Proposed 2-tier GOTM System

[da_Vinci]

How about BOTW + GOTF + WOTF?

I am in shock! The only reason I was working in tiers was not to overload the staff!

Some points worth considering:

1. Currently in Global Ranking, those who can only play one game a month can still have a submission for each bracket (one month being a bracket). If bracket becomes two weeks, then those players are really disadvantaged.

A potential solution is to have six games a month ... two of each, and take best of six in a one month bracket. It is a lot of games to best of, and there will be a lot of 100s for speed, but it does keep the one a month players in the game.

2. What is the impact on the meaning of the eptathlon, if we now have 2 to 4 opportunities for each award each month, and potentially against thinner competition in each version? Especially if the best players focus on BOTW, one a week, the fields for WOTF and GOTF could be considerably thinned. In some ways, this many games multiplies awards as much as awards for two diff levels of the same map. There might be as much de facto separation of the players with the 8 game model as the de jure separation from a system of tiers of games and/or players.

3. What happens to the quality of the spoiler discussions? Rather than go into detail about each other's games, as happens sometimes now, playing 8 games a month would reduce spoilers to one post about a game, with less time for follow-up discussion?

4. While participation overall in XOTM would likely go up, would participation per game go down? Which is our priority, and why?

Multiple diff games per map ("split maps") creates mutually exclusive play opportunities ... a choice must me made. Multiple games creates inclusive play opportunities. Split maps potentially divide the player pool more severely, but if multiple games get frequent enough, the same effect may be seen.

So there is probably a sweet spot where multiple games are less divisive than split maps ... I wonder if 8 a month is beyond the sweet spot?

Now, my Pseudo-Tier system had split maps only half the time, as an antidote for separation of the field.

Split maps, with awards in the high and only honorable mentions in the low, allows award spamming to be controlled in a way that multiple games does not. So again, some limit on number of games may be needed to prevent award inflation.

Don't get me wrong ... the idea that we could have 4 to 8 games a month over all the versions opens up a whole host of possibilities ... and is welcome!

Just wonder if 4 or 6 is more like the sweet spot, and 8 might just be overdoing it?

We could always try it with 4 ... BOTF and W/G OTM, see how that goes, then try 6 (XOTF) and see what that is like ...

dV

 

[KingMorgan]

I only really play BTS, vanilla is just too last year

I'd like to see the same map at a range of difficulties, therefore the BTOM would be inclusive but allow everyone to play at the level they feel happiest on. I would not play a deity game and feel cheated if the BTOM is of that level as i'd feel I was missing out. However i do see the problems it could cause. It would be nice if there was an Emperor league i could compare my submission to people of a similar skill level but once i felt i was good enough i could move to the immortal league perhaps even one day the deity league.

i'm sure there are a lot of complexities to this, perhaps it would be possible to keep the current set up, tweaked perhaps in light of the suggestions in this thread.

Would it be possible to run a league type monthly compertion on a specfic difficulty? I realise an extra comp would strain the staff who already spend a lot of time on these games, but a format such a league would be a welcome addition. It would also provide a definitive ranking and encourge players to play the best they can on a regular basis.

 

[leif erikson]

With this number of games, we have been discussing the possibility of using stated VC's and these would be counted towards eptathalons as we will obviously have all the players headed for that VC.

The beauty of the number of games Alan is speaking of is that players can take on a Deity or Immortal game and, if smucked, can abandon it without losing the month. Also, we are thinking of making the first spoiler a shorter time frame. In doing so, we hope players will post more detailed logs of their start to help others learn, as we used to do in Civ III with the QSC. We do not intend this to be a competition as in Civ II, but rather a discussion that helps others learn.

We realize there are still more details to work out. I think this would help broaden the spectrum of games for players of all skills and, hopefully, help them improve their games.

And, as KingMorgan pointed out, provides more opportunities for those who wish to play solely but does not exclude those who have Vanilla or Warlords only.

 

[AlanH]

I am in shock!

My work here is over

Some points worth considering:

1. Currently in Global Ranking, those who can only play one game a month can still have a submission for each bracket (one month being a bracket). If bracket becomes two weeks, then those players are really disadvantaged.

A potential solution is to have six games a month ... two of each, and take best of six in a one month bracket. It is a lot of games to best of, and there will be a lot of 100s for speed, but it does keep the one a month players in the game.

