Is the GOTM improved today compared to 3 months ago?

[Hergrom]

I don't think there is any question that the GOTM is significantly improved. The staff works tirelessly to give us all alot of gaming enjoyment.

1. I like the Jason scoring, even though my scoring suffers quite a bit.

2. It is great that players using civ3 vanlla, PTW and Macs can all play the same game. There are some inequities between the versions that need to be addressed, however: Purchase cost of foreign workers; Scientific civs free techs; and Barbarian behavior to name a few. There may be others.

3. I like the modded maps, but the EXTREME natutre of the changes may be empahsizing skills we may never need again (see Carthage GOTM 17).

Hergrom

 

[jeffelammar]

Good:
1. I like the multiple discussion lists. This forces me to think a bit after each era and re-evaluate what I'm doing.
2. I like the emphasis on helping people learn. Prior to Russia, there was discussion, but not as focused.

Bad:
1. Due to the amount of work in other parts of GOTM, the GOTM website has suffered. It is often impossible to find pages on it (like the QSC rules pages and the Upcoming games pages). There don't seem to be links to a lot of pages. This forces people to ask about it on the forums. I feel stupid doing it, but I always try to find the page first.

Neutral:
1. Squids (and volcanos) - I don't feel that these items add a lot to the game play. On the other hand, they also don't detract, so I have no problem with them staying.
2. PTW - I play using the latest patch of PTW, but I think that the different versions of the code cause some strange differences in scoring.
3. Jason Score - Frankly, I don't really care if the "civ3 base" score is not fair. I play my games the way I want to, and don't worry about what it means to my ranking. So ranking based on the new calculator seems like a superfluous step.

Just a note: The Carthage map is not that far fetched. I recently played a game as Carthage on an archipeligo, and I ended up not getting contact with anyone until after navigation. It really felt similar. (yes the map was civ3 random generated)

 

[Smirk]

Quick pre-summary

For: Jason score, designed maps, added "stuff", QSC, special awards, gotm Take 2

Against: difficult install process, QSC scoring having external meaning, huts, milking


I voted it has greatly improved, my time of reference was comparing gotm2 to gotm17. The Jason score is the thing I've been waiting almost 2 years for. It started to become a milk fest then, and looking back at the scores this continued the entire time. (Not to say those who won weren't the best, its just that whole added time to milk that I never liked.)

The designed maps and additional things are fantasic. The things I could do without are the things that don't seem to matter much. Of course changing them so they do matter is equally as good. The things I am talking about are fog, squid and volcanos.

Another needing improvement (and one I've mentioned elsewhere and other posters have mentioned) is to make this process easier for the users. Good at Civ3 does not imply knowledge of computers and their inner workings, the process to install for vanilla civ is more difficult than PTW but either of them requires a bit more knowledge than needed.

Someone else voiced this suggestion and I'll second it, how about a GOTM Take Two? I've been playing a couple old gotms that I missed. I'd be interested in this just to see how great an effect prior knowledge has, even though I haven't read any spoilers, my only info is the ranking and scores.

The QSC challenge is another great addition. I don't know what the global ranking is, nor if QSC is or is not part of it. I've always seen the ranking to be shady at best since there are very few methods to prevent or catch cheating. So a monthly rank and a historical list of special awards is more than enough for my tastes. In other words I agree with Pleb, I don't change my game to maximize score and its actually counter productive for my games (Notably tech trading). QSC should be a stepping stone to a good final game, not an end in of itself. In light of that, final scoring in comparison to the QSC would be interesting and I would like to see that.

I will also add my vote for requests for more special awards, OCC, 2CC and 5CC seem to be easily determined and shouldn't add much in the way of workload.


I also believe the huts to offer little to competitive play. They have always been a potential off-balancing effect and they will continue to be. I personally hate them, but I get them at any rate like an addiction. Help me stop!

 

[civ_steve]

GOTM was always fun, but the recent changes have greatly improved the experience!!

Modded Maps and Units have added the most to the game, IMO. Divided spoilers are a great idea, but like someone else posted, I'd like to see them started at the beginning of the month. QSC is awesome, but I'm uncomfortable with the focus on the QSC scoring. I think it focuses too much on a perceived 'most advantageous' method to play civ III, and introduces a potential bias to certain methods of play. I like the idea of the puzzlers within the game, but being time-challenged I haven't participated in trying to solve them. I'd also like to see additional special 'fun' awards, or recognition of unique games (to some degree, this does occur.) The addition of Player Statistics and Player Community have improved the experience.

 

[alamo]

I second the commendations for the map designs, new units, features, etc.

Admittedly I am still a lurker - my first submit was QSC last time. I have more or less perused the threads for the past 3 months.

I would say the biggest hurdle for greater participation is fairly high level of performance by those who post before me. Of course that is not their problem, just a challenge to the GOTM administration.

