Game of the Month SGs - Discussion Thread.

[akots]

It would still be nice to have some "iron fist" regarding game setup. If only just to satisfy mad-bax and keep him doing what he is doing.

However, if this "iron fist" can be limited to preset victory condition, like it was in Medal Play series, that is an option which can be considered IMO. As well as team assignement to a certain extent.

I have also a question. How is the Jason's score calculated precisely with the bonuses? I'm still trying to do it myself and still failing miserably to get the same numbers as in the maintenance thread. The most obvious thing is that adding bonuses to Firaxis score actually can decrease Jason's score because the calculator is still fixed at the Regent level.

 

[ainwood]

The whole reason that the Jason system was adopted was an endeavour to make different game victory conditions give comparable final scores. This had the additional benefit of removing the need for milking.

IMHO, the 'problem' with variant bonuses is simply that its very difficult to define that the scoring bonus should be. How many points is a 5CC really worth compared to an unrestricted game? How much is Always War worth compared to a game where you set your own variants?

I see a few possibilities:
* Define a robust scoring system that does reflect the handicaps added by these variants (very difficult to achieve fairly, I fear )
* Make everyone play the same variant.
* Do away with variants altogether.
* Only compare scores played under the same variants.

I think MBs idea above is a good workable compromise.

 

[Ankka]

When will next SGOTM start?

 

[mad-bax]

We're looking at week 3 in May. The sign-up thread and announcement will probably go up a week before that.

Can you wait that long?

 

[Shoe35]

oops posted game in wrong thread

 

[Ankka]

Originally posted by mad-bax
We're looking at week 3 in May. The sign-up thread and announcement will probably go up a week before that.

Can you wait that long?

Quite tough to wait until that... I guess I'll just have to live with it.

 

[denyd]

How about a little teaser to get us in the mood for SGOTM2?

 

[Karasu]

Hmmm. I don't know if MB will approve of this, but...

...ok, just a little hint: it will *not* be GOTM2

 

[Ankka]

Hmm... no use of looking up old spoilers then, huh?

 

[Sir Bugsy]

Are you gents creating a new game or going to pick one of the 27 that haven't been SG'ed yet?

 

[barbslinger]

If it is possible I'd like to do like we did with the Han game and be able to play a different civ than the one played.

 

[mad-bax]

The next game will be one of the unmodded games. (Pre-16). This time I have decided to make two minor changes to reduce spoiler info. Both changes will become apparent to those that played the original game quite quickly.

I would very much like to create a map, but there are no plans for this ATM. There would need to be a demand for it, and the staff would need confidence that I was a competent map maker. I suppose the staff map makers could build a map for us, that might work... but not yet.

For me, my focus right now is to get averyone prepped and enthusiastic about making the 20MB download to play from the GOTM Bic/Bix files. This is where we need to be IMO. We can talk about brand new maps then.

 

[Ankka]

Originally posted by mad-bax
For me, my focus right now is to get averyone prepped and enthusiastic about making the 20MB download to play from the GOTM Bic/Bix files. This is where we need to be IMO. We can talk about brand new maps then.

What do you mean? Please no current GOTM-style dl's, if you are meaning that...

 

[scoutsout]

I'm trying to distill some things out of this thread...

Mad Bax: I think it is beyond me to make a fair system of bonuses....If someone comes up with a creditable bonus system then great. ...I only want to play with the bonuses once.

Ainwood: Perhaps just stick with the Jasons and remove variant bonuses completely?

Offa: ...needlessly complicated to give bonuses, as it is very difficult to make them fair.

denyd: I do like the directed victory type games or a bonus for variants.

A query by Mad-Bax: What about...? One variant per game. Two awards. One for highest Jason and one for fastest finish.[/i]

If I may offer some thoughts...

There seems to be a great deal of concern of the 'fairness' of the bonus scoring. Many of these concerns have probably resulted from a rather high score by team Akots, which benefitted from combined 5CC+AW bonuses. Okay, the score was outlandish, I'll admit. Having said that, I think it is worth noting that the Firaxis score for that game is the highest one so far, and only 2 base Jason scores are slightly higher. (And I don't think either of those were XCC's...)

My take: Team Akots "blew the bell curve" in SGOTM1, and we shouldn't be too quick to draw conclusions about the bonus scoring structure. Team Akots picked 2 bonus variants that lent themselves well to the map type and tribe, and (per Mad-Bax) turned in a Firaxis score that would have rated Silver in the original GOTM...