:shrug: I can't see this being a big deal. If most players only play one game a month then we can have a bracket that long. The whole thing becomes very flexible when you are not in a strait jacket with only one game a month trying to fit all comers. It can evolve to respond as more of less players are involved and their needs change.

2. What is the impact on the meaning of the eptathlon, if we now have 2 to 4 opportunities for each award each month, and potentially against thinner competition in each version? Especially if the best players focus on BOTW, one a week, the fields for WOTF and GOTF could be considerably thinned. In some ways, this many games multiplies awards as much as awards for two diff levels of the same map. There might be as much de facto separation of the players with the 8 game model as the de jure separation from a system of tiers of games and/or players.

We were musing about the possibility of one Eptahlon per difficulty level, a bit like the awards in HoF.

3. What happens to the quality of the spoiler discussions? Rather than go into detail about each other's games, as happens sometimes now, playing 8 games a month would reduce spoilers to one post about a game, with less time for follow-up discussion?

If we roll in a QSC event for every game as well, then we could have one spoiler at the QSC date and one at end of game? Individual players and groups may prefer to behave as they do now - play one game a month and compare notes in detail in the spoilers for that game. Others may like to play lots of games and post little or no information about their games.

4. While participation overall in XOTM would likely go up, would participation per game go down? Which is our priority, and why?

Priority is to increase the sum of human happiness and enjoyment. That means I want more people playing overall. If they don't enjoy it they won't play, so we have to make it enjoyable for as wide an audience as possible.

Multiple diff games per map ("split maps") creates mutually exclusive play opportunities ... a choice must me made. Multiple games creates inclusive play opportunities. Split maps potentially divide the player pool more severely, but if multiple games get frequent enough, the same effect may be seen.

So there is probably a sweet spot where multiple games are less divisive than split maps ... I wonder if 8 a month is beyond the sweet spot?

I'm not wedded to eight - it just seemed neat arithmetically. For most players it will only be four or two because they only want to or can play one version. I really don't know how many players would play all four, or all eight. Probably not many of our current population, as they have got used to one a month, and maybe not many at all since most people probably have preferences for specific difficulty ranges. But it may appeal to a whole new audience.

Now, my Pseudo-Tier system had split maps only half the time, as an antidote for separation of the field.

Split maps, with awards in the high and only honorable mentions in the low, allows award spamming to be controlled in a way that multiple games does not. So again, some limit on number of games may be needed to prevent award inflation.

Awards are incentives - the only incentives for some people. I don't see a problem with lots of awards as long as you can differentiate between those achieved at high difficulty and ones gained at lower level. We could have badged awards to identify difficulty level? I also toyed with the idea that an award could only be won if the result was contested. So maybe the Religious victory award is only available if at least three people play to that VC in that game.

Don't get me wrong ... the idea that we could have 4 to 8 games a month over all the versions opens up a whole host of possibilities ... and is welcome!

Just wonder if 4 or 6 is more like the sweet spot, and 8 might just be overdoing it?

We could always try it with 4 ... BOTF and W/G OTM, see how that goes, then try 6 (XOTF) and see what that is like ...

dV

Whatever. I just wanted to get a raging debate going. So far it's more like a quiet conversation in a corner of the local pub.

 

[Jet]

* I'd like every save offered at Immortal+, or Emperor if it's a hard scenario
* So, as far as I'm concerned I'd like different level saves to replace the Challenger/etc thing. I don't really like the Challenger thing anyway. I'd rather modulate the difficulty using the standard difficulty mechanism.
* I don't care at all about medals. A listing of games with win dates would be more than enough comparison for me.
* I don't play vanilla and warlords any more and don't care about them unless there's a special reason for a game to not be BTS

 

[da_Vinci]

Whatever. I just wanted to get a raging debate going. So far it's more like a quiet conversation in a corner of the local pub.

Well, the poll is certainly like a quiet conversation in the corner of a pub ...

dV

 

[dr_s]

My suggestion gives high level players a choice of difficult games most months and new players get a choice of lower difficulty games.

Again, I don't hear players clamoring for a choice of games at the appropriate level, just any game at the appropriate level. And the early returns from the thread on the strategy forums indicates that choice of games is not the reason most people who don't submit now don't submit.

