SGOTM13 - Separated discussion of test maps

[neilmeister]

I don't understand your point, but I don't think you do either. The thing you are complaining about seems to change with every post.

You want no test games, but you want everyone to use the same one.

 

[Mad Professor]

I've just waded through 46 posts in this thread expecting to see some useful information. I was disappointed. Can we please argue about test games somewhere else? It seems to me the answers given by the staff thus far are fairly definitive and very unlikely to change. Therefore it seems pointless to continue the discussion here. An argument about the merits of test games would have some value, but in a different place.

 

[drlake]

I've just waded through 46 posts in this thread expecting to see some useful information. I was disappointed. Can we please argue about test games somewhere else? It seems to me the answers given by the staff thus far are fairly definitive and very unlikely to change. Therefore it seems pointless to continue the discussion here. An argument about the merits of test games would have some value, but in a different place.

Agreed. The entire "test game" discussion is so much spam.

 

[Mad Professor]

Agreed. The entire "test game" discussion is so much spam.

Now it has a thread of its own I guess its no longer spam.

I beg to disagree with STW's implication that test maps are everything. There's a lot of ways of testing and forecasting, and creating a test map is one of them, and can be quite useful for the first 50-80 turns of a game in particular, but it's not everything - there are lots of other forecasting methods that can and very often are used.

I also think it's a bit much to ask staff to produce a test map because they know what the real map looks like - with that knowledge either you produce something that gives too much away or you produce something that deliberately misleads. And a test map for the first 50 turns or so is quite easy for players to produce because you don't have much information to manually alter in the WB. Once you have a lot of known information it becomes really tedious to produce and other ways of predicting outcomes are much better!

 

[Indiansmoke]

I like the idea of playing the game without test maps. I also like the idea of banning the tiles counting thing.

Abit of impulse and level of unknown will enhance the game and make it less mechanical IMO.

 

[unclethrill]

Problem Solved!

You want someone to make a test game for you because you don't know how to use WB very well so here is your opportunity to learn

World Builder Tutorial

 

[kcd_swede]

I don't see the big deal. A test map aids micromanagement decisions, nothing more. Good micromanagement cannot win you a gold medal (but bad micro might lose one if you are competitive).

Far worse is the goto mapping trick. Yuck. Look at the worms in this can I have just opened.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Well I'm agreed on the "it's not wholly essential but a handy tool", from the experience of my 2 SGOTMS, in 11 we had no test map and produced a pretty fine culture win (pity diplo was the stronger choice), and in 12 we had both a good map to t150 (accurate for the land we knew) and a micro sheet which were very handy, but again it was our metagaming which put us out of contention for a medal. We lost by being too late on the oracle, not spreading sushi fast enoungh, and not realising the problem with scrubbing too late.

In neither case would a test map have (and in 12 didn't) put us over the edge of winning well but not quick enough to getting a medal. A better choice of strategy or appreciation of AI quirks would have though.

 

[Indiansmoke]

Far worse is the goto mapping trick. Yuck. Look at the worms in this can I have just opened.

Yea the mapping counting and seeing tricks are ridiculous. The game is meant to be played with fog revealed only be scouting. Both tricks are obvious bugs and I am not sure why they are allowed.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

What exactly is the goto mapping trick? No specifics, just a general gist.

 

[Mitchum]

SGOTM is a competition where the Team with the best test game makers and adequate players win.

Test Game Building, the Most Important Skill in Winning SGOTM

I think these statements are offensive to all teams, not just the winners . What you've done is discount the skill and experience of all players and made the claim that WB skills are more important than Civ skills. That's just crazy talk.

No one has made the claim that test games are not helpful. Obviously, they are useful or else no one would use them. To add to what kcd said, a test game aids with micromanagement decisions. With enough time, a team could come up with perfect MM to implement their strategy. But, what if said strategy is not good? The team will have perfectly implemented a poor strategy, which will Not lead to the gold.

Did a test game tell team OSS to use espionage to the level it did last game? No, it was mainly due to LC's experience and out-of-the-box thinking to suggest a strategy that would work well in that game. Did a test game tell the Ducks to go all out for the Great Lighthouse? No, it was the collective experience of the team that told them that the reward of getting it was worth the risk (which they assessed to be small based on what was happening in their game). Did a test game tell Fifth Element to found Mining Inc? No, it was the teams' experience that told them that Mining Inc. is a winning strategy for Space Colony games. A perfect test game (i.e. the actual World Builder file) would never "lead" you to these strategies. Only skill and experience can do that.

