Fix the Trash Game

[Paul666]

I have been watching a lot of succession games and help out games. It got me thinking about a slightly different game. We can play this a a normal succession type game, except each round will start with the WORST point score game uploaded. Out goal is to constantly fix the mess.

I see the rounds as:

1. 4000-2500 BC
2. 2500-500 BC
3. 500BC-500 AD
4. 500 AD- 1200 AD
5. 1200 AD - 1600 AD
6 1600- 1800 AD
7. 1800-1900 AD
8. 1900-Finish

You score whatever points you make in a round; +100 points for submitting worst score. Anybody upload a game win, and that round is the final round. Winner hosts the next game. No going into world builder, reloading or other game tampering.

Any interest?

 

[DaveMcW]

But this won't help the person who got into the mess in the first place. They will continue to submit the worst game until they lose.

 

[Paul666]

You are right, but it might help in learning how to fix a bad situation.

Bad situation--I thought this was a good idea, but can't figure out how to upload the save file or a starting image. Any help on uploading files?

_________________________________________________
Commenters--you are right, the worse players will not get the benefit except to see that bad situations can be fixed. The real challange (besides my spelling) is for the good players to show they can fix a bad situation.

About the start--Easy level--Noble. Pangea, standard size. I locked modified assets. I picked the AI's though. I wouldn't expect too many friendly AI's.

_________________________________________________
If anyone wants to give it a try, first round should be uploaded by Thursday Morning, 6 AM EDT.

 

[cabert]

you won't be fixing the mess.
Each round you dive further!

should go for one down, one up (so best "mess fixer" helps out the group, then worst "mess builder" puts your head back into the water)

 

[Betafor]

Would only work with people who did it for practice, and NO compition to be the one who's game gets picked. Basically, Exactly the same of a normal SG - everyone tries thier hardest to do WELL, but the person who did the worst, even while trying, gets picked.

 

[Paul666]

Here is the opening screenshot.


Maybe I did not explain my thoughts very well. Everyone has to pick up from the worst start at the beginning of each round. So if you do great in round 1, thats nice, but you have to pick up from the worst start for round 2. Each player has to keep digging out of a hole, maybe not of their own making.

Cabert--you might be right about 1 down, 1 up. I didn't consider that someone would go out, or just keep driving everything down. I want it to be a challange, not impossible. I thought the noble level start would fix that. Would you prefer a harder level and zig zag rounds, or does the noble level fix that problem?

 

[carl corey]

As has been pointed out before, in the case in which there's a player consistently worse than the others, how will he learn? The only way I can see this work is if people look at all the saves and/or talk a lot about the next round and the person who's last in score takes their advice.

 

[cabert]

i don't like the idea for 2 reasons :
- you never will come out of the mess, so basically you will lose the game with no hope to escape unless you let only top players in
- score is irrelevent most of the time = my best games get started with crappy scores for the first half, then out of the blue, the expensive land grab starts to pay off and i cruise to victory.

edit : a better option is to let some newbie into a normal SG, and let him play half the turns

 

[Petrucci]

Ok, I like this stuff and adds some intrest to the forums. If the goal is to give some bad material for the good players, I'll see how bad of a start I can manage Will try to post a save by tomorrow morning!

 

[Cam_H]

Well I'll bite.

The game went from 2050BC to 2480BC, so unsure which to post so I played the extra turn.

Spoiler :

Not sure if it was better to get a second Worker or a Settler out quickly, but opted for the Worker.

The Settler is nearly complete, and will head to the east to land on the desert and pick up the Copper, Clams, and Pigs (Tile X). A problem here is that the second city will need an Obelisk (we have Mysticism) to pop the border to pick up the Copper, which simply might be too long given that we've met Montezuma and will want to start working on Axes.

Other options include Y and Z that will miss the Clams and fresh water from the lake but will allow immedite access to the Copper.

Settling on the Copper is generally not advised, but will allow immediate Copper access without having to build a mine. The city is coastal and will still pick up the Pigs. It's unknown if there is a seafood resource off that part of the coast.

Timbuktu is still sitting on one population point, but should grow quickly and well with the farmed Rice, Silk, and Spices, and has access to a plains hill mine and a forested grasslands Silk.

Score 126.

Edit: So while the score is pretty rubbishy, the game I've submitted is not in a bad position ... is that the idea?

Or are we really trying to have a hopeless score but survive?

I'm a bit

myself on this!

 

[Paul666]

Yea--I noticed the year problem, good planning Paul

At this point I don't see a whole lot of interest, so I am gonna cancel. I still like the idea. So much advice is predicated on getting a good start that I really would like to see the what the better players do in a bad situation. I need to tweak the format to get more interest first though.

You did better than I did CAM. I might have more points, but misused my scout badly. I went on a hut search and came up empty

 

[cabert]

i'd like a "save my game" thread, but i'd go with different rules:
- it would be a 2 groups SG (the helpless and the saviors)
- first group (the helpless) plays 20 turns, select the "worst" situation from a vote (score isn't relevent),
- then second group (the saviors) plays 20 turns, select the "best" from a vote,
...
It may be fun
but i think the time ain't right for such games, warlords is just out taking it's toll on vanilla gaming, + it's summer = holydays for many.

