GOTM Difficulty Levels

[Ronald]

I would like to see regular difficulties between noble and immortal. For special occasions a deity game could be introduced.
We had nothing lower than regent in civ3 for several years, so I don't think we need another warlord game in civ4.

 

[DaviddesJ]

So for good players, is GOTM only fun if there's a good chance of losing the game?

No, I definitely wouldn't go that far. At this point, I don't think there's much chance I would lose a game at Emperor, but it's still fun. One main point of the GOTM is to make games that you "know you will win" more fun because you have a benchmark to compare yourself to. This is inherently more interesting than playing a random-map game where, if you know you are going to win, you might say that pretty much eliminates any anticipation and motivation to do your best.

Back to the previous point, certainly, any good player can probably win at Warlord in 1 hour on the wall clock. But where's the enjoyment in playing so quickly? For myself, if I'm not going to play well, I'm not going to play at all.

 

[Thrallia]

well, 122 submissions thus far for the GOTM is pretty low, and I thought 261 submissions last month was low also, although I could be wrong...I just expected my #139 place finish to be in the top half, but I was in the bottom half because of how few entries there were.

If the average number of submissions is greater than 261, perhaps we should cycle back down to Prince or Noble a couple more times to at least get the Mac players who are just starting, or the PC players who just found CivFanatics a chance to catch up.

I personally prefer a cycle that includes Noble because that is the only level I know I can win at, Prince I tend to win about 40% of the time on my own, and have not submitted a GOTM win on one yet, whereas on Monarch I've only won once in 5 games(no wins in 2 Emperor games).

Also...the climb in difficulty from Monarch to Emperor seems much steeper than the climb from Noble to Prince or Prince to Monarch...is is just me?

 

[Airny]

Also...the climb in difficulty from Monarch to Emperor seems much steeper than the climb from Noble to Prince or Prince to Monarch...is is just me?

I think that depends on your skill. For me Monarch to Emperor is also the big step... but how can we calculate the rise in difficulty? We would have to look at the facts that change with each difficulty... also the wrong thread for such a deep analysis.

 

[RobertTheBruce]

Also...the climb in difficulty from Monarch to Emperor seems much steeper than the climb from Noble to Prince or Prince to Monarch...is is just me?

Its seems every jump is difficult. Prince to Monarch and Monarch to Emperor were both really hard for me. Cycling down the difficulty may help especially if a lot of Mac submissions are expected. Maybe start WOTM at a medium difficulty because that will be mostly experienced civ players and move the GOTM back down. Personally, I don't like Warlord difficulty because settlers and workers from huts have such a large influence on the game.

I would play and lose a Immortal GOTM if that is the next game.

 

[Conquistador 63]

I was a Noble level player and my first GOTM was at the warlord level (GOTM5). Since then, I've played and managed to win all of them, including last one at Emperor. But I am pretty sure that does *not* mean that I am a Emperor level player. My feelings are that I'd win half to 1/3 of Monarch random starts, and 1/10 of Emperor random starts.

The amount of useful information gathered from pre-game discussion threads, and supposedly some handicap provided by GOTM staff on game settings leads to a much better chance of actually winning the game, as compared to playing a random map/random civ.

That said, I think I would happily play next GOTM, no matter of the difficulty level. If Warlord, I might try one of those victory conditions I never achieved: cultural and conquest. If harder than Emperor (Immortal?), also ok, I will certainly learn something new, even from a likely loss.

 

[wwassme]

I had been mostly playing Noble and starting to move up to Prince when I participated in my first GOTM (GOTM6). Although I hadn't played any Monarch level games, I did much better than I expected to in GOTM8 (71st), but was thoroughly trounced on Emperor in GOTM9. I haven't yet tried any games on Immortal or Deity. I have found the forum discussions quite helpful in improving my game. I'd certainly play a GOTM on Immortal or Deity for the learning experience.

Overall, my preference would be for the GOTMs to largely be in the Prince, Monarch, Emperor range. Obviously, some participants in the GOTMs are comfortable with the higher levels. Others are more comfortable with the lower levels. However, I think most of the participants fall into those three levels. Occasional ventures into Noble, Immortal, Deity and perhaps Warlord could be made. My thought for a suitable spread would be 3 Prince, 3 Monarch and 3 Emperor GOTMs to every 2 Immortal and Noble games and every 1 Deity and Warlord game. If the GOTMs tend towards the middle level, there is less of a risk that some people won't want to participate because the game is too hard/easy.

One option to consider would be to relax the requirements for Adventurer class for Immortal and Deity games to allow anyone who hasn't finished in the top 25% or so in an Emperor or above GOTM to play that class. As the rules stand now, someone who finished in the top half of a Noble GOTM couldn't play Adventurer even though they've never won a Monarch or above game. That would make it more likely that people who are uncomfortable with the Immortal and Deity levels would participate.

