We're just speaking about different regimes - and preferences. SGOTM, being longer-term game, should probably rely less on random; GOTMs, which I lately tend to play in 4-6 hours, require much less effort, and the events are not that frustrating. Still this is a psychological moment, the impact on the game is pretty much the same.
Planning SGOTM 09
- Thread starter AlanH
- Start date
Mastiff_of_Ar
In his Element
Sadly, you might be right. If this gets so super competitive that I'm not enjoying it, why play? I do this to relax... I already have a stressful job, so unless someone starts paying me to play, I intend to have fun!
I love learning from my teammates, and SGOTM and xOTM has brought my game up several levels. Yet, I don't think I'll ever play like some of the people who are constant medal winners. If I'm on a team that places, I'd love it! But I'm not going to lose sleep over it if it doesn't happen.
MF
Gosha190
King
What do you call "break game"? Are there difference between 1-st and 2-d places? You can take a look at SGOTM7 results and you'll see that 1 turn only let one of teams won 1-st place. Moderator Action: Deleted. SGOTM 8 is not finished yet
So I ask you trust ME - events should be turned OFF!
Gosha, please don't post spoiler information here.
BLubmuz
HoF Quattromaster
Would argue that a barb uprising at an inappropriate time can have a major effect, putting you out of contention for a laurel, and it is so unlikely that it isn't wise to be prepared for it.
Gosha190
King
OK! Thanx to moderator for removing the spoiler!
I agree with all that you say. In fact, my own personal opinion is that teams should be shuffled every time a new SG starts. Not disloyalty to my team, I think we have lots of fun. But I think everyone learns more from exposure to the gameplay strategy suggestions of new people more than from the same people every time. Also, in the spirit of competition, one should realize very quickly that as it works now there is definitely a 2-tiered SG league, those teams always at the top for whom winning is major concern, and the rest of us who want to have fun and learn, but could become discouraged if chances of winning against elite teams is nil. Frankly, events aren't enough to change that 2-tier. However, Gyathaars approach with different/unique medal conditions such as in SGOTM08 is one alternative to shuffling teams and breaking up comraderie. I'll enjoy the games no matter what the powers that be decide, though.
Just my 2 cents.
If all other things are equal, it is rather straightminded to think a random event can't delay or speed up finish by 1 turn.
My experience in Team Murky Waters is that I'm learning as much from my "old" team mates in this SGOTM as in any previous. It is not a secret that we actively recruit players to replace those who drop out, and we try to build up our team with members with very different skills so that we can learn from each others and improve. As a concequence, we perform well in this competition. We strive to play as optimised as possible, with lots of planning, because that is a challenge that makes this game fun. We don't distinguish between winning a laurel, having fun and learn. Each of these three components are equally important for the team and together they make up for an exciting experience.
Erkon / captain of Team Murky Waters (not waring staff hat)
Erkon / captain of Team Murky Waters (not waring staff hat)
I have a few comments on the No huts / No RE discussion:
First off, I would turn off huts and leave REs turned on. Huts, in my opinion can have a huge effect. Also, I usually play Immortal/Deity and I don't like giving the AI even more of an edge
I agree that events happening earlier have a greater effect on the whole game. This is where huts are in play. Popping a tech you're about to research anyway can give you a huge edge, be it to speed up a wonder or a rush. I don't see many ppl here really wanting huts, so it's fine.
Events on the other hand make the game more interesting. A big part in the strategy aspect of civ is to adapt. If there is nothing unpredictable happening, that aspect of the game is limited to the early game (map, neighbor mostly). Events do have an influence on the whole game but it is so small I would neglect it. Again, the earlier the event, the bigger the influence.
My knowledge of the mechanisms behind events is, that there's, every turn, a X%-chance (IIRC 1-5%, not checking) that increases as you enter a new era. This means, events are coded to happen less frequent in the early game (where they have the biggest impact).
