I know I'm probably flogging a dead horse here, but dropping the requirement to fiddle around with the settings of Vista in order to be eligible, at least some months, would probably be a start -- Vista/Windows 7 users are likely to keep increasing as a proportion of players; Steam possibly also (as Civ4 disappears from the shops but remains well-advertised on Steam). Requiring players to chase through Windows settings that were not designed to be nice to fiddle with, following directions that are "somewhere in the forums", is not a great way to get those on the fringe to join the party.
Poll: Do you like da_Vinci's Pseudo-Tier System?
- Thread starter da_Vinci
- Start date
I know I'm probably flogging a dead horse here, but dropping the requirement to fiddle around with the settings of Vista in order to be eligible, at least some months, would probably be a start -- Vista/Windows 7 users are likely to keep increasing as a proportion of players; Steam possibly also (as Civ4 disappears from the shops but remains well-advertised on Steam). Requiring players to chase through Windows settings that were not designed to be nice to fiddle with, following directions that are "somewhere in the forums", is not a great way to get those on the fringe to join the party.
That is a very good point, and I totally agree that dropping that requirement would be very desirable.
Unfortunately, doing so requires making changes to the HOF mod, and as yet we haven't yet figured out a way to remove the requirement to run as admin without compromising our cheat detection systems
mtt9999
Builder of Dreams
Quick Question: how is it determined who is a 'beginner' and 'advanced' player? Or is this subjective - how I feel? I would be awfully upset if I was limited to the lower tier simply because I have yet to win a medal or an award.
Quick Comment: I am ok with switching the system to improve player turn-out, however I would caution against making the system 'too difficult' to understand for someone beginning the GOTM series.
Quick Comment: I am strongly against removing the 'meaningless awards' (fastest finish, lowest scoring, etc...) those make the game fun - all the various ways you can be awarded
hope these comments do not fall on deaf ears. I love my GOTMs...
Quick Comment: I am ok with switching the system to improve player turn-out, however I would caution against making the system 'too difficult' to understand for someone beginning the GOTM series.
Quick Comment: I am strongly against removing the 'meaningless awards' (fastest finish, lowest scoring, etc...) those make the game fun - all the various ways you can be awarded
hope these comments do not fall on deaf ears. I love my GOTMs...
mtt9999
Builder of Dreams
Sorry. One more quick comment: I voted to leave to current system as it is 'stop messing' - however I would like to add an ammendment: I am for updated the WOTM to monthly instead of the current system.
mtt9999
Builder of Dreams
I like the idea of VC challenges, like those proposed in the pre-game thread to GOTM 41, however I don't think that we should lock the system in - only this vicotry condition will be counted... every game is an evolving mechanism, and VC's change like the wind sometimes...
JungleIII
Master
The points I agree with:
Obormot - "Forcing such people into playing the higher difficulty version to be eligible for awards may actually lead to them losing interest."
Obormot - "Perhaps having 1-2 deity games in a year is OK, but having to play deity every 3rd month is too much."
Gbus007 - is a moving up player who feels shut out many months because of current system of Emperor, Immortal and Diety games - so doesn't get to play as much as he likes.
Niklas - (posted in other forum) his suggestion is great:
"* Challenger: 3 Deity, 4 Immortal, 2 Emperor, 2 Monarch and 1 Prince.
* Contender: 1 Deity, 2 Immortal, 2 Emperor, 2 Monarch, 2 Prince, 2 Noble and 1 Warlord.
* Adventurer: 1 Emperor, 2 Monarch, 2 Prince, 4 Noble and 3 Warlord."
Fredericksburg - "1. Saves of 3 difficulty levels (instead of 2).
2. And only one common set of awards."
I would add - don't be restrictive... have two games available every month at a level suitable for each player at the level THEY feel comfortable with. Not restricted - players choice.
Secondly - awarding bonus points for difficulty, i.e. 2000 points for Diety, 1500 points for Immortal, 1000 points for Immortal; 500 points for Monarch. This allows for an adjuster to award the person winning at a harder level, AND still allows for a lower level EXPERT to be in the running for some type of ranking if playing well. BTW, validity of suggested points would need to be analysed as to impact, and adjusted if suggestion ever saw light of day...
Thirdly, we can keep the current ranking system, as the point adjustment will even out the skill level inequity start.
So... my vote is - not a two tier, but the better idea with a multi level start as discussed in depth more in the other forum.
