Planning SGOTM 09

[KingMorgan]

I definitely do not agree with this statement. I would say, if you don't enjoy the competitive side of the SGOTM, go play regular SGs, there are tons of those elsewhere on these forums, where you can play for the fun and learning. There is only one team competition game, and that is the SGOTM. For those of us that truly want a competitive game, where are these other competitions you claim exist?

I'm new to the SGOTM and this current one is my first. If you are correct then i would say the current team formation is completley out of balance. Without being specfic there are some teams that are head and and shoulders above the rest, not only in skill and experience but also in comittment.
If this is a deadly serious competion then you must allow teams to form with the best players (without Moderation swapping or balancing) this is not currently the case - hence my view of a fun/learning game with a competative edge. If this competion is that serious then you are putting alot of pressure on less experienced players, i'm sure it may well put them off as they would feel under pressure not to make a mistake and perhaps stop their turnset at any contenious choice to recieve 'instruction' from the team - which makes it a Democracy game rather than a sucession.

my understanding of a succesion game perhaps is wrong?

GOTM or HoF games are competitive, not team orientated agreed.

Your reply leaves me thinking that the SGOTM is run for the 'clique' of high level players and that noobs and less experienced players are welcome so as they follow the set plan and do not try to play as they would normally, which is at total odds to my understanding of a Sucession game.

Perhaps the SGOTM should be split into a premier league and a lower league?

 

[Niklas]

I guess I should state first that my views here are my own, and do not reflect the views of the staff in general.

@KingMorgan: I think you are taking my reply and pulling it to the extreme. A competitive game does in no way necessarily imply a deadly serious competition. I did not say that I felt the SGOTM should be deadly serious, I only refuted your claim that there were other, more competitive games out there for those with such preferences. There simply aren't, the SGOTM is the only (non multiplayer) team game that is at all competitive on these forums. That doesn't mean it has to be extremely competitive. But for those who don't like competitions at all, there are lots of other games in the SG forum to sign up for instead.

GOTM is competitive, yes, but not to any extremes there either. SGOTM is a GOTM, for teams. Why would it be less competitive just because we play it in teams?

Is there some contention between having fun, learning and playing competitively? Of course these games are for fun and learning primarily, the laurels are only virtual cookie points after all, but to me the games would not be half as fun if the competition aspect was not there. Knowing it's a competition spurs me a bit further than I would otherwise go, and thereby enhances the fun and learning aspects for me. I see no contention there at all, only synergy.

That said, if the game was played only for the competition, to the extremes you outline, it most certainly would deter from the fun and learning aspects. I have no wish to form some kind of dream team just so we can beat the ---- out of everyone else, where's the fun in that? I don't mind placing 6th or 10th in the competition if I know we did the best we collectively could. But I do mind placing 3rd, knowing we as a team played a sloppy and careless game. Just like LC said earlier, I don't care what individual skill level my team mates play at, or if they make mistakes, we all do, as long as we are all willing to focus and make the effort to do the best we can.

 

[KingMorgan]

That is good to hear, i'm glad it is an inclusive and fun competion.

I'll cancel planned PM's to Wastintime, Paulis Khan, AAA and lexad inviting them to join my team

 

[Yamps]

Wow, some discussion here. I'd like to put focus on a different matter:

... except in 3.17 of course, where the stupid AI resource trading bug makes that impossible.

Not to mention that they won't switch civics because they don't like you enough on Friendly so you have to use spies to get things done.

Why, oh why aren't we playing with Dresden's dll?! Diplo victory has unnecessary handicaps and we all agree that SGOTMs are a real competition...

Regarding the events, I think that LowtherCastle has a point there. Civ is a game with random elements and random elements even-out more in one game if you have more of them, assuming that big troublemakers are removed. HoF mod took care of that, I think the games would be better with random events on.

 

[ChrisShaffer]

To answer the original question, I'd like to see the next SGOTM be played in BtS.

I like events because I think they're fun. I don't care that much if they are included in SGOTM or not.