Then, some complain that they can be game-changing. IMO this is rubbish, except from a very few events like early barb uprisings. vra mentionnes that those have been adressed in the HoF-mod. I don't really know as I never looked deeper in the HoF-mod myself. There are more quite bad events. I see Tsunamis mentionned. I'm quite sure that Tsunamis cannot happen atm (if an event happens (the X% chance mentionned above), there's a roll that decides which event happens. Every event has a different chance of happening, and Tsunamis have a zero percent chance (at least in normal bts 3.17)). On the other hand there are good events, or quests, that can really give you a boost. But as all the teams have the same condition, I think it's fair.
I make two points:
1) Every team has the same conditions. Those events happen rarely, especially early when they have a bigger impact.
2) Tell me, where is no randomness included in civ? Combats (yes, losing the first explorer unit early is a big setback), AI decisions, ... All those outcomes are determined randomly, and those are decisions much more important to the game as some small event. I would happily pay 20g to prevent a forest from burning (or just let it burn) if the AI doesn't decide to attack me with 10 units 1000BC.
First off, I would turn off huts and leave REs turned on. Huts, in my opinion can have a huge effect. Also, I usually play Immortal/Deity and I don't like giving the AI even more of an edge
I agree that events happening earlier have a greater effect on the whole game. This is where huts are in play. Popping a tech you're about to research anyway can give you a huge edge, be it to speed up a wonder or a rush. I don't see many ppl here really wanting huts, so it's fine.
Events on the other hand make the game more interesting. A big part in the strategy aspect of civ is to adapt. If there is nothing unpredictable happening, that aspect of the game is limited to the early game (map, neighbor mostly). Events do have an influence on the whole game but it is so small I would neglect it. Again, the earlier the event, the bigger the influence.
My knowledge of the mechanisms behind events is, that there's, every turn, a X%-chance (IIRC 1-5%, not checking) that increases as you enter a new era. This means, events are coded to happen less frequent in the early game (where they have the biggest impact).
Then, some complain that they can be game-changing. IMO this is rubbish, except from a very few events like early barb uprisings. vra mentionnes that those have been adressed in the HoF-mod. I don't really know as I never looked deeper in the HoF-mod myself. There are more quite bad events. I see Tsunamis mentionned. I'm quite sure that Tsunamis cannot happen atm (if an event happens (the X% chance mentionned above), there's a roll that decides which event happens. Every event has a different chance of happening, and Tsunamis have a zero percent chance (at least in normal bts 3.17)). On the other hand there are good events, or quests, that can really give you a boost. But as all the teams have the same condition, I think it's fair.
I make two points:
1) Every team has the same conditions. Those events happen rarely, especially early when they have a bigger impact.
2) Tell me, where is no randomness included in civ? Combats (yes, losing the first explorer unit early is a big setback), AI decisions, ... All those outcomes are determined randomly, and those are decisions much more important to the game as some small event. I would happily pay 20g to prevent a forest from burning (or just let it burn) if the AI doesn't decide to attack me with 10 units 1000BC.
LowtherCastle
Deity
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,631
It's a difficult question, whether to shuffle the teams each time or not. Do you want to bring the level of play down to some average or do you want to raise everyone's play up to the highest level?
I first started lurking with CFR in SG2. Of course, that was a Dream Team made up of superstars, but was it amazing! What a way to learn. So I joined Murky Waters for SG3, who finished 16th in SG2. It was frustrating watching the Russian teams slaughter everyone, but I couldn't bring myself to complain because I wanted to learn from them and become better. Furthermore, what satisfaction is there in beating them if they're not at their best?
To me the key to developing a good team is this: Each player must be dedicated. That's it. What ruins a team's chances is the carefree or careless player. And that's also what ruins the fun for me. If I'm going to care, then I want everyone else to care too. I can live with mistakes, we all make them. Just don't be lackadaisical about being a team member. When Murky Waters won the Gold in SG6, we had some players who honestly classified themselves as average players. We followed the turnset rules and everyone got their full turnsets. No problem. We just played as a team. It can be done.
And I have seen where the idea of an average player, proposed to the team and discussed, has resulted in significant advancement of the game.
I have also been a team captain where a group of players did not get along well. This should be considered in the decision in whether to break up and mix teams. Playing with folks who do not get along was an unpleasant experience and really detracted from the team aspect of play.
