Giant Multiplayer Robot Unofficial League

[Rillithain]

I registered him actually (he submitted a message on the GMR site too).. he is thegreycat in the standings

But, Basituldi is correct for best way to get a challenge going

 

[CraigMak]

Could some one please enlighten me as to why some one would wish to play a GMR game spanning a month or more when the same game can be played in regular multiplayer in just a couple of hours? I am not trying to bash on GMR, I just find it extremely confusing.

What is the benefit of GMR over real time multiplayer? I am curious about GMR and I am considering playing it but it sounds like games will take months instead of hours. Is this desirable for GMR players? How long does the average game last?

 

[Rillithain]

For myself, I just don't have several hours to sit down and play in one sitting. If you have a game with 12 players, huge map for example.. that would take a very long time to play live - still much much shorter than GMR, but many just don't have the time to sit there and play uninterrupted, and with many people it would crash the host system if they don't have the highest spec systems.
The games do take months or even longer depending how many players.. A 2 player game should only be a week or two, but the more the players, the longer it takes.

its like correspondence chess - there are many chess sites out there for that, and you can play many games on the go at once.. GMR is the same.. if you donate, you can have an unlimited number of games on the go at once..

 

[Foffaren]

Could some one please enlighten me as to why some one would wish to play a GMR game spanning a month or more when the same game can be played in regular multiplayer in just a couple of hours? I am not trying to bash on GMR, I just find it extremely confusing.

What is the benefit of GMR over real time multiplayer? I am curious about GMR and I am considering playing it but it sounds like games will take months instead of hours. Is this desirable for GMR players? How long does the average game last?

Time factor mostly, but also extreme micro managing, plenty of time to figure out moves and no simultanious turns. It also feels like there are more players that are willing to play GMR so you meet new people. Still a few quitters, you can never get rid of those.
You should try it. From what you have written on the forums you do not seem like the guy that is going to enjoy it, but you should absolutely try it. Patience is a must.

I find that having only a few games running will feel less enjoyable than 15+. With 2 games there might be a day or 2 before you get to play another turn but with many you can expect a few turns waiting for you when you get back from work/school/toilet sessions.

 

[EEE_BOY]

Your toilet session is long,

Additionally, don't have to deal with crash or sync problem most of the time (can happen but not in BNW so far for GMR).

Also can play scenarios or mod in mp.

 

[CraigMak]

Time factor mostly, but also extreme micro managing, plenty of time to figure out moves and no simultanious turns. It also feels like there are more players that are willing to play GMR so you meet new people. Still a few quitters, you can never get rid of those.
You should try it. From what you have written on the forums you do not seem like the guy that is going to enjoy it, but you should absolutely try it. Patience is a must.

I find that having only a few games running will feel less enjoyable than 15+. With 2 games there might be a day or 2 before you get to play another turn but with many you can expect a few turns waiting for you when you get back from work/school/toilet sessions.

I have created a few games and started one. I found that there is something to be said for anticipating your turn being ready when you come home from work. Also, each turn seems like more of a novel event when you have to wait for it for a while. I'll give it a try and already bumped my limit up to 10 games.

The thought did cross my mind that when some one quits on you, it now wastes weeks, possibly months of play instead of hours. Ewww shudder..

 

[tb3]

GMR is epic strategy gaming at its fullest. You have hours to plan about what you're going to do and to talk to other players about it.

Normal multiplayer is a messy unfair clickfest where people are mostly clueless about what's going on outside their own little world, but at least it flies along. It's far more popular because it doesn't require much effort or thought.

If you're in the small proportion of people who are prepared to take advantage of the time to think GMR is (in my experience) the greatest gaming experience you'll ever have. I spend hours planning ahead and discussing what's going on. Wake up at 3am most nights to have a turn or two.

I find it epic, exciting and engrossing but am aware I'm very much in the minority. It depends on your personality.

Am also happy to join in a new league 4 player ffa game, or other types.

 

[CraigMak]

GMR is epic strategy gaming at its fullest. You have hours to plan about what you're going to do and to talk to other players about it.

Normal multiplayer is a messy unfair clickfest where people are mostly clueless about what's going on outside their own little world, but at least it flies along. It's far more popular because it doesn't require much effort or thought.

If you're in the small proportion of people who are prepared to take advantage of the time to think GMR is (in my experience) the greatest gaming experience you'll ever have. I spend hours planning ahead and discussing what's going on. Wake up at 3am most nights to have a turn or two.

I find it epic, exciting and engrossing but am aware I'm very much in the minority. It depends on your personality.

Am also happy to join in a new league 4 player ffa game, or other types.

