The future of the GOTM (conquests support)

denyd said:
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.

Something like that sounds fun to me, provided there's a little more to that map than the island. Would the staff even have to "support" anything? We could just trust ourselves to report honest dates and such...
 
Just a couple quick questions:

1) I've heard the standard GotM called a "version" of the CotM. Aren't they going to be totally different? I thought the idea was that people could play both, and if the GotM has the same map as the CotM...well that just wouldn't work. I'm really just asking for confirmation that they are two different games and that people can play both.

2) Okay, I don't even have Conquest yet, but when PTW is installed you get a second Civ3 icon. One plays standard Civ3, and the other starts up PTW. Does Conquest work the same way? I've heard a lot of people talk about multiple installs, and I'm not sure if that's really needed or not.
 
I can answer your first question - they will be different maps and different games. Players may well wish to play both games each month if they have access to C3C and the older software, and they will provide different experiences.

We will combine the scores from both series of games into the global rankings in a way yet to be finalised
 
For question 2:
To install Conquests requiers that you own (vanilla) civ3. When you install it, it also installs Play The World.

Our new Conquests game requires that you install patch version 1.22f for conquests. Some people are still using patch version 1.15f, because they are playing succession games etc. These people may want to do a 'dual install'.

If you are going to get conquests to play in this competition, simply buy it, install it, and install patch 1.22f. You won't need any dual installs at all. :)
 
denyd said:
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.
cracker had that Halloween special for the Mongols game. It was great fun and quick to boot ;) better than that tundra in the middle of the ocean game :p there's even a spoiler thread you can share :)

here's the link -> http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=67238
 
I'm still wondering how the scoring is going to work. You mentioned combining the scoring of both games; does this mean we'll get penalised because we can't afford to buy another game, or choose to spend our money on something else(gas comes to mind)? The scoring should be kept seperate as with all of the Conquests changes they're almost two completely different games, and I don't think there's a fair way to compare the two.
 
We shall use the Jason scheme to score both types of games as before. Jason can be adapted to Conquests, and we/ve already worked that bit out. As soon as the submissions page opens you'll be able to upload your COTM01 file and get a Jason score back as you did last month. Jason seeks to eliminate score differences resulting from such things as map size, difficulty level and victory condition. It should also even out the differences between Conquests and classic, but we'll have to see if that's really true.

Global rankings are based on a normalisation process, where the highest score and fastest finish for each game define the 100% level, and all other game results are adjusted to lie between 0% and 100%. So it's perfectly possible to mix and compare the two sets of game results in the global ranking table even if the Jason system doesn't do a perfect job. The trick that we still have to work out is how to ensure that people who can't play both games (like me :hmm: ) get fair treatment in the rankings.

Yes, I'm on your side, and at the moment, I run the score board :D
 
Well, go ahead and do combined rankings, I"m fine with that. But you should also keep a completely seperate copy of the rankings for just Vanilla/PTW players. Dunno how hard that would be...doesn't seem like it'd be that much.
 
This is a cool thing, I mean switch to C3C 1.22f.

Regarding of how it would work, more time is needed. Also, IMHO, there are various aspects of the game balance different in C3C from PTW/vanilla. In C3C, some maps are just not playable completely. And Jason scoring dates and coefficients may be should be recalculated. We'll see how it would work.
 
Oh, also another question: We will still have from the 15th of the month through the 14th of the next month to complete the nGOTM, right?
 
ainwood said:
Correct. The time period is still the same, its just put back two-weeks in every month. :)
But why was Civ3/PTW put back 2 weeks, and not C3C?
 
stormbind said:
Well it is. I cannot make new maps anymore (all the resources are messed up), I cannot play random games anymore (all the resources are messed up)



Stormbind,

I had the exact same problem before. It is actually easy to resolve. Somewhere there is a thread with the info, but I don't know how to find it.

1. Go to the CivIII/Art folder and find the folder in it called "resources storage".
2. In it find the folder called "gotm21_before"
3. That folder contains 2 files: resources.pcx, and resources_shadows.pcx
4. Copy both files and paste back in the CivIII/Art folder. They will write over the current files.
5. Play your original version of Civ with random maps and such. I have had no problems with this.
6. When you want to play GOTM, copy the files from the "gotm 24" folder into the CivIII/Art folder to write over the original files. You can do this as often as you like, and it will take you less than 1 minute.

Best of luck!


P.S. I agree with the earlier comments that the original GOTM schedule should have been kept, and the C3C GOTM added mid month. It was very disappointing not to have the new GOTM, and the C3C people wouldn't have minded since they didn't expect it anyway. Hindsight's 20/20, so it's probably clear now that this approach would have been both simpler, and created very little frustration on anyone's part.
 
akots said:
This is a cool thing, I mean switch to C3C 1.22f.
It's not a switch. It's an addition.

Regarding of how it would work, more time is needed. Also, IMHO, there are various aspects of the game balance different in C3C from PTW/vanilla. In C3C, some maps are just not playable completely. And Jason scoring dates and coefficients may be should be recalculated. We'll see how it would work.
We won't be playing the same maps. Two separate games. You can play them both if you want and if you have both software setups. Different maps, different civs, different Jason factors.
 
stormbind said:
But why was Civ3/PTW put back 2 weeks, and not C3C?
Because we fully expect that we will have more C3C players than classic players. It makes sense that the main GOTM begins on the first of the month, and it is likely that in a few months the C3C game will have more participants. It is easier to change now than later. :)
 
:confused: I can't understand those persons who dissapointed with the staff decision. It looks like that some of them do nothing else instead of playing GOTM games. Come on guys go out to nature, train some sports, meet friends or go to work, you have two weeks time for it. All others have fun with CGOTM and GOTM.

Nice job ainwood and staff team. :goodjob:
 
Detlef Richter said:
:confused: I can't understand those persons who dissapointed with the staff decision. It looks like that some of them do nothing else instead of playing GOTM games. Come on guys go out to nature, train some sports, meet friends or go to work, you have two weeks time for it. All others have fun with CGOTM and GOTM.
Other way around. I have this week available. That's all.
 
Back
Top Bottom