Do you want to see SGOTM progress graphs?

[AlanH]

I'm concerned that the amount of feedback you get during the games may be spoiling your enjoyment of SGOTMs.

I've seen a few comments in team threads indicating that some players lose interest in the game once they work out from the graphs that another team must have finished ahead of their date. This demotivation may then adversely affect team spirit, effectiveness and progress.

We had a rather detailed poll a little while ago which indicated that you wanted a little more information, and the territory graph was added to the stats for the game in progress. However, we've had two more games since then and I thought it would be good to air your views again.

• Would you rather not see the prgress graphs until the game is over?

• Would you prefer more or fewer graphs?

• Would you prefer the graphs to cut off at an earlier date?

• ... or is it OK as it is?

Let's discuss it while we get ready for the next game.

I've allowed you multiple selections in the poll, so you can vote for more or less data, or an earlier cutoff date, or any combination. Please try to be consistent, though. Andwers with Yes and No both checked are not helpful .

 

[Sabre]

I rather enjoy seeing how our team is progressing compared to the others. We (Team tao) don't dwell on it too much, but it is fun to point out and speculate on some of the results seen on the graph. I can see where some people may be dispirited when they can see they've probably lost, luckily for us we tend to play pretty fast and haven't really been put to that test. We were nervous about a few teams that were behind us in turnsets, but since they were still unknowns it only spurred us on.

I think it's kind of like a sports league where you can see the standings. The coach will tell you to ignore them and just play one game (turn?) at a time, but you know the players are influenced by it. Is it a good thing? I believe it's more a mixed blessing.

The teams falling behind may either give up or keep trying to at least improve their place in the standings - all depends on the makeup of the team. I don't know which is right or wrong. I'm pretty competitive and would like to finish as high in the standings as possible but on the flip side, I believe in the idea of sunk costs. Is the reward worth the effort of continuing? The end turns for this game can be time consuming and, if things aren't going smooth, frustrating. Is it worth it to keep plugging away after the joy is gone?

On the plus side, seeing the "standings" for those still in the hunt can add a bit of anxiety, hope and the thrill of the chase to the game as in a good pennant race in baseball. I think it also adds to the small rivalries we have going. Sure, without the standings you'd still have those "Argh, Team such-and-such beat us again!" moments at the end, but the slow chase and realization that you will win/lose adds to that aspect IMO.

Well, that's a lot of rambling and I don't think I've come up with a definitive answer. I guess I'll vote to keep it as is, but won't complain if it's changed.

 

[AlanH]

Thanks Sabre. Hmm, 13 voters and only one contribution to the discussion so far. And almost 50% in favour of turning off the progress charts ...

 

[Beorn-eL-Feared]

For what it's worth, I believe I speak for the whole of the idiot team by saying that we check the graphics just to know what turn every team is at vs its post count. That way we make an idea for ourselves of how much we lack actual game discussions to be able to really compete - and discuss about that rather than the game actually.

That being said, I think it would be better summed up: we'll be alright either way.

 

[Furiey]

Sabre's pretty much summed it up, we (tao) don't dwell on the progress, we play our own game. In the lead or lagging behind, I always want to improve, get that bit closer, and maybe next time....

I suppose it depends how much you dwell on it and how much you just compete with others and how much you also compete with yourself to finish as best you can even if you won't win!

It wouldn't change our game style if it wasn't there, but I think it adds rather than detracts, as long as too much isn't given away. but I too am rambling - leave it as it is.

 

[Gyathaar]

Just thought I would mention that it may be hard to draw good conclusions from the graphs in the next game..
a team might have bad score because india is 2 ages agead and they are barely staying alive,
or a team could have taken over the entire world while india is a OOC in the ancient ages..

 

[WarDance]

Personally I like the graphs, but I think the score graph is sufficient. It's vague enough that you can't really tell just what is going on in a given team's game, but it's enough to get you paranoid sometimes or confident on the other hand.

Since this next one is going well into the Modern Era I would very much like to see a spoiler at the beginning of the IA. Another idea is, if there are no more graphs, to have a second posting like the QSC results... maybe for around 750AD or 1000AD or somewhere thereabouts.

 

[Niklas]

Gyathaar has it right. For the upcoming game, the graphs won't really say zip about the actual progress, except that it will show how far each team has played. For SGOTM8, the territory graph was more or less a dead give-away as to when teams got off the island. Good or bad?