The small bonuses/penalties we currently have between classes are a bit like your different tees at golf, They only affect the first phase of the game. A closer tee just allows for your shorter drives, but the bunkers and greens are exactly the same for you as they are for the expert.

I think the current differences between classes are far to trivial to have any real handicapping effect.

Difficulty differences would kick in throughout a Civ4 game to make it as different as playing on different maps. You might fool yourself that you are competing with the big boys, but you really wouldn't be. I can't see deity players being delighted with the idea of a handicapped monarch player taking away their gold medal by virtue of getting a big score or date bonus.

All sorts of differences kick in to make it difficult to compare games: different spread of religion, different AI choice on where to expand, whether the AI beats the player to a key wonder, etc. As to your last point, have you asked them? Deity is a bit of a special case, but somehow I think that the top players might welcome the extra competition. I would bet on them if they were playing immortal and the riff-raff were playing noble. But my suggestion is also self-limiting in this regard, since it only allows each player to win a medal or award once on the easy level. (And I'd have to compete on the top level anyway, since I lucked out once and won an award ).

 

[azzaman333]

I just love the acronym WOTF.

 

[Frederiksberg]

Priority is to increase the sum of human happiness and enjoyment. That means I want more people playing overall. If they don't enjoy it they won't play, so we have to make it enjoyable for as wide an audience as possible.

I like this utilitarian argument .

With this number of games, we have been discussing the possibility of using stated VC's and these would be counted towards eptathalons as we will obviously have all the players headed for that VC.

I think this is a great idea and one of it's virtues is that it can help balance the request for many games at multiple levels with the desire for games where the competitive element is in focus. The idea I brought up in the Brainstorming thread regarding a GOTM Championship was with the intention to create some special games that would attract attention from many of the strong players. I think many players (including myself) have difficulty to find time for playing many GOTM's so it would be nice if there were some GOTMS that were more competitive than others in the sense that they could attract the best players. Perhaps consider if only some of the games should have mandatory VC's so that they stand out from the rest of the GOTM's in a given month.

With an increased amount of games each month and a wide selection of difficulty levels I would suggest that the Adventurer and Challenger saves are removed . I think it's important to keep things simple and remove features that are not adding (noticeable) value.

 

[AlanH]

With an increased amount of games each month and a wide selection of difficulty levels I would suggest that the Adventurer and Challenger saves are removed .

That was a precondition of my suggestion, not a consequence. It was the basis for the arithmetic to get to eight games:

Replace (2.5 games per month x 3 saves each) with 8 separate saves.

 

[da_Vinci]

It appears that the tier concept has evolved from (1) its initial players in tiers (de jure divided competition players "assigned" to tiers) idea (first post in this thread) ... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7866694&postcount=1

To a (2) games in tiers, some or all of the time (see the poll here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7916101&postcount=1) (de jure divided competition, but players can chose their level of split saves) ...

To a (3) games in tiers, no split saves playfest proposed by the Octamod (hey Alan, who IS your fertility doc? ) (Potentially a de facto divided competition as players chose among more games than they can handle.)

I think natural selection is alive and well!

The third iteration will likely see a voluntary self-selection of players into difficulty levels that they chose to play ... but with the option to play both time permitting. Begining players might play the high diff save up to the QSC-oid first spoiler, as a learning experience, then play the full low diff game(s).

Whether 8 is the ideal number of games, or maybe something smaller (six?) to reduce the fragmentaton of the player pool across games is a point for discussion.

Also, would we want some months where there is just one save in version, to get everone on the same game? Or is that just going to lose the participation of those who don't like that difficulty level, for that month?

Some way to rationally deal with the awards is a key point of debate for an 8 game system. The designated VC for some games is an intersting idea. A bit like the unofficial BTS challenge at the start of the BOTMs.

Is the thought to have the "Original Eptathlon" be retired, to be replaced by a "Junior Epthathlon" (awards won in any game) and an "Elite Epthathlon" (awards won in designated VC games)? Or to just have this new, "Elite Epthathlon"? Issue is, do players start the EE from scratch, or carry their old awards forward?

Also, what difficulty levels would the designated VC games rotate through? If that difficulty drops too low, some top players may not be interested.

If there are 4 BTS games a month, would two be designated VC? At rather different difficulty levels? Is that going to "cheapen" some of the awards relative to others, depending on how the competitors self select? Maybe just one designated VC game?

