GOTM 2.0 Brainstorming

I remember someone - maybe it was LC talk about quick challenges from Civ 3. I don't know exactly what they are but the idea of running some faster games with non-standard objectives, maps, etc. appeals to me :).
As I recall, LC was talking about games that were played up to 0 AD or 1000 AD and whoever had the highest score at that point won.
The Quick Start Challenge is included in CivIII GOTMs:
The QSC seeks to compare players' performance as they reach 1000 BC, giving scope for contrasts between play styles to be highlighted, and for lessons to be learnt about early game development. To help with comparisons, we ask for a 1000 BC save file which we parse to extract useful data, and you should also submit a timeline in the relevant first spoiler thread for the game, describing your actions and decisions.​
Originally, people kept and submitted a log of their first 80 turns. After the GOTM, if you found a game you were really interested in learning from, you could study how that person started the game.

Here's an example of SirPleb's log from his GOTM19 game where he phenomenally completed EVERY victory condition on the final turn of the game!!! First his General Pre-game Strategy:
Spoiler :
Preliminary notes: We had some advance information about this map and a screenshot of the start position. My thinking in advance is that:
1) I'll move the worker NE to the hills to look around. If I don't see bonus food anywhere I'll settle in the start position.
2) I'll try for a multi victory milked game with a diplomatic win included. To do this I'd have to avoid taking many permanent AI attitude hits. This will mean:
a) Break no deals.
b) Raze no cities, not when asked and not by auto-razing.
c) Declare war a minimal number of times.
d) Pick one Civ who would be my "friend" and get that Civ down to one city without fighting them.
3) I'll use Gallic Swordsmen to the max. So:
a) I'll slow research as much as possible.
b) Use warrior upgrades heavily as well as building GS's.
Here SirPleb shows his train of thought for deciding whether to build a settler or a granary first:
Spoiler :
4000, ... Research Bronze Working at zero rate. It sure looks like we'll want a granary but I'm going to hope to trade for Pottery instead of learning it. Or if lucky, pop it from a hut.

...

3400, Entremont produces warrior3. Set it to produce settler. It will finish the settler at the same date as it next grows (8 turns) if I don't change it to build granary before then. Should I do that if I learn pottery and get the choice? No, I think I should produce the settler in any case. My reasoning:

Soonest I can build granary is after Entremont's next growth. If I produce settler first then granary, soonest I can have granary is after Entremont's next 3 growths. So I'd lose 20 food by deferring the granary. But by producing settler first, he can begin working the fish at least 8 turns sooner than if I delay the settler for a granary first. Working the fish for 8 turns is 23 food gained. (1 will be lost due to overrun.) And I'll get some extra shields as well. So settler first it is!

And given that decision, I'll have the worker road first then mine. Better to prepare the road asap, mining first won't get the settler produced any faster.
This is an excellent way to help help people improve their games rapidly and make the competition better.
 
What was most encouraging to me about GOTMs and other "played by a group" series like Lonely Hearts Club is the willingness of people to talk about their strategies - what specific things they did in response to the map and happenings during the game - in a way I could learn from. I was especially delighted by the willingness of GOTM38 participants to discuss my early mistakes in planting cities and why other locations were better; I lucked out in making a mistake that actually led to a discussion among the experienced players that some of them found interesting. That doesn't directly feed into specifics for how to change the xOTMs, except that it supports the idea that some sort of prize for a really good spoiler posting might be nice.

The one thing about the xOTMs that makes it difficult for me to participate is that I'm such a low level player that I can't get very far in the upper difficulty games; slogging through to the inevitable defeat isn't something I can get myself to do. Having one map played at the players' choice of difficulty level, like LHC and NC, helps me a lot more. I fear that may not work out well for a GOTM, though; I'm not so sure what I'm capable of learning from the endgame of a deity-level player even on the same map.

I'm not so sure making any changes for players like me is appropriate, though; I think it's probably more important to keep it interesting for the upper level players -- as long as there's an occasional game people like me have some reasonable hope of finishing.
 
