The future of the GOTM (conquests support)

[Hergrom]

I must confess that I am a bit mystified as to why the GOTM is being pushed back to a mid month release. It really would have made more sense to release the COTM (you're right, a really bad name!) mid month, but It does not really bother me.

I also am wondering why these changes were not posted before the fact. A little notice would have been nice. Currently I am really bummed that I have to wait another 2 weeks to play.

I am NOT surprised that this change is happening, however. It was inevitable that there would be a move to C3C. I am very happy that PTW and vanilla will still be supported via the standard GOTM, but I fear, as others, that the number of players will severely diminish. Of course, that means better odds for medals...

Now for the questions:

1. With the double workload of the GOTM and COTM, will QSC be continued? Will there be QSC for for both?

2. What about the Medal Play Series? This is kind of a sore spot for me. The old Tournament was absorbed (by force) into the GOTM. The downfall of the Tournament was always lack of result posting. And again, we have not gotten any results from seasons 5 and 6. (I realize the current administration is not to blame for this). Will the Medal Play Series be continued in the future? Will we get results for seasons 5 and 6?

As always, many thanks to the staff for their hard work!

Hergrom

Edit: Oh yeah, I would suggest using GOTM for the standard GOTM, and CGOTM for the Conquests version.

 

[mabellino]

Yeeey! 2 games to play! I'm actually quite pleased that you have decided to support c3c as playing the GOTMs has improved my vanilla/ptw tactics so much that I have moved up from Warlord to Monarch on my SP games. SGOTM2 is currently teaching me to be a warmonger and the CGOTM should help with all those new twiddly bits such as new civ traits and resources. No offence to those who post in the c3c forum but the advice I get here is much easier to understand and implement since we're all playing the same map.
<- summarise my feelings quite well!

 

[AlanH]

One of the games had to move to reduce confusion. We chose to move the classc game. Sorry if that's upsetting for you, but anything we did was always going to upset some people. Change is never easy

We have already committed to resuscitate the QSC, and that's still our objective.

The season 5 and 6 results are close to release, but have been pushed back by the other things we have been working on. That's my fault and I apologise. When the current flurry of work is over I shall get them out.

 

[Detlef Richter]

I say great work was made by staff team.

I can now play 2 games per month with the possibillity to publish for others and to look into others publications. And by the way SGOTM and Training Games are also played. This could all be done in one month.

GOTM, SGOTM and new CGOTM are the correct names.

 

[bigchief]

Before I start, I would like to say that:

1) I own C3C. I play most of my own epic games in C3C, and I am glad that C3C can now be used to play a competition game at CivFanatics.

2) I appreciate this site, and the work of the staff. It is truly a gift to have such a place to come to. That there are people here who graciously give of their own free time, so the rest of us can have these games to play, is more than most of us could ask for, or even deserve.

With those things being said, I think this whole switch over was handled very poorly. We were deceived. No one ever said that the Pre-game Discussion was for GOTMs as they had been in the past, but it is quite obvious that everyone who posted, assumed this to be true. It is very rarely wise to assume things, but that is human nature, and if things have been happening one way, for as long as they have concerning the GOTM, it should have been understood that people would make these assumptions. There are people who look forward to the upcoming GOTM as soon as the previous one has been submitted, and there are many people who schedule their time around the GOTM, and especially the release date of the GOTM. Some have already stated that they stayed up late for the release, only to find that they couldn’t play. Others who have allotted time to play early in the month, have found out they will not be able to play until later. Still others have put off joining new SGs or starting a new epic game because of the expected release date, and have come here today only to be disappointed.

I must agree with the others who have said that the tried and true version of the GOTM should have kept it’s original slot, and the new game added at another time, if both could not be done at the same time, but at the very least, we should have been told of the change in advance, so that we could be ready for the game.

I can only think of 3 reasons for not telling us about this in advance:

1) The staff wasn’t sure the C3C game would be ready for the first of the month. If this was the case, then why not put out the regular GOTM at it’s regular time, and do the C3C game when it was ready?

2) The staff wanted to get a reaction out of the players. Maybe it was believed that the reaction would be totally positive. If that was the case, then the staff is totally out of touch with the everyday gamer. Maybe it was wanting to shock some people, and done as sort of an inside joke. I don’t really want to believe it was the latter, and I hope it was not.