Assuming that gold medal replaces cow for the JE and the EE, we would need a designated score game from time to time (no speed awards, just points), but VC not specified (but in reality, dom or conq), right?

Hmm ... would a gold medal be awarded in a designated VC game? What would it mean? I suspect the designated VC games would have a philosophy like the SGOTMs.

Hmm again ... SGOTM gives medals for fastest finishes in what are designated VC games ... use that for our DVC games, then EE requires a gold medal in each VC, and a gold medal in a score game.

Basically, what this does is create an open VC competiton, pretty much like we have now, and a designated VC competition, the new twist. Would we want each competition to cycle through all difficulty levels, or have the open be all, but DVC be say Monarch to Diety?

As always, the devil is in the details ...

dV

(dV ... devil ... ???)

 

[da_Vinci]

How easy or difficult would it be for staff to produce a plot of number of submissions, in strata of game version (line graph), over the last two cycles of warlord to Diety, and post that here? (X-axis: W, N, ... D, W, ... D)

Allows us to compare participation by version within difficulty, and participation by difficulty within versions.

dV

 

[AlanH]

[pedant]A line graph is not valid, as there is no meaning for the points on the lines between the actual game data.[/pedant]

Is this what you are looking for? It covers the period from the first WOTM in September 2006 to date.



I've attached the spreadsheet used to create it.

 

[Deckhand]

Alan,

Great graph.
Can you present some statistics on games downloaded vs games submitted?

I agree with your suggestion of more games at more levels.
<edit: There might be some households with multiple players but only one computer (with HOF mod). More games would allow more participation from them.

And more honorable mention ribbons. I especially like best score by a first time submitter as an incentive to begin playing. (hmmn, might discourage submission of bad results)
Also irrelevant stuff like most cities, least cities, and other fun ones.

I also like the league idea if not too hard to implement. Players would designate what league they were playing in. They can move up voluntarily anytime. They would be forced to move up only with a first place finish combined with another medal (top 3) finish. (The cow is not relevant). The leagues would only be used for awarding the league ribbons and wouldn't have any affect on anything else. Three groups seem like enough. If league column added to results, then we could see how we scored wrt our peers.

 

[da_Vinci]

[pedant]A line graph is not valid, as there is no meaning for the points on the lines between the actual game data.[/pedant]

I was suggesting line graph as a more compact way of displaying the data ... Sure, only the dots have meaning, but connecting them by the meaningless lines makes it much more easy to follow, especially with multiple lines.

This for example ... http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/incidence/fig2.htm

You going to write CDC to tell them they are doing it wrong?

Is this what you are looking for? It covers the period from the first WOTM in September 2006 to date.

That will do nicely, thanks!

dV

 

[Mundungu]

Considering myself a mid level player and probably from the main population group targetted for an increase in participation in XOTMs I do not really have any big proposals but a few comments :

First question : What is the goal of a revamping of the system :
1) Get more player to play the XOTMS.
or
2) Get the "active" players (who play it anyway) to enjoy it more.
or
3) Get the players to increase their skills by putting them into non standard situations
or
4) Give the players a framework in which they can compare their skills with other players: Medal system etc ....

The basic problem is that only the hard core players, who play anyway, are really interested in 4), while all players are interested in 2) and 3) and the staff (and probably the community in general, for promotion of the game) are interested in 1).

However, it looks like mostly the hard core and the staff are discussing the matter, so I feel like representing the "middle range player".

How to reconcile all goals and all players into one system ? First basic Idea behind Da_vinci's Idea to separate the players into different categories or tiers. But that is obviously from the different posts not very statisfactory. WE are all a group and a community.

Of course I do not have a solution either, maybe a very simple proposal (see at the end of the post, if you are not too bored to go the end of my rambling).

But I would like to give a few thoughts coming from a mid-range player.

- At my level, playing for fun and improving my game are the main targets of XOTMs. At the time of my first BOTM, I was prince level, now am considering playing some immortal games. Before BTOM came up, I had even almost adandonned playing CIV, and the BTOMs gave me the taste back to the game. I tend to re-play harder XOTMS simply for the learning effect.

- As mentionned by some other poster (sorry, fogot the name), XOTMS are a great chance to try to play at harder level as one could feel confortable.

- The most fun XOTMs are the scenarios where the staff put their heart into something special (the All War Gandhi, and the BOTM 16 were so far my favourites).