I'd like to enter my spoilers when I submit the game. Certainly the final spoiler is fresh in my mind and the first spoiler can be dredged up easier at that point. When the spoiler threads open, its too late.
 
warning: My best idea is down at the bottom.

How can GOTM be developed so that it ...
1. ...becomes even more fun?
2. ...attracts more people?
3. ...sparks more forum discussions?

1 ...more fun
First: Never, never ever put up an xOTM on Normal or Quick speed. Either setting is a travesty.
Second: Always use Epic or Marathon speed.

If you want to offer players a faster game, then offer a Small Pangea map; or try starting in a later technology era; or use the Advanced Start feature; or anything else you can think of that doesn't ruin the game.


In my home games I often lose interest if its not going well or if I'm not playing optimally. In xOTM games I find I enjoy it a lot more because I always have in mind that it is a competivtive game so I'm a lot more focussed....

I'm having heaps of fun already

Accordance.

The simple fact that I'm playing an xOTM makes the game meaningful. I know that I'm only going to get one shot, and if I abandon it I have to wait at least a month for another opportunity.

You might not always see all of this fun reflected in the Forums, but we're having it. :-)


3.- What about an Award to the staff member that creates maps whose "fastest finish, whatever the victory condition" doesn't always be won by domination? The closer the fisnish dates accross different VCs, the better the map.
I love it.

Did you know that you can turn off the Domination condition?

8.- What about a mandatory VC every month?
I like that, too. Maybe not every month, but it would certainly be cool if those who excel at Space or Culture could have a chance to be top dog overall.

9.- What about developping our own scoring system, making points meaningful?
No doubt the built-in scoring system is terrible. I like the idea, but whatever system is created will be contentious.


I'd like to see an award for the most informative/entertaining spoiler. Perhaps determined by a vote amongst everyone who submitted a completed game.
That, by far, is my favoritest idea of all.


3. ...sparks more forum discussions?

First big idea: "NEWBIE OF THE MONTH"

1) To qualify, you must plausibly claim to be a newbie. You must demonstrate (or otherwise convince people) that you are able to upload screenshots and that you post very regularly.

2) 1 to 3 newbies can be selected each month.

3) Shortly after the game opens, create a thread called "xOTM ## Newbies, 500 AD". Anyone who is not a designated Newbie must have reached 500 AD to view or post (if participating in that xOTM). After a week or two, rename the thread to "xOTM ## Newbies, Game Submitted". At this point, anyone who is not a designated Newbie must have submitted his/her game in order to view and post.

4) Now the fun part: The designated Newbies have no restrictions. The thread exists for them to post screenshots and descriptions of their games and thus seek advice from other players. The other players should not discuss their own games in detail, because that isn't the point of the thread, but if they drop a few hints... well, that's the idea.

5) The Newbie results will be mentioned in the results thread, along with some light-hearted finger-pointing at whomever assisted the lowest-scoring Newbie. Newbies will not be eligible for regular medals or awards. There should be no restriction to repeating as a NewbieOTM, because the important qualifications are (a)The expressed desire for assistance, (b)Scores which reflect this, and (c)Good forum communication which makes the experience fun for others.



1. ...becomes even more fun?
2. ...attracts more people?


Second big idea (the really good one): "PUT YOUR LEADER WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS"

Occasionally, perhaps every third or fourth game, create the same map and starting conditions with several different leaders (and thus different civilizations). I hope this is technically feasible.

[Note: You might reduce the number of saves available by using a high enough difficulty level, e.g. Emperor, eliminating the Challenger class and increasing the Adventurer bonuses.]

Each participant then selects which leader/civilization he or she wants to play.

A bit of informal polling will help to determine a set of leaders/civs who are hotly debated in terms of relative merit, thus ensuring that each leader/civ will be played by a goodly number of people. Obviously, you wouldn't want to pair Augustus with Tokugawa, or Huyana with Gilgamesh. But Louix XIV versus Frederick versus Wang Kon should incite some good debate.

I'd like to see an award for the most informative/entertaining spoiler. Perhaps determined by a vote amongst everyone who submitted a completed game.
Just wanted to say again how much I like this idea.

