SGOTM 21 Pre-Announcement Discussion Thread

[Noble Zarkon]

Yes, add another layer of competition as in HOF but for team play: drawn teams; fixed (max) number of players (so that there is no greater difference than 1 player); start assigning points to the members of the teams for the next 10 games: 8 to winner, 5 to 2nd, 3 to3rd, 1 to 4th, 1 to 5th; get an intermediate list of personal scores after game 4, then after game 7, then after game 10.

Sorry I really dislike this idea, you system takes no account of variability of strength within a team - our team had two SGOTM vets and two newbies but we'd all be given the same score. Also different teams have different philosophies of how they play so you need to let people choose who they want to play with I think.

 

[ecawilson]

It sounds like one of the concerns for SGOTM21 is number of players: while I can offer neither experience nor expertise, I would like to see if I could fill a slot on a [any] team's roster. I know this isn't the sign-up thread, and I doubt one more (especially if it is me) would help much, but thought I would chime in, just in case it matters for planning purposes.

Not that I matter but...
1. Don't care.
2. More info creates more discussion, which I want.
3. If everyone is autosaving every turn, this shouldn't add more difficulty to the game, and would be worth it if one person got more enjoyment out of it... unless doing so would necessarily obligate the moderator to do even more work during the running of the game; things like make graphs, comparisons, comments, abstract art evoking the deep and complex feelings of various units or landmasses, etc. Just put the saves somewhere, and if anyone wants to do that stuff, I say thanks. I don't need a new way to complain about the mapmaker/moderator.

 

[Jastrow]

Yes, add another layer of competition as in HOF but for team play: drawn teams; fixed (max) number of players (so that there is no greater difference than 1 player); start assigning points to the members of the teams for the next 10 games: 8 to winner, 5 to 2nd, 3 to3rd, 1 to 4th, 1 to 5th; get an intermediate list of personal scores after game 4, then after game 7, then after game 10. Could be made with an additional layer of multiplying the scores of the members of the winner of the each cycle of 10 games (or 7 games, or 5 games) by 1.3, the 2nd by 1.2, the third by 1.3; keep a list to show standings after each game. Get some prizes from Firaxis.

This is a horrible idea unless the goal is to have players quite on day one when the rosters are announced and you find out you are in a time which does not fit your play style.

 

[FiveRings]

Sorry I really dislike this idea, you system takes no account of variability of strength within a team - our team had two SGOTM vets and two newbies but we'd all be given the same score. Also different teams have different philosophies of how they play so you need to let people choose who they want to play with I think.

I think that's the idea: to reflect both teamwork (all players of a team getting equal scores) and individual accomplishment (in different games players get different scores with different teams). I see its only negative being it adds some individual competitive motivation to a type of game that is usually perfectionist - which itself works for the best working in a team together and/or it adds more competitiveness at large. For me the plus is that it adds motivation, doesn't push players in the same team, gets teamspirit another way to show (how you manage with lower-level players in your team) and helps learning from the best first-hand. And might get interesting!

As to Jastrow's comment: Time (or team?) issue is important, but I seem to see quite a lot of tension in teams chosen as well and a lot of teams manage time-difference very well anyway thru PPPs and good discussion.

Anyway, this was only a suggestion from a non-SGOTM player, so I am shutting up on it.

 

[enKage]

1 more idea: you can win any type of victory, but different from the victory achieved in previous SGOTM

(joking again, but I like limits to victory conditions, narrowing them to 1-3 max)

 

[Folket]

Do not allow the players to engage in diplomacy with the AI. They can only accept or decline deals offer and will wait for the AI to declare on them before conquering the world.

 

[zbgayumn]

It sounds like one of the concerns for SGOTM21 is number of players: while I can offer neither experience nor expertise, I would like to see if I could fill a slot on a [any] team's roster. I know this isn't the sign-up thread, and I doubt one more (especially if it is me) would help much, but thought I would chime in, just in case it matters for planning purposes.

Hey, at this point, one more is cause for celebration!

I only started SGOTM with this last one, but I've checked out the results pages from the old days. As recently as SGOTM 10 there were 15 teams and almost 100 players. That's why you see some folks kind of depressed about recent participation.

I'm not sure how that compares to membership of Civfanatics as a whole, but I would guess that's down too. That's the trouble with playing a game that's 10 years old. Gamers tend to move on. I happen to think Civ4 is one of the best games ever built, and I suspect a lot of the folks still here think the same way. Hopefully, we can stabilize numbers and keep a good competition going. It really is a lot of fun!

 

[zbgayumn]

The way the calendar works this year, it might make sense to open pre-game discussion threads right after Christmas and then release saves somewhere around Jan. 3rd - 5th.

People who are traveling (myself included) might not have a ton of opportunity to join in pre-game discussion, but they also don't need access to the game, only the forum, so participation is at least possible. Plus, they'll still have time after the saves go live to discuss things before the opening moves are made.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

The way the calendar works this year, it might make sense to open pre-game discussion threads right after Christmas and then release saves somewhere around Jan. 3rd - 5th.