Sounds like someone has already decided who is first and second in SGOTM08. I wish I didn't know that, since we haven't finished our game yet. Sigh.

I like the games with unusual victory conditions, like sending Gandhi to space or getting the most wonder points. They make you think outside the box a bit.

 

[Niklas]

Why, oh why aren't we playing with Dresden's dll?!

Simply put, because we are playing with the HOF dll.

The real question is why the HOF dll doesn't fix these bugs too. The answer there is simply manpower resources. I hope I will be able to contribute something there, but it won't be in time for SGOTM 09.

 

[AlanH]

Moderator Action: I'm not sure which post ChrisShaffer is referring to, but PLEASE remember that SGOTM 8 is still in progress!!!

 

[Deckhand]

Regarding the events, I think that LowtherCastle has a point there. Civ is a game with random elements and random elements even-out more in one game if you have more of them, assuming that big troublemakers are removed. HoF mod took care of that, I think the games would be better with random events on.

I favor random events, but I'm not sure you are correct here. Agree that in general "random elements even-out more in one game if you have more of them", but more random elements also increases the likelihood of specific apparently non-random / less balanced results.
If I flip a coin 20 times, it's not likely to be 20 heads in a row. But if 100 people flip a coin 100 times, it's much more likely that one of those people will see 20 heads in a row (than if they had all only flipped it 20 times).

 

[azzaman333]

Speaking of popping metals, does anyone know from the code what the odds of popping a metal are and if there is some lower turn limit, before which metals cannnot be popped? Also, is metal-popping connected to the hill, in that the decision to pop something happens, then you get soemthing from the metals available to you? (Can't pop copper before BW.) Does the probability of popping a metal increase, the more types of metals you have researched?

To my knowledge, it is a 1 in 10 000 chance for each known metal to be popped for each worked mine each turn.

So, gold gems and silver can all be popped as soon as you're working a mine, and copper, iron, coal, aluminium and uranium can each be popped after the right tech reveals them

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sports have randomness. I don't know about y'all but I love a good football game in the winter snow. If we wanted to control for randomness, every football team would play in a dome. I think Random events are a CHALLENGE to be embraced by competitors

Um...I don't know any sporting events where the snow isn't there for both teams. Or the dome. Or whatever. What you're speaking of is more akin to something like "choose religion" or "aggressive AI" than events - factors that are there and must be adjusted for by the players, but certainly there for every team. Events are more like a sprinkler system in a dome that goes on, but comes on more often while one team has the ball than the other. It has nothing to do with challenge - rather, it removes it by allowing teams who choose sub-par paths to emerge victorious. Sometimes events come up that are unforseen (a fan throws a flare onto the field), but these things are actively prevented to the best of the sport's officials' ability, much unlike events.

Let me try to simplify it. If there is one possible bad random thing that can occur with 1/20 odds over a given number of turns and there are 20 teams, then the odds are that one team will get it over that period of turns. Maybe zero, maybe 2 or 3. Maybe all 20. Maybe 1 team will pop a metal in every mine. Right? But statistically speaking, probably 1 team gets 1 metal. If there are 20 such things, then it is much likelier that each team will get something, although chances are some will get two or three and some none. If we change the number to 200 such things, then teams are getting something in the range of 10 things. Hopefully, you can see that the more of these random things, the more it balances out. It's just simple probabilities. And it's NOT about balancing out "in the long run" whatever you mean by that.

Now to me, popping a metal is a true random event, though it precedes the random events of BtS. Losing a battle, for example, is not "true" random event because you have some control over it in a variety of ways. First, you can choose to not attack or you can at least attempt to avoid getting attacked. You can attack with more units, etc. There is of course some randomness in any battle. But my point here is that popping a metal is a CIV vanilla random event and the likelihood of it happening is low enough (I'd have to check exactly) that probalby at least one team will pop one, but most likely not very many. (There is one way to control popping metals--you can't pop them if you don't build and work mines.)

And it's statistically relevant. Period.