When you get down to it, test games are a tool, just like spread sheets, pen and paper, etc. You don't need to be a World Builder wizard to put together a basic test game of the starting area, which is all you really need to optimize the starting tactical moves (which again are arrived at based on skill and experience).

In the end, the teams with the better strategies will always rise to the top. Test games deal with tactics and MM decisions, they do not define the strategy. Things that are way more important than test games include skill level, experience, team dynamics/team chemistry and risk management (often called luck).

EDIT: Test games do not tell you which techs to research, when and where to settle your cities, how to manage the economy, which civics to run, how and when to use the whip, which infrastructure to build, where to build the National Wonders, which World Wonders to target, when to attack, how big your army should be, how to trade techs, etc, etc, etc. Wouldn't you say that these things have a bigger impact on success than any tool that could be used?

 

[neilmeister]

^^
this !

 

[BLubmuz]

I agree with Mitchum.
A good test game can help a lot, but only in the early stage (say, until you have 2-3 cities).
After that point too many external variables come in play and the test ceases to be effective like it previously was.

That's why i disagreed with Mitch and Dhoomstriker in SG11.

In SG12 we used it until we founded our 3rd city, then it was useless.

For the GLH, we started discussing it, but Roos built it on turn 61 in that game. BTW, i played many attempts after we submitted and this never happened. We were aware that it would have been a great help.

Last game we all afforded new problems and testing how you can (ot cannot) clean fallout in foreign lands was a thing i did without any attention to the real game or to the "official" test we used. Actually it was just a question of (good) memory, 'cause i remembered i was scrubbing fallout in SG 10 (not sure, the one as Stalin) but i couldn't remember all the details.

Personally, i find easier to use a test game than a spreadsheet. Once you accurately reproduce your starting location (say a 10*10 square or so) you don't need more.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A couple of general observations in response to various posts here:

Test maps can mean very different things depending on how customized they are. Examples are:

1. You set up a game that has the same difficulty and map script etc. as the (S)GOTM, just to get a feel for what playing Civ is like with those parameters.
2. You do (1) AND you edit the starting area so it looks the same as in the advertised starting screenshot.
3. You do (2) AND as you explore the map, you edit your test game and perhaps replay so you're testing on as near as you can get to the same map as the real game.

Sun Tzu Wu's request for coordinates (although he later said he didn't actually want the info) appears to imply he was planning to do (3).

The question then is, how far is this within the spirit of the (S)GOTMs? Different people will have different opinions. Personally both (1) and (2) strike me as quite acceptable for getting a feel for the game and starting area, but on a game that is very clearly a completely different game.

As an example of the other extreme, suppose in a GOTM we'd decided to reveal the entire map upfront, including locations of resources. Now, someone who had enough patience with worldbuilder could do:

4. Build a test game that happens to have exactly the same map in every detail as the real game.

I think everyone would agree that is completely unacceptable, since playing this test game then playing the GOTM would be no different from playing the real GOTM twice through.

So where do you draw the line? Personally, I'm inclined to draw it at (2) (provided the revealed starting area is small), because that seems to me to mark a clear boundary: You are using no more information than is available before playing the game. I stress that's my personal opinion, not a GOTM staff opinion. (3) makes me uncomfortable, since it seems to me potentially too close to pre-playing the actual game, so personally I'd prefer people not to do that, but obviously there's no rule against it (partly because we'd have no way of enforcing such a rule, partly because I'm not sure there is a consensus on whether that's OK or not).

Would a useful way forward for this discussion (which btw I do think is worthwhile, so I'm happy that Sun Tzu Wu's request brought it up) is to try to figure out if there is a consensus on how much information from the real game it's OK to feed into a test map before the test map becomes 'unacceptable'?

 

[adrianj]

Would a useful way forward for this discussion (which btw I do think is worthwhile, so I'm happy that Sun Tzu Wu's request brought it up) is to try to figure out if there is a consensus on how much information from the real game it's OK to feed into a test map before the test map becomes 'unacceptable'?

I see no point in limiting what one can do with a test game.

As Mitchum pointed out:

With enough time, a team could come up with perfect MM to implement their strategy. But, what if said strategy is not good? The team will have perfectly implemented a poor strategy, which will Not lead to the gold.

 

[LowtherCastle]

deleted....

 

[babybluepants]

As an example of the other extreme, suppose in a GOTM we'd decided to reveal the entire map upfront, including locations of resources. Now, someone who had enough patience with worldbuilder could do:

4. Build a test game that happens to have exactly the same map in every detail as the real game.

I think everyone would agree that is completely unacceptable, since playing their test game then playing the GOTM is no different from playing the real GOTM twice through.

