Game schedule - how often and how long?

[AlanH]

How many Civ3 games do you want?

The poll is multiple choice. Please tick all the boxes that describe your preferred combination of game frequency for each series, and for game duration.

I have included an "Other" option. Use that and explain your requirements if I have missed out your preferences.

 

[AlanH]

@Kulko: Not sure what your multiple votes mean. Do you prefer monthly or two monthly games? How long do you prefer them to last?

 

[Kulko]

That means all of these options are ok with me.

 

[AlanH]

But which do you prefer?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Kulko]

One month, Six weeks

 

[Everkane]

I'm sorry, I never did a G/COTM (tried this England one but i'm not sure I'm gonna finish), but it seems clear for me that if a game lasts 6 weeks it turns to be impossible to make a game per month.

That's why I believe a game every 2 months (a COTM, I'm sorry abou the PtW players but I believe they can live without a GOTM) with the duration of 6 weeks it's gonna be perfect.

About the random map, I believe it's ok since the fun is to play the same game as the other ones, but it should be some kind of sense in the start spot. I believe a seafaring civ, for example, should start in a coastal square in a COTM. An agri civ should start nearby a river. And so on.

A luxury resource is not a must, but it should be very useful in high-level games. It's very unpleasant to play a deity game without a luxury resource, but as I said, it's not a must. It's just... more playable.

I believe just a few reloads is needed to find a good spot even in high level games. It doesn't need (in fact I think it shall not) to be an awesome spot, just a fine one for a reasonable game.

Rarely the map is not "winnable". A start with a river nearby and a luxury resource just can't be "not-winnable".

Making things this way and everybody can play (it doesn't need a player to create the map since it's gonna be a random map), it's gonna be funny and it's gonna be a game everybody can win. Try it in lower levels like Emperor or even Monarch (but please, not Warlord again, I can't even begin to try to play it).

Maybe I'm wrong since like I said I don't play COTM and there are players here which plays since forever but... it's just my 50 cents.

 

[tR1cKy]

That's why I believe a game every 2 months (a COTM, I'm sorry abou the PtW players but I believe they can live without a GOTM) with the duration of 6 weeks it's gonna be perfect.

Of course, and the opposite is also true. Players can live without a COTM. I suppose both you and me can live without playing at all. But this is not the point, isn't it?

Now, back on track.

Players still interested in Civ3 are not kiddos (well, there's at least one pestering the general discussion forum, but this is another story). They're die-hard fans, for the most part grown-up people, with a family, a job, responsabilities and such. They love to play but can't dedicate too much of their time to the game, for obvious reasons.

With this in mind, a monthly schedule is likely to be too tight, because two games per month would be too much for the average Civ3 player. People would have to choose what game to play. Worse still, people will try but fail to complete a game in time, and possibly lose interest in a competition they feel they have no time to be part of.

The best solution, IMO, is a GotM and a CotM every two months, with monthly release dates. That is, every month a game is out, being once a GotM and once a CotM. For the duration, i think 6 weeks is the ideal. Games would still overlap but not too much, and a buffer zone of two weeks would give enough time to update the scoreboard, put out the relevant threads and prepare the next game without being forced to rush things.

 

[Everkane]

Of course, and the opposite is also true. Players can live without a COTM. I suppose both you and me can live without playing at all. But this is not the point, isn't it?

Now, back on track.

Players still interested in Civ3 are not kiddos (well, there's at least one pestering the general discussion forum, but this is another story). They're die-hard fans, for the most part grown-up people, with a family, a job, responsabilities and such. They love to play but can't dedicate too much of their time to the game, for obvious reasons.

With this in mind, a monthly schedule is likely to be too tight, because two games per month would be too much for the average Civ3 player. People would have to choose what game to play. Worse still, people will try but fail to complete a game in time, and possibly lose interest in a competition they feel they have no time to be part of.

The best solution, IMO, is a GotM and a CotM every two months, with monthly release dates. That is, every month a game is out, being once a GotM and once a CotM. For the duration, i think 6 weeks is the ideal. Games would still overlap but not too much, and a buffer zone of two weeks would give enough time to update the scoreboard, put out the relevant threads and prepare the next game without being forced to rush things.