- the current Adventurer / Contender specific advantages are IMHO not very satisfactory, if their target is to give an advantage to the lower level players.
They are for the very beginning of the game only, and make not much difference to experienced players. Maybe some more drastic advantages should be considered :
Maybe allowing advanced start with points to distribute could be better ? or sometime some alternatives like : starting with more gold, or a religion, or alredy worked tiles, or raging barbarians for the higher difficulty (.... It seems that the archer always went hunting or the settler was born stupid and knew nothing ... booooring).

--------------

Coming back on some of the proposals in previous posts, from my point of view :
- Different starting difficulties for Adventurer / Contender / challenger : maybe but max 1 level difference, or where will be the quick to be forced playing "above one's own level)
- More games per month, yes, but more randomly based no ( I can play random games anytime I want)
- Heptatlon with more games ? easy : only allow 1 game in the month to be eligible for an eptathlon (e.g. if 4 BOTMs are available, one is specifically selected by the staff for the heptatlon).

--------------

Now for my proposal which would make me (the average player) perfectly happy :
- no player tier, only one difficulty save (maybe two, but actually the impact is really minimal, unless bigger differences are created, as described above)
- 2 BTOM per month (or more ... I only play BOTM ... ) at different difficulty levels,only one of which is eligible for heptatlon.

AND What nobody (concretely) yet proposed, which I think would be enough to make all people happy :

- some kind of award that rewards the best progressing player, for example based on Score : the player with the biggest difference in score between last victorious and current XOTM get a special note or award (not counting toward the heptatlon).
This way even lower players get some recognition, if simply they improve their game.

- If possible : keeping track of of player level : With any first win in any difficulty level, the player automatically get awared that level, with a special mention in the BOTM results. for example : I would be thrilled to see : congratulation to Mundungu for achieving first victory at Emperor level .... kind of thing. the XOTM level could even be registered automatically in the player profile... (tbd)

Why do I think this proposal would achieve all 4 Targets listed at te beginning :


- This would certainly also increase the level of submissions, because hey what the heck, even if I did not do good, I did better than last time, and this might be my first win on this level s I will finish and submit
- The reward can only go to progressing players
- the Big Guns keep their heptatlon, their shiny awards and stunning wins, while the low and middle range players get to have some recognition for their own achievment.
- the staff get to generate more statistics and a more complicated tracking about their players, because they do not have much to do right now anyway

--------------

In short, keep the system as closesly as possible to what it is, with a few more games for every taste, and a way to give some positive recognition to the still learning hidden players.

--------------

In any case, whatever you guys decide, Kudos for the staff for all their work, ALAN H, DS, and all the other for runnng already intersting XOTMS, and being ready to discuss on how to make it even better....

 

[AlanH]

I was suggesting line graph as a more compact way of displaying the data ... Sure, only the dots have meaning, but connecting them by the meaningless lines makes it much more easy to follow, especially with multiple lines.

This for example ... http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/incidence/fig2.htm

You going to write CDC to tell them they are doing it wrong?

No, because they are doing it right.

There are months and weeks and days and seconds in between the annual points on their graph. In principle they could have plotted those intermediate value as well. The lines correctly indicate that they didn't plot the intermediate measurements, but that they are assuming a linear change in the annual value between the plotted values.

We ran no games in between the ones we measure, and we couldn't estimate what participation they would have had. If they *had* existed, that would probably have affected the data we *do* have. There is also no meaning to a line joining player counts for two other factors - date and difficulty.

 

[AlanH]

Alan,

Great graph.
Can you present some statistics on games downloaded vs games submitted?

Your wish is my command ...
Same format as the previous graph, but the horizontal scales are all multiplied by a factor of 10.


(The WOTM numbers didn't fit in the more recent short bars, and so I moved them to the white space. But I haven't worked out how to get rid of the shadows. Sorry.)

 

[kcd_swede]

Your wish is my command ...
Same format as the previous graph, but the horizontal scales are all multiplied b...

(The WOTM numbers didn't fit in the more recent short bars, and so I moved them to the white space. But I haven't worked out how to get rid of the shadows. Sorry.)

Hmmm... from this information my preliminary conclusion is that people go on vacation in June, July, and August. Requires further study...

 

[Ronnie1]

Am I following correctly?

Sept '06 = 33,740 downloads and 325 submissions?