On the other end, perhaps consideration could be given to making the Challenger class in Warlord/Noble quite hard with a small (5%?) boost in score in the rankings to keep the interest of those who prefer the high levels.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The following might be of interest

[PRE]
GOTM Level Entries Victories % Victories Mean base score Mean final score
GOTM01 Noble 624 585 94% 5243 14497
GOTM02 Prince 387 274 71% 4116 23665
GOTM03 Monarch 291 173 59% 3637 44881
GOTM04 Emperor 209 84 40% 2587 17760
GOTM05 Warlord 390 381 98% 3608 48878
GOTM06 Noble 277 225 81% 4223 19534
GOTM07 Prince 319 299 94% 4480 35844
GOTM08 Monarch 262 197 75% 3862 16763
[/PRE]

(I generated them with a script. I think the script works correctly, but I haven't spent all day double-checking it <g>)

Deduce what you want from them. The only comment I'll make is that the GOTM06 results seem to suggest that starting conditions can have a far bigger impact on game difficulty than simply moving up or down one level.

 

[Thrallia]

looks like Prince is the most popular level for people to submit on other than Warlord(obviously the novelty of the first game meant a huge number of non-repeat people).

I still think a Noble-Emperor cycle would likely be best, with an occasional Warlord or Immortal game being tossed in.

 

[Airny]

Thanks DynamicSprits for the stats!
I think they suggest to leave warlords in, so we attract more people. But if we do that, I'd strongly suggest to give the more experienced players, who'd like to play "challenger" a boost in points or something else that makes this class attractive. :-(

 

[Jove]

It seems like we're ramping up through the levels in the GOTM now. If immortal and Deity are next in this cycle, great. Then back to the easier levels and everyone can get what they want.

 

[Softnum]

I think it would be interesting to play with some of the other options as an alternative to difficulty levels. Turns off Domination victory on a larger map. Run Perm. Alliance. It could be fun to see, and vary the games a bit, without making them so hard that people get disheartened and loose interest.

 

[karlis]

I also agree that you can always raise the difficulty in other ways. Set the starting location on some tiny island by the arctic pole without any resources nearby. Or in the jungle...

 

[blastoidstalker]

Biggest thing I want from GOTM at this point is variety. Though i am an emporer I enjoy the easy games as you can try ways of winning you usual do not go after. What I want know if some variety in the game settings to see how they effect stratigy, thing like more civs on a standard map, a small map, random personalities, very bizarre starts or a map with only one horses resource. SGOTM 2 is along this path.

 

[Shillen]

I also agree that you can always raise the difficulty in other ways. Set the starting location on some tiny island by the arctic pole without any resources nearby. Or in the jungle...

If we do a warlord game I hope it's a 1-tile island with no resources.

 

[jesusin]

@Shillen
If we do a warlord game I hope it's a 1-tile island with no resources.


If we have to play on noble, either your suggestion or no metals nor horses on our continent.

I would like to cycle through Prince to Deity, although I don't think I will win on Deity. Civ4 Deity is really a challenge.

In my opinion there could be less entries for GOTM9 due to the length of the game (std map, low water, continents), not due to the difficulty level.

 

[Tegga21]

Why not have GOTM at 3 seperate difficulties for the same map? Then people can play on the difficulty of their choosing

 

[ungy]

Personally I don't enjoy the low levels and don't plan to play anything below monarch in a regular type game. I enjoy the spoilers and am grateful to the better players for sharing their strategies but I didn't find the low level games too interesting. I quit GOTM 6 about half way through cause I just got bored. If I'm going to invest a lot of RL time in a game I need it to be more interesting. I'm not really a speed player either. I do understand the need to appeal to all levels of player and especially to encourage new players.

I like the ideas being floated around for unusual games along the likes of SGOTM 2 at easier levels--count me in for that. Also the idea of the warlords and vanilla being at different levels so there is always something for everyone.

I would hope to see a deity game sometime.

 

[Mad Professor]

If we do a warlord game I hope it's a 1-tile island with no resources.

Actually, I would have thought that would make it even MORE boring. (Until you got astronomy anyhow...)

 

[drkodos]

If we do a warlord game I hope it's a 1-tile island with no resources.

This belies the point of setting a game on lower levels.

I think it is a strange custom to keep making the easy games hard and the hard games easier. Seems like a formula for creating an median game level, and little else.

Making the hard games easier:
- builds false confidence in the lower level players
- does not satiate the hunger of the harder level players


Making the easier games harder:
- takes aways the bone tossed to the lower level players



Trying to satisfy too many people with a single shot is usually a recipe for satisfying no one. AND, since we are all free to develop our own games to suit our own needs at any time we choose, I see no reason at all to lobby the creators to construct a game that fits me like a custom tailored suit. Since there is a nice option already, it just seems a bit self absorbed if I were to try to get GotM staff cater to me.


If it were up to me, I think the GotM should be at a high level all the time, and should present the toughest challenges with no handicaps for the lessors like myself. Training wheels usually create a situation in which it takes a person a lot longer to learn to ride the bike than those that learn without them. I think people would learn a lot more if the games were tough, and few people were able to win. Thus, the winning games would become more important, hold more info for people to learn from, and truly seperate out the elite players from the fray.




Just my dollar two eighty.