Cheers,
J
 
There should be no restriction to repeating as a NewbieOTM, because the important qualifications are (a)The expressed desire for assistance, (b)Scores which reflect this, and (c)Good forum communication which makes the experience fun for others.
I like the idea of this, in some form.

Might perhaps change newbie to rookie, only because the former acronym, NOTM, looks to much like NOTME to be the name of an award ... :lol: ;)

dV
 
XotM to me is all about being able to compare your strategy to everyone else.
As a Prince level player I don't expect to be at the top of the table and generally look at my victory speed as my comparitive benchmark to the players around me.

So to me the ideas around an improved ranking / statistics system would be of great value. Combining on a few of the other ideas already mentioned, my suggestion:

A division ladder system with 2-3 tiers of players. This would match up with the game classes on offer. Any player may opt to play above their division (and thus receive a better rank) but never down. I.e. Players ranked in the Division1 will only be eligible to submit the Division1 game (Currently contender class), Div2 players can submit either a Div2 or Div1 game etc. After game submission and division results being calculated perhaps there should be a swap of the worst 5-10% of Div1 with equal players from Div2, Div2 to Div3. This obviously presents a problem for the leaders of Div2, because of the latency of the results they may end up starting a Div2 game and get moved up making it ineligible.

To make the game more appealing to new players and to keep the interest of the veterans you want to reward participation more than competition. It's a fine balance offer a decent challenge to Diety players whilst attracting a Noble level player to the game. Personally, I don't like playing a game I know I'm going to lose and getting schooled by the computer is not my idea of fun. It's already been suggested that instead of offering bonuses or removing tech to change the class, modify the AI level. Essentially we're all still playing the same game particularly if the Division ranking system is being used. Div1 players playing the Div1 game all at the Diety / Emperor level, Div2 players at a Monarch / Prince level etc.
 
Double post I know but I just had a idea about mentoring the strategically challenged amoung us. Perhaps one of the burdens of winning a gold / silver / bronze medal would be to host an email / online game against 2-3 bottom ranked players.

The aim being to discuss your strategy with group whilst they try and beat you. You may not want to play the game thru to conclusion as they tend to drag on but it would be a great opportunity for new players to learn and for the winners to contribute something to the community.
 
Double post I know but I just had a idea about mentoring the strategically challenged amoung us. Perhaps one of the burdens of winning a gold / silver / bronze medal would be to host an email / online game against 2-3 bottom ranked players.

The aim being to discuss your strategy with group whilst they try and beat you. You may not want to play the game thru to conclusion as they tend to drag on but it would be a great opportunity for new players to learn and for the winners to contribute something to the community.

Or offer a NOOB-Rescue challenge. When game difficulty is at Emperor or above, anyone using the adventurer save that is still alive at 500AD may posts their 500AD save file. Anyone who has already submitted the game can take that save and try to salvage it. The NOOB may take an average of their own finish save score/time plus that of the best result submitted for their game from 500AD... Whereas the assisting players are eligible to compete for a medal based on difference between start score and finish score from the NOOB game, but a rescue game only qualifies if they have posted the autolog (from 500AD) in the spoiler thread and described strategy and tactics well enough that the NOOB is satisfied that they understood (at least conceptually if not all game mechanics) what was done and why.

Or admins could pick just one of those NOOB games from 500AD for everyone to work on.
Don't know if this or some variation is workable, but if it was I think it would serve both ends of the spectrum. (Guys like me who sit somewhere in the middle would also benefit from the added discussions).

Anyhow... this is brainstorming, which means just throw in ideas, and feed off the other ideas, rather than try to evaluate whether they are workable.:goodjob:
 
Or offer a NOOB-Rescue challenge. When game difficulty is at Emperor or above, anyone using the adventurer save that is still alive at 500AD may posts their 500AD save file. Anyone who has already submitted the game can take that save and try to salvage it. The NOOB may take an average of their own finish save score/time plus that of the best result submitted for their game from 500AD... Whereas the assisting players are eligible to compete for a medal based on difference between start score and finish score from the NOOB game, but a rescue game only qualifies if they have posted the autolog (from 500AD) in the spoiler thread and described strategy and tactics well enough that the NOOB is satisfied that they understood (at least conceptually if not all game mechanics) what was done and why.