It sounds like you have some pretty unfounded prejudice against real time multiplayer. Some times a messy click fest yes. Unfair when some one gets first move on you every turn, yes but you can overcome that with superior play. I just got grossly out clicked last night but still won because my demographics were far superior.

Not much thought or effort? Very wrong. It requires a massive amount of effort to be at a game for 6 hours straight without your brain melting down. Not much thought? Absolutely wrong, on the contrary, most intelligent people prefer fast paced games to slow paced games. Mainly because they can think faster and it gives them an advantage.

You will find more geniuses playing an RTS like Starcraft than you will a slow game like Civ 5. The more time we have to think about our decisions, the easier it is for some one who is not very bright to find the optimal move.

Do I think one is superior to the other? Currently no, they are both very different ways to play the same game. GMR does sound like a more epic experience allowing you to weigh every decision while real time multiplayer is a more competitive nature. Quicker paced and about making relatively quick decisions.

Neither is even remotely fast paced though. It's a turn based game after all.

 

[tb3]

You will find more geniuses playing an RTS like Starcraft than you will a slow game like Civ 5. The more time we have to think about our decisions, the easier it is for some one who is not very bright to find the optimal move.

You're on some loose footing there. If a genius plays both games they'll be better at Starcraft than Civ cause it's faster?

The worlds premier game of intellect has always been chess, and they don't play the world championship with a 90 second turn timer. If you had to play a grand master you'd want the game as fast as possible to reduce the skill differential. The slower it gets played the more certain you are to lose. His best is better than your best so you need to introduce other factors, such as speed.

It seems you're good at thinking quickly but for mine it's wrong to argue that thinking quickly = genius.

I prefer to play games slowly so they're based on skill alone. Many more people prefer to play games quickly so they're based on skill and speed.

As noted 'I'm very much in the minority. It depends on your personality.'

We have different personalities so prefer different things, and may have to agree to disagree here. Hopefully we can resolve these differences sometime on the battlefield like normal, reasonable, fully grown, world domination obsessed dictators.

 

[CraigMak]

You're on some loose footing there. If a genius plays both games they'll be better at Starcraft than Civ cause it's faster?

The worlds premier game of intellect has always been chess, and they don't play the world championship with a 90 second turn timer. If you had to play a grand master you'd want the game as fast as possible to reduce the skill differential. The slower it gets played the more certain you are to lose. His best is better than your best so you need to introduce other factors, such as speed.

It seems you're good at thinking quickly but for mine it's wrong to argue that thinking quickly = genius.

I prefer to play games slowly so they're based on skill alone. Many more people prefer to play games quickly so they're based on skill and speed.

As noted 'I'm very much in the minority. It depends on your personality.'

We have different personalities so prefer different things, and may have to agree to disagree here. Hopefully we can resolve these differences sometime on the battlefield like normal, reasonable, fully grown, world domination obsessed dictators.

I am not on "loose footing" at all. It has already been proven that being amazing at chess has nothing to do with intelligence. It has only to do with the amount of time spent playing. Intelligence only allows people to learn chess more quickly and grasp it more quickly than others. However, when you get to a certain point intelligence no longer plays a role and experience trumps all.

It is also known that intelligent people often choose faster thinking games. Obviously due to the fact that they can think faster than your average person. They don't need time to sit around and ponder things. They figure out what to do quickly because they are smart.

I guarantee that having to take faster turns in chess would result in the grand master slaughtering you even worse because the shorter turn time would have little effect on his decisions but you would be unable to figure out the optimal move in a short period of time. The same applies for Civ. The highly skilled players will perform well at a fast pace and lower skilled players will catch up to them at a slower pace due to having ample time to figure out the best move to make. While the skilled players know the best move to make quicker, they play practically on autopilot unless some really rare/novel/unique decision comes up.

 

[tb3]

Real time Civ requires massive amounts of thought and effort, and is also played on autopilot? Hmmm.

Obviously I completely disagree with the points you are saying and making up from nowhere. That's clearly never going to end so it's best to drop this here.

I won't be commenting any more but feel free to contribute further unsubstantiated assertions if you think people are genuinely interested in hearing them.

Again I'm very keen to start a league game or two shortly so could any interested players please contact me. I'm in GMT + 10.

1v1, 2v2, ffa. It's all good.

 

[pvtjava]

I am not on "loose footing" at all. It has already been proven that being amazing at chess has nothing to do with intelligence. It has only to do with the amount of time spent playing. Intelligence only allows people to learn chess more quickly and grasp it more quickly than others. However, when you get to a certain point intelligence no longer plays a role and experience trumps all.

It is also known that intelligent people often choose faster thinking games. Obviously due to the fact that they can think faster than your average person. They don't need time to sit around and ponder things. They figure out what to do quickly because they are smart.

