News: GOTM131 results and congratulations

[mad-bax]

Classic GOTM 131 Results and congratulations:

Summary of Medal Winners:

tR1cKy: 1260 AD Spaceship Victory, 11,692 points.

TheHaze: 1390 AD Spaceship Victory, 8,687 points.

Stalintag: 1500 AD Spaceship Victory, 7,922 points.


Other Award Winners:

Ditch: 1768 AD Spaceship Victory, 5,527 points.


>> See the full results here.
>> See the QSC results here.
>> See the updated global rankings here.
>> See the latest Pantheon of Heroes here.
>> Award symbols are listed here.

End of Classic GOTM 131 results.

Well, a clear winner for this game. Having said that, everyone was a winner this time round.

Thanks to Alanh for sorting out the awards system for a sponsored VC.

So... what do you think of having a sponsored VC, good or bad?

I wonder what the next VC will be?

 

[Più Freddo]

Having a sponsored VC is in principal good, but the longer VCs will be difficult for me to manage due to RL commitments. Same as for the higher difficulty levels and the larger maps, but it adds up. I could have submitted a Domination victory but playing by the rules I abstained. I'm sure Tricky reached the domination level before me during his game. His should be the full honour and glory!

 

[Lanzelot]

I think, the "sponsored VC system" makes it hard for people who are shooting for an Eptathlon.
For example: if you award tR1cKy the "Cow" award, then also greatbeyond, cerajo and donsig should get their 100K, 20K and Diplo award. Reducing the Jason score is already "penalty" enough...

And: someone who has only one award to go for the Eptathlon may need to wait 7 games (which is about a year...), before the "right" sponsored VC occurs again. And when it finally occurs, it will be very tough to win the medal, because everybody will play for that VC... And if he misses the award by a turn or two, he'll have to wait another year for his next chance to get the Eptathlon.

So if we keep that system, I'm fine with the rule "full Jason only for correct VC", but we should keep handing out the fastest finish awards for the wrong VCs.

 

[AlanH]

tR1cKy's Cow was probably a mistake I'll check with mad-bax.

 

[greatbeyond]

The winning spaceship dates were very good, congratulations to all.

My 100K win was not intended as Civ Assist 2 showed an expected culture win date of 70+ years after I actually crossed the 100k barrier. I rely on Civ Assist for this kind of info, especially with PTW which does not have a built-in victory condition screen like Conquests.

It still doesn't matter though as my space ship date would have been another 20 turns after the 100K barrier was crossed. Way too much time warring I guess...

 

[tR1cKy]

@PF: too bad you didn't make it in time, you had a good strategy (same as mine) and you could have earned a notable end result.

Honestly, i didn't expect to see such a big gap. It's way bigger than what the launch dates might suggest. I suppose the overall strategy had played a big part in it, FP in homeland + new capital in Paris was the clear winner. That, and a careful balance between military expansion and scientific spending. Plus a bit of luck (Paris building the Pyramids) for good measure

I'm OK with restricted victory conditions, but i understand the concerns of those aiming at the Eptathlon. One may have to wait months for the right victory condition to show up, and even so there would be ferocious competition. A possible solution could be alternating games with a required victory condition and games where anything goes. How about that?

 

[Lanzelot]

I'm OK with restricted victory conditions, but i understand the concerns of those aiming at the Eptathlon. One may have to wait months for the right victory condition to show up, and even so there would be ferocious competition. A possible solution could be alternating games with a required victory condition and games where anything goes. How about that?

 

[mad-bax]

This is just MHO and not worth any more than anyone elses.

Currently we are getting fewer than 10 submissions. 4 or more of these are military victories. If you guess right then you can win an award with no opposition. This seems to me to be valueless. To win an eptathlon now is much harder. I will cycle the victory conditions so that they appear with equal frequency. I could even hold a vote for the scheduled games so that we all know which VC's are going to appear for each game.
Perhaps I could pose an open game every one in four for instance. Or perhaps people could play a joker, where they can pick a non-sponsored VC for one in four games for instance.

There are lots of ways of doing it. But in my opinion, having awards for just submitting a VC than noone else has is lame.

 

[Lanzelot]

But in my opinion, having awards for just submitting a VC than noone else has is lame.

