Proposed 2-tier GOTM System

[LowtherCastle]

Why play games that I'll struggle in when I know I can win by taking an easier save?

I vote that we assign azzaman333 to Tier 1 permanently.

 

[azzaman333]

I vote that we assign azzaman333 to Tier 1 permanently.

Me no likey!

 

[Ronnie1]

Because even if winning is not in doubt, the date that you eventually will win by is. The challenge for many people who like playing easier games sometimes is getting a better/earlier win than the other players playing the same game.

I agree completely....I probably should have added that even with the Challenger save, the end date is still the question, and not the answer. At least I sure hope the added challenge isn't the difference between winning and losing, that would be a little embarrassing.

 

[Niklas]

With the current system there is already quite a difference between Challenger, Contender and Adventurer making comparison difficult. What saves the day right now is that noone plays the Challenger save anyway.

Not really no one, but precious few, which is a pity.

This is obviously a matter of taste, but I don't find it particularly compelling that you can add a few extra high level games at the expense of dilluting the player pool for each game and reducing comparability.

A matter of taste indeed. There have been quite a lot of calls for more high-level games, not just in this (or rather the Brainstorming) thread, but also elsewhere (like in the SGOTM09 pregame thread). I won't speak for them though since I'm personally fine with the current distribution, but there's no denying that there is a demand for it.

Not to mention the award issues. I think you owe us to explain how awards and Eptathlon should work with 3 saves and common awards...

Here's a suggestion off the top of my head:
* Players choosing to play Challenger and Contender are eligible for fastest-finish awards and medals.
* Challenger awards (fastest-finish awards and medals that you win when playing Challenger, in contention with both Challengers and Contenders) are distinguished in some way, and considered more worth as the awards tables go.
* Eptathlons either require Challenger awards in all VCs (including gold), or we have a special distinguished Challenger Eptathlon for those who manage it, allowing Contenders to gain a less prestigious version.
* Fastest Adventurer in each VC also gets an honorary mention, possibly an award distinguished as being Adventurer. I'm not sure if these should be stored in the Pantheon of Heroes or just simply in the congratulations thread. There should be no need for an Eptathlon among the Adventurers, since someone scoring an award there should probably consider moving up anyway (which would be helped if the leap wasn't so large).

With 3 games every month you can choose any level within the range Noble-Deity inside one month. So what's stopping people from challenging themselves with hard games every month - nothing!

That's assuming that people enjoy playing all versions. I've heard lots of people saying they only care to play BtS, and others that don't own one version or other.

But there's also the opposite problem that I brought up before, that there would be too many hard games. There would never been any low-level games at all for the top tier, and playing the tier 2 game just for fun and variation is obviously not the solution.

All that said - I don't see this as an issue of 2 vs 3 difficulty levels per game. I would personally be quite satisfied with only 2, if they followed through a series of difficulties more akin to what I suggested, not just rotating through Emperor+. But I still see benefits with the 3 different levels, in particular that it would be more encouraging for players to move up if the leap isn't so huge.

 

[da_Vinci]

Two tier, or not two tier, that is the question ...

(This discussion is bringing me two tiers ... )

What are the merits of "two tiers of competition" ... which would mean players residing in tiers of skill, with limits on playing down?

1. Maximizes number of high difficulty games in the high tier

2. Maximizes number of low-moderate difficulty games in the low tier

3. Winnable awards in the low tier by the non-elite players

4. Maximal comparability, as like kinds of players are playing the same save.

Drawbacks of "two tiers of competition" :

1. Some good players lose the option to play lower difficulty games for competition.

2. Three level gap between tiers discourages stepping up (watch that first step ... )

3. Awards spamming if it has to go tier-specific.

Now, are there ways to reap the benefits of the tier system, without assigning the players to tiers? I think we have a consensus on tiers of game difficulty for the same map.

Suppose we have three saves based on difficulty, to replace the three saves based on starting techs/units/resources.

Suppose we have DIE, IEM, EMP, and MPN as the difficulty rotation over 4 games. Staggered for the different versions, of course ... and with WOTM back to monthly.

1 D; 2 I; 3 E; 3 M; 2 P; 1 N in each cycle within a version.

This does not max high dif games, but there are sure enough of them across this proposed cycle, I would think.

