Future Options for Civ4 G/W/BoTM

[AlanH]

There have been some comments about this topic as a result of the announcement of the final WOTM. It appears that players have either missed the opportunity to discuss this before, in the Civ5 planning thread; or not realised what was being proposed.

As highly paid (not!) staff, we have to work out which games to run to satisfy the majority of the players interested in the xoTM series. We would clearly be remiss to ignore the arrival of Civ5, and we need to support players who want to move to it. Whatever we may think about Civ5 as it was initially released, it is very likely to be a successful product once its teething troubles are resolved. Unless other volunteers step forward to assist, we have to adjust the effort we are able to put into the other versions in the series in order to support it.

We concluded that we should continue to support Civ4 'vanilla' GOTMs, as this is the base level product in the Civ4 range, and we clearly need to continue to support the flagship Civ4 BTS release. We felt that Warlords is the version we can stop supporting with the least impact on players. Most players who wanted to expand Civ4 will have gone the final step to BtS. BtS contains all the enhancements offered in Warlords, and the only unique features delivered with Warlords are scenarios that are not relevant to WOTM. And WOTMs attract the fewest entries of the three variants of Civ4.

However, if there are strong views that have not been expressed, please air them here - constructively and politely, please!

 

[Dhoomstriker]

I, for one, enjoy the Warlords expansion the most.


It is, of course, hard to argue with the logic that if a player is going to buy the Warlords expansion, they are likely to buy the BtS expansion, and they will certainly have Vanilla. Also, there are players who won't have either expansion (although you can get them really cheaply now that Civ 5 is out), so keeping Vanilla around makes sense.

I guess what it may boil down to is a call for a volunteer (or more than one?) to administer the Warlords games.


I am not volunteering for that position, but I will volunteer to PLAY the Warlords games that a kind volunteer may be willing (and allowed?) to host.


Which begs the question--if you do have a volunteer or two to help out, will that fact allow you to continue running all three Civ 4 XOTMs, or is it still going to be too much of a strain on the experienced admins to oversee so many games in addition to Civ 5 games?

And if a call for volunteers is a possible solution to keeping all three Civ4 XOTMs going, what should said volunteers do? Send a Private Message to AlanH?

 

[leif erikson]

And if a call for volunteers is a possible solution to keeping all three Civ4 XOTMs going, what should said volunteers do? Send a Private Message to AlanH?

Sending a PM to any GOTM Staff member would be a really good idea.

 

[cabert]

As a not quite reliable player (no game submitted for almost a year if not more), my words may be of a lesser importance.
Still I found that I don't enjoy warlords or vanilla anymore. BtS is now clearly better, more so with BUFFY being an improvement over the normal interface.
So IMHO, vanilla and warlords can die (maybe slowly, like warlords first, then after civ 5's mod is ready vanilla can be left out too).

It may sound harsh, but what I mean is I'm not going to play GotM and WotM, while I'm going to play BotM.
(I didn't submit BotM 34 only because I retired so early it's not worth submitting)

 

[lymond]

Well, although BTS pretty much has everything Warlords has, it does have more content than Vanilla so I'd say it's more than just the scenarios. Interestingly, although I pretty much bought CIV4 and exps. around the same time, I played Warlords for quite a long time before getting into BTS. Never really played Vanilla until I found the GOTMs.

Anyway, I do like Warlords far better than vanilla which seems so basic to me. I play all the xOTMs because...well...they are there. However, I'd definitely prefer the WOTM over the GOTM.

However, I understand that maybe some folks - probably the vets - may or may not have Warlords. Yet I would guess that many of the more recent civvers probably have bought the complete version.

My recommendation is a compromise when all is said and done, unless the WOTM just gets no support. This would be to rotate what would be the monthly GOTM to a GOTM one month and WOTM the next month - rinse/repeat. My assumption is that this would not require new staff unless the GOTM staff is not able to work Warlords for whatever reason.

Of course, if volunteers come along then all the better. I contemplated volunteering even before it was mentioned in this thread but I'm not very experienced in balancing maps.

Regardless, I'll keep playing whatever this fine staff puts out there.

 

[srad]

Thanks for the thread AlanH!

I would prefer Warlords over Vanilla because of the richer content! BTS is my preferred expansion and I would wish one BOTM per month.