Sam_Yeager
Another Original Geezer
From the SGOTM rules said:
Team Geezers doesn't need to worry about automatic breakup anytime soon.
I think I can understand kcd_swede's reasoning about shuffling teams. However the flip side is that not everyone necessarily wants to commit the time and energy that some teams require. Some players may well find it an excellent learning experience. Others, such as myself, are more likely to say 'stuff it' and withdraw from SGOTMs if they are forced to play for another team. That's not to say that I will never play for another team but that I want that decision to be my choice.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
I honestly, for the life of me, absolutely can NOT FATHOM why the @#$% ANYBODY would argue in FAVOR of BULL @#$% events or huts in a game where you CAN'T REPLAY OR RELOAD!
It's understandable that you can't remove all chance elements from the game. But why the hell would you want to intentionally add more of them? To give players that play in suboptimal fashion but get lucky a chance? That sounds like a card game of war or dice roll monopoly to me. If that's "fun" go play those games then
.
Events can't have a negative impact to enough extent to affect outcomes? Are you kidding me? When people finish within 10 turns of each other, in tight margins, it's impossible to make the case that events can't be a deciding factor. Fortunately, HoF blocks the impossible vedic aryan uprising. However, it still does not block multiple slave revolts (even if you have the cash, which storing might slow you down to attain, you still lose a pop or several turns of revolt), double forest fires while building settlers (this has happened to me alone more than once, so in teams of many players it is considerable), NEGATIVE DIPLO MODIFIERS that no amount of gold can block, lost buildings such as barracks, forge, granary, or monasteries or some combination (could you imagine two teams playing a religious game and one loses the monastery while in FR?), golden ages, GLOBAL +3 DIPLO quests, and so forth? My first emperor win ever came on the strength of that garbage global +3 diplo with all AIs quest, an AP win. Seriously, can anyone make a case that such a thing wouldn't provide a substantial advantage in a tight contest? What if it merely gets an extra AI to friendly and unlocks extra trade whoring? The beaker/turns saved on something like that are hard to measure, but you better believe it isn't immaterial.
Even something as tiny as "SEND THEM ALL OUR FOOD LOLOLOLOLOL +3 EARLY FRIENDLY" in an otherwise "no trade due to monopoly tech" or "dow at pleased" situation could completely change a game's outlook. Even more fun is that there are TWO events like that, you might get a religious wedding too! How sweet!
If people LIKE winning or losing on chance, then why not add extra? For anybody who wants a true competition where the person/people who play better have the best chance of winning, arguments in favor of events or huts signify they need their heads checked.
It's understandable that you can't remove all chance elements from the game. But why the hell would you want to intentionally add more of them? To give players that play in suboptimal fashion but get lucky a chance? That sounds like a card game of war or dice roll monopoly to me. If that's "fun" go play those games then
.Events can't have a negative impact to enough extent to affect outcomes? Are you kidding me? When people finish within 10 turns of each other, in tight margins, it's impossible to make the case that events can't be a deciding factor. Fortunately, HoF blocks the impossible vedic aryan uprising. However, it still does not block multiple slave revolts (even if you have the cash, which storing might slow you down to attain, you still lose a pop or several turns of revolt), double forest fires while building settlers (this has happened to me alone more than once, so in teams of many players it is considerable), NEGATIVE DIPLO MODIFIERS that no amount of gold can block, lost buildings such as barracks, forge, granary, or monasteries or some combination (could you imagine two teams playing a religious game and one loses the monastery while in FR?), golden ages, GLOBAL +3 DIPLO quests, and so forth? My first emperor win ever came on the strength of that garbage global +3 diplo with all AIs quest, an AP win. Seriously, can anyone make a case that such a thing wouldn't provide a substantial advantage in a tight contest? What if it merely gets an extra AI to friendly and unlocks extra trade whoring? The beaker/turns saved on something like that are hard to measure, but you better believe it isn't immaterial.
Even something as tiny as "SEND THEM ALL OUR FOOD LOLOLOLOLOL +3 EARLY FRIENDLY" in an otherwise "no trade due to monopoly tech" or "dow at pleased" situation could completely change a game's outlook. Even more fun is that there are TWO events like that, you might get a religious wedding too! How sweet!
