Welcome to the Civ4 SGOTM Forum

[leif erikson]

I have been thinking of running the game in 2 difficulties.. and the teams get to pick which version they play..
For this game it would be one noble and one emperor version.
The alternative would be that everyone plays monarch (or perhaps prince).

What does you potential players think about this? Would need to decide on this before the signups starts

I agree with Furiey that in Succession Games a higher difficulty level can be played successfully by a team than going solo.

However, if the difficulty will scare some folks off who haven't played, a two tier game for the first few games may be a good idea. I think this would also depend upon how many experienced folks want to play and if they can be spread around.

For max participation, two difficulty levels may be the way to go. The games will not be comparable, but you've run, essentially, 2 competitions in one with C3C and Vanilla and PTW.

 

[Dolphan]

What about those of us who are weaker Civ players than the average GOTM player? Is there a mechanism to put weaker players together (which I'm guessng would result in a weak performance) or to balance them with stronger players? I mean, I finished in something like the bottom 20 or 30 of GOTM3 and expect a similar placing in 4 and 5 - i can imagine it would be pretty frustrating for an experienced player to take over after I've messed things up for 20 turns.

 

[leif erikson]

What about those of us who are weaker Civ players than the average GOTM player? Is there a mechanism to put weaker players together (which I'm guessng would result in a weak performance) or to balance them with stronger players? I mean, I finished in something like the bottom 20 or 30 of GOTM3 and expect a similar placing in 4 and 5 - i can imagine it would be pretty frustrating for an experienced player to take over after I've messed things up for 20 turns.

The first player usually plays 20 turns and then each player, in succession, plays 10 turns. Before you play, the team generally discusses the next 10 turns. After that discussion, I think each player has a pretty good idea what to accomplish and what to watch for. If, during your turns, you run into something that trips you up, you can stop, save, and ask the team what they think and they will help you to proceed. So, you are never alone and I have found that it is difficult to mess things up too bad, although I have tried at times!


While I am hardly an upper half player, only when lucky, the teammates I have played with have always been pretty tolerant and always are helpful.

 

[Niklas]

I think the poll is kind of silly. Like Furiey said, a team game can be so much better played than a solo game, so a high-level game could be really fun in SGOTM. But if the deal was to play Warlord, I'd be just as happy to play that, since the real fun is to out-perform the other teams . Thus I clicked all the alternatives.

 

[juballs2001]

i voted for prince... seems just over the average... and it would be a challenge to some, and produce some great games and compitition

 

[Abegweit]

I agree with Leif and Furiey. A Noble game would be absurdly easy. Furthermore, no one seems to be particularly interested in either Noble or Emperor. I suggest a single game at Monarch.

@juballs. Prince would be ok too.

 

[AlanH]

I think the poll is kind of silly.

Thanks! Have you read the varied responses to recent game difficulty levels in the solo GOTM competition? We have people who refuse to take part in anything above Noble because they don't feel capable of handling it. We have others who refuse to get out of bed for anything less than Monarch because it will be too boring for them. We are attempting to make this an *inclusive* competition. Why is it "silly" to ask players what they are prepared to sign up for before, and to encourage debate of this kind, before we decide on one or more game difficulty levels?

Like Furiey said, a team game can be so much better played than a solo game, so a high-level game could be really fun in SGOTM.

Sure. And that should be taken into account by people responding to the question. A SG is a real opportunity to learn how to survive and prosper at higher levels than one is comfortable with at solo level.

But if the deal was to play Warlord, I'd be just as happy to play that, since the real fun is to out-perform the other teams . Thus I clicked all the alternatives.

You may feel that, but check out some of the other player reactions to the recent Warlord game.

 

[Niklas]

Thanks! Have you read the varied responses to recent game difficulty levels in the solo GOTM competition? We have people who refuse to take part in anything above Noble because they don't feel capable of handling it. We have others who refuse to get out of bed for anything less than Monarch because it will be too boring for them. We are attempting to make this an *inclusive* competition. Why is it "silly" to ask players what they are prepared to sign up for before, and to encourage debate of this kind, before we decide on one or more game difficulty levels?

Whoa, sorry, didn't mean to offend in any way. :whiteflag: (did I perhaps touch a nerve? )

I should rephrase myself - I've read (and balked at) the threads you mention and I realise that this is a real problem. But I truly, honestly think that people with those kinds of issues are silly. So I shouldn't have said that the poll itself was silly, rather that it reflects a silly situation created by silly people. That's my opinion anyway, feel free to differ.

But also, those threads deal with solo games - in a succession game things are vastly different! People not comfortable with playing solo at a higher difficulty level should (yes, should, again IMO ) be thrilled at a chance to play a more difficult game together with more skilled players, for the best learning experience they could imagine. I've been there myself, and I've seen it happen to others. And those scorning the lower levels should recall that when it comes to a SGOTM, things are seldom what they seem and the real difficulty doesn't lie in the in-game difficulty level. And that's what makes those games extra fun.

In any case, it was never my intention to disagree with the way you guys are running the show. I think you are doing a tremendous job, I'm sure you have thought of all these ins and outs already, and if you feel that a poll like this is in order then you're probably right. I'm just frustrated that people can't see the bigger picture, which is what leads to this situation in the first place (and from your strong reaction, do I dare suggest that maybe you guys are too...? )

Btw, I should also note that me clicking all alternatives was not due to the presumed "sillyness" of the poll, but rather an honest answer to the question what level I would participate at.

Peace, and keep up the good work.

 

[AlanH]

did I perhaps touch a nerve?