That's a very poor hypothetical argument, IMO. Obviously, the thing that's wrong with it is not the test play itself, but the fact that you're playing the same map repeatedly with perfect prior knowledge. In SGOTM practice, what we do is update test games as knowledge of the map is revealed in game. There is no prior knowledge being used as a basis for play decisions at any point. In fact, the practice of test mapping is the opposite of your example, in that it gives rapidly diminishing returns the further it is advanced. To take it to the extreme, it would be both insane and utterly pointless to model a perfect test game up to the turn before you launch a spaceship. The primary use is for optimizing the early game tactics. As many people have already pointed out: this is no different from using your brain, pen&paper or Excel. It's just much more fun, and (most often) quicker and easier, to do with a test map.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Moderator Action: deleted . The "test game" I referred to in SG6 that you linked Moderator Action: deleted was a test I ran to understand unhappiness mechanics. The "test game" had nothing to do with any specific map or other characteristics of the SG6 layout other than game speed. To suggest that's even remotely similar to what you're talking about in the first post of this thread is beyond farcical.

Moderator Action: deleted

Again, you disappoint me, LowtherCastle.

You claimed that Murky Waters won SGOTM-6 with "no test games". Moderator Action: Deleted: Alan settled this above, there is no need to continue it! Enough attacking other players. Need I say more?

The nature of the test game and its alleged use or non-use in the winning game is irrelevant, since as part of the Murky Waters SGOTM-6 Team thread it has become an integral part of that SGOTM Gold Medal winning effort.

Bottom line is simple: the test maps you're talking about are helpful, but the best players will with without them because their strategy and ability to implement it is the key. In SG12, there were two such teams. Both used test games for testing and optimizing purposes. The test games for all intents and purposes had no bearing on separating those two teams from the rest. Period.

No Team has won a SGOTM without using a test map, Moderator Action: Deleted parts . At least there have been no other such claims from other Gold/Silver/Bronze winners and I asked several times before this thread was split off from the "SGOTM-13 Pre-game discussions" thread, which at least some members of these previous SGOTM winners are subscribed to.

No Team has planned a SGOTM both with test games and with out test games (perfectly isolating both attempts), so no one really knows how immense or tiny a factor test games can be.

First win an SG, then teach or preach to us about it.

Moderator Action: Warning: I've deleted your more inflammatory comments, without removing the points you are making. Do not use personal attacks when arguing your points.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I'm simply stating facts or expressing my opinion on things that I may not know the true nature of. I wasn't aware that winning a Session Game (SG) was required to do these things.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[LowtherCastle]

sun tzu wu, you are using sophistry. I'm not going to play that game with you. I fin d it beneath my dignity.

When I used the term "test game" in SG6 I meant one thing. When I used it in this thread, I meant another. You know that. I know that. Everyone here knows that. I'll clarify that for anyone who feels they need such clarity.

test game
Definition 1 (a la SG6): When someone opens up a random CIV game and tests how some CIV mechanics operate.

Definition 2 (a la this thread): When someone creates a map that is identical to the known part of the SG being played, with the intention of testing actual micromanagement variants.

A "test game" as per Def 1 is no different than going into the War Academy and reading the Combat Explained article to find out the mechanics of combat. It tells you nothing specific to the SG you're playing WHATSOEVER. It just tells you something about the mechanics of CIV. Period.

A "test game" as per Def 2 gives you exact information about MM variants in the SGH you're playing. It tells you exactly when you'll finish researching Fishing if you work the fish tile, for example. The test game in Def 1 gives you no such information whatsoever. Period.

Do these two definitions also disappoint you stw, because they surely do not support your thesis that "SGOTM is a competition where the Team with the best test game makers and adequate players win."

 

[LowtherCastle]

I was disappointed and confused by this post written by LowtherCastle in Murky Waters SGOTM6 thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6349380&postcount=803

The post details the results of what appears to be a test game for making a decision in the real SGOTM6 winning game by Murky Waters. Now it does appear that the test game use was brief and limited to some short of micromanagement. Moderator Action: Deleted
Sun Tzu Wu

Btw, stw, I find your writing style and techniques in this thread to be facetious and inflammatory. When you say "I was disappointed and confused by this post written by LowtherCastle in Murky Waters SGOTM6 thread" and then follow it up with "I can only assume that LowtherCastle forgot about this particular test game when he made his claim of "no test games," you're basically saying I'm a liar and you know it.

I resent that.