3) The staff didn’t want to be inconvenienced by having to answer a bunch of questions, when they are trying to get a game ready for release. If this was the case, it was bad judgement or selfish thinking to not want to be inconvenienced, but being perfectly willing to inconvenience many others.

I can’t understand the reasoning behind the secrecy. This is the way we are treated by the game companies, but should not be the way we are treated by our fellow gamers, peers, and friends. The game companies do have some reason for secrecy. They have competitors to worry about, and they don’t want to promise something they can’t deliver, though I believe much of it is just a game they play with the fans.

I don’t see how telling us in advance could have, in any way, spoiled the game. It would have simply let us get prepared, or unprepared, as the case may be.

Once again, my problem is not with the change, but rather the way the change was handled. The staff doesn’t “owe” us any explanation, but I, for one, would like to know why it was so important to keep this secret from us. The speculation thread was opened on 26th. Would someone who knows please explain why we were not told at that time that it would be for a C3C game, and not the game we expected?

Thanks,
Big Chief

 

[stormbind]

I suggest you raise it with your M.P., he won't know what you are talking about, but he will look suitably appalled if he wants your vote.

Well, fair enough, but C3C have C3 aswell don't they?

 

[stormbind]

I second bigchief's statements.

 

[Singularity]

I'm kind of dumbfounded that they didn't reverse the order. C3C in two weeks, and GOTM32 at its regular pace. I think most logical arguments would put the current solution at an disadvantage. But it might just be that a staffmember can explain to me why you released C3C now?

I mean, people where sitting up/waiting for GOTM32, and you drop this in their lap regardless if they have C3C or not. Not very smooth I think

 

[SirPleb]

I agree with Big Chief - it would have been better to inform people in advance of the move to Conquests. Advance notice would have allowed people who don't have Conquests to prepare, either by purchasing and installing it or by knowing what their new schedule would be for GOTM. Springing this as a surprise doesn't have any advantage that I can see and I think has resulted in more unhappiness with the change than was necessary.

Having said that, I do applaud the rest of this move!

The move to Conquests was inevitable. Many players don't want to play an older version of the game. There isn't a reasonable way to run a single GOTM for all versions of the game - the differences in Conquests are too large. Making the "main" cycle Conquests and relegating Civ3 and PTW to the "off cycle" on the 15th makes sense to me. Inevitably Conquests will become the larger group. If one day it becomes necessary to have just one group it seems clear which one that would be. Running the two groups at this time is a lot more work for the staff and they deserve a big thanks for doing this

I intend to play both games in any month when I have time. It will be fun to try for each victory condition in Conquests, and it will be fun to continue to play PTW. (I consider PTW to be a better tuned and more replayable version of Civ than Conquests at the moment. To my mind Conquests badly needs another patch to address a lot of issues before it becomes as replayable as PTW.)

Regarding the name (COTM), how about:
GOTM - means anything to do with all GOTMs, e.g. the forum
GOTMO - the Original (or Old ) game, run on the mid-month cycle, GOTMO32 this month
GOTMC - the Conquests games, GOTMC01 this month
GOTMS - the Succession games

For people who haven't played Conquests yet I'll post a note later today on the Conquest 01: Saves are now available! describing differences and how they affect the game.

 

[DJMGator13]

I like the idea of 3 GOTM (including the SGOTM).

As for a new name how about "Conquest Challenge" or "Conquest Monthly Challenge".

Personally, I like "Gator Challenge" but since I have nothing to do with generating or scoring the game I thought that might be too presumptuous.

 

[civ_steve]

I agree with Big Chief - it would have been better to inform people in advance of the move to Conquests. ...

Having said that, I do applaud the rest of this move!

The move to Conquests was inevitable. ...

For people who haven't played Conquests yet I'll post a note later today on the Conquest 01: Saves are now available! describing differences and how they affect the game.

I have to agree that the secrecy was unwarranted, and didn't support the community. In fact, how many people may have visited this site within the last month, seen that CSC wasn't supported, and moved on? That having been said, I've patched my never-before-played CSC Christmas gift to 1.22 this morning and have already reached 1000 BC, so I'm up and going!

COTM has to go! CGOTM meshes well with SGOTM (my 2 cents worth.)