I'm sorry, sometimes I forget the kind of people I'm dealing with. My fault.


Of course you and I and Jesus Christ can live without a G/COTM, but if there's a timing problem with whoever is going to create the games, I believe it's better to create a COTM than create a GOTM.

It's just my opinion based on the latest version of Civ III, don't take it personal or hang yourself because I disagree with you.

But actually you have a point, it's not that hard to make a random COTM so it's not that hard to make a random GOTM neither.
A GOTM and COTM each 2 months and a 6 weeks duration, if the G/COTM creator feel it's not such a pain I believe it can be done.

Thumbs up for you but just because I enjoy your Save the Mongols a lot .

 

[Memento]

It is possible that a new Game starts one week before the old ends?

 

[AlanH]

It's possible, of course. But that either means the games last a week longer or they start more frequently. Which are you suggesting?

 

[Kulko]

@ AlanH So I read the result as follows:

one XOTM per month alternating GOTM and COTM and 6 weeks deadline per game?

@ Memento
What would be the advanatge of that solution?

 

[Memento]

Which are you suggesting?

all the same for me, but i think its better for all last a week longer

What would be the advanatge of that solution?

people which finish the last game have the opportunity to start earlier.

bad example: finish a game, you go to vacation in 3 weeks, the next game starts in 2 weeks-> time is to short for playing.

I mean it gives more flexibility.
I can´t find the right words.

 

[Più Freddo]

Seven weeks per game instead of six seems to be a small and unnessesary change. Just one more week to wait for results. If you want to play all games, and this must be considered the normal case, you'll have on average 4 1/3 weeks per game, regardless of the extra time. The extra time is there to allow some variation in real time used per game. Not to give you more time per game for all games.

If you want to play every second game, you can use six weeks per game and you'll have to wait for two. With games starting every month, this is just an option, not the normal case.

If you're on holiday for some weeks, you'll probably miss a game. But you had a holiday. Be happy. Read the spoilers.

 

[AlanH]

There is certainly a clear majority for one game per month, alternating between PtW and C3C. There is a smaller majority for six weeks duration.

I therefore propose to go with this pattern. The current COTM will finish on May 17, so I shall attempt to open the next COTM on June 1. The current GOTM will end on June 2, so I shall open the next GOTM on July 1.

I'll think about the difficulty ramp - probably take each version up approximately two levels per game. Otherwise it would take a year to reach the top of the ramp. Do you want Sid level games in COTM?

 

[templar_x]

i would like to see another competition on Sid in the future.
t_x

 

[Kulko]

Hmm given the low turnout on deity, I doubt many people would play on a random map.

 

[Racinante]

Just a random thought. How hard would it be to play the same map/game at two different difficulties? If the Jason score normalizes the games, then they could be scored together or set-up as separate games.

 

[AlanH]

As two levels in the same game - like Open and Predator? That's the way a lot of the Civ4 games are set up. But are there really enough Civ3 players to split the field in this way?

If they were separate games, then the second one would be played with full map knowledge by those who played the first version, giving them an unfair advantage over those who were unable to play it first time out.

 

[Racinante]

As two levels in the same game - like Open and Predator? That's the way a lot of the Civ4 games are set up. But are there really enough Civ3 players to split the field in this way?

If they were separate games, then the second one would be played with full map knowledge by those who played the first version, giving them an unfair advantage over those who were unable to play it first time out.

More like an Emperor version and a Deity version, or Warlord and Emperor, or Monarch and Demi-god. Just maintaining the gap between the easier version and the tougher version.

 

[AlanH]

That didn't answer either of my questions

I didn't mention actual difficulties, only Class names ... other than by inference from the fact that Civ4 games are often one difficulty level apart.

My point was that games played at significantly different levels would NOT be comparable at the spoiler level, regardless of Jason scoring. So a less able player would learn little about how to play from the smart guys playing the higher level. And if they were released as two separate games, playing the same map twice makes it difficult to compete for those who didn't play it the first time.