Is the GOTM improved today compared to 3 months ago?

[cracker]

We have now had just over three full months of GOTM games using some of the new procedures and processes.

This is a good point in time to ask all of our participants (lurkers included) to look back at the games you have played over the past three months.

Regardless of what your major assessment may be of the GOTM in the poll above, try to think about the games and the procedures and:

1) pick out at least one thing that you are glad that we have done
2) pick one thing that you still would like to see done, and
3) pick one thing that compared to all the other features of the current GOTM that you could probably live without.

 

[kojimanard]

By chance of being here, I get to be the first to post, and I'm sure my comments will be echoed and enhanced by many others. The GOTM is greatly improved. The QSC was a brilliant idea, with the timelines, its very fun to read and educational. The new scoring system is, obviously, a significant improvement. Most importantly, the games, with the new graphics, etc, are great fun.

 

[col]

We have gained a lot obviously. The QSC will definitely has and will continuwe to improve play all round. I think we have lost something too though. GOTM is getting very serious and the threads are strictly controlled.

I play primarily for fun and have had all kinds of challenges along the way. I respect Cracker's desire to raise the standard of play but things like the lowest scoring challenge were fun - and raised standards of OCC too.

I'd like to see more 'fun' awards. Phil Martin has taken us a little along the way with his Philibusters but it's something I'd personally like to see developed further.

 

[MadScot]

OK, so far I'm the only "more room to grow" voter. Not because I disagree with the first statement, but because I feel that the "more room to grow" is important.

We are where we are now because people did not accept the status quo, and were willing to change - even to the extent of experimenting with formats etc. So I think it's important to change, and importantly for the player community to be receptive to change, which may not always be successful but which is well intentioned.

1. I like ... the consideration given to those of us unable or unwilling to purchase PTW, AND the consideration also shown to the PTWers. Clearly a lot of work has gone into the Civ3-mac-PTW process.

2. I would like...the QSC scores all on the results page, not in a download. The detail in the download is nice, but I'd like to just scroll down to find my score. It's not a big thing.

3. Nothing I strongly object to, although it does seem that the pre-game thread is encouraging a very over enthusiastic analysis of, and concentration on, the first move or two. Maybe a 'managed' map where the important decisions were not subject to debate prior to the game. At times that thread is almost a plan for the game....although the easy solution to my objection is just to ignore the thread. I get the feeling from one of the other discussions that the 'boss' also feels we're being too focused on that first move. How about a 5 tile radius of pure grassland for the next start location

 

[SirPleb]

I think the GOTM has improved wonderfully, the huge effort by the GOTM staff is really paying off. It really is awesome, can't overstate that!

1) Glad: Lots of things, with two at the top that I'll mention: a) Jason score. b) Interesting and challenging maps - the maps feel to me like they are in the spirit of the game and require just the same skills as random ones, but they add a dimension the random generator can't match.
Edit: I just have to add a couple more: c) Multiple spoiler threads, including pre-game d) Heavy duty ongoing staff efforts, resulting in events on schedule, threads moderated to stay on-topic, etc.

2) To be done: Update the Pantheon of Heroes?

3) Could live without: QSC scoring counting toward global ranking. I do very much like the QSC! But I think that if high results there are rewarded, that should happen separately from final GOTM results. I don't play for QSC score and have seen a number of other posts to the same effect. I feel that playing for QSC score would actually compromise my final game. Perhaps some day the QSC score can become refined so that the best QSC score implies the best position for the long run. But even if that happens, counting it in global rankings would then just be redundant and harmless. And until that happens it seems to me that counting it is counter-productive, creating two incompatible goals in the same game. The QSC is interesting enough without counting it in global ranking.

 

[OneFastWarrior]

1.I really like the Jason score, I also like the cool squid, fog and other such things
2. Update the pantheon of heroes!!
3.I cannot think of anything that I could live without, It is still alearning process for me and the games that are here help me to get better!

 

[tao]

As a Mac player, I have to vote "greatly improved".

Also the qsc timelines are great, because they help you to analyse your play compared to a large variety of others in the crucial beginning of the game.

 

[Borealis]

I like the increased level of feedback from players, with the QSC being part of it, as a way of bringing more approaches to the game and debates to the GOTM.

I agree with Col in that I'd like to see more 'fun' awards- in the QSC scoring page, there are a few awards there that were never implemented, and a new dedicated thread for this might come up with additions.