I guarantee that having to take faster turns in chess would result in the grand master slaughtering you even worse because the shorter turn time would have little effect on his decisions but you would be unable to figure out the optimal move in a short period of time. The same applies for Civ. The highly skilled players will perform well at a fast pace and lower skilled players will catch up to them at a slower pace due to having ample time to figure out the best move to make. While the skilled players know the best move to make quicker, they play practically on autopilot unless some really rare/novel/unique decision comes up.

I do not wish to anger you but I just cannot agree with your statement about quick-thinking equaling more intelligence. To me quick thinking equals wit. Also, at work, I have to think quickly and make decisions on the fly. Why would I want to do this when I am at play? I am playing to relax and wind down after a tough day. I think people play games for many different reasons and intelligence isn't really a factor in what game or style you choose. What you may or may not consider fun is a huge factor. They are games after all. Are shooter players the smartest of all? You have to be really quick to be great at those type of games.

 

[CraigMak]

Real time Civ requires massive amounts of thought and effort, and is also played on autopilot? Hmmm.

Obviously I completely disagree with the points you are saying and making up from nowhere. That's clearly never going to end so it's best to drop this here.

I won't be commenting any more but feel free to contribute further unsubstantiated assertions if you think people are genuinely interested in hearing them.

Again I'm very keen to start a league game or two shortly so could any interested players please contact me. I'm in GMT + 10.

1v1, 2v2, ffa. It's all good.

The most highly skilled players will be on autopilot because what needs to be done is so obvious to them. Mainly because they have done it all many many times. The average person of course is not on autopilot, they need to think about their moves for a bit. Of course as I said when a novel decision comes up they will have to think about it but for the most part the best players are going to come up with their decisions quite rapidly.

If a pro comes to a decision in 10 seconds and you come to that same decision after an hour of deliberation, who do you think is more skilled?

Of course it requires a lot of effort to sit at a game for 6 hours straight and make decision after decision. In GMR by comparison one can make just a few decisions and move away from the game giving their brain a rest from the game.

It's a pretty obvious idea that a skilled player knows what to do quickly while an unskilled player will require ample amounts of time to come to the same decision.

 

[CraigMak]

I do not wish to anger you but I just cannot agree with your statement about quick-thinking equaling more intelligence. To me quick thinking equals wit. Also, at work, I have to think quickly and make decisions on the fly. Why would I want to do this when I am at play? I am playing to relax and wind down after a tough day. I think people play games for many different reasons and intelligence isn't really a factor in what game or style you choose. What you may or may not consider fun is a huge factor. They are games after all. Are shooter players the smartest of all? You have to be really quick to be great at those type of games.

Don't worry, a difference of opinion does not anger me. Basically, a reputable study was done where they surveyed people on what types of games they played and found fun. They then had those same people take IQ tests and other tests which measure intelligence in the limited way that we can measure that.

They found that the most highly intelligent individuals based on their testing tended to prefer faster paced games and games which required quick thinking. The emphasis was that they required thinking where shooters typically do not require a whole lot of thinking.

Fast puzzle games like Tetris and real time strategy games like Starcraft were at the top of the intelligent people's lists. That was the correlation that the study found.

 

[CraigMak]

Question: How many turns a day do you guys typically get to take in a given game? I feel like I'm stuck with a guy who's in a different time zone so his turns are never taken while I'm awake. I get home at 7pm and take a turn, then nothing happens all night until 5am every time. Pretty lame.

 

[Foffaren]

Question: How many turns a day do you guys typically get to take in a given game? I feel like I'm stuck with a guy who's in a different time zone so his turns are never taken while I'm awake. I get home at 7pm and take a turn, then nothing happens all night until 5am every time. Pretty lame.

Unless you happen to play in the same timezone, one. And that is usually the amount GMR players want. Like I said, many games, one turn a day = 30 min of game time. Nice when you have other things to do/other games to play. The hard part is to remember the different tactics for 20+ games.

I did warn you about that, it takes time. Maybe you can have more enjoyment if you combine GMR with normal MP games.

 

[Rillithain]

Theme 4 has started.. this is a unique game, where players are not allowed to declare war on each other. It is a science or culture win only. (3 player). See the site for more details.

Runs from March 15 to April 15

Theme 2 expires at the end of today (the 2x2 game)

 

[basituldi]

For theme4, be aware that if you don't have produced 750 culture by turn 14, you're dead. And you'd better have produced 1500 by turn 22, or you're dead as well...

 

[basituldi]

@Rilli: For theme5, is it 3or4 players; and is it Ancient or Medieval start? There are some inconsistencies on the theme page...

 

[Rillithain]

yes, i fixed those up...