Discussion on Length/Frequency of GOTMs

[Lanzelot]

Another idea that I got from the German "Spiel des Monats" (= "Game of the Month") site: they start a game every month, but you have two months to complete it. This increased participation because it allows more of the "occasional" contributers to submit.
Especially over the last year or so I quite often had the problem that I was not able to finish a game I had started. (And sometimes I didn't even start one, because I was not sure whether I would have the time to finish it and was afraid that the effort would be "wasted"...)
With a two-month period many people could probably submit at least every other game (and if a game goes unexpectedly quick, you can even start the next one right away, and again have two month in case time is getting tight.)

(Of course that means, that people have to wait two months, before they can get the results, but we already do that today anyway, don't we... )

Moderator Action: Broken off to separate this discussion from the Conquest/Open/Predator Class discussion. Both topics are important.

 

[CKS]

...

I'm in favor of Lanzelot's two month suggestion. Frankly, I'm short on time, and I'd be happy if we started a PTW game 6 times a year and a Conquests game 6 times a year and had two months for each. We went to two games each month when conquests came out, because not everyone could play it, but that isn't an issue now. Perhaps a single game each month would be sufficient. (Or maybe a Conquests game each month and a PTW game every other month, if we don't want to cut that many games.) Either way, two months per game would help.

 

[tR1cKy]

...

I'm in favor of Lanzelot's two month suggestion.

Me too actually. I agree that giving players more time could possibly boost the number of submissions. For sure, it would give some relief to Steve that is getting notorious for his delays (j/k)

 

[Megalou]

...

Perhaps the 6+6 games solution is good but perhaps participation will be lower. What if someone plays a one week game and has to wait 3 weeks for the next one. Perhaps this person will forget about the site. On the other hand, PTW participation is pretty low as it is. I don't know...

 

[Più Freddo]

they start a game every month, but you have two months to complete it.

Sounds great. Would have increased my contributions in the past.

 

[civ_steve]

Clearly I am not able to support 2 games a months with any level of reasonable consistency. I appreciate your discussion, and believe that the best option is to modify the frequency and/or length of the GOTMs.

By the way, the single most significant impact on game submittals seems to be difficulty. We usually get twice as many submittals for Regent level games as we do for Deity level. I usually add 1-2 weeks of time for the Deity games; is it really time that is the issue, or is it players who either don't play the high level games or play it, lose and don't submit the loss?

So I see a few options:

1.) Lanzelot's option - 1 Game per month, alternate PTW and C3C, each game lasting 2 months. Main drawback would be for the fast players (however, there is often not a 2nd game available, or it is delayed, anyway)
2.) Drop PTW. I'm not if favor of this; the games are too different.
3.) CKS' option - Keep C3C a GOTM, and lengthen the PTW to 2 months (or 3 months - a GOTMQ). This should be supportable.
4.) Another option - keep 2 Games a month, but usually one of them will be a 'Classic Rewind' game, same Map as an earlier GOTM, but you switch places with one of the AI. This would take the burden of generating a new map, setting Conquest/Predator modifiers, off of me and should help maintain the tempo.

 

[Megalou]

I like alternative 3.

 

[EvilConqueror]

I like alternative 3.

Me too.

 

[Paul#42]

I like #1 most and could live with #3 (if C3C get's two months to play).

I also lack time to complete games within a month, failed badly with my recent attempts und hesitated to even start with less than three weeks left...

 

[Megalou]

@civ_steve: Alternative 4 is good too, if you really feel that it gives you the time you need.

 

[The Professor]

I like option #1 the best, personally.

 

[CKS]

I'm against option 2, but I can live with any of the others. I lean towards whatever civ_steve thinks will work best for him, since he has to do all the work. Thank you for that, civ_steve.

(With deity level games, I'll submit even when I lose, but I do need extra time. What usually happens is I get in a sticky position and I need to put the game on hold for a while and stew about it. It usually takes several days to come up with an option that gives me hope, and then I fall more and more behind in real time. Plus, this semester is turning out to be lacking in time to play; I hope to be able to play regularly again this summer.)

 

[Raliuven]

I like option#1 or 3. I really do not like #2 because I like PTW better than C3C. Lately I have stopped playing C3C to save time, so alternating sounds like a good plan. Option #4 is interesting but I am a newcomer so these maps would be all new to me anyway.

Of course I defer to what makes Civ-Steve's life easier.

 

[Più Freddo]

I see a problem with #3 if these monthly C3C games can be played two months each. Then there would be two C3C games active at the same time. There could be interference, confusion and even competition for contributions between them.

And at the moment no C3C game is active, so how realistic is that scenario anyway?

 

[Megalou]

I don't think civ_steve meant for the C3C games to run for 2 months. 12 C3C games and 6 PTW games is what option 3 looked like to me.

 

[tR1cKy]

It seems to me that time is a problem, not only for Steve but also for players, at least at emperor level and above. How about one month and a half per game? It's more or less what happens now if we count in the delays, so why not adding the time we lose anyway to the deadline?

 

[denyd]

Looks like I'm a little late to the party for this discussion on this one...after reading the posts, I have kind of a compromise suggestion...how about run PTW on an every other month schedule, using larger maps for the easier games, while the C3C games run every month using smaller maps for the higher levels. That would drop the number of games Steve has to run from 24 to 18. I also like the idea of using old maps with different starting spots/tribes...if he didn't tell us they were recycled we probably wouldn't know for the first 100+ turns. In December run C3C on a huge map with a Feb 1 deadline and during 2013 switch to PTW monthly & C3C bi-monthly.

 

[Naok]

I take the opportunity that somebody already poped this topic again to suggest something I had in mind in order to help Steve to get maps for the GOTM. Could we have a threat to suggest maps ? Maybe it could help you Steve?
In mind, I would have a lot of fun playing as Vikings on a very small islands map (kind of having 100 islands with max possibility of 3 or 4 cities).
Or playing with the Portuguese on a "long snake" map where both characteristics could be somehow useful.