I could actually live without the posting of the start location before play, or the map parameters. Maybe I'm alone in this, but part of the excitement of playing Civ3 is waiting to see what the map generator, or cracker in this case, has turned up for me. Giving the barbarian activity level could be fine, but I'd like to see the land distribution/water level left off the description.

 

[TedJackson]

I voted still room to improve. Not because I'm unhappy with the status quo but because there's always room for improvement and I'm sure Cracker & the team already have some cards up their sleeves

Onto my "yes, please and no more" points:

1) I like the Jason scoring system (much better than native Civ score) and I love the timelines. Reading how other players tackled the same situation(s) is such a valuable learning tool.

2) I would like to see Goodyhuts removed from GOTM. IMO they're too big a random bonus for competitive play. One player may get a tech another may get a deserted villlage from the same GH.

3) Fog banks! A little fog here & there is OK but IMO GTOM17 went a little too far.

Overall I think GOTM is a great, fun way to play Civ/PTW and I'm very glad I found CFC.

regards


Ted

 

[Ronald]

1) I like:
The QSC: to get to know better how others are approaching the game, a great learning possibility.
The fast results: approx. 10 days after deadline having the results for 180 games is excellent.
The split of the spoiler treads: it gives great reading throughout the month.
The map design

2) To be done: update the pantheon of heroes

3) I don't like:
Fog and volcanos - I would prefer less alterations to the game
Especially undocumented alterations like the no bouns grass land under jungle in gotm17.
The qsc-scoring system (too much emphasize on fast tech development) and as a result of this, that the qsc score is part of the total score

Overall I still gave highest marks.

Ronald

 

[Phaedria]

Ive posted my first completed GOTM this month having lurked for a couple of months. I think I have learned a great deal from the threads - I like the fact that they are strictly controlled I think it ensures no unwanted information spoils it for those who havnt got that far. I love the fog/squid/volcano - tho'Ive lost a few units to them !

Havig only been a lurker up to now, cant say too much but I really look forward to the start of each month - and the pregame discussion I find fascinating (Im only a beginner and its a real challnge for me to play on the higher levels)

Phaedria

 

[Bamspeedy]

I also think it's great that Civ3 1.29, PTW, AND Mac users can all play the same game.

The new graphics can be fun, but as I'm sure you've all seen, it can cause alot of headaches for some players. Oh well, I guess many players got a 'crash' course into the world of adding units to the game, so would now feel more confortable adding new units to any scenarios they may want to create (but there's still much more to learn).

QSC scoring counting towards global rankings: I can see both sides of the issue on this one. Yes, some of the best players don't have the greatest QSC scores. But if the QSC didn't count towards global rankings, then many wouldn't bother participating in it and you wouldn't have the input/information sharing about the starting game, like we do now. The first month or two of the QSC, there was very few QSC submissions. After it became 'mandatory' (if you wanted a better global ranking), then the number of participants increased dramatically.

I think Cracker carried some of the maps just a little too far to the extreme, though. i.e.- all those forests in the Russia game, the vast oceans and all the island hopping that was required in GOTM17, etc.

 

[Singularity]

I've only followed this community for the last three games. So I really wouldn't have much to contribute to the evolution from previous GOTMs. But I'll comment based on the last three games.

GOTM is on the right track, and have much potential of growth in it. Like I said in 'The great wall' thread I think that we should not take the role of a gamedesigners commersial qualms of making a game for the masses. I consider GOTM to be an evolution of the game from normal casual play to an alternative for advanced players to further evolve their gameskills and experience. A short term increase in players don't necessarily mean that the GOTM community will be better of in the long term if we freeze the room for improving the game.

I know it has been said before, but I would like to thank Cracker for his great effort in GOTM. And to not forget people like Aeson, Karasu, Creepster, Phil Martin and RufRydyr(sorry if I forgot someone) who keep the midnight oil burning to give us this great experience.

Edit: completely forgot about the pros and cons.

1. As an opponent to Bamspeedy, I actually think the geology of the last three maps where the best part of them. It's extreme compeared to a computer generated map, but it focuses the challenges and pushed people to adapt to them. If they don't do it they will learn it anyway after reading the reports from more successfull games. This is evolution in pracsis

2. It would be great to see a self extracting file for each GOTM that puts the right files in the right folders, or a zip at least with all the contents needed for the game.

