Future of Civ4 GOTMs

[DynamicSpirit]

This thread is to discuss how people want GOTMs to continue in the future. Bluntly, numbers participating are falling, so it seems appropriate to open a discussion to see what ideas people have for how to ensure GOTMs remain viable in the future.

I'd like to keep this fairly open, so please respond with your thoughts on any aspect of how you'd like GOTMs to develop, but with a particular focus on anything that might improve participation.

A few general points:

Participation

Civ4 is an old game, so it's perhaps not surprising that interest is slowly waning, although it's clear there remains a core of dedicated fans (rightly in my view - it is a fun and exceptionally well-designed game).

GOTMs have been hit by several events this year which have probably depressed numbers participating:

• The recurrent email troubles on civfanatics. Emails are currently switched on but I understand that's not expected to last. Obviously, if people don't get email reminders of what's going on, fewer people come to the forums.
• The long server downtime when the server was migrated earlier this summer may have put people off too.
• Windows 10 won't allow playing dvd versions of vanilla or Warlords without hacking the system.
• A recent Windows 7 security patch has had the same effect on Windows 7

The last two points mean it's now impossible to play vanilla or Warlords GOTMs without either using a Mac or hacking your system or using Steam (which itself causes frequent problems with the HOF mod). I strongly suspect that's why GOTM 118 has just completed with only 8 submissions. And of course, even without those hurdles, playing GOTMs requires some work setting up your system correctly. Personally I'd love to fix those problems but that requires volunteers with a lot of time and coding skills.

Ideas

A couple of things to consider:

• Given the difficulties faced by vanilla and Warlords, should we reduce the frequency of or even stop running those games, and focus on BtS games?
• Is there anything we could reasonably do to get more people aware of the GOTMs?
• Should we be giving awards for games with fewer than - say - 10 - submissions?
• Is there anything that anyone else (outside of the normal staff) can do to help?

 

[nocho]

I'll play anything on offer, if I have the time. If I don't then I'll at least try to play BOTM as I enjoy BtS the most. I don't think that new awards will help much with drawing more people to these games, although undeniably I was motivated by awards to get the eptathlons in all versions. So awards are fun, just think new ones will feel artificial, they're fine as they are imo.

If you drop vanilla and warlords, I'll be sad to see them go but basically because it means less games on offer. Personally wouldn't mind seeing a 2-weekly BtS game instead though.

Whatever the future of xOTMs, you have my gratitude for having organized them all these years.

 

[lymond]

The last two points mean it's now impossible to play vanilla or Warlords GOTMs

This is not true. Although I've heard of some of these issues, but not knowledgeable on them, I have no problem playing vanilla and warlords on both 10 and 7. DD versions outside Steam work fine.

A dramatic drop in overall participation and traffic in the Civ IV - across the board - has definitely occurred in recent months. Civ IV has had a long fruitful life compared to most games - a testament to its greatness. I think many have just finally moved on. However, it seems even with the older civ games that things like GOTMs and HOF keep some interest. If folks play the game now at all, they seem to want those games to matter.

Seemed not very long ago that GOTM participation wasn't bad at all - even picking up a bit. I actually perused through the tables not long ago to check that out specifically. Then *poof* it dropped hard. Maybe some of the issues with the site did scare off quite a few. Regardless GOTM participation has waxed and waned over time. While certainly not what it was in the heyday, I think there is still potential for folks to come back and maybe a new player coming on board now and then.

For me, other than my HOF duties, I play very very little civ iv now and spend much less time here. However, when I play the game at all, I strictly play GOTMs and some HOF. I check out every new GOTM game for interest.

With that said, my vote or recommendation is to keep GOTM and Warlords going while monitoring the trend over a period of time. If either one stays under say 10 participants or thereabouts for and extended time, maybe they are worth retiring. GOTM could possibly move to a 45 day schedule like Warlords at some point, although I think it tends to be more popular as some old guys seem to play it exclusively. Another idea, at some point down the road, if participation dies badly, is to move those to to either a quarterly or biannual schedule.

As for getting more folks, there does not seem to be much that we can do. One thing I've tried to do with some HOF events, is post announcements in S&T and General forums. For one, this may catch the eye of some newer players to the forum, and maybe even some lurkers. Also, I still think there are some older posters around those forums that really don't know what all this is about.

 

[Xcalibrator]

If we drop GOTM and WOTM, what about having two BOTM series, one at Noble/Prince/Monarch and the other at Emp/Imm/Deity? If some people (like me) only like to play games at a certain difficulty this would provide opportunities more often. Possibly, we might get more recruits if people were encouraged to talk about tips, what worked well, what worked badly, etc. in the spoilers, like in ye olde days. But Civ is such an old game now there probably won't be much new blood.