SirPleb, I look forward to your note!! I've already encountered a few surprises, and I'm sure many participants (myself included) would really value any contribution you make in this area!!

 

[samildanach]

I agree with Big Chief - it would have been better to inform people in advance of the move to Conquests. Advance notice would have allowed people who don't have Conquests to prepare, either by purchasing and installing it or by knowing what their new schedule would be for GOTM. Springing this as a surprise doesn't have any advantage that I can see and I think has resulted in more unhappiness with the change than was necessary.

I can see an advantage. We have a large number of lurkers who do not contribute a great deal to the community other than competing. They turn up on the first of the month, download it, play it and submit it. They make up the numbers but other than that do not give anything back. Would the staff keep on doing what they are doing if nobody posted in the spoilers or contributed to the discussions? I would like to think there was a strategy involved in the way the new release dates were landed on us, I think there was and the aim was to shake the lurker tree. Even if it was at the expence of pissing off some of the regulars.
I recall Ainwood saying on a number of occassions that what he gets out of running the GOTM is to read interesting accounts in the spoilers. If I were Ainwood and the one doing all the work, I would possibly make what I wanted from the players clear in a polite manner ( which he did ) then more forcefully if necessary - I think thats whats happened IMO.
If this is whats happened - I think its quite clever. People need to be shaken out of their apathy once in a while. And besides controversy breeds interest.

 

[ainwood]

Once again, my problem is not with the change, but rather the way the change was handled. The staff doesn’t “owe” us any explanation, but I, for one, would like to know why it was so important to keep this secret from us. The speculation thread was opened on 26th. Would someone who knows please explain why we were not told at that time that it would be for a C3C game, and not the game we expected?

Thanks,
Big Chief

In terms of allowing people to prepare, we made no secret that conquests would be supported eventually, so this transition was inevitable.

Whilst people were deceived on the speculation thread, this was not done with malice! I guess I may have misjudged the way people would react - I am a person who like surprises, so I thought that this sort of transition would stir things up a bit, create a bit of interest and hopefuly get a bit of a (positive) reaction and some new people playing the (Conquest) GOTM.

However, I apologise to those upset by the way this change was sprung on them.

 

[stormbind]

How about stuffing this for a lark, and making our own GOTM? This is the Whitsuntide (holiday) I many have nothing to do...

 

[tigerpoo]

I'd be up for doing one of our own for two weeks.

A suggestion: Maybe, as repayment for all whose dreams were dashed, like poor little kids who ran downstairs to the tree at Christmas only to find nothing under it... ...we could get to see what Civ we're playing as in the real GOTM 32 a bit earlier this time around? Like right now? Just a suggestion.

 

[stormbind]

Who wants to make a map? I noticed the original CivEdit.exe (Vanilla) things have been changed by the GOTM modifications which makes map making exceedingly hard, but I dare say someone is familiar with this already and can work with it.

Anyone suitable wish to step forward?

 

[denyd]

stormbind, et al: What you might want to try is a quick game using the April's Fool's Map Ainwood provided. Have a contest to see who can be the first off the island and who can be the first to build the Forbidden Palace, use the Quick Games Forum for this and you'll probably get 20-30 entries.

Another possibility is to use the QSC files from one of the Guru level players from a prior GOTM, just to see how it feels to have a superior setup going into the Middle Ages.

Little scenarios like the ones above or Crackers "Last Samurai" are the kind of things that fit the available time.

 

[gozpel]

This is surely the COTM (Con of the Month).

I'm one of the "rabble" that was totally unprepared for this and without 1.22 I can't play. I can attempt to download it on this outback server and maybe be prepared for next months game.

After all, no big deal. I can wait another 2 weeks for the PTW version.

 

[ainwood]

Guys,

We appreciate your enthusiasm, but unfortunately we don't think that we can support an 'unnofficial' GOTM event for the next two weeks. Our workload has basically just doubled, so we don't really have the time.

 

[zagnut]

For people who haven't played Conquests yet I'll post a note later today on the Conquest 01: Saves are now available! describing differences and how they affect the game.

Thanks, SirPleb. That will certainly be a great help to many of us.

Chieftess also published a thread on the differences but it is a bit out of date and I don't think she amended it for the patches. However, anyone who wants to look at it can find it here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=71831