If people LIKE winning or losing on chance, then why not add extra? For anybody who wants a true competition where the person/people who play better have the best chance of winning, arguments in favor of events or huts signify they need their heads checked.
WOW TMIT! We know you feel strongly about this but you seem have a very black/white view. "If we want chance, play War" (the game I hate beyond all others). Your point is this is a COMPETITION. As such, perhaps you are right.
OTOH, if we view SGOTM as a Fun Learning Experience (with a competitive aspect), then things that add fun and learning are good, even if they imbalance the competition somewhat.
So, the question is, what is the point/purpose of the SGOTM? Fun, learning, and competition - in what combination?
OTOH, if we view SGOTM as a Fun Learning Experience (with a competitive aspect), then things that add fun and learning are good, even if they imbalance the competition somewhat.
So, the question is, what is the point/purpose of the SGOTM? Fun, learning, and competition - in what combination?
...why do I have a feeling he'd not be complaining so strongly about this if his team had not been, say, hypothetically, the one that came, say, 1 turn behind another team. (Note, I've NEVER read any team threads. This is just my reasonable speculation based on what's been posted here.)
I have to say, I do see his point. However, that is not to say I agree with it. Perhaps I do need my head examined, and have a mind as straight as the average plank, and two of you seem to believe. Am I saying it would not provide some assistance in a tight contest? Of course not.
However, Civilization mirrors reality. In life, crap happens, and its how you deal with it that counts. The fact is, to say it was JUST the fault of the RE is crazy. It's how you deal with the stuff thrown at you that matters, and is the true mark of skill. And really...standings aside, being among the best is still that - people don't look at you any less....until of course you start spazzin'.
I have to say, I do see his point. However, that is not to say I agree with it. Perhaps I do need my head examined, and have a mind as straight as the average plank, and two of you seem to believe. Am I saying it would not provide some assistance in a tight contest? Of course not.
However, Civilization mirrors reality. In life, crap happens, and its how you deal with it that counts. The fact is, to say it was JUST the fault of the RE is crazy. It's how you deal with the stuff thrown at you that matters, and is the true mark of skill. And really...standings aside, being among the best is still that - people don't look at you any less....until of course you start spazzin'.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
I apologize. I watch too many AVGN videos and then I get carried away because I do hate events. Even so, if your objective is a different kind of game than pure competition then obviously their role changes.
I...don't think I've lost in HoF or GOTM based on an event yet. I'm pretty sure given some close finishes that it has occurred for others (100% sure in HoF due to the nature of how that's played, but that's a different story).
Winning my first emperor game on an event was bittersweet. It felt like I hadn't earned it, enough that I still remember it more than half a year and a difficulty level later
. PYL II backstabbers as Cathy.I don't think civ IV was designed to mimic real life (the real life argument kind of falls through when we examine just how many liberties were - correctly - taken in civ in order to keep gameplay decent). Events were definitely designed for fun, not tight competition. While the RNG limits the true skill eval of competition to begin with, it's a tad extreme to leave events on in these formats as anything but a change up, because they do actually carry a lot of potential to make positions stronger/weaker, especially given certain VC goals.
No barbs, raging barbs, no tech brokering, no tech trading at all, random personalities, aggressive AI and quite a number or other settings all have less of a chance element and in many cases less impact on who wins than events (well, random personalities is probably more extreme, but it's still in the realms of comparable) - and all of these options are off by default. One could argue that their inclusion could "spice up" the game and make it "more fun" also. We could even do unorthodox things like playing odd scriptmaps or having a random start location for the human (it's possible to do that in WB scenarios even without a mod).
The single difference between events/huts and ANY of those options is that they're on by default. Because of that single reason, it feels like most people take it for granted that they "should" be part of the game or that their impact is somehow more minimal. However, in a format such as this, the only settings of the above that could possibly have more impact an varying who wins independent of skill would be random personalities and random spawn locations - both very dramatic changes.
Even as crap happens in real life, competitions are designed to at least ATTEMPT to be as fair as possible. Events do not fit the spirit of this competition at all. This isn't something un-controllable or difficult to implement. It requires but a single box checked...
Similar threads