There is also a healthy dose of low to moderate games ... again not maximal. For a small sacrifice of number of games high or low, one gets a one-level distance for a "step-up", rather than a three-level gap. I think that is a tradeoff worth making.

Winnable awards for low tier players? ... Well if we have a separate mention within the difficulties of play, we can solve that ... but it does involve some awards spamming ... which is also a drawback of competition tiers.

Comparability ... this might suffer. It is now more likely I think to see the good players choose high, mid or low based on victory condition sought. So is the pool of talent competing in any one diff level going to be diluted, compared to two tiers of competition which would "force" the elites all to be competing with each other?

Perhaps the greatest advantage of the two competitive tiers is that the elites are all locked into playing the same save ... so a medal or award is won against the best field we can field. If we can preserve that in a tier-less system, then tier-less may be the way to go.

Some incentive to "play up" and disincentive to "play down" might be warranted ... this could be no awards (just mentions) in the "adventurer"; ranking penalty for "adventurer"; some ranking bonus for playing up to "challenger"; separate awards on Challenger or some special note for an award won that way.

Of course, no law says we can't try iterative changes. If there is a consensus to have three saves based on difficulty replace the three saves based on starting techs/units/resources, we could try that without other changes and see how that goes. What other modification might need to go with it should be apparent after the first experiment of that sort.

dV

 

[DynamicSpirit]

After a week or so of sitting on the fence I think I'm moving towards agreeing with Niklas to the extent of thinking a 2-tier system wouldn't work.

The issues for me are:

No. of medals. I'd be strongly opposed to creating significantly more medals/awards than we currently have, partly because the more awards you have, the less valuable and less significant each award becomes, and partly because the awards are supposed to be for playing really good games and the more awards you have the more likely it is that awards get won just because there wasn't much competition for that particular award. I'd be particularly opposed to creating awards specially for easy games or for people who aren't good players (which seems to have been hinted at in connection with the tiers) because - well, frankly that seems to me totally contrary to the point of awards. You want to win an award? You learn to play Civ better!

So if we have a 2-tier system, IMO it has to be with only one set of awards? How do you do that? Only give awards for the hard games? That doesn't seem right to me since that would exclude everyone who doesn't like playing hard levels. It is after all still possible to play Civ very well on an easy level; shouldn't someone who - say - manages to win a space win in 1700AD on noble level when most players can't manage earlier than 1800AD still have the chance to be rewarded?

How about some way of comparing wins on the two levels. That's basically impossible to do fairly, any formula is going to be largely arbitrary. So I don't think that's a good way to go.

Then there's the issue of variety. I think a strength of the current system is the way it encourages people to progress up levels, improving their game by playing harder levels than they would've thought themselves capable of because - well, if the next game is on emperor then you have to play emperor (or something near emperor with an adventurer save), you can't opt out and play a parallel game on noble. I can't see how you could build that feature into any kind of 2-tier system.

In short, it looks to me like there's just too many problems that a 2-tier system is never going to solve as well as what we currently have.

 

[da_Vinci]

After a week or so of sitting on the fence I think I'm moving towards agreeing with Niklas to the extent of thinking a 2-tier system wouldn't work.

... it looks to me like there's just too many problems that a 2-tier system is never going to solve as well as what we currently have.

As you can see from my post above yours (which appeared to cross) ... even I am adopting the Johnson's Baby Shampoo philosophy ("no more tiers")

Or more exactly, the tiers of competition were never the end, just a potential means to an end. I think there are sufficient drawbacks to my "top of the head" proposal that leads this thread to reconsider. Focus on the goals, not the means.

For me, the point that the step up in my proposal is so huge is perhaps its biggest drawback. I think three difficulty variants of one map, with appropriate scoring adjustments, and some acknowledgement of good performance by developing players (not duplicate awards) may be the way to go.

I'd be particularly opposed to creating awards specially for easy games or for people who aren't good players (which seems to have been hinted at in connection with the tiers) because - well, frankly that seems to me totally contrary to the point of awards. You want to win an award? You learn to play Civ better!

It is after all still possible to play Civ very well on an easy level; shouldn't someone who - say - manages to win a space win in 1700AD on noble level when most players can't manage earlier than 1800AD still have the chance to be rewarded?

Is it me, or have you contradicted yourself here? No awards for easy games ... no reason not to reward good play in an easy game?

