News: Game of the month for Civ V - feedback appreciated

[Halcyan2]

Looking through the thread, it seems like there are three main reasons why all the GOTM games are vanilla (+ free DLC), but do not include any of the additional DLC's:

1. Making GOTM as accessible as possible

2. Map creator does not own all of the DLC

3. Even if map creator did own all of the DLC, apparently its inconvenient changing settings to make vanilla maps and DLC maps.

Is that a correct summary?



I'm new to GOTM, so I'm sure that will keep me busy for a bit. Eventually, I think it would be nice if there were occasional DLC GOTM (not all, but every now and then). The main reasons I think it would be an occasional fresh breath of air:

1. Nice to practice playing as one of the DLC civs

2. Nice to play against the DLC civs (eventually you get sick of seeing the same vanilla civs all the time)

3. The three DLC wonders may slightly alter game strategy



Of particular interest, it seems we're already going to get some bifurcation due to the upcoming G&K expansion. What are the GOTM plans for the expansion?

1. Continue running only vanilla GOTM

2. Have vanilla GOTM but also G&K GOTM (similar to how Civ IV GOTM has Warlords and BTS versions)

If it's the latter, maybe there could also be ways to include DLC (would probably be easiest to just have "all DLC" as the option):

3. Have vanilla GOTM, and also G&K GOTM, and also fully loaded GOTM (G&K + all DLC)

4. Have vanilla GOTM and also fully loaded GOTM (G&K + all DLC). Once you require G&K for the GOTM, then maybe you might as well go all the way with all DLC too?



So what do people think? And what are the current official plans for GOTM regarding expansions (and maybe DLC)?

 

[DaviddesJ]

Essentially, Firaxis has not yet released the game code so no HoF type Mod can be built for the competition.

We managed to have GOTM in the old days before anyone had ever heard of, or considered, a "HoF Mod".

 

[leif erikson]

Is that a correct summary?

Not entirely. We try to make GOTM accessible for all, so we have not included dlc.

If I have dlc on my system, I must manage the dlc by moving the folders around to create vanilla games that everyone can play. Very easy to get screwed up and not interested in doing that.

And what are the current official plans for GOTM regarding expansions (and maybe DLC)?

We will be discussing this soon enough as a community. Working on a poll now to post soon. Please do not jump the gun.

 

[Morcar_civ5]

I would suggest to forbid Research agreements for the next GOTMs until the bug connected with them is fixed - the thread is here - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=468493.

It would be intresting to compete using just raw science . Moreover i don't remember if there has been any GOTM without RA ever.

 

[Ribannah]

I think I have a good idea of what the bug is, and if I'm correct it's easy to exploit (and even hard to avoid). It probably made me finish TSG40 1 turn faster.

There also seems to be an issue with the Porcelain Tower being multiplicative instead of additive.

 

[Muskie]

Smaller maps, it was nice to be able to play, but it was frustratingly slow at the end.

 

[Orry]

We managed to have GOTM in the old days before anyone had ever heard of, or considered, a "HoF Mod".

Yeah, I didn't play these when Civ V came out because I was waiting for the actual competition to start, now I come back two years later and still no sign of it. Are we so worried about people cheating that we would rather not compete at all?

 

[AlanH]

Yeah, I didn't play these when Civ V came out because I was waiting for the actual competition to start, now I come back two years later and still no sign of it. Are we so worried about people cheating that we would rather not compete at all?

That's ultimately a decision for the playing community. We just want to provide a competition that players can be reasonably confident to compete in. If you are not confident that you are playing under the same constraints as your opponents, then I suggest you may not want to continue playing for long.

When we first introduced the HoF Mod in Civ4 GOTMs, it became apparent that many players were habitually replaying. We assume that the majority are NOT happy to compete on the basis that your opponents can replay as often as they have time for, in order to pare down their finish date, or to increase their score. By all means challenge that assumption if you feel it is incorrect.

 

[DaviddesJ]

By all means challenge that assumption if you feel it is incorrect.

I think the assumption has always been incorrect. If players "cheat", they only hurt themselves, not me. The purpose of the GOTM rules has always been to help people enjoy their own games more, by getting out of the habit of exploiting save files. So that's a valuable purpose. But if you fail to keep some other guy from undermining his own fun, it really doesn't affect me at all. So maybe he declares himself the "winner", and I'm not. So what? I think the GOTM admins have forgotten how the GOTM grew in the first place, which was long before this intense focus on keeping other people from "cheating".

 

[leif erikson]

While I agree that a player that "cheats", really cheats themselves.

On the other hand, there is an expectation of a level playing field. All you need do is read through some of the AAR threads to see this. How players handle deals with the AI and take advantage of software bugs is too often heatedly debated among the players. The software has yet to mature in many ways and so there remain issues that will require rules or fixes via a mod.

