Humble request concerning the next Deity xOTM.

[Erkon]

Yes, Monarch is the median difficulty, and in my eyes, the most attractive level since it stretches the capabilities of new comers, while enables mid-level players to perfect their skills. It is necessary to continuously attract new and old players and the prince-monarch-emperor cycle is suitable for that. The Immortal-Deity games are necessary to keep/attract experienced players.

I suggest that BOTM is kept at medium level until the community has enough experience to master Emperor/Immortal. Like wise, I think it is suitable to keep GOTM/WOTM at higher levels, since we don't really expect a lot of newcomers to these variants, with Vanilla being 2 1/2 years old

 

[MarkM]

really? I woulda sworn Monarch had the most votes...

Well I looked and it turns out that each of us are both wrong & right. The most votes were for "emperor and above." The second most votes -- and the most votes for a category that is a single difficulty level -- was for monarch.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

FWIW my current plans are to increment the BOTM difficulty each month (that might change at any time depending on interest, community feedback, discussions with other staff, etc. but at present I see no reason to depart from that). I haven't yet decided how high up to take the difficulty in this first 'round' of the sawtooth.

What that means for deity is that there will certainly be a deity BOTM at some point, but it's not going to be within the next couple of months.

 

[greatbeyond]

really? I woulda sworn Monarch had the most votes...

Okay, okay, I voted a couple of hundred times

 

[ainwood]

We'll have a deity GOTM in the next few months. I was planning on making the challenger class a standard game - I really don't see the point in adding an extra handicap to deity level....

 

[LowtherCastle]

We'll have a deity GOTM in the next few months. I was planning on making the challenger class a standard game - I really don't see the point in adding an extra handicap to deity level....

Great!

I don't see the point in Contenders getting an advantage over people who want to play a standard game. Presumably, as an Admin, your main concern will be providing a game that is winnable for contenders, therefore, based on it being what I am calling a nerfed deity game. This is first and foremost a competition, is it not? It should be 'winnable' when playing the regular deity version, whatever you call that. I've played out-of-the-box deity games and I simply cannot beat them, no matter how many times I start over and try again, each time experimenting with something different, even using my knowledge of the map. In short, I think there are a lot of set-ups in which the human player simply cannot overcome the AI's built-in advantage. Adding, for example, a worker and an archer can be a huge difference maker in this regard, potentially making the contender version winnable, the challenger version not.

 

[Thrallia]

well, since last time only one person won, and that person was playing challenger(I believe), history shows that it doesn't really make much difference on deity whether you get a bonus or not

as far as the WOTM is concerned, it will hit Deity in the next few games as well...you'll get to lose soon enough

 

[da_Vinci]

Great!

I don't see the point in Contenders getting an advantage over people who want to play a standard game. Presumably, as an Admin, your main concern will be providing a game that is winnable for contenders, therefore, based on it being what I am calling a nerfed deity game. This is first and foremost a competition, is it not? It should be 'winnable' when playing the regular deity version, whatever you call that. I've played out-of-the-box deity games and I simply cannot beat them, no matter how many times I start over and try again, each time experimenting with something different, even using my knowledge of the map. In short, I think there are a lot of set-ups in which the human player simply cannot overcome the AI's built-in advantage. Adding, for example, a worker and an archer can be a huge difference maker in this regard, potentially making the contender version winnable, the challenger version not.

Maybe I am being dense, but you have me confused now, LC

I thought you were advocating for contender being "Deity as Sid made it (DASMI)" ... yet now you seem to want contender to be a winable game, while you seem to be arguing that DASMI is pretty much unwinnable for you.

Which would mean that contender Deity, to be winable would have to be nerfed in some way? (Maybe resources and terrain instead of extra units or techs?) But I thought you did not want contender to be nerfed ... ??

Can you " 'splain it to me, Lucy" ? (With apologies to Ricky Ricardo)

dV

 

[Erkon]

I definitely don't want the next Deity to be winnable by LC at contender. Man, I've had enough of Monarch-level games...

I agree with LC that an added worker and an archer will make a game much easier, probably one level below depending on the starting techs and map.