Sabre certainly put it well. I think not having any graphs at all would seriously deter from the feeling of friendly rivalry. It would be that one moment of "oh, they beat us" (or we beat them) rather than a continous involvement. Actually I worry that for SGOTM9 we won't actually know anything. Maybe we could add a graph showing the number of techs India has?

I can understand why some teams lose interest when they find themselves way behind. But I think the problem then is more likely the pace of the game than anything else. If you play a slow game, then certainly the lure of the laurels might be what keeps the game going. Take that away and the game grinds to a halt, sure, but it was the slow going of the game that doomed it in the first place.

I voted to keep it as it is.

 

[jeffelammar]

I voted earlier, and didn't have time to comment.

My basic take is similar to Sabre's. Graphs are fun to look at and don't really have any effect on how I am going to play the game.

To me the draw of SGOTM is the variants and learning to make use of new strategies that I don't normally use. I get that with or without the graphs, but have more fun with them.

OTOH, it really depends on how "serious" we want this competition to be. I don't take it too seriously, so the theoretical possibility that spoiler info might get out doesn't bother me much.

 

[AlanH]

Maybe we could add a graph showing the number of techs India has?

That's an option

 

[tao]

I like graphs to look at. They were sort of useful in sgotm8, but IMHO will be mostly harm/useless in sgotm9. It is just "exe candy". And most people like candy.

 

[leif erikson]

I like the graphs, just to provide an indication of where we are relative to others. At times, they can be somewhat as misleading as leading, perhaps?

Sabre summed it up better than I can...

 

[DBear]

Turning off the graphs would be like playing civ with no score graphs or any feedback to how you are doing. No one would play that way! Turning off the graphs is a RIDICULOUS idea. I think more would lose interest because they have NO IDEA how they are doing than because they may be ranked lower.

 

[Andronicus]

I voted for keeping the status quo.

I dont think the graphs will be particuarly meaningful in determining how teams are progressing in SGOTM9, but it may give some clues on stratgies other teams are attempting - not sure that this should be given away.

In an ideal situation, I would like to see a graph specific for my own team that showed all teams progress to no further than my teams last save. This would avoid spoilerish info on what other teams did at a later stage whilst giving feedback on progress to same date to allow for interesting comparisons.

Given SGOTM8 was partly a science race - seeing tech progress of other teams (but no further than we had already progressed) would have added extra spice.

 

[socralynnek]

Maybe the charts could be shown only up to the point that every team has played, only mentioning which is the year of the newest save.

 

[Beorn-eL-Feared]

I think that's a good idea, socralynnek

 

[jb1964]

I voted to dump the graphs.

I'll play the game to the end because, hey, I'm just here to have fun. Even team Cultlery decided to slow down the pace so as to not give away any of our master strokes. Stop laughing!

And after reading some of the other threads there was quite a bit of attention given to the territory plot.

Anyway, some thought should be given to the graphs that are available for the given scenario.

In reality, the decisions made to influence any given plot were made long before so the chance of another team being able to correctly decipher the actions and make corrections to their play is probably minimal.

The most probable influence is when two, or more, teams are heading for similar ending dates. The first team to post sets the bar for the others to try and match. That would lend to taking risks that would not otherwise be on the menu.

I've blabbered enough.

 

[AlanH]

Maybe the charts could be shown only up to the point that every team has played, only mentioning which is the year of the newest save.

We actually did this for one or two games a little while ago. To avoid the problem of a team going to sleep and killing progress we used the dates all *active* teams had played to, where "active" teams were defined as those who had "posted a new save within the last 7 days".

I'd have to do some research to see why we decided to ditch that scheme and change to the current system, but it does mean the keenest teams have the least feedback on their progress, which seems a little unfair.

 

[DaveMcW]

The charts should be shown only up to the point that your team played.

And then give lurkers full access.

 

[AlanH]

Put a team password in and get limited access, or connect as a guest lurker with no password and get full access? Difficult decision!

I suppose we *could* demand that lurkers register their interest, and they get passwords as well, but that's getting a bit heavy. Please note that there's no data sharing between the forum server and the gotm server that delivers the statistics, so we can't use forum identities to control stats access.