Not sure why you came to GOTM, but for me it was about learning to play and improve my game. The TSG series has done this for many players. The only real difference between the TSG series and a "true" competition, as in Civ4, is the lack of global rankings and Pantheon of Heroes. If it is enjoyment of the game and personal satisfaction you're after, what does the TSG series lack in order for you to accomplish that?

 

[DaviddesJ]

Not sure why you came to GOTM, but for me it was about learning to play and improve my game. The TSG series has done this for many players. The only real difference between the TSG series and a "true" competition, as in Civ4, is the lack of global rankings and Pantheon of Heroes. If it is enjoyment of the game and personal satisfaction you're after, what does the TSG series lack in order for you to accomplish that?

I think the main problem/mistake has been to present the TSG as some sort of "temporary" solution. This naturally inclined a large number of people to wait around for the "real" GOTM. So I think the approach has shot itself in the foot by discouraging participation. I agree it's mostly semantic, but how you talk about things matters.

Of course, the bigger problem is that Civ V is just a much inferior and worse-designed game than Civ IV.

 

[AlanH]

I think the assumption has always been incorrect.

Your comments are no doubt valid for you, and you are probably not alone. The current training series clearly fits your requirements very well, as it focuses on the training and enjoyment aspect rather than the competitive elements.

But it may be dangerous to extrapolate from your own opinion and assume it is commonly held. You only have to cast your mind back to the heated debates over ranking tables and scoring systems (Jason, anyone?) to see that a lot of players regard the competition as a primary focus.

I think the GOTM admins have forgotten how the GOTM grew in the first place, which was long before this intense focus on keeping other people from "cheating".

As one of the longest serving GOTM staff, I didn't have anything to forget in this respect, so you will have to educate me on the history.

I can't speak for the Civ1/Civ2 GOTMs, but the first Civ3 GOTM was eleven years ago, and the some of the very first threads in the Civ3 GOTM forum emphasise the No Reloading rule. I have been involved in GOTM admin for Civ3/Civ4, and now Civ5 for about nine years. When I first arrived, there was very significant effort being put into cheat detection. We probably do less now than we were doing then, mainly because we have better tools.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I can't speak for the Civ1/Civ2 GOTMs, but the first Civ3 GOTM was eleven years ago, and the some of the very first threads in the Civ3 GOTM forum emphasise the No Reloading rule.

That's what I remember too. The GOTM started, and was very successful, with an emphasis on norms of behavior, rather than an emphasis on enforcement of rules. Over time, the people who cared more and more about enforcement came to play a bigger and bigger role. Partly because no one would object---I might not care much about enforcement, but if you are enforcing rules that I was following anyway, then I'm not going to object either. But, from my perspective, this has led to an excessive emphasis on enforcement as something that is central to GOTM, rather than something that came along later and is really incidental to the core purpose. I don't disagree that some people care very much about enforcement, I just disagree that it is actually essential to GOTM, even though some people care very much about it.

 

[AlanH]

I think the main problem/mistake has been to present the TSG as some sort of "temporary" solution. This naturally inclined a large number of people to wait around for the "real" GOTM. So I think the approach has shot itself in the foot by discouraging participation. I agree it's mostly semantic, but how you talk about things matters.

The main problem is that Firaxis' delays and problems have distorted the term "temporary". If a "real" GOTM competition would attract greater participation than one with little competitive spirit, surely that contradicts your view that on one wants a competition?

Of course, the bigger problem is that Civ V is just a much inferior and worse-designed game than Civ IV.

We can all agree on that - at least in terms of its fitness for use in a GOTM.

 

[DaviddesJ]

The main problem is that Firaxis' delays and problems have distorted the term "temporary".

Well, or that some people have had unrealistic expectations from Firaxis. I always knew that there would probably never be a GOTM for Civ V, because the conditions that CFC was requiring would never be met by Firaxis.

If a "real" GOTM competition would attract greater participation than one with little competitive spirit, surely that contradicts your view that on one wants a competition?

I don't understand this comment at all. I didn't say anything against competition. I only spoke against the necessity of enforcement. Competition works just fine without enforcement. I can still measure myself against other players. If some of them are cheating, well, their scores will be higher, but so what? It doesn't hurt me. There's no actual prizes at stake. Competition doesn't mean that you have to care about winning.

 

[AlanH]

Firaxis released the DLL source for Civ4 within nine months of the game release. Why would that not be a reasonable expectation for Civ5?

Sorry, I don't see how you can measure yourself against other players if they are on a playing field with a different slope. Unless you have some way of determining how each player is stretching the rules, and even then, I can't imagine how you would adjust the performance measurements to compare like with like.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Firaxis released the DLL source for Civ4 within nine months of the game release. Why would that not be a reasonable expectation for Civ5?