I'm running Windows 7 on my main Civ computer (temporarily out of commission), sometimes Windows XP on a Mac partition, and have no intention of changing those OS's until the computers die so that I can hopefully avoid issues such as those with G|WOTM. But with many (?) people having problems, and general declining participation, it seems like BTS-only will necessarily happen sooner rather than later. And I have to say that no matter what happens, I expect to gradually play less often.

As for awards, they certainly don't, and shouldn't, have the prestige they did years ago. Maybe add dates to Eptathlete trophies as a way to differentiate the variable level of accomplishment they represent?

 

[kcd_swede]

As for awards, they certainly don't, and shouldn't, have the prestige they did years ago. Maybe add dates to Eptathlete trophies as a way to differentiate the variable level of accomplishment they represent?

I like the idea of adding dates to the eptathelons. That satisfies both the diminishing prestige (with few participants) and the incentive for some (me) to keep going until I be the last active player still breathing.

I'd vote to eliminate GOTM/WOTM except perhaps a special-edition on very special occasions. Replace with two BOTMs at hard/easy dificulties. I know I would finish and submit more when I'm preparing/monitoring fewer games - and it sure is no fun making a game and seeing 20 downloads and a single submission.

 

[Minou]

These games are great, and it really got me back into Civ IV. It is interesting to hear how other people played a given scenario, and I especially enjoy the "special" games where there is a unique starting condition or a "preferred" win condition.
As a Mac player (perhaps one of the only ones), I have not had any Windows issues and generally play as many of the GOTM/WOTM/BOTM as I can, but sometimes real life gets in the way. I think I have finished at least one of them each month for the past year or so. That being said, I think BOTM are generally the more interesting games. If GOTM/WOTM get eliminated, it would be really nice to have 2 BOTM per month.

 

[Jovan Kukic]

I would like to play GOTMs in all 3 versions of Civ4, like now My main reason to skip some of the GOTMs is that during the beginning of the game I noticed that the game would take too much time (epic game speed, too many small islands, opponents too far away, too much land area, no vassal states, etc., and combinations of these).

 

[MeowZeDung]

Speaking for just myself, as I don't pretend to know a lot about the community these days, I would like to see 2-3 BOTM at varying difficulties, map types, game speeds, settings, etc rather than a GOTM, WOTM, and BOTM.

To be honest, I don't personally see much value in playing vanilla or warlords. The interface and other differences just end up irritating me

 

[Cactus Pete]

I, too, am grateful to the staff for maintaining these Civ IV games for so long. Hope they will be continued, but ongoing <10 submissions probably wouldn't justify the effort. Happy with fewer, more widely spaced, games but wonder if that wouldn't further reduce submissions.

J Kukic is certainly correct that many of the recent games have been time consuming, as the mapmakers have gotten increasingly evil. JK, would a 45 day time limit mitigate that issue for you?

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Time, not lack of interest, is a major factor for me. I still greatly appreciate the XOTMs, the hard effort put in by the excellent staff, and the awesome community of players!

When a Succession GOTM is ongoing (and I have the time to participate in it), I have to admit that XOTM games take a back seat. It's a double-edged sword... SGOTMs keep more players active in these forums, but they also take away a few regular XOTM participants. I'm not suggesting a change here, just noting that when an SGOTM is ongoing, XOTM participation will suffer more than it otherwise would have.

Recently, the HOF has captured my interest for my Civ IV free time, particularly because I can choose to play on smaller maps and can therefore finish a game within a shorter timeframe.

What I'd like to see a lot more of is much smaller maps, such as Small and even Tiny. Yes, it can be more of a challenge to take on AIs on larger-sized maps, but playing smaller-sized maps seems to be a good tradeoff for reducing the length of games and thereby encouraging more submissions, while still maintaining the gameplay elements of Civ IV that we all love. The more squares on a map that get revealed, the laggier the game gets, so smaller-sized maps can keep the pace of the game going smoothly (and this lagginess makes me feel the need to avoid trading World Maps around on Standard-sized or larger maps, not for strategic reasons, but to keep the game from lagging too much for me). There's also a lot less micro to slow one down when one has a necessarily smaller empire to manage, due to the map size being smaller. Smaller-sized maps can still be challenging and competitive (put Copper underneath of Shaka's Settler, etc), while maintaining a lot the same Civ IV fun, but with much less tedium in the end-game turns.

I don't necessarily see that Awards are easier to obtain, as long as there is some competition for an Award. The level of play has greatly increased over the years, so the ante required to successfully compete has greatly increased, and a good portion of competitors are much more skilled than they were years ago. Even when there isn't competition, we still see many great games being posted that would have handily beaten many competitors even if we had had 10 times the number of active players. Personally, I wouldn't suggest messing with the Awards and Medals system--let's face it: for some of us, collecting icons beside our nicknames on a website can be a strong motivating factor to continue to participate. When the system behind assigning awards changes, the system tends to lose credibility and people feel more hesitant in competing competing in it.