3. I also think that QSC should have a more isolated score compared to full GOTMs. Like SirPleb said it's often hard to both hunt for a high QSC score and the long term strategy for each game. Refining it to relate to culture, science, power and territory score would perhaps be a solution. But that would also require much more work in analyzing each and every game...

 

[Ribannah]

[1] The (further) encouragement of posting timelines. To me, this is the most essential part of the GOTM.
[2] Reconsider the exploits that should or shouldn't be allowed.
[3] The Squid.

 

[RufRydyr]

More than 1 thing:


The good:

-Glad you put so much time and effort into the maps and the results comparisons/details.
-Love the squid and fog.
-I've only been active for a short time and I'm amazed at the progress in that short period.
-Like/don't like Jason scoring, but wouldn't change it. My score is dropping! but I don't have to milk anymore. Guess I might actually have to become a better player to get a higher score.



The to be improved:

-I'd like to get something out of the fog when I kill it. If you have to kill fog to get to a goody hut or luxury after the QSC time period that would be cool.
-I'd really like to see an Excel chart with every user name in alphabetical order on the left and then columns for every GOTM and QSC with the rank listed in them for each player. That would make it easier to see how each person is moving up and/or down and compare QSC score to GOTM for each person. For instance, I could go to MOOsinger's name and see her rank for each game. If you could throw in score for each and make it downloadable so we could play with the sorting that would be even cooler. IMO there is more detail in the current spreadsheets than I'm interested in and it's a lot of work to combine just the details I'm interested in (score and rank) over several games. This spreadsheet could even be put into a new section like rank history or history of player's rank or something.
-Waiting for Yeti.
-Every map should have a choice on the starting position. There should be a clear #1 best choice for the settler to build on, a #2 slightly above average, and a #3 crappy spot. It might not be obvious or you might need to move the worker to see the best one, but I think there should be a clear best and good spot to settle with the other locations being crappy. Then in the QSC spreadsheet everyone would be given the great, good, or poor 1st city notation. Maybe you could even give some QSC points for that.
-I'd like to see all the spoiler threads opened on day 1 and trust the players not to enter a thread until they've met the requirements.
-I'd like to see a utility to figure QSC score. I figured mine for QSC17 and it took forever.
-I was just reading posts and it seems that a lot of people are replaying the games with their foreknowledge to learn. What about a new competition for replayed GOTMS? It might be interesting to see if the high scores on the games are beatable when someone starts over and doesn't make the same mistakes they made the first time around. If something like this was implemented I don't think it should count towards score or rankings, but it would be neat to list people's replay score.


The bad:

-Wouln't remove anything.

 

[Moonsinger]

It's obviously much better than 3 month ago.

1. I like those surprises in the game such as squid, fog, and volcano. Those massive regional barbs are fun to deal with.

2. A D&D concept. For example, enter the forbidden mountain to slay a dragon, then collect its treasure (gold, tech, spell*, or unit with special ability*). Basically, it is the next level of the squid, fog, and volcano.

*For example, the secret to contruct a Small Wonder that allow us to build special unit or something.

3. Even though I like the extra mod in the game, it would be nice to play the normal game once in awhile.

 

[hbdragon88]

The custom maps and alterations make the gotm exciting, like the worker job name changes in gotm15, the barbarian puzzle in gotm16, and the starting location decision in gotm17. Also the added units, leaderheads, and other things.

I like the disclosure of how the map was made and what the aim of the map was.

I would like to see all the modpacks should be packaged into one big zip for first-timers instead of all scattered into separate links. It would also be nice if the SAV file link was released on the gotm page instead of the readme.

 

[Karasu]

I couldn't help but vote "significant improvements"...

As an average player, I found that both the game depth and the participation to the forums have really improved (mainly thanks to Cracker's vicious map editing and inflexible censorship... )

Concerning the PoH and more Excel files, I can only say I'm working on it... please be patient...

 

[LeSphinx]

The GOTM has improved and gaves a new challenge each time.
LeSphinx

 

[Darkness]

I've only been here since GOTM16, but I like the games better every time...

I really like the QSC, regionally intense barbarians, and the touched-up maps...
The timelines are also graet and I think the presentation of the results has improved a lot....

The only thing I disliked was the lag in GOTM17, which has been fixed, so I have no complaints...