 

[planetfall]

Glad for
1. QSC game-- this is a great aid in trying to improve my game. I can't believe how hard it is to improve.

2. Specials-- they add a little of excitement to GOTM

3. Player interest-- it is nice to see so many new players and old players return to play.

4. Player timelines in QSC-- these are better than play discussion.

5. A gentler approach by Cracker to player either having problems with the game or the forum discussions.

Still waiting for
1. Thread open with only one condition: having submitted QSC, period.

2. QSC expanded from first 80 turns to the first 100 turns. There seems to be too much short term decisions made at the end of the QSC which hurt the GOTM

3. Ranking and results on results page without having to download or click on any link.

4. A deity level summary of the GOTM and highlight of one skill that could have been learned from this GOTM.

5. Some reasonable method to shorten long spoiler threads. Maybe something like {Spoiler} #-- {discussion focus, i.e., trading, exploration, military action, getting wonders, etc.}

6. Better balance between:
a. challenging/interesting games for good players,
b. teaching games for players striving to improve
{perhaps 2 GOTM for each month: only difference being difficulty levell}

7. A link each player could go to, enter civfan password, and get history of play for QSC and GOTM submissions. A simple table of game #, score, rank % out of submitted games, month/year would be helpful

Don't need/want
1. Global ranking
2. sound files
3. GOTM maps with no sea passages to the North or South
4. Always having raging barbarians.



-- PF

 

[Nightfa11]

The good:

Jason Score...went from bottom 20 to top 50....

New Units

Well designed maps

The bad:

Seems like maps are always big

Overly critical and somewhat umm....insensitive...moderation of posts on forums. As col says, it's just a game, I'm trying to have fun.

 

[LKendter]

There have been some major improvements that I like:
1) - Jason scoring so that I don't have to be dairy farmer to have a change at the top score.
2) - Spoilers and such seem much more organized and under control.


My complaints:
1) - GOTM #16 and intentionally setting a risky trade route that wasn't obvious. There is nothing more frustrating in the game then to lose your ability to trade using gpt for tech. I value my rep above all, and go out of my way to protect it. To have the game designed in a way that creates to put me in the situation I dread the most made that game a lot less enjoyable.
2) - No more edge of map cities as this caused some very weird reactions from Civ in GOTM#16 including a crash that was submitted to Cracker, but could not be repeated by him.

 

[tcjsavannah]

I'm currently playing my fourth GOTM and I've enjoyed every one increasingly so. I think the time and effort that has been put into designing the games is outstanding and to see the popularity of the games is also rewarding.

I, too, get annoyed with edge-of-map cities that the AI seems to fall in love with putting up, but htat's a minor quirk - I noticed that it's the same there with some other user-generated maps, so it probably can't be avoided if you truly want a map to look a certain way.

I also put in my vote for the confusion of the GOTM pages. I'm very absent-minded so when I go looking for the email to send in the QSC, I inevitably end up searching through several pages before I find it.

I'm not a competitive player (in fact with the way my RL is right now, GOTM is the only Civ III game I play each month) but I find it fascinating to look and see how others have played the same game and how I stack up. If I get in the top half of the scores, I'm extremely happy.

Again, a big thanks to Cracker and the staff for bringing us the GOTM's each month!

 

[JonathanValjean]

I think that the GOTM is vastly improved. With the intensity with which Cracker and his fellow workers have worked to do so, how could it not be? Thanks, GOTM staff!

 

[Karasu]

Originally posted by planetfall
Still waiting for
7. A link each player could go to, enter civfan password, and get history of play for QSC and GOTM submissions. A simple table of game #, score, rank % out of submitted games, month/year would be helpful
-- PF

That's a good idea, and other players already pointed that out as a possibility.
It surely is in my agenda, I swear.

You will have to be patient, though, as such a feature (even in a simplified version) is quite a luxury... As soon as I pencil out the other priorities (like the Pantheon of Heroes, just to name one), we can surely start discussing how to implement that.

 

[Gen. Maximus]

Seems like maps are always big

Agree with Nightfa11. Pity those who has a slower system.

And yes, updating the GOTM webpage should be made priority such as Pantheon of HEroes and the QSC/GOTM submission page. From the forum threads I believe a lot of people is still confuse on whether to send the turn before or after they finish.
I do not bother with QSC scoring that partly emphasize on tech trades as it did not go along with my long term strategy e.g. if I gonna plunder another civ and get her techs, why try to get it by 1000BC?

But overall the GOTM is an addiction!! Would like to continue to see more interesting map design or extreme maps like the GOTM17... something like arid and cold maps. A game can be made big if the terrain is difficult as it prevents growth and science. And hurray to Jason's scoring, put a banish to all the 2050AD milkers that occupies the top 10 spot in the previous GOTMs. Spoilers arrangement is good and organised. Additional units and interest to the games without changing the balance. Final words... Thumbs up!