There is precedent in sports for awards for developing players or a second tier. Divisions I, II and III in the NCAA for various sports; The NCAA basketball tournament, and the NIT for those not in the NCAA tourney; junior champions and amateur champions in a variety of sports.

Now, we may find it cumbersome to have this for XOTM, and may choose not to do it, but not because the concept is without merit. Which is why some "honorable mention" idea may be worthwhile. Something to shoot for while gaining the experience to dethrone the reigning dynasty that dominates the awards.

dV

 

[MarkM]

Why play games that I'll struggle in when I know I can win by taking an easier save?

This is an interesting POV. To counterbalance it -- I don't even bother to play games that I know I can win with one hand behind my back. I just sat out a few months while the BTS cycle reset & climbed back to monarch & above. I'll be honest, I only have so much appetite for civ these days, I only play BTS, and only games that are challenging. (p.s. for that reason, you may want to weigh my comments, I'm not likely to play every month no matter what you do, I simply don't have the appetite).

For similar reasons, I'm not sure what tier I would qualify for, but I would want to play in tier one only, simply because I'm only interested in comparing my games to the best. That's why I play xOTM. I don't play to maximize my chance to win every month.

Funny how we can have exactly opposite reaction to the same situation ...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Is it me, or have you contradicted yourself here? No awards for easy games ... no reason not to reward good play in an easy game?

lol, maybe I could've been clearer, but no contradiction. What I was objecting to was specifically the idea of an award for playing an easy game that the good players are excluded from competing in. If the level is easy but anyone can play, then IMO that's fine because the award will likely go to someone who's played an outstanding game (as indeed happens at present).

There is precedent in sports for awards for developing players or a second tier. Divisions I, II and III in the NCAA for various sports; The NCAA basketball tournament, and the NIT for those not in the NCAA tourney; junior champions and amateur champions in a variety of sports.

Now, we may find it cumbersome to have this for XOTM, and may chose not to do it, but not because the concept is without merit. Which is why some "honorable mention" idea may be worthwhile. Something to shoot for while gaining the experience to dethrone the reigning dynasty that dominates the awards.
dV

Yeah there's something in that, perhaps I was being a little harsh. For the GOTMs I don't think there's enough people playing to justify many more awards than we currently have.

 

[ngraner42]

I think three difficulty variants of one map, with appropriate scoring adjustments, and some acknowledgement of good performance by developing players (not duplicate awards) may be the way to go.

This approach minimizes the impact on staff and gives difficulty levels for both those who want hard and those who want winable. We could analyze the HOF tables to handicap the levels. This would be straitforward for score, but could also be done for victory date. I would be happy to do some analysis, if the HOF data could be dumped to a text file, or some other conveinient format.

 

[Conquistador 63]

I think you are right that awards have to follow the game difficulty. Conquest and domination is obviously faster to achieve in a Noble game compared to an Emperor game while it's the other way around for Space Race.

On the latter part of your statement, you could be right, but I'm not 100% convinced of that. At first, one could agree with the idea, but check the HoF tables and note a 460AD Space victory on Settler. Even among the rest of the fastest SR/SC finishes on all difficulties I couldn't identify a pattern showing the higher difficult games yield the fastest finishes.

Looking from my own perspective, I consider myself a solid Immortal-level player, and thus a "tier-1" player. I've never lost on Emperor, I mostly win on Immortal, I have yet to win on Deity (but then I haven't tried it much). And yet I definitely still enjoy playing the odd leisurely game on Prince, knowing that it's not the AI I'm competing with but the other players playing the same game. Who can best exploit the way the game plays on Prince is a different - but no less challenging - competition than who can beat the Deity AI. So I would not appreciate a system that locked the "tier-1" games into Emperor and above.

Exactly my feelings (except I consider myself a Emperor-level player instead). That been said, I believe the broader objective of the GOTM friendly competition is to provide more entertainment to everyone who wants to participate in it. To the ones just want to have a tougher game, playing challenger saves on a level or 2 above contender should cater to them just as fine as the 2-tier system.

To other people like me, who gets their fun just from trying to finish faster (or score higher, etc) than the other players, regardless of the AI level, the current system is already fine, and the proposed "1-tier with higher diff.challenger save" changes won't affect it - as long as challenger and contender saves are acceptable for awards, medals and Epthatlon like it already is today. In fact, for those focused on getting their awards/medals etc. the choice between contender or challenger would introduce another interesting strategic decision, maybe depending on the target VC, following Frederiksberg's reasoning. Final score does get a higher multiplier as the difficulty level rises, doesn't it?