There are some player who can finish a game quickly, whereas there are many players who take more time to do so. The first batch of players suffers when the length of time between games increases. So, I think that Small and Tiny maps will be a good compromise to try--and, even advertise as much in the name of the Pre-game Discussion Thread titles. I really like how some of the XOTM Pre-game Discussion Thread titles have had elements of the games mentioned (interesting settings, Leader being used, etc), so adding in the map size (at least when it's a size worthy of marketing) can be a helpful addition in enticing players to click and play.

 

[TalladegaKnight]

The game is nearly 10 years old. A lot of people have moved on, graduated, married, had kids, etc. I still find the game immensely enjoyable but I'm time limited. As a father of three, I can usually get in one game per month (maybe 2) playing an hour or two in my off time when wife and kids are asleep. I like the idea of a 45 day time frame and only BTS games. I also like the idea of more unconventional settings and size maps. The new BOTM is intriguing for this reason. Small maps are fun. I also enjoy a crowded map where you can only found a fewer number of cities. I find OCC games a quick blast with only one city to micro manage. Maybe with 2 BOTMs per month, some more unconventional games could be designed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Thanks for the replies so far.

I notice a few people have commented about the length of time games take to play. Out of interest, how would people feel if we offered games that had specific challenges that took less time to achieve (for example: Achieve the highest score by 500AD, or the highest culture by 1000 AD, without necessarily winning the game). (Note: I'm putting this out as an idea. As yet I have no idea how difficult it would be for us to actually implement - as clearly there would need to be changes to the backend submission system and the awards system to accomodate it. So this is more a question about whether doing that is worth considering - would you guys be sufficiently interested in such games? My suggestion is not a promise to actually do it ).

 

[Frederiksberg]

Time is certainly an issue. Would suggest that more games are on small maps and quick speed. In particular Deity games that otherwise become extremely time consuming.

Another idea is to create a yearly "GOTM Championship". Could be a BOTM @immortal with an extended time limit. Use the SGOTM submission system and let the participants register before the game and upload after each session. Time it to fall between two SGOTMs. Might draw the attention of some of the old guns (top players).

 

[Ronald]

First of all Thanks to all of the GOTM staff for providing many exciting games for many years.

I am playing occasionally when I find enough time to do so. With Warlords and Classic civ no longer available for everybody I suggest as some others before me to limit the games to BtS.
I also like the idea of having 2 games a month with 1 at a lower difficulty (noble to monarch) and 1 at higher difficulty (emperor to deity).
But whatever the final decision will be, I hope that there will be at least one game left per month.

 

[Jastrow]

As others have said, thanks for the work in putting these games together.

I continue to play when I have time, and like the mix of games (vanilla, warlords and BTS), but would also play an all BTS series if that is what it came to.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I don't play as regularly as I intend to - certainly cross posting in other forums and an announcement on the main page should be standard.

Personally I have no interest in playing anything other than BTS.

Thanks for all your efforts to keep the GOTM alive.

 

[Xcalibrator]

I definitely like the idea of more smaller-map games. The "specific challenges in a shorter time" idea appeals less, allthough I do like the idea of special winning conditions or setups to add variety, as we used to have more often in the past (but they often take the game-maker much more time). Fred's GOTM Championship idea is interesting, particularly if it includes devoting a separate thread to each player (a la SGOTM teams) and encouraging them to post commentary every time they upload a turnset so that lurkers (and players after they've finished) can follow along, look at progress charts, and compare strategies and tactics. Yeah, that might be Really cool.

 

[Jovan Kukic]

J Kukic is certainly correct that many of the recent games have been time consuming, as the mapmakers have gotten increasingly evil. JK, would a 45 day time limit mitigate that issue for you?

30 day limit is enough for me I was talking about number of hours of playing some GOTM. If I see in the beginning, that game would last 2-3 times longer than I like, then I often skip it. Probably we would have more submissions if GOTMs would sometimes had a little bit smaller maps when other settings are time consuming.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't play as regularly as I intend to - certainly cross posting in other forums and an announcement on the main page should be standard.

An announcement on the main page - that's a good point. About a year ago, we did get set up to do that, and also to announce games on the civfanatics facebook page. However the problem has been that it's impossible to automate those tasks, so they became another thing to have to remember to do whenever staff members prepared each game. As a result, it hasn't happened very regularly. It's probably worth us looking into whether we can get that happening more regularly.

Cross-posting in other forums - I like the idea in principle, but we'd need to check with the civfanatics authorities on etiquette for that - I'm not sure if it'd be regarded in other forums as spam (After all, we probably wouldn't like it here if people posted in the GOTM forums to advertise stuff that had nothing to do with GOTM). Possibly something we could do occasionally, when something changes in the GOTMs?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Since many of you are saying you'd prefer quicker games, WOTM 70 starting on 22 Oct will be played on a tiny map!