If you go for such a game, i'll try my best but it's like a GotM slice : it takes time, you can't expect people to play and post in hours! I'd say 48 hours for 20 turns (posting included) then you need to select the worst/best.
Maybe vote isn't the best solution. Maybe a "game master" (not necessarily the best player, just the OP ) should go through the different games and choose alone?

edit : about level, noble is good, but don't think every situation is salvageable on noble

 

[BadHorsie]

I don't get it... if you're always going to pick the worst score, why would anyone want to do well and fix the mess? Won't it just be a competition of who can screw up the Civ the most?

 

[robertz28]

Hell if bad score games is what you're after I can hook you up with all you will ever need lol.

 

[carl corey]

I'm wondering about something: do you want people to do their best, and then correct the "worst" game? It seems more logical than what some here have suggested. cabert's idea does indeed seem interesting. Have begginers and experts collaborate but in two distinct packs: "here's what you must not do" and "here's how to get better". With lots of talks in between you might even get to the point where it will be hard to make a distinction between the "beginner" games.

 

[pigswill]

On t'other hand to really screw up you need to know the game; have the 'experts' play badly and the beginners bale them out.

 

[cabert]

On t'other hand to really screw up you need to know the game; have the 'experts' play badly and the beginners bale them out.

you're a bad guy, aren't you I can screw any game in 10 turns in a way you'll never recover (declaring war against montezuma without any troop is a good start )

I'm willing to try a down/up SG variant, but only if even the "down" part is played in the "best the player could think of" way.
Also, another option would be a "sticky" thread where newbies could post some desperate games. Could be a fun alternative to GotM competitive games
But that would require a whole staff. I will propose some "fix my trash game" option to the GotM staff (meaning a game starting in 2000 BC, with only 1 city, no worker, one warrior, stonehenge being built, every worker tech researched ). Could be fun to force those experts out of known land.

back to topic (ie not a sticky thread but a SG),
How could we be sure the game is trashed enough?

The trick may be to play at a high enough level, so that newbies have a real hard time to just survive. Monarch may be hard enough
The issue then is the ability of "experts" to effectively save the game...
I know I won't be saving any ill-started monarch game. I have a hard enough time winning games where i do everything i can towards early rush!

Maybe Prince would be enough? IMHO, it's the first challenging level.
I won the first noble game i played (that's why i don't think it's a challenging level), but lost a dozen of prince games before i could handle it (monarch is worse, i lost dozens of monarch game before reaching the point where i could build a third city ).

How would that be?
SG variant
*Level : Prince
*Roster of 2 :
- newbie group (worst game selected, the goal is not to be selected!)
- expert group (best game selected, the goal is to be selected).

* After each set of turns (first round for each group is 20 turns, 10 turns/round after that), each "competitor" posts a save and writeup. The other group selects the game it has to play (score is only one indication, not the most important factor) among those (ie the expert group selects the worst newbie game, regarding his own comprehension of the game, while the newbie group selects the best expert game, with his own comprehension).
* If a game is lost, it cannot be selected. The player gets to play again the next round of his group.
* If a game is won, the game ends (even if it's a newbie player who wins it).
* For each round, each player has 48 hours to play and post the save+write up. Late coming writeups cannot be selected (48 hours is a long time!).
* A roster of each group has to be set up before the game starts. Any newbie willing to play the "up" part is welcomed to do so, if his game is selected he is officially declared expert . Any expert that wants to play the "down" part is entitled to do so, but the "made up" game cannot be selected (so don't bother with a save).

Anyone interested?
what do you think Paul666?
DaveMcW could be expert, i think Cam_H, pigswill qualify as experts too.
The rest (no offense meant) i don't know. I'm no newbie either. I'm a bit humble as expert myself, but would like to try.

Maybe we should move to the SG games forum?

 

[mice]

This ( Cabert's) format would work .It's a really good idea.

 

[Paul666]

(Got kind of sidetracked with Warlords myself!! Love the new scenarios, but are all the old ones gone??)

Anyway, I always envisioned that everyone would try and do their best all the time. As I keep messing around with formats, I keep finding more problems with what I hoped to achieve.

Cabert--My biggest problem with your proposal is the 48 hour deadline. People (me) need more time to balance life with this Game! With the pregame sign up, we need some deadlines but I'm not sure the right time.
I assume the game would start on the "down" swing. I would definately be part of the down group. I think it is worth trying!

 

[cabert]

(Got kind of sidetracked with Warlords myself!! Love the new scenarios, but are all the old ones gone??)

old ones can only be played vanilla, if i understand things well

Anyway, I always envisioned that everyone would try and do their best all the time. As I keep messing around with formats, I keep finding more problems with what I hoped to achieve.

Cabert--My biggest problem with your proposal is the 48 hour deadline. People (me) need more time to balance life with this Game! With the pregame sign up, we need some deadlines but I'm not sure the right time.
I assume the game would start on the "down" swing. I would definately be part of the down group. I think it is worth trying!

48 hours was supposed to be vs "fastest player"
I have no problem with 72, 96 hours, or even a week. But the game would get really slow.