Unlike the first quote, this is a good argument and now that you explained it I see where you're going with it. TBH, I'm not thrilled about resource popping either.

You state this as a fact. Is it really a fact? I'm not certain it is, in fact I doubt it, but I'm certain that you haven't shown it to be a fact.

I got carried away by everyone else's non-facts in favor of events . But, I think one could make the argument that neither resource pops nor events occur frequently enough for this to balance out. It kind of feels like the difference between a sample size of 3 and a size of 5 for population of several thousand or something. Maybe I should say that events are "reasonably infrequent" and just use that against others' assertion that they "balance things out", which is absolutely just as baseless as what you quoted me for .

I really don't see where you get this from. Statistically speaking, if you have any random events, and we do with metal popping, the more random events the less magnification, not the opposite.

You're killing me because you're presenting probably the first solid arguments in favor of events in a competitive setting I've ever seen. We're still playing with fire by keeping them on though. I don't think I've ever seen someone win/lose an individual game based on minerals, I have seen it with events, many times. That might be causing bias in my eyes. More likely, events just have a more spectacular impact on games. HoF nerfed a lot of them though, which is nice, but also indicative of their impact on the game being a tad too profound.

Or more like, I'm saying that these can stack too much, there aren't enough to have statistical balance. Nothing's worse than a gem pop, except a gem pop and a religious wedding and an uprising for the enemy neighbor . Statistically, that's less likely, but we're still in the realm of possibility for this to occur while other teams see nothing ----> that's problematic. It's probably easier to work through JUST a gem pop (or maybe even copper or iron...maybe...) than working through that AND a 2nd capitol or something.

At least I see where you're coming from though.

Edit: Ugh...what am I saying. My argument here is basically saying "pull all events" or make them so frequent that it's insane . Tsunamis ftw!

 

[greatbeyond]

Some observations from the guy who usually sits in the in the corner wearing the dunce cap:

While I'm no probability expert, a 1 in 20 chance is the same for each team, it does not mean if you have 20 teams one of them will definitely experience an event. Of course if the RNG code has a fault in it, it may not be truly random.

There are a number of variables that can be turned off, but as others have noted, there are variables that can't be. A good team can take better advantage of a "good" event, and better mitigate the effect of a "bad" event.

Obviously certain game settings can cancel some of the randomness, such as specific victory conditions. Always war gets rid of the variability a player encounters when one of the unstable leaders DOWs you when you have a huge "positive" rating with them, or when a Civ won't vote for you for a UN or AP win for any discernible reason.

How can you craft the perfect game so every one faces the same variables at the same time? If someone pops a metal that wasn't "designed" in the scenario, then everyone should get it. If an AI randomly DOWs you then everyone should get the same DOW. Remember the results with Shaka in a certain SGOTM? If you get numerous animals popping near your Settler/Warrior searching for a city site, and they devour you, then everyone should lose a Settler/Warrior. If the AI decides to build two Archers to protect their city (as opposed to the Warrior or two they started with) and your Warrior or Archer rush fails, then everyone's rush should fail.
The examples I've cited, are determined by the code somewhere, I would imagine, and probably some have a RNG for variety, so that the same situation never works out the same way twice. If you could program each one of these factors, so that everyone got the exact same experience, only then could you truly determine who the best player was. The problem is that once you get past the first "X" number of turns, different players make different decisions that can't really be compared to each other except for in terms of the end result; ie, score or victory date, or even a particular type of victory. Perhaps this is an area where modifying the scoring system or some other factor could provide a better picture of who is the better player. (Though does it really resolve the age-old-question when the win is by one or even a few turns?) I think this is being tried in SGOTM 8. Without giving anything away, I can see where several different strategies were used to get to the goal.

I guess if you take out some of the randomness like Goody Huts, random events, or Barbs. It can reduce some of the variability. I think a good compromise is to have some games with them and some without.