My understanding is that Mad-Bax put these bonuses in place to encourage people to try a variant of some sort. To that end, I think he was successful; 8 of 10 teams played (or are playing) some variant. Every available variant was played by at least one team. This bears repeating:

Every available variant was played by at least one team.

From the comments above, I think MB's suggestion and denyd's comments are worth considering. Having (at most) two sets of comparable scores would resolve some of the variability isssues surrounding multiple bonus types or combined bonuses. I think "directed" game are also worth considering.

Though I wouldn't want to have to read 2 pages worth of additonal rules (RBCiv Epic 40) it might be good to prescribe certain variant rules that apply to all. (Regent level game - you must use OCP, playing Zulu - must pursue Spaceship win, etc.)

In closing: Bonus discussion aside, if you reduce the number of variant types in any given SGOTM, the conditions will be more similar, and a comparision of results more meaningful.

My $0.02, for what it's worth. (Might be less than $0.02)

 

[akots]

Please note that before selecting the combination of 5CC+AW+RBC rules, I personally had no knowledge of the map or of any other relevant information about the game. It was a blind decision based only on difficulty, knowledge of power of Immortals, hopes for getting some iron early on and map size. And in our team, nobody IMHO had any other spoiler information. There was just a bunch of not so extremely sane players (no offense) who wanted to try something brutal. Also, swift victory against the Aztec was dependent on pRNG luck to a certain extent and it could have turned different at any time. Therefore, it does not look like our bonuses are too high. We just played more or less accurately and had some luck. It would not be nice and fair if result of only one team woud ruin the whole variant bonus idea as it looks like in the present discussion.

By all means, it is worth trying to keep the system of bonuses. Just think twice before you pick them prior to the start and make sure the variant awards are clearly defined by mad-bax.

 

[denyd]

I can't speak for any other members here, but my purpose of playing these games is to have fun and learn a little more about this game each time.

Whether my team comes in first or last and I've been at both ends so far, I've had fun playing each of the games. Having bonus scoring for methods of victory, doesn't make me want to go for them as much as the meeting the challenge they put forth. I actually think I had more fun on the last place finish trying to eke out a victory against the odds than I did in stomping on Persia a couple of months ago. I think the members of Team C still playing the Babylonian Settler game will remember that game with a much larger sense of accomplishment, than they will for the most recent game where it was a race to beat the clock rather than figure out how to somehow come back from the dead and win.

Well enough rambling, whatever the decision about scoring doesn't really matter to me, because I'll be playing along until it's not fun anymore.

 

[AlanH]

Team-X was the other team who benefited from this game's bonus system, and I would say ours is a more valid example to show that the bonuses were distorted on this occasion, as we probably played a less optimum early game and made one or two errors later on as well. But I agree with Akots. This was a very unusual set of map conditions, and it would be premature to base a strategy for bonus awards on the results of this one game.

We only went AW/RBCiv initially, and we were well behind the curve early on in the game because we had some bad pRNG rolls and we probably didn't play as tight a game as other teams. When it was apparent that we weren't making great progress, and at a time when we were still below 5 cities and about to start expanding by settlement and acquisition, we discussed the option of making virtue out of necessity and adding 5CC to our list of objectives. We didn't appreciate just how much it would do to our score, but we knew we needed to do something to improve it.

So we finished later than several teams, and with a lower base scoring rate than most, but the bonus system rewarded us with a top three placing. I doubt whether allowing more than 5 cities would make that map play much faster in AW given our start, so the bonus was given for a constraint that didn't penalise us much at all, and I'm not personally planning to crow about anything other than our astute variant decision. I enjoyed the game, and I think the rest of the X-Team did as well, and we learnt a lot about AW in a fairly benign environment.

 

[scoutsout]

Originally posted by akots
Please note that before selecting the combination of 5CC+AW+RBC rules, I personally had no knowledge of the map <snip>

@Akots: I did not mean to imply we used spoiler information. We knew we had a small map and Regent level AI - that's all I meant about a map that lent itself to 5CC. I doubt we would have played XCC on a larger map... that's really all I meant.

@ denyd: your comment regarding fun and learning is excellent perspective.

I did not intend to "stir up a hornet's nest" with that post... just offer some ideas for putting the focus back on play rather than spend a bunch of time tweaking the bonus system until we end up with something as convoluted as the BCS...

 

[mad-bax]

.... Well.... the next game will be announced tomorrow. About 24hrs from this post... And I have made some changes to the bonuses for the game.

I enjoy reading the discussions BTW

 

[RowAndLive]

@MB - You're doing a great job, and I'd say that it has been enjoyed by all so far. Thanks for the encouragement to get involved!