Obormot - "Forcing such people into playing the higher difficulty version to be eligible for awards may actually lead to them losing interest."
Obormot - "Perhaps having 1-2 deity games in a year is OK, but having to play deity every 3rd month is too much."
Gbus007 - is a moving up player who feels shut out many months because of current system of Emperor, Immortal and Diety games - so doesn't get to play as much as he likes.
Niklas - (posted in other forum) his suggestion is great:
"* Challenger: 3 Deity, 4 Immortal, 2 Emperor, 2 Monarch and 1 Prince.
* Contender: 1 Deity, 2 Immortal, 2 Emperor, 2 Monarch, 2 Prince, 2 Noble and 1 Warlord.
* Adventurer: 1 Emperor, 2 Monarch, 2 Prince, 4 Noble and 3 Warlord."
Fredericksburg - "1. Saves of 3 difficulty levels (instead of 2).
2. And only one common set of awards."
I would add - don't be restrictive... have two games available every month at a level suitable for each player at the level THEY feel comfortable with. Not restricted - players choice.
Secondly - awarding bonus points for difficulty, i.e. 2000 points for Diety, 1500 points for Immortal, 1000 points for Immortal; 500 points for Monarch. This allows for an adjuster to award the person winning at a harder level, AND still allows for a lower level EXPERT to be in the running for some type of ranking if playing well. BTW, validity of suggested points would need to be analysed as to impact, and adjusted if suggestion ever saw light of day...
Thirdly, we can keep the current ranking system, as the point adjustment will even out the skill level inequity start.
So... my vote is - not a two tier, but the better idea with a multi level start as discussed in depth more in the other forum.
Jet082
Chieftain
Today, I submitted my first BOTM entry. As you can tell, I'm new to the community and I'm glad a Noble game happened to be offered this month. However, after posting in the spoilers thread for the completed game, I noticed that I simply did not rank up compared to the regulars/veterans. My completion time, which is very good compared to my previous games, was pitiful compared to the others. And you know what? A part of me lost interest in participating at that point.
I like the idea of a game of the month, and I love participating in something like that. However, once the difficulty gets above prince, I won't feel ready to try it as I'm still at the roughly Noble level. This means there are about, what, 4 months that I won't be able to take part in the community? I am disappointed in that.
I also feel like that I want a chance at perhaps ranking well during a competition. As it is now, I'm completely overshadowed by the veterans. What incentive do I have to actually try and play? I like the notion of being ranked, but not when I have no chance.
I love, absolutely LOVE, the idea of the 2-tier system. This is a system in which I can take part every month, and also have the chance at ranking. I'm disappointed to see a good number of people against it, and hope that this post explains a newbie's point of view on the option. I posit that you will actually encourage more players to join the community (and try out the GOTMs) if something like the 2-tier system was in place. As it is now, the competition is entirely too intimidating for someone new to the community or even to the game.
I like the idea of a game of the month, and I love participating in something like that. However, once the difficulty gets above prince, I won't feel ready to try it as I'm still at the roughly Noble level. This means there are about, what, 4 months that I won't be able to take part in the community? I am disappointed in that.
I also feel like that I want a chance at perhaps ranking well during a competition. As it is now, I'm completely overshadowed by the veterans. What incentive do I have to actually try and play? I like the notion of being ranked, but not when I have no chance.
I love, absolutely LOVE, the idea of the 2-tier system. This is a system in which I can take part every month, and also have the chance at ranking. I'm disappointed to see a good number of people against it, and hope that this post explains a newbie's point of view on the option. I posit that you will actually encourage more players to join the community (and try out the GOTMs) if something like the 2-tier system was in place. As it is now, the competition is entirely too intimidating for someone new to the community or even to the game.
That's the "gimme medals" psychology on the march. Your "incentive to actually try and play" is to become better and overthrow the veterans. Look at Gosha, who won recent BOTM, as a great example of going from total noob to grandmaster.
Jet082
Chieftain
Actually, I don't care about medals at all. I want to actually feel I have a chance at ranking well (a chance to actually view myself playing better against those of similar skill). For all I care, medals can be reserved for tier 1 only.
As it stands now, I'm very discouraged based on the play of the veterans. Their finish times and scores are much higher/faster than I would have thought possible. There is a huge difference between "okay, that's pretty fast but I think I can try harder and beat it" to "I'll never be able to play that well."