The final caveat. I am a so-so player. Sometimes I have come closer to the leaders, and sometimes I have lagged so far behind it wasn't even funny. But yes, I do some day dream of beating Gosha or other top players. Perhaps it will only come in a game with events "on" where they get every miserable stinking "bad" event, Gandhi loses all his belief in Pacifism and goes on a murderous rampage, I get all the good events, and Monty, Izzy, Tokugawa, and Shaka want to be my posse and take care of all the other AIs for me.
(wakes up, looks around, and realizes he fell asleep and was dreaming)

I reserve the right to edit this post and delete anything I wrote that turns out to be really stupid

 

[Yamps]

I favor random events, but I'm not sure you are correct here. Agree that in general "random elements even-out more in one game if you have more of them", but more random elements also increases the likelihood of specific apparently non-random / less balanced results.
If I flip a coin 20 times, it's not likely to be 20 heads in a row. But if 100 people flip a coin 100 times, it's much more likely that one of those people will see 20 heads in a row (than if they had all only flipped it 20 times).

Note that the person in your example getting the 20 heads (good things) would also get 80 tails (bad things).

It's the proportion of good and bad things that matters. When the number of events increases, variance from the mean value decreases. If you flip a coin 20 times or 100 times the expected value is the same 50% for the number of heads. However, for 100 flips standard deviation is 5% and for 20 flips it goes up to 11%. (a measure of dispersion)

Civ has other much bigger inherent stones that make big differences, say early DoW and religion distribution for example. Some people got DoWed in SGOTM 7 very early...

I'd say we need more weaker random events to keep the game more balanced.

Oh, and I should really get some sleep now...Instead of thinking about finishing SGOTM 8... Yeah, you're not the only one Chris. Like our close curves btw.

EDIT: wow, so many posts already posted while I was typing this....

 

[WastinTime]

I can't say this loudly enough - ADVANCED START! It's never been done before to boot!

AS is not allowed in HoF games, so I'd have to say this is the most exciting idea I've heard in a long time.

(...and I prefer BtS. Even though you can get a bad event, I always play with random events on for my HoF games.) They're fun and worth the risk.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hehe, HoF submissions are an entirely different beast ----> events carry a distinct risk/reward concept when trying for high scores, but tempered by the fact that there's always the next game!

Advanced starts would be really cool.

 

[jesusin]

jesusin the player speaking, not jesusin the staff member:

It's the proportion of good and bad things that matters. When the number of events increases, variance from the mean value decreases. If you flip a coin 20 times or 100 times the expected value is the same 50% for the number of heads. However, for 100 flips standard deviation is 5% and for 20 flips it goes up to 11%. (a measure of dispersion)

At last someone mentioning probabilitity and not speaking nonsense! An with the proper technical words too!

Some of you have allowed LC to misguide you into his realm of statistical lack of understanding. It really feels strange to be scoffing at LC out of our thread, if anyone thinks it is inappropriate I'll edit my post immediately.


Imagine a game with no random elements and 2 teams of equal capabities and 98 teams of lesser capabilities. They play the game and naturally they both finish the same turn, leaving the others behind.

Now we introduce some random small probability positive element. Only one team gets it at the end of the game. The mean of positive luck for all teams is close to 0. The dispersion is 1, it is the biggest luck differeence accross teams. Look at the good teams. It is very likely that they have got the same luck.

Now, we introduce more and more random elements. "The luck gets evened out" is a lacking-meaning sentence. The mean number of positive luck per team goes up. The dispersion goes up.
Look at the good teams. It is now very unlikely that they have got the same luck.