Or admins could pick just one of those NOOB games from 500AD for everyone to work on.
Don't know if this or some variation is workable, but if it was I think it would serve both ends of the spectrum. (Guys like me who sit somewhere in the middle would also benefit from the added discussions).

Awesome! I love it!
 
Occasionally, perhaps every third or fourth game, create the same map and starting conditions with several different leaders (and thus different civilizations). I hope this is technically feasible.

It is. I used it in PYL: Same start showdown. You can even use Sid, who has no traits and no UU/UB. THAT can be challenger class, haha!
 
I can still be considered as newbie, since I started paying the xOTM's only when BOTM's popped up.

For all aspects, and reading all the posts, all improvements call for more work, either on the part of the BOTM maker, or on the person who evaluates the results, or on the players themselves.

Starting from the players, so that us newbies have a good learning effect :
- Winner's report : each person who won an award or a category should report what where the main aspects of the game he/she thinks helped him win. Mandatory report / spoiler seems maybe a bit too much.

From the GOTM Staff :
- I simply love the stats for example of who settled where and which turn. Som more comparaisons of this style, when compared to who won which award is very informative.
Either maybe the saves at 500 AD could be compared in some ways... or for anybody posting at 500 AD should have compulsory information on for example Tech level, amount of citiies/ buildings / units etc ...

For the fun factor :
- all games which offered something "different" where the most enjoyable. I replayed the Gandhi / All war BOTM at least 5 times...
So either well edited maps, or some twists / options that players do not usually select would be certainly appreciated. GTOMs which are close to what a random game could be are not that interesting, as far as I am concerned.

Also for the fun factor : why not restricting the best players in their victory conditions ? the gauntlet is an idea, but what about simply restricting players by not allowing them to go for the same victory 2 times i a row, or over a certain amount of games (3?, 5?).

So if player X gets an award for fastest domination, he can't get it next time with the same victory condition ? Maybe unless he gets one in the other category first ?
 
My two cents. No new ideas here I'm sorry, just thoughts on ideas already mentioned.

I really liked the Quick Start Challenge back when I played Civ3. It was especially helpful to go back and see how the top players played the crucial first few turns of the game.

It seems to be 'half' implemented for Civ4 already with the gotm website, at least there is a column there for QSC submissions, but there never are any. Most likely due to the lack of Civ4 QSC submission form :crazyeye:.

It would also need some incentive for players to enter the QSC - since it does require some extra work in the form of a timeline writeup. Give an award? How do you measure the "best" 1000BC save? Especially for players aiming for different VCs...


The other change I would like to see is to have the spoiler threads opened earlier. I'm trying to teach myself to spend more time with each game to improve my result, but inevitably I get so engrossed in the game that I'll plow through it in under a week. By the time the spoiler threads are opened I've forgotten what happened.


Speaking of spoilers and quick start challenges, why not have a spoiler thread for up to 1000BC? Having the first spoiler from 4000BC to 500AD covers a vast number of turns, and pretty much all the game breaking events and decisions have already happened.

Obviously this raises more questions about what to allow in the thread, since by this stage of the game many players might not have met the other AI on their landmass, or spotted some vital resource. The map designer would have to make the call about what would be considered interesting and helpful information for future games, and what would be spoiler information for the current game.
 
I hope it is not too off-topic:

I would like to see more BOTMs (BTS GameOfTheMonth) because I enjoy playing BTS much more than Warlords or especially Vanilla. How about reducing Vanilla or skipping it totally to give us some more BOTMs?
 
What about a ranking system based on primary and secondary objectives which gives points when completed?

The primary objectives are each victory condition giving a set amount of point like :
- Religious : 80 points
- Conquest : 75 points
- Space : 90 points
- etc..