One last request: please don't mess up with the current rankings system! What's not to like in it?

 

[Ronnie1]

A wise man once said .....that!!!

 

[da_Vinci]

A wise man once said .....that!!!

I will third that ...

Now everyone can see why we love having C63 on the GK ... what widsom!

Final score does get a higher multiplier as the difficulty level rises, doesn't it?

A simple but profound point, that I had not keep in mind. It may well be that from a score perspective, the higher diff save is already compensated.

Now, if higher diff does help win faster (or, if at least the faster tech pace equalizes the other handicaps at higher diff), then maybe the speed perspective is compensated as well.

If we believe this logic, then could one argue to make all three saves eligible for all medals and awards? Discuss ...

One last request: please don't mess up with the current rankings system! What's not to like in it?

dV

 

[Munro]

On second thoughts, I'll summarise:

- I understand there's value in forcing rookies to play at harder levels
- I'm not sure the reverse is true for veterans (and it's significantly reduced my own participation)

How about offering a mix of hard-only months and hard-or-easy months to meet the needs of both?

(Expanded reasoning below...)

Spoiler :

I would very much prefer a system closer to what we already have, but where we use difficulty levels as equalizers as has been proposed several times in this thread. If we cycle the "Contender" difficulty as (W-)N-P-M-E-I(-D), like we do now, we could use something like (P-)M-E-E-I-D(-D) or (P-)M-E-I-I-D(-D) for the "Challenger", and (W-)W-N-P-P-M(-E) or (W-)W-N-N-P-M(-E) for the "Adventurers". If we go with the latter suggestion, that would mean that out of every 12 games (for a given xOTM series) there would be:

* 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.

But there's also the opposite problem that I brought up before, that there would be too many hard games. There would never been any low-level games at all for the top tier, and playing the tier 2 game just for fun and variation is obviously not the solution.

All that said - I don't see this as an issue of 2 vs 3 difficulty levels per game. I would personally be quite satisfied with only 2, if they followed through a series of difficulties more akin to what I suggested, not just rotating through Emperor+. But I still see benefits with the 3 different levels, in particular that it would be more encouraging for players to move up if the leap isn't so huge.

This is all sounds pretty good, except that it still means that as a tier-1 player I am forced to play at emperor or lower a significant amount of the time (which unlike Niklas does not interest me at all).

I wonder if that is really necessary though?

• I can understand why tier-2 players like to be forced to play above their comfort level every now and again, but is the inverse really true? Sure it might be fun to play an easy Prince or Noble game every now and again (though it is certainly not for me) but do tier-1 players really have to be forced to do that?
• Lack of interesting and challenging games is precisely the reason I stopped playing GOTM regularly - and I wonder how many of the other immortal+ players I have seen lose interest and move on might still be here if we had more challenging games.

Also, what we do with the awards and rankings feels secondary to me. I understand it's a key part of the experience (for me too) but there are lots of ways to recognize awards and achievement, and these should be based on the ideal game format, not visa versa. I have complete confidence that we can work out a sensible system for recognizing achievement, whatever format we decide on for the games themselves. But awards and rankings should not (IMHO) impact the fundamentals of providing games that people want to play. This includes games that cater to the tastes of our most experienced players (a part of the community that I suspect is under-represented in this discussion precisely because the current format does not cater to them very well).

So perhaps we could offer:

- some months at only the higher difficulty (with challenger and adventurer saves if we want, using minor bonuses as currently)
- other months with a choice of lower and higher difficulty (e.g. challenge / adventurer saves at sometimes significantly different difficultly level, ensuring at least one save of emperor or above).

Sounds like this would cater to the tastes of the currently community, while also helping to retain the better players as people improve and outgrow monarch and emperor...

(What we do with the rankings and awards after this I really don't mind, although Niklas' suggestion sounds spot on to me. But they should be based on the format we decide for the games, not visa versa).

Munro

 

[da_Vinci]

On second thoughts, I'll summarise:

- I understand there's value in forcing rookies to play at harder levels
- I'm not sure the reverse is true for veterans (and it's significantly reduced my own participation)

How about offering a mix of hard-only months and hard-or-easy months to meet the needs of both?