 

[srad]

I am not volunteering for that position, but I will volunteer to PLAY the Warlords games that a kind volunteer may be willing (and allowed?) to host.

A question to the xOTM moderators:

How much workload (hours per month) does one xOTM put on you? What do you estimate from your experience?
My guess is you need time (a) to setup a game, (b) test it, (c) set the threads up and monitor them and (d) process the games to publish the results.

 

[Erkon]

A question to the xOTM moderators:

How much workload (hours per month) does one xOTM put on you? What do you estimate from your experience?
My guess is you need time (a) to setup a game, (b) test it, (c) set the threads up and monitor them and (d) process the games to publish the results.

The effort range from perhaps five hours to twenty hours, depending on the game. The creation of a simple map (including play testing) takes two hour perhaps. Then one hour for preparing the launch (uploading files, writing the announcement post etc), one hour for the spoiler threads, and one hour for handling the results.

An advance map may take up to ten hours to prepare, and perhaps even more if you need extensive playtesting. Monitoring the spoiler threads may also take a bit of time as well, although not more than normal players spend reading the threads. This is of course depending on the activity etc.

Average time would then be around ten hours per game with three hours for a,b, and c, and one hour for d.

Then there are discussions running by the GOTM staff regarding improvements, player feedback, all kind of issues players run into etc. It's up to each staff to chose the level of participation.

Creating a balanced game is not trivial, but balance is not as important as the fun factor in my opinion. There will always be players who are unlucky, so the game has to be fun for them as well.

A map creator must of course have basic skills in Civ4. Then there are administrative skills i.e. the ability to create the actual competition, diplomatic skills to communicate with the player base, creative skills for entertaining scenarios. You should be goal-oriented, persevering, careful, reliable, always present, and prioritize your online friends above wife, children, RL friends, work, school, household chores and garden.

One thing more: GOTM staff and GOTM moderators are not the same thing. Staff responsibility is to maintain the actual competition, while moderators have administrative rights to the forum. Not all staff are moderators. Non-moderators still do a bit of moderation i.e. monitors the posts in their spoiler threads, but does not have the rights to edit others posts.

 

[srad]

Thanks for the detailed answer Erkon!

... and prioritize your online friends above wife, children, RL friends, work, school, household chores and garden.

Hmm, the job really needs some dedication I see.

 

[jesusin]

Hmm, the job really needs some dedication I see.

You bet!

Playtesting can easily take more than 30 hours if you want to know it's interesting for advanced players, both warmongers and peacemongers, it's winnable by begginers and has no endgame flaws, if you are playing with a 'creative' map.

My idea would be to have 1 GOTM every two months, no WOTM, 1 BOTM every month and 1 5OTM every month.

 

[Fluroscent]

First off, a big thanks to the staff for taking their time to create and support these games. The work is greatly appreciated for sure.

I think there are some of us that will appreciate continued support for the older versions XOTM, but I certainly hope the BOTM is not sacrificed in any way.

As for GOTM vs WOTM, I think it makes sense to keep the GOTM, even though Warlords is probably a better game. This is because it is very unlikely that there are many people that own Warlords and not BtS, while there is certainly a lot of people who only have the original.

As for the frequency, well that probably depends on how many hours the staff want to put into it. I like the more non-standard maps, so if it is a choice between a minimally edited one every month, or a heavily edited one every two months, I'll take the latter.

 

[LowtherCastle]

The creation of a simple map (including play testing) takes two hour perhaps. Then one hour for preparing the launch (uploading files, writing the announcement post etc), one hour for the spoiler threads, and one hour for handling the results.

Playtesting can easily take more than 30 hours if you want to know it's interesting for advanced players, both warmongers and peacemongers, it's winnable by begginers and has no endgame flaws, if you are playing with a 'creative' map.

One possibility would be to not complicate life. Just pick the settings, generate a save, and there you have it. After all, we're talking about the difference between a standard Sid-generated game that becomes a WOTM or some sort of ideal game that will never happen again as a WOTM.

 

[srad]

I tend to enjoy 'standard' games more than the special scenarios. But this is surely something personal.
So I would suggest / take the 'don't complicate life' route as it seems for me more favorable as to have no WOTM. And judging what will bring fun for whomever is at least 'difficult'.

