Normal or Epic (or quick?)

[ainwood]

The 'normal' game can be played fairly quickly, and given that the GOTM timeframe will stick to the monthly schedule, its worth asking whether the game should be played on 'Epic' speed instead.

The results of the poll aren't binding - so vote and also list you extreme fors/againsts in a post in this thread - sell your opinion!

 

[Renata]

I haven't played very much yet, but the idea of using different speeds appeals to me. Strategies will probably differ, and it will help keep things from getting stale.

I have no opinion yet on what the balance should be.

 

[Redbad]

I prefer epic as the gotms always seem to end to soon

 

[TLHeart]

I would prefer epic speed. Having played many games on normal, I finished the game in 2 or three settings of a few hours each.

Epic games take me about a week to play, give or take a day depending on real life. I like the feel of the longer game, more thinking, and the combat, research seem to be more balanced in epic than normal.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I prefer Dynastic.

But I modded it so I'm biased.

I voted Epic. I like long games.

 

[Shillen]

I chose epic. I'm normally into switching things up for variety, but I find the game is not balanced well for normal and quick speed. In fact I think epic is still a little too fast in the later eras and possibly too slow in the early eras. I know in past civs people complained that the early ages were too fast and the late ages too slow but IMO firaxis overtweaked it in the opposite direction.

 

[DaveMcW]

Normal or Mix it up

I think we should try to attract players from all speeds. Obviously the Civ3 GOTM crowd will be biased towards epic.

In the big picture I can see how standardizing on epic makes everything more efficient. But it will also drive people away.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I prefer to play normal speed on the small map setting. This is more fun to me with the games design being smaller=better. For GOTM as long as we are doing standard map and one game per month I have to go with epic.

 

[wakkoxc]

I like the idea of mixing it up, I'm looking forward to participating in GOTM to break the rut I got into of always playing the same type of game in Civ III.

 

[Asterothe]

Is this months GOTM normal?

 

[Venom3]

this months is normal.

 

[Amao]

I just want to play. So, I don't care.

 

[phoulishwan]

Mix it up a bit. I have a personal preference for epic...but it's good to try other things.

 

[Chopperhead]

ya I like the mixed idea myself. Personally I like Epic but It's nice to have some variety in there to.

 

[Warden USA]

I voted for Epic even though I havn't tried it yet. I think that if we mix it up that would be good too though.

 

[panzooka]

i finished my gotm in 2:50 hous, really too short
epic please for next gotm

 

[Mad Dog]

Have an epic game every month and a normal game every 2 weeks maybe? I think something to appeal to both markets would be ideal. I voted for normal.

I haven't tried epic yet, but I rather like the way you can actually finish a normal game inside a day or so with CIV4. I'd like to participate in GOTM without sacrificing my whole life each month. So at least some normal/fast games would be good.

Also, with epic, I would have thought conquest/domination will become far more the victory condition of choice amongst the civ elite, as it allows more turns to line up units. With normal, it's reasonably hard to conquer the world by 1000AD.

As for the people who say they spent a few hours on this GOTM - you obviously weren't micromanaging enough It took me more like 30 hours to play, but I do tend to micromanage a lot, especially workers.

 

[AlanH]

Why not wait and see what playing in 2:50 does for your performance relative to the players who take it more slowly?

 

[Smirk]

I voted for epic because I'd rather invest more time into one epic game than less in multiple short games (besides how can you have more than one gotM). Although I think my real reason is that the pace is too quick in normal which may just be a balance problem in all speeds (too quick in that buildings and units are never a useful investment before becoming obsolete).

On the other hand some of the Civ3 gotms are really excessive, I spent way too much time on last months diety and don't really want to see that repeated. Hopefully staff will be able to pull out the time for each game so we can examine it and make a more informed choice. I'd estimate 10-20 hours would make a good time investment, this was about half what Civ3 required which is one reason I wasn't able to submit more than sporatically.


At any rate, I'd like to hear from some other gotm vets on whether their games are flying by this quickly, mine sure isn't. I spent 2-3 hours just getting to 1000 BC and another 2-3 to 1AD.

 

[AlanH]

Average time played for Civ4 GOTM 1 submissions to date (therefore probably heavily weighted towards faster players) is under 9.5 hours. The range is 50 minutes to over 60 hours.

Average time played for Civ3 GOTM is over 30 hours. The range is under 30 mins to 24 days. But some players leave their computers up and running for the whole month and just play when they can.