No, not an exposed nerve. I freely admit to doing silly things from time to time, sometimes deliberately, often accidentally, but I didn't feel this one justified the description.

There's a whole learning curve for lots of players to climb before they reach your understanding of the opportunities. Until they do, simple things like the "difficulty" level of the game can be a turn-off. I don't want to put off the *hundreds* of new players we have attracted here if I can avoid it.

 

[Niklas]

After thinking some more on this, and since you wanted to encourage a debate on these issues, I have a few comments and suggestions. This time I expect people to disagree with me, which I didn't before.

First of all, this time I would actually want to question the poll itself, despite my earlier claims of not wanting to. If read correctly, and more specifically if people answered the given question correctly, it would surely give you some useful information. Unfortunately I doubt that's the case, I bet a lot of the voters (dare I say most?) are answering a completely different question - "What difficulty level(s) would you like to play the game at?". I base this claim both on the responses in this thread, and the look of the graph above - it's way to sharp! When the time comes to say yes or no, I would be surprised if (m)any of the players already flocking to this forum would actually turn down the game regardless of difficulty level.
I'm not saying this makes the poll less useful to you (well, maybe some), just that you should take care how you interpret the results. But I guess you had that one figured out already.

Second, I realise that the question of what difficulty level I would *like* to play at is highly dependent on the game. It would have been really silly to play the SGOTM7 AWD game at Monarch level, and the current SGOTM9 Indian Space Race would have been a very different (IMO less enjoyable) game if played at Deity. So, *my* actual answer to any such question would be - "whatever level you guys think is best". In other words, I don't think this is a question for the players, since you staff guys are both much wiser, and more knowledgable about the game at hand.

Third, do you really have to use the difficulty level as a sales argument? I know I may be far out here , but couldn't you simply omit the difficulty level from the sign-up thread? And replace it with some "Words of Wisdom" (tm) about how little effect the difficulty level really has and how the players should trust you to pick a suitable level? And then don't reveal what it actually is until the game starts?
Nah, I guess that wouldn't work, people just don't take kindly to being told how to think .

But perhaps a more concrete suggestion, if you decide to run at a lower level, you might stress that this is "No Ordinary Game" (tm) to keep the higher-level players interested. Though I think that would be solved automatically when they/we get to read what kind of twisted plot you've come up with this time...

Feel free to disagree with me, the discussion might even lead to something.

 

[Dolphan]

Hmmm - those results are looking pretty close to a normal distribution.

 

[mushroomshirt]

Count me in as one of those who are up for anything. Myself, I voted for Emperor difficulty since I have trouble at that level and hope that the SGOTM will help improve my game. Still, I'd like to give it a go regardless of the difficulty level. Thanks to the staff for running SGOTM (and GOTM!) - it really makes civIV a heckuva lot more enjoyable for me.

 

[AlanH]

Hmmm - those results are looking pretty close to a normal distribution.

That may end up as the conclusion, in which case our original guess at Monarch wasn't far off. However, we have had over 80 players in a Civ3 SGOTM, and the total responses for this poll are still only half of that level. I wonder if we have not yet heard from the bulk of the potential audience, and if those might skew the distribution ... or not .

 

[Abegweit]

@AlanH + Dolphin

The result may look normal but I submit that it is not, at least not in terms of ability. A normal curve around Civ4 players would probably be centered on Warlord. On this forum you don't see the entire bottom side of the curve. Most of the players here are better than average. Therefore they represent the right side of the curve. The left simply is not there.

I think that the reason why so many chose Monarch and Prince is because people were allowed multiple choice. Take me. I'm a Prince-to-Monarch level player. As such, I'd really like to play in an Emperor game in order to learn something. OTOH, I would also be willing to play the levels I'm comfortable with. So I checked all three. A Noble player might well check Prince and Monarch as well using similar reasoning. A diety player might tolerate monarch in order to teach us lesser mortals and a warlord player might be ready to try Prince.

If you had asked for a single preferred level, the distribution would probably have been truly normal. The left side would likely be clipped off because of the assymetrical distribution of CF abilities. I agree with the staff that Monarch is probably the right level.

OTOH, if this game is to be another Gyathaar Special (TM). none of us have any business chosing the level except him.

 

[I. Larkin]

Looks very seductive. I'd like be in if manage to run civ 4. Tell me please about version everybody play now, AFAIK it was 2 or 3 "upgrades" to cancel exploites... BTW, Communism looks very powerful in civ 4, what about it?
I prefer harder level, but may play monarch and above.

 

[Gyathaar]

OTOH, if this game is to be another Gyathaar Special (TM). none of us have any business chosing the level except him.

Well.. I could always just make the game warlord difficulty.. but make it play as hard as emperor

 

[Abegweit]

Hmmm.... Reminds me of a Warlord CIV III game I started quite recently. Only one difference: normally when I play emperor, I am ahead when I enter the IA. In that one I was still behind.

 

[dojoboy]

I think I'd be interested in this. Didn't ever give the Civ3 SGOTM a try, but...why nt Civ4, eh. I voted emperor, which is where I felt extremely challenged in Civ3. Not familiar enough w/ Civ4 yet, but I'm sure someone out there can carry me.

 

[McLMan]

I've learned a lot about Civ III from lurking the SGOTM's. I wouldn't mind a more hands-on approach to learning Civ IV.

 

[Woobi]

Would love to give this a try. I'm really trying to improve my game, need to learn how to/when to war for the better of my civ. I'm too much of a builder.

Voted Monarch, as that's the level I win 1/2 the time on now...