can be quite overwhelming for some people.

Personally, for me, now that I've become more anal about micromanaging (which is necessary to stay competitive), the 'fun' factor has decreased significantly.

 

[Sirp]

I agree that having five different competitions is way overdone, but yes, two could work.

However, how about simply having a special event to try to introduce new players to the GOTM, maybe once every 6 months, which takes place on Warlord level. Experienced players would be invited to participate by 'mentoring' new players. This could take place in the form of the protege submitting a save and a report at certain 'checkpoints' to their mentor, who makes comments and gives advice. However experienced players would not compete in the tournament. Deity level players playing in a warlord-level game is kinda like a whole heap of professional athletes descending upon a small town's local sports carnival.

Your last sentence really struck me, Bamspeedy, as to the largest reason why I'm reluctant to play. I wouldn't do anything that would touch my fun factor, and yet playing in a competition and having no hope of winning is somewhat unappealing to me. Out of curiosity, may I ask you, why do you play then, if not for fun? For prestige? For pride? For boasting rights?

I have talked to some others who have spent many long hours micromanaging or 'milking' GOTM games, and have asked them why they do it. The usual response is that it is worth it if they stand a chance of winning a medal. Some might say that this is a sign of prestige that players are willing to spend many long, boring hours just to win a medal. Personally, I think it's a sign of a broken competition, where vanity takes pre-eminence over fun.

-Sirp.

 

[Renata]

Hmmmm .. I don't micromanage exhaustively myself, but I'm starting to do so increasingly in certain games. And I find that I like it, especially at first when the number of cities I have is limited. It's fun to me to try to maximize the output of each of my cities and get them working as efficiently as possible. Other people's experiences may differ, but that's mine, and vanity has nothing to do with it. (Not that I'm going to win anytime soon, if ever, but anyway.) I suspect that for many, if not all, milking is just as enjoyable, as alien an idea as that seems to those who don't enjoy it.

Personally, my ideal scoring system would be one that perfectly balanced the decision on whether or not to milk, so that someone who reached the domination threshhold in 1000 AD and went on to milk to 2050 would wind up with exactly the same modified score in 2050 as they would have had in, say, 900 AD. (I'm assuming they could actually have won a tad faster if they hadn't been sacrificing a smidge of efficiency to early milking.) I don't know yet if the Jason system is quite that good - since no one milked in GOTM 17 there's very little data available. But that would leave the decision to milk or not to milk to purely a matter of personal preference, which is what it should be --- same as the choice of whether to go for spaceship or conquest.

Why do I personally play a game I know I won't win? I'm still (I hope) on the upward curve of my skills, and GotM gives me a somewhat objective gauge of my progress. (It's not too terribly hard to determine which of the top players have used techniques (ICS or whatever) that I don't care for, and to adjust my results accordingly.) Reading the reports gives me tons of ideas on how to improve my game. Reading the reports is entertaining in and of itself, especially when a player has played a particularly imaginative or unusual game (like Zwingli's 2-city conquest last month). Posting my own reports gives me a lot of pleasure, too, independent of how good my results are objectively --- as long as there are one or two things I can be proud of in the final game it's fun to me to share that with everyone else.

Renata

 

[Bamspeedy]

Well, I think being competitive is a natural adrenaline rush for most people. If you want to call that prestige or pride, then I guess that is what it is. Exactly how competitive, or excessive the competition is will change some people's viewpoints. For me, it certainly isn't boasting rights. I have studied the game and know many aspects of the game, but I do feel that some people regard me (and some other high level players) with *too* much respect. We are not gods or 'heroes'. Nobody should take everything that I (or Sir Pleb, or Sirian, or Moonsinger, or Cracker, etc.) say as the absolute truth in every single aspect of the game, like some people seem to do. Yes, more often then not, the top players are right, and give the best advice, but you should see how you can incorporate these into your own personal preference or playing style, and not be clones of them.

I mean, the prestige of being a top player can have many positive effects, like more people listening to you, pride, etc., but also unwanted side effects, like people being intimidated by you (well, maybe in multi-player you want that intimidation factor, so your opponent can't concentrate ). I admit, that on some things I say or state about the game, I end up being wrong or doesn't apply to other people's playing style. But sometimes it gets to the extreme that some people will blindly defend anything and everything a top player will say. I have seen many gross exaggerations on ICS and milking from people who haven't ever used it, just because their 'hero' doesn't like it.

In my opinion, there is a slight difference between milking for points and milking for shields/commerce/food. And which one you like to do is one's own personal preference. Both or basically the same (micromanaging). I like to see my game score boost up (obsession with big numbers, I guess you could say), and I like looking at an empire with every city having marketplace/bank, etc., as a fully completed empire. I don't call this time period boring, as seen in my last game, I HAD FUN setting it up so I could build 86 cities, complete all the spaceship parts, build 10 or so wonders, and finish 400 or so temples on the very last turn. I don't like a half-completed empire. On the same token, others like to see how productive/efficient their empire can be, and how much little shield wastage they had. I can't understand why some people are so disgusted with people micromanaging for score, but they themselves do very heavy micromanaging of cities to squeeze out a few more shields. Whether you milk for points, or milk for productivity, people should respect both sides. With the Jason score, there is no benefit (in most cases, and even then it is a very, very, small benefit) to milking, so anyone arguing that milkers are only doing so to boost their score is way off target. It was a broken competition (when the old system was used) in that sense, but not anymore. Some people perhaps just need to be informed of that. (although I think the word has already been spread quite well).

Many players find the QSC portion fun, because they can compare their micromanaging to other players. Since I don't like micromanaging for shields, I don't find this part fun, but I do it anyways just to show that I do have the potential to score well in that, if I wanted to. And to prove to all those ICS-haters that ICS isn't as weak as they wish it was. Since the QSC is for a short portion of time, I figure that doing it in order to possibly help out other players isn't too much to ask from me, and to better relay some thought processes that the higher skilled players go through when thinking about what to do.

I also have a slight fascination with finding how best to maximize things. I notice in the first few QSC's, I was way down the list in technology points. so in GOTM 17, I focused heavily on this and finished way high up the list in technology.

Other people get disgusted when someone finds a true exploit and drop out of the GOTM, because they generalize and think 'everyone' is looking for the best way to exploit the system. There was a few people who quit when CB and me discovered the worker dogpiling exploit. Just the mere fact that we found this loophole disgusted people and some quit (you can find this specifically mentioned on other sites). At least we brought it to everyone's attention so that it would be out-lawed in future games, and we didn't keep it a secret and continue to do it (and it was properly fixed in a patch by Firaxis). The days of the seemingly obsession with finding exploits, that were prevelent months ago (Gtom9-12, I'm guessing), have been pretty non-existant since Cracker made the 'any new exploits will be dis-allowed' statement.