 

[lymond]

My idea would be to have 1 GOTM every two months, no WOTM, 1 BOTM every month and 1 5OTM every month.

Why?

(as for 5OTM - assuming that means CIV5 - I'm not sure that's really on topic but you are GOTM Staff - and a legend - so...ok, i'm shutting up )

Anyway, the thought of no WOTM ever is somewhat disturbing to me and so absolute/finite. I think several have stated, including myself that it's better than vanilla and actually I believe the most challenging of all versions. I suggested rotating them out monthly, but maybe a quarterly WOTM will suffice.

(Granted eventually things will slow down. CIVIII GOTMs are still going though, and CIV4 is still so popular overall. But to put into perspective - not trying to start a 5 discussion, but it's simple observation everywhere on this forum that many diehards are returning to 4 indefinitely and with vigor). Also, as I mentioned more than once in the GOTM recommendation thread a while back that a little more marketing may bring more people in. I recommended this to Alan for the SGOTM when sign-up was slow and loads more came on board. Just sticky up an announcement on the strategy and general forums.

 

[Deckhand]

I was happy to see this thread and immediately had the same proposal that I see Lymond posted:
BOTM monthly and alternating GOTM/WOTM.
Maybe let the vanilla and warlord games run for 6 weeks like WOTM does now. (With the next one still starting four weeks from the previous start).

Regarding 5, While many of us IV veterans are returning to BtS, there are still lots of people that enjoy V. So, I agree that CivFanatics should continue to pursue a ciV 5OTM.

 

[PutCashIn]

Why on earth you someone want to play Vanllia over Warlords?

Ughh. Ewww. Blehhh.

Loading up Vanilla is cringe worthiness.

Less Leaders. Civs. UB's. Traits. Features.

The only thing warlords doesnt have is OP unique units and a PHI/SPI Saladin. What a shame.

 

[AlanH]

Why on earth you someone want to play Vanllia over Warlords?

We support vanilla because that's the minimum configuration. Some players don't invest the extra cash to buy the expansions.

 

[PutCashIn]

Isnt Civ Complete now cheaper than the original release of CiV Vanilla?

But good point.

Still, Belllughhhccch.

 

[da_Vinci]

Hmm ...

First thought, let's not call it 5OTM, just looks odd. How about VOTM?

If there were no other issues, I'd say drop GOTM as I like WOTM better, and it is fun to play with siege that can kill.

But since entry level is vanilla, then I'd say lets do GOTM and WOTM each six times a year alternating, and BOTM 12 times a year.

But then, there is that global rankings issue. We'd like the GOTM only folks to have an opportunity to score each month. If that has high priority, then we need a monthly GOTM, which probably means goodbye to WOTM.

So maybe the question is do we need a monthly vanilla Civ IV game? If not, then maybe there is room for a few WOTM? Even if it is 8 G and 4 W?

dV

 

[Dhoomstriker]

First thought, let's not call it 5OTM, just looks odd. How about VOTM?

I prefer references to 3OTM, 4OTM, 5OTM, etc, instead of using Roman numerals.

As much as people try to say CIV and CiV in place of Civ 4 and Civ 5, those roman-numeral-incorporating names are confusing, since they combine letters and numbers together, but do so ambiguously, since the numbers don't look any different from letters (because they ARE letters!).

Plus, CIV and CiV are terms that confuse many people initially, which, in my mind, makes them bad acronyms. Further, they are easily mistyped without the author as easily spotting the difference (just the capitalization of a letter) compared to mistyping a different arabic numeral (4 or 5).

Besides, do we really want to differentiate the versions by calling the Civ 4 XOTMs "IVOTM," which is not only really hard to visually recognize as being numbers and letters combined, but also has a very yucky-sounding anagram??

So maybe the question is do we need a monthly vanilla Civ IV game? If not, then maybe there is room for a few WOTM? Even if it is 8 G and 4 W?

If no volunteers step up to the plate, I'd be in favour of such a system--still keeping both Vanilla and Warlords alive, with weighting placed on Vanilla.

If Global Rankings really mean a lot to someone, they are more likely to succeed if they are playing BOTMs as well, anyway.

But, I suppose that someone could do an analysis of the Global Rankings table to see if there are a lot of regular submissions (those who submit consistently are more likely to care about the Global Rankings table) from players who only submit Vanilla games.