How about a start like SGOTM 19 where the starting area is unfogged, plenty of scope for discussion then without it being too much of an impact if people aren't around. You could have a fairly lengthy pre-game discussion period?

 

[BSPollux]

How about a start like SGOTM 19 where the starting area is unfogged, plenty of scope for discussion then without it being too much of an impact if people aren't around. You could have a fairly lengthy pre-game discussion period?

Allready in.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Allready in.

 

[Gumbolt]

I think the key is to contact more players on forum to get them to join. Messing with teams is a bad idea. Unless a player from a large team wants to help a new team?

Time zones can be a real pain. Also matching up players to teams and the way they want to play. Not every player wants to play turn by turn and micro heavily.

The biggest thing is finding someone who really love the forum and wants to be here daily.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Time zones can be a real pain.

It can work the other way as well though - play a turn, other players comment etc. whilst you are sleeping / at work then do it all again the next evening.

 

[ecawilson]

I absolutely love the fact that new ideas on how to play and compete are being thought up for a game that is relatively old, and am happy that such thoughts and strategies are encouraged here. In addition, I really do love the way that competition is used here as a vehicle for improvement and learning. That said, I'll say what many of you are already thinking about one of the more recent suggestions.

In such an individual scoring system inside a randomized teaming mechanism, there will certainly arise instances where one's team losing the game would actually improve an individual's ranking. For example, when one of your teammates just pulled ahead of you in the rankings, especially in a case where you and they are far out of the 'pack', like first and second, doing the math may show the member in second that losing this game would put them back in first. Now, I would never suggest that someone here would intentionally and obviously throw the game, but I do wonder if it would be more difficult to trust such a player during their turnset, or misjudge a player's suggestions during discussion. And God forbid they do make a mistake, like forget to finish a chop and miss a wonder by 1 turn. I would be concerned how the likely ensuing conversation would affect future participation by all involved. Something to consider before implementing any individual scoring system in a team game such as this.

On the other hand, a draft seems more innocuous, and possibly more fun for someone like me who would like an opportunity to get to know more players... but...
Say there were a team created through random draft of members that knew each other well, had a high standard, and were more interested in high performance than allowing learning through mistakes. Not too hard to imagine, I think we had a team like that in game 20. Say also that someone like me, with little experience in SGOTM were assigned by random draft as the last player on that team. Should that team be required to spend twice as much time to explain everything to me (still pretending that I am basically worthless as a player, which is also not that hard to imagine), or are they allowed to play in a way that is fun to them and finish quickly? Of course no one would require a group of good players to 'dumb down' their team and have less fun just so that one of their group (who was assigned to them, and not chosen by them) could follow. Pretending I am also dense, it may take me a while to realize that my input is too elementary to be given serious thought and response, but it would eventually happen. I become a lurker. Not saying that lurkers don't get enjoyment (I sure have), but I am a handicapped lurker, in that I can only lurk one team. I become much less likely to offer to play in the next game, and all the knowledge and experience I gained through my 'exclusive lurking' is lost to SGOTMs, as well as one less body to be used as a turnplayer in the future. I realize this risk isn't 100% likely, but it is enough that it should be thought through and thoroughly examined before an unrestricted random draft is implemented.

Or, at least that is my opinion.

 

[Jastrow]

The problem with mixing teams is simple... This is a long game, and interaction is required. There are some players I will flat out not play with, and I am far from the only one. Many players have clearly stated they will not play with certain other players. (This is not a comment about any individual players, just a clash is gaming/communication style). Drop out rates in these games is already pretty high (because we all have real life commitements, and in 3 to 4 months a lot of things come up.) If you randomize the teams, I estimate you will lose an extra 25% of players at least...

 

[Folket]

I would like as few rules/objectives as possible. Make one very significant rule and see what people make out of that situation.

 

[Fippy]

I think we should use maps (or conditions) that require much teching, maybe even modern stuff.
My interest in maps that require at best Engineering + Astro is really really low after all these years. We all spent so much time in and with early game eras and rushes, while late game stuff can still be entertaining.

Other possibilities of making maps more interesting would be stronger AIs or minor Civs (Rags in kcd's map was a great idea), you could for example give them 2 settlers.
That copies deity starting units, without using the level and making things too difficult.

 

[kcd_swede]

If anybody wants team mixing, they can simply sign up as "unallocated". Players who want to play together can sign up as a team. Its that simple.

Like Folket, I woud prefer a game with only one major rule/restriction.

For example... you may never run the Slavery civic.

 

[zbgayumn]

I'm not so sure about the "one rule" thing. It seems to me that what BSPollux has said about giving the players choices also applies to the restrictions on a game. Having several of them makes the players choose how to prioritize/balance them.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

If anybody wants team mixing, they can simply sign up as "unallocated". Players who want to play together can sign up as a team. Its that simple.

Yeah and Team Unallocated took the Bronze Laurel last time