Yes, this is definitely the other side of the medal... If we leave everything as it used to be, the merit of the Eptathlon is devalued.

BTW:

Of course, you can play and submit a game played to any victory (or loss) condition, but medals and other awards will only be made for conquest victories.

Just for clarification: so does the above mean, there is no Jason score reduction for a "wrong" VC? You just don't qualify for medals and awards, but you will get the full score for the global ranking?

 

[Lanzelot]

How about having two "allowed" VCs per game instead of just one? Or three? Then people won't have to wait too long, and the competition for an award is a bit stiffer, but not too overwhelming.

 

[AlanH]

Yes, this is definitely the other side of the medal... If we leave everything as it used to be, the merit of the Eptathlon is devalued.

BTW:

Just for clarification: so does the above mean, there is no Jason score reduction for a "wrong" VC? You just don't qualify for medals and awards, but you will get the full score for the global ranking?

Yes, you still get the full Jason score (and finish date), so global score and speed rankings are not affected.

 

[Più Freddo]

Lets keep it simple. Cycle the VC's, one per game. Perhaps Deity games could have free choice.

 

[donsig]

This is just MHO and not worth any more than anyone elses.

Currently we are getting fewer than 10 submissions. 4 or more of these are military victories. If you guess right then you can win an award with no opposition. This seems to me to be valueless. To win an eptathlon now is much harder. I will cycle the victory conditions so that they appear with equal frequency. I could even hold a vote for the scheduled games so that we all know which VC's are going to appear for each game.
Perhaps I could pose an open game every one in four for instance. Or perhaps people could play a joker, where they can pick a non-sponsored VC for one in four games for instance.

There are lots of ways of doing it. But in my opinion, having awards for just submitting a VC than noone else has is lame.

Is it our fault no one else is playing any more? I was actually looking forward to finally getting some fastest VC finishes. I understand the arguments about the value of early Eptathalons versus any won now but, why punish those of us who are still playing? Yeah, it's easier to win a marathon if ten people are running than if 100 are but you still have to run the entire race to win.

Another thing to consider, if interest is so low in the Civ III GOTMs then maybe we ought to discontinue them. I'd miss them - the only time I play Civ III is for the GOTMs. Without them I'd only play Civ IV. I never took to Civ V which is sad since I've been a fan of the series since the original Civilization game.

 

[Lanzelot]

I think the GOTM has still a bit of mileage left in it... After 5 months of inactivity I can feel the "Civ-feever" again and will try GOTM132.

BTW: did anyone already notice: in 131 we had the Iroquois, which are perfect for early Conquest/Domination (Mounted Warrior!), and were asked to do a research game (Spaceship). Now in 132 we get Greece, one of the best researchers (scientific and commercial!), and are asked to do a Conquest...

 

[mad-bax]

Yeah. I noticed.

 

[TheHaze]

Yeah. I noticed.

Thanks for the effort and thoughts you put in this competition, btw.

 

[mad-bax]

I support the continuation of the GOTM, and will continue to run the event for both versions of the game for as long as I can. I spend quite a lot of time at work, and so my stewardship will never be perfect (I havent' managed to put up a thread for the Greek game yet for instance)

Anyhoo... the important thing is that the majority of the participants agree on how the game should be structured. I can provide input the same as everyone else, but I don't think that I should dictate anything.

For now, as a suggestion, I will set VC's for regent and monarch games, but leave the VC open for emperor and Deity levels. I will rotate the sponsored VC's and publish them against each game in the schedule.

If this suits you all then we'll see how that goes.

 

[tR1cKy]

(I havent' managed to put up a thread for the Greek game yet for instance)

Please open it. If anything, it will give the GotM some visibility.

 

[Ditch]

I really enjoy GOTM having only discovered it a year or so ago. I thought I was the last CivIII player left in the world! (I could never take to Civ IV or V.) It's nice to be able to join challenges like this - I'm nowhere near as good as most of you - I particularly struggle with Deity games. Having a VC forces me to try strategies I would never have before, which is fascinating - I'd never tried a Conquest before Greece for instance, and had to change my normal approach. So long as I'm not shut out by a constant diet of Deity games, I'm happy to go with the flow - just don't talk about stopping GOTM! (Thanks mad-bax and anyone else involved for all your work.)