(sorry LC - could not resist )

 

[ainwood]

Presumably, as an Admin, your main concern will be providing a game that is winnable for contenders.

Well, its April fools' day, so I should humour you!

 

[LowtherCastle]

Maybe I am being dense, but you have me confused now, LC

I thought you were advocating for contender being "Deity as Sid made it (DASMI)" ... yet now you seem to want contender to be a winable game, while you seem to be arguing that DASMI is pretty much unwinnable for you.

Which would mean that contender Deity, to be winable would have to be nerfed in some way? (Maybe resources and terrain instead of extra units or techs?) But I thought you did not want contender to be nerfed ... ??

Can you " 'splain it to me, Lucy" ? (With apologies to Ricky Ricardo)

dV

Thank you for asking for the clarification. Obviously I'm not being clear. Let me put it this way:

1. I'm hoping for a DASMI contender save.
2. I'm hoping that contender save will be winnable, at least for someone like Obormot:

The game is definitely winnable, and not just with a dimplomatic victory.

3. I do not know how the Admins will manage #2, but I trust them.
4. Using Worldbuilder Mapfinder to find a favorable starting position for us is not, in my opinion, nerfing, because Worldbuilder Mapfinder produces unadulterated DASMI saves each time.

Does that seem to clearly represent my position?

 

[LowtherCastle]

Well, its April fools' day, so I should humour you!

Am I correct in assuming you take no responsibility for smashed mouses, bludgeoned monitors, and disemboweled computers?

 

[ainwood]

Am I correct in assuming you take no responsibility for smashed mouses, bludgeoned monitors, and disemboweled computers?

Yes, I do. I wear them as a badge of honour

 

[da_Vinci]

Thank you for asking for the clarification. Obviously I'm not being clear. Let me put it this way:

1. I'm hoping for a DASMI contender save.
2. I'm hoping that contender save will be winnable, at least for someone like Obormot:
3. I do not know how the Admins will manage #2, but I trust them.
4. Using Worldbuilder to find a favorable starting position for us is not, in my opinion, nerfing, because Worldbuilder produces unadulterated DASMI saves each time.

Does that seem to clearly represent my position?

Just about ... concerning #4 above, it is not nerfing to FIND a favorable starting position using worldbuilder, but it would be nerfing to MAKE a favorable starting position in worldbuilder, if I understand you correctly (adding units or techs is clearly nerfing in your usage). Everything else is now clear.

dV

 

[LowtherCastle]

Just about ... concerning #4 above, it is not nerfing to FIND a favorable starting position using worldbuilder, but it would be nerfing to MAKE a favorable starting position in worldbuilder, if I understand you correctly (adding units or techs is clearly nerfing in your usage). Everything else is now clear.

dV

SHeesh. I just can't get this right... I meant MAPFINDER, of course, not Worldbuilder. Worldbuilder isn't even used to generate maps...d'oh.

 

[da_Vinci]

SHeesh. I just can't get this right... I meant MAPFINDER, of course, not Worldbuilder. Worldbuilder isn't even used to generate maps...d'oh.

I know exactly 0 about mapfinder ... I was thinking that you meant generate a game, use worldbuilder to find a good starting spot, then transplant the player's units to that good spot (transplanting AI out of that spot if needed).

In that case, since the player's starting spot is one that the game generated naturally, it is an unadulturated DASMI.

What does mapfinder do that is different? (And if it generates maps, why isn't it called MAPMAKER? )

dV

 

[LowtherCastle]

I know exactly 0 about mapfinder ... I was thinking that you meant generate a game, use worldbuilder to find a good starting spot, then transplant the player's units to that good spot (transplanting AI out of that spot if needed).

In that case, since the player's starting spot is one that the game generated naturally, it is an unadulturated DASMI.