Doesn't have to be a hard only month to make you happy, just a hard option every month, right?

I had suggested "Suppose we have DIE, IEM, EMP, and MPN as the difficulty rotation over 4 games."

No reason it could not be DIE, IEM, DEP, IMN is there? Or even add DMN, IPW for a six type rotation.

This de-links the challenger rotation from the contender and adventurer rotations ... there may be cleaner ways to do that ... does this solve the Munro-type elite player dilemma?

Which is essentially a "games in tiers, but players not in tiers" approach, which is where I am thinking this will settle out.

dV

 

[Lexad]

I can't say we have tough enough competition as it is, especially in fastest finishes. All attempts to create "tier-1" competitions have perished so far, and there would just not be enough people to populate the top tier. Thus it would boil down to few players moving out of the common pool so more people can have chances for inferior medals, instead of training harder to get the superior ones. We have enough top-awards as it is to need no duplication.

 

[Skurn]

I like the idea of having a choice of difficulties rather than the current bonuses.

With the current system, I don't see how having less units and less techs at the beginning is going to be an advantage in the long run, while starting with a worker or a wb is clearly a big plus. This leads to adventurer entries being disqualified for awards because unfairly advantaged, and the award runners playing contender because they don't want a handicap.

On the other hand, every game could be eligible for awards with a system based on differents saves at different diff level, because depending on the VC and the strategy you're planning, picking the difficulty you want to play at is already a strategic choice.

Special games like Allways War could still be treated differently though.

 

[Lexad]

Current GOTM-WOTM-BOTM system provides you with a range of difficulties to choose from every month, I see no point in splitting it into two inferior tourneys. If chosing from 5 games every 2 months is too little, go play HoF gauntlets (at least 3 every month), SGs, etc. I see no sense trying to mend something that aint broken.

 

[srad]

Current GOTM-WOTM-BOTM system provides you with a range of difficulties to choose from every month, I see no point in splitting it into two inferior tourneys.

I agree to that! It would be nice if we can have the WOTMs at a monthly period back (if it is possible from the work load for the staff).

 

[Munro]

Doesn't have to be a hard only month to make you happy, just a hard option every month, right?

I had suggested "Suppose we have DIE, IEM, EMP, and MPN as the difficulty rotation over 4 games."

No reason it could not be DIE, IEM, DEP, IMN is there? Or even add DMN, IPW for a six type rotation.

Right, although this particular schedule might not be the optimal way to do this, since I argue that it splits the player pool more than is necessary (notwithstanding that offering harder games will increase the player pool). Remember that right now the player pool is (in practice) split only two ways. And on the harder difficultly months, it not obvious it needs to be divided at all?

How about something like the following? I.e. single difficulty on Immortal and Emperor months. This has the obvious benefit of less division of the player pool (while still offering rookies the same variety in difficultly levels as before, but catering to veteran tastes too).

I > E > DM > IP > IN > DW

I can't say we have tough enough competition as it is, especially in fastest finishes. All attempts to create "tier-1" competitions have perished so far, and there would just not be enough people to populate the top tier. Thus it would boil down to few players moving out of the common pool so more people can have chances for inferior medals, instead of training harder to get the superior ones. We have enough top-awards as it is to need no duplication.

Current GOTM-WOTM-BOTM system provides you with a range of difficulties to choose from every month, I see no point in splitting it into two inferior tourneys. If chosing from 5 games every 2 months is too little, go play HoF gauntlets (at least 3 every month), SGs, etc. I see no sense trying to mend something that aint broken.

What about improving something that could be better? You say yourself that there isn't enough tough competition as it is. I'm hardly an 'elite' player compared to some people here, but I do consider myself a solid Immortal level player and I can tell you that for me the lack of challenging games is the single biggest factor for my drop-off in participation.

The current system may be ok for the current community - by definition, since those that are ok with it will stay, and those that lose interest have moved on. But why are they moving on and can we provide a better competition that will widen participation and do a better job of retaining the more experienced players who have outgrown Emperor? I think we would all benefit from this (more competetion for the veterans, and more people to learn from for the rookies).

BTW - not everyone is able (or wants) to play all three versions of vanilla / warlords / BtS.