Hence, the more random elements in the game, the more likely it is that a close race for the Gold between two similar teams ends up being decided by luck.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think it's pretty obvious that events do that, what's baffling is that a large number of people posting here seem to think that's fine for SGOTM, always using one of the following arguments:

- They balance out (providing 0 evidence in support of the claim)
- There's too much chance in the game already, so what harm can events have past that chance?
- They're somehow more fun. I really don't see this one at all. Essentially preparing for events is like hedging risk. When I think "fun" I don't think futures contracts or "playing it safe". Somewhere in this argument usually comes a line like "skill will overcome it", as if skill in this game were a panacea for all situations. It's a weak argument though. Factors can be created that would cause anybody, even civ gods like U Sun or Jesusin to lose (aka never let me get my hands on a map and tell me to make it un-winnable...it will be). It takes less extreme circumstances to merely hamper them or anybody else. A skillful player will only come out in front with an event if both people get it, and the skilled reaction to the event wins that! There's no "skilled" way to rebuild forge 3 times other than basic tile management.

 

[LowtherCastle]

Imagine a game with no random elements

You have quite an imagination, jesusin. Have you ever seen such a game? It's not CIV with random events turned off, not by a long shot.

It's the proportion of good and bad things that matters. When the number of events increases, variance from the mean value decreases. If you flip a coin 20 times or 100 times the expected value is the same 50% for the number of heads. However, for 100 flips standard deviation is 5% and for 20 flips it goes up to 11%. (a measure of dispersion)

At last someone mentioning probabilitity and not speaking nonsense! An with the proper technical words too!

I agree wholeheartedly. Now, jesusin, it would be helpful and you would embarass yourself less if you paid more attention to detail.

Now, we introduce more and more random elements. "The luck gets evened out" is a lacking-meaning sentence. The mean number of positive luck per team goes up. The dispersion goes up.

Uh...that's not what Yamps wrote.

for 100 flips standard deviation is 5% and for 20 flips it goes up to 11%. (a measure of dispersion)

The dispersion goes DOWN when you add more events. 20 events--11% dispersion. 100 events--5% dispersion. 5% is down from 11%. Get it?

Hence, the more random elements in the game, the more likely it is that a close race for the Gold between two similar teams ends up being decided by luck.

Again, I defer to Yamps:

I'd say we need more weaker random events to keep the game more balanced.

The more random events the LESS LIKELY the game is decided by luck. (Except in your fantasy scenario of no randomness, of course.)

The real question remains: How likely are metals to be popped compared to other random events?

 

[Yamps]

@Jesusin

All clear?

Metals are just a small part of the picture. AI decisions, wars, demands....So many random elements. Dispersion goes down with more of them, it doesn't go up. The coin flipping example is a good illustration IMO, you want to flip as much as possible to reduce deviations.

DoW from Elisabeth ruined your game? Here's a tornado for the other team to get their luck percentage corrected.

LC, I don't see how you can put up with that while playing with Jesusin....

EDIT: it's the percentage of good and bad events I'm talking about, I guess you're thinking in absolute values. Using the example from TMIT: if a forge burns down, that's a big deal if sth like that happens rarely. It was a big thing when Liz DoWed early in Deity OCC SGOTM 7, another rare event. But when you have forests burning all the time, slave revolts, peace mediators, etc. you don't care about one forge. The forge burning down has less impact in a game where that kind of stuff happens all the time, normal civ randomness has less relative effect with more additional randomness from events.

Extremes (100% good or bad) are more likely when you have less events. We're flipping coins already without events, just one bad flip (say AI dogpile if the relations are not favorable) can make huge differences in final score. So, since we're already flipping, let's flip even more to get the percentage of good and bad events with less deviation, that's simple statistics. Keep 'em on!

 

[jesusin]

I stand corrected then. Too much time spent talking with LC couldn't go without some secondary effects.

LC, I don't see how you can put up with that while playing with Jesusin....

I think our outrageous way to address each other (well deserved in most of the cases) and our constant introduction of sexual unrelated elements in the discussion is part of the reasons why Murky Waters team is so cohesively united and works so well together.

If I were to play in a team where I had to apologize every time I step on someone's feet, I would probably stop suggesting new ideas very soon, trying to prevent hurting someone's feelings. It's much more easy and fun to play in a ruthless, heartless and openly unpolite team.

 

[Yamps]

Ah yes. I see that some changes are needed in team management for better results. What did you say, ruthless and heartless? He, he...