Then you have secondary objectives than grant some points when completed. You can lose the game but still score points from secondary objectives. Anything is possible here.
Some examples :
- Found at least 3 religions : 5 points
- Create an academy before 500BC : 2 points
- Eliminate an opponent before 1000BC : 4 points
- Have 3 national wonders built before 1000AD : 7 points
- etc..

You can also give bonus points for a specific victory condition
- cultural victory before 1000 AD : 10 points
- diplomatic victory without participating in any war : 15 points
- domination victory with 2 cities at legendary culture : 10 points


All these objectives are set by the mapmaker based on the difficulty he considers them.

I guess it is technically possible to check these things with some kind of log parser that would give the score attributed to each game without too much work for the game referee.
 
I would be very sad if Vanilla GOTMs were reduced or eliminated, because that's the only version I own (or will own, for the foreseeable future, since I play on a Mac, and BtS isn't available).

I would like to see more summaries of player actions along the lines of the map of start positions. I don't know what is easily extracted from the saves, but a chart of wonders built (with date) by player would be interesting, as would a chart of civics by date for each player, a chart of war declarations/peace by the player, etc. Some of this can be gleaned by going through the log files on the results page, but I think having it for all players in a chart form would be potentially very interesting.
 
If you have any ideas on how this level of detail could be presented for 100 or so players in each game, I'd be interested to see them. I already get complaints from players with laptops or low res screens, who can't see the full width of some of the more complex pages we provide.
 
adrianj said:
t seems to be 'half' implemented for Civ4 already with the gotm website, at least there is a column there for QSC submissions, but there never are any. Most likely due to the lack of Civ4 QSC submission form
It shouldn't be. There is no QSC capability for Civ4 currently. Where do you see it? Aha! In the submissions list. Hmm. Well that's only because I'm too busy (or lazy?) to produce a different page for Civ4 submissons.
 
To implement the combine and improve of our brainstorming, here is a potential organizational framework of what has come in so far:

Goals: expanded outline

More fun (for elite, for average, for noobs ... might take different solutions for the different skill groups)

Attract new people (the new could be in any of the skill groups, but average and noob likely to predominate)

More discussion (again, what incentivizes each of the skill groups?)


Ideas: seem to cluster into a few groups of their own

Modify game play Unusual maps, single VC, other in-game modifications.

New or added ranking or ratings system Includes idea of challenge ladders, etc.

Modified or new awards or incentives Group-specific awards, awards for posting, etc.

Play and award in tiers of skill Which has ratings and modified awards elements


Feel free to point out what I have missed.

dV
 
If you have any ideas on how this level of detail could be presented for 100 or so players in each game, I'd be interested to see them. I already get complaints from players with laptops or low res screens, who can't see the full width of some of the more complex pages we provide.

It probably would be best to link to them from a thread rather than post the info directly in a thread.

My first thought is that the log files that are available from the results page give one model. For the wonders, I think a table would work, with each player having a row, and each column being something like: SH (52), e.g. Stonehenge built in turn 52. I wouldn't think that the table would get too unmanageable if it just included wonders built by the player. Those that are inclined to complain should be welcomed to not click through.

This assumes that others think the idea is interesting/useful, of course ...
 
I would like to suggest that xOTM staf (or game creator) select a specific type of VC to determine the Gold, Silver and Bronz medals. The winner with the most points (the type that you see as "score for finishing in this turn" or something like that) on that VC or most points per number of turns played get the Medals. So instead of dominations and occational conquest winning the medals most of the times, players who go for the culture or other typically low scoring VC types also can take a shot at getting a medal. I understand all VC's take skill to achive, but to it appears to me that builder VC's require alot more attention to detail than just kill, kill, kill approach.

Oh yeah.....I am not suggesting to get rid of the fastest time awards or to make Cow a medal challenge by any means but.....just to make medals more interesting to more players.

PS. I do realize that kill, kill, kill method is still the best route for fastest finishes for peaceful VC's as many top players have been showing in HOF games but this sugestion is to create a variation.

PPS. May be this selected VC should replace the cow.

OK I am done (for the moment).
 
Back
Top Bottom