What does mapfinder do that is different? (And if it generates maps, why isn't it called MAPMAKER? )

dV

Mapfinder is just a program that opens and saves CIV games. You specify the criteria for the games you want it to save and then it proceeds to open a zillion games and saves only the ones with the starting criteria you specify, such as settler on a stone hill, 2 golds and a river in the area visible to the settler and other unit. Of course, you also specify the game settings, such as Deity, continents, low sea level, or whatever. All the games then opened by Mapfinder are opened according to those game settings. In fact, Mapfinder is not really opening the games, CIV is opening them (as usual) and Mapfinder is just monitoring that process, saving appropriate games and regenerating, as far as I know.

EDIT: I suppose it's called mapfinder for historical reasons, named as such by the original maker of it back in CivIII (credits to: Moonsinger et al.). It's used by Civ Fanatics to FIND optimum maps, so the name makes sense.

 

[da_Vinci]

Mapfinder is just a program that opens and saves CIV games. You specify the criteria for the games you want it to save and then it proceeds to open a zillion games and saves only the ones with the starting criteria you specify, such as settler on a stone hill, 2 golds and a river in the area visible to the settler and other unit. Of course, you also specify the game settings, such as Deity, continents, low sea level, or whatever. All the games then opened by Mapfinder are opened according to those game settings. In fact, Mapfinder is not really opening the games, CIV is opening them (as usual) and Mapfinder is just monitoring that process, saving appropriate games and regenerating, as far as I know.

Can you create criteria so sweet that no "randomly" (in quotes per recent discussions of die rolls, RNG and quantum mechanics ) generated civ map will meet it?

Seems that mapfinder would allow you to generate and idenfity some pretty far out there outlier starting positions, which then begs the question of whether that is still a DASMI (if it is so atypically favorable to the human player)?

And what is the exponent of 10 for a zillion? How long does that take?

dV

 

[MarkM]

Actually this mapfinder disc prompts me to ask something I've been thinking about for a while: would the xOTM staff consider agreeing to state clearly in each pregrame/game save post whether the save is one generated by civ (whether using mapfinder or not) or one that has been altered in WB? I'm not (necessarily) asking for details, I'm just requesting a clear Y/N on whether the map has been WB altered.

These xOTM lately have gotten me a bit paranoid. Whereas in a normal game I might think "OK I'll try going for this resource because there's about an x% chance it will work out", in xOTM games I (and lots of others) find myself thinking "normally I'd feel OK taking this chance, but I have no idea if my assumptions have or have not been invalidated because someone has artificially altered resource and civ starting distributions." It would be nice to at least know if my paranoia is warranted or not

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Actually this mapfinder disc prompts me to ask something I've been thinking about for a while: would the xOTM staff consider agreeing to state clearly in each pregrame/game save post whether the save is one generated by civ (whether using mapfinder or not) or one that has been altered in WB? I'm not (necessarily) asking for details, I'm just requesting a clear Y/N on whether the map has been WB altered.

These xOTM lately have gotten me a bit paranoid. Whereas in a normal game I might think "OK I'll try going for this resource because there's about an x% chance it will work out", in xOTM games I (and lots of others) find myself thinking "normally I'd feel OK taking this chance, but I have no idea if my assumptions have or have not been invalidated because someone has artificially altered resource and civ starting distributions." It would be nice to at least know if my paranoia is warranted or not

I think that's easy to answer at one level but very hard to answer at a level that would ease your fears.

Although I know only about my games for certain - can't speak for Ainwood or Thrallia with much certainty, I would imagine it's extraordinarily rare that a GOTM map hasn't been tweaked in some way, eg. to provide better balance or to throw a particular challenge at the players, or simply to make sure that the game is winnable. So the trivial answer is likely to be 'assume it's always Y'. However, there are varying degrees of 'tweaking' from at one level merely adding a food resource to make sure your capital can grow, to at the other extreme modifying a whole continent layout (which I did in BOTM 02). Personally speaking, if I'd modified a map to an extent that was significantly uncharacteristic of the stated maptype, then I would be (almost, though not quite) certain to make sure there is some clue to that in the pre-game discussion announcement, either in the text or the starting screenshot - since I don't want the pre-game discussion to mislead people.

I suspect that's not as specific an answer as you'd like, but my concern would be that giving any more information away as a general rule would detract from the (hopefully, fun) challenge of coping with whatever unknown stuff the map throws at you.