Well, my prediction was right and yours wrong, so you should be the one explaining why you were wrong, not me. My explanation of why things are different now is because they, as an organization, care less than they used to about such things. It's implicit in every aspect of the design. The people who cared about the things you (and I) care about in games, moved on from Firaxis long ago.

Sorry, I don't see how you can measure yourself against other players if they are on a playing field with a different slope. Unless you have some way of determining how each player is stretching the rules, and even then, I can't imagine how you would adjust the performance measurements to compare like with like.

I don't need to "compare like with like" in order to compete with people. Maybe some of them have an advantage because they are cheating. So what? If we're going to talk about advantages, I have an advantage over them because I'm smarter than they are. Does that mean I need earphones blaring out loud random noise, just to level the playing field? Some people who run in the NYC Marathon are professional athletes with sponsors and appearance fees and year-round full-time training, others have day jobs. They can still all run the same race and their times are posted on the same board.

In my opinion, you're way too obsessed with the idea that somehow the important thing is to identify the "best" player. I could care less about who the best player is. I don't think that's what the spirit of competition is about and it's not what the GOTM should be about. This attitude has helped cause me to drift away from it.

 

[leif erikson]

I think the main problem/mistake has been to present the TSG as some sort of "temporary" solution. This naturally inclined a large number of people to wait around for the "real" GOTM. So I think the approach has shot itself in the foot by discouraging participation. I agree it's mostly semantic, but how you talk about things matters.

How the community understands it matters as well.

Of course, the bigger problem is that Civ V is just a much inferior and worse-designed game than Civ IV.

Exactly, especially at first. It has improved over the last couple of years with patches and the expansion. The most played games have been since the G&K patch. Also, there has not been a "migration" to Civ5 by Civ4 players. If you look at who is playing, there are different names from Civ4 GOTM and Civ5 GOTM.

I don't understand this comment at all. I didn't say anything against competition. I only spoke against the necessity of enforcement. Competition works just fine without enforcement. I can still measure myself against other players. If some of them are cheating, well, their scores will be higher, but so what? It doesn't hurt me. There's no actual prizes at stake. Competition doesn't mean that you have to care about winning.

I don't need to "compare like with like" in order to compete with people. Maybe some of them have an advantage because they are cheating. So what? If we're going to talk about advantages, I have an advantage over them because I'm smarter than they are. Does that mean I need earphones blaring out loud random noise, just to level the playing field? Some people who run in the NYC Marathon are professional athletes with sponsors and appearance fees and year-round full-time training, others have day jobs. They can still all run the same race and their times are posted on the same board.

In my opinion, you're way too obsessed with the idea that somehow the important thing is to identify the "best" player. I could care less about who the best player is. I don't think that's what the spirit of competition is about and it's not what the GOTM should be about. This attitude has helped cause me to drift away from it.

All of this, to me, seems to point to exactly what we have done. The TSG series has been about both comparative play and discovery of features, exploits and techniques in playing Civ5. The focus has not been on enforcement of rules because we have made so few: Don't reload, don't take advantage of the Oxford bug or the Rationalism bug. In nearly all other cases we have not pressed new rules nor have we been heavy handed in enforcement. Players play their games, compare in the various threads and results are published. In many ways it has been a friendlier "competition" than I can remember back to Civ III days. Semantics or not, best to look at what is actually going on and make a decision to play or not. For that matter, you could play the games and just compare without ever posting or submitting, if that is what suits your needs.

 

[AlanH]

In my opinion, you're way too obsessed with the idea that somehow the important thing is to identify the "best" player. I could care less about who the best player is. I don't think that's what the spirit of competition is about

I don't think we have any common basis for discussion, David. we are clearly using different languages.
Usain Bolt is apparently not the "best" sprinter in the world.

 

[DaviddesJ]

All of this, to me, seems to point to exactly what we have done. The TSG series has been about both comparative play and discovery of features, exploits and techniques in playing Civ5. The focus has not been on enforcement of rules because we have made so few: Don't reload, don't take advantage of the Oxford bug or the Rationalism bug. In nearly all other cases we have not pressed new rules nor have we been heavy handed in enforcement. Players play their games, compare in the various threads and results are published. In many ways it has been a friendlier "competition" than I can remember back to Civ III days.

Yes, I basically agree with everything except the "TSG" name. I think you've turned off a huge number of people by calling it "TSG" rather than "GOTM". Perhaps names shouldn't matter so much, but they do. They determine people's expectations. Calling it "training" is extremely offputting to the people who might otherwise participate. It's water under the bridge at this point, I just think it was a pretty terrible decision.