I also like the option behind two difficulties per month. It gives me a way to participate and improve at my own pace (as it stands now, I'm no where near beating Noble regularly).
As it stands now, I'm very discouraged based on the play of the veterans. Their finish times and scores are much higher/faster than I would have thought possible. There is a huge difference between "okay, that's pretty fast but I think I can try harder and beat it" to "I'll never be able to play that well."
I also like the option behind two difficulties per month. It gives me a way to participate and improve at my own pace (as it stands now, I'm no where near beating Noble regularly).
da_Vinci
Gypsy Prince
Well, with the poll closed, what a dead heat!
Strong sentiment for leaving well enought alone, and essentially equally strong sentiment for the psuedo-tier idea.
The latests exchanges between Lexad and Jet082 illustrate the dichotomy:
Lexad, as one of our strong veterans, might be arguing against tiers or some variation of that (multi-level games, etc), not surprising from someone who has thrived in our current system.
Jet082, however, may represent sentiments of a large number of people who are not current GOTM participants (or at least submitters) ... which is the group we need to attract if we want on increase participation.
So ... the challenge is how can we maintain the benefits of the current system, while making enhancements that expand our appeal to additional participants?
dV
Strong sentiment for leaving well enought alone, and essentially equally strong sentiment for the psuedo-tier idea.
The latests exchanges between Lexad and Jet082 illustrate the dichotomy:
Lexad, as one of our strong veterans, might be arguing against tiers or some variation of that (multi-level games, etc), not surprising from someone who has thrived in our current system.
Jet082, however, may represent sentiments of a large number of people who are not current GOTM participants (or at least submitters) ... which is the group we need to attract if we want on increase participation.
So ... the challenge is how can we maintain the benefits of the current system, while making enhancements that expand our appeal to additional participants?
dV
JungleIII
Master
It's really not a dead heat... nearly 2/3 say the current system is not working... only 1/3 say keep it as is.
Not sure how you can make 42% to be 1/3. 
I also think that the poll is inherently flawed, as with most polls using this system. There are simply so many interpretations to make. Does a "Yes, I can't think of anything better" vote mean that "I like it better than what we have, but I haven't considered alternatives"? Does a "No, and stop messing with what we have vote" mean "I love the system we have", or does it only mean "If changes are going to be anything like what you propose, I will have none of it"? Different people read the question differently, and with only one proposal on the table the results are far from accurate.
I think the real benefit of this thread comes not from looking at the results but by looking at what's said, here as well as in the other thread.
I also think that the poll is inherently flawed, as with most polls using this system. There are simply so many interpretations to make. Does a "Yes, I can't think of anything better" vote mean that "I like it better than what we have, but I haven't considered alternatives"? Does a "No, and stop messing with what we have vote" mean "I love the system we have", or does it only mean "If changes are going to be anything like what you propose, I will have none of it"? Different people read the question differently, and with only one proposal on the table the results are far from accurate.
I think the real benefit of this thread comes not from looking at the results but by looking at what's said, here as well as in the other thread.
Not every part-time footballer wants to train full-time to compete in the FA Cup. Many are quite happy with the Setanta Shield.
dojoboy
Tsalagi
No tiers. The decision of what tier a person is in should not be left up to them. The door is open wide enough as it is, IMHO. You get what you put into it. I've been playing Civ for several years now, beating Civ3 at Emperor and Civ4 at Immortal (1x). I'm a casual player, meaning I don't invest the time or thought to win on higher difficulties. I don't feel there should be a game each month to meet my skill level. The GOTM is a competition, not a training ground. Training is done OYT, in the early mornings or late nights after coming home from the bar (or club if you're in Europe).
da_Vinci
Gypsy Prince
No doubt the results have limitations, but maybe not as bad as you suggest.
I tried to define four levels of response: 1) yes I like this; 2) it's an improvement but we can do better; 3) don't like this, but we need a change; 4) no need to change.
Of course, that does not get at all the other possible alternatives, but one poll question can only do so much ...
I do think that one is limited to interpreting such poll numbers in three broad categories ... favor, even, disfavor. That is why I called it a dead heat ... a few percentage points here or there are within the margin of error (as well as within the variation of interpretation, as Niklas points out)
I was onced advised as a student that if asked a statistical question, like "what percent of people have X?" that I just had to decide if it was 30%, 50% or 80%, since most estimates would not be more precise than that ...
dV
Similar threads
- Sticky
