Well I'm DYING to know .... is BTS GOTM starting next week ??

[Munro]

Would parallel games on different difficulty levels be any different? ... OTOH an early worker steal can be very effective on high difficulty levels and I may start planning for that, but on the lower levels the AI doesn't start with workers so you can't do that.

Yes, good point. You're right, I guess there is no real advantage in terms of comparability after all.

Is there a risk that such a system would harm the objective of helping people to become better civ players? Imagine if you're comfortable on prince/monarch but you're nervous to try emperor. With the current system you will likely end up playing an emperor game before too long (and will probably learn a lot in the process). But if the option to play at monarch or below is always there, then you might always go for that option and hence never learn to cope on higher levels.

Yes, possibly... Nothing to stop us skipping the 2nd division occasionally so that everyone plays in the 1st division some months when there's an Emperor (or Immortal?) game in the 1st division. (But cruicially, we wouldn't be forcing everyone to play the same difficultly on the 'easier' months - where no equivalent argument applies).

Additionally, if the availability of more difficult games helps to keep the top tier of players interested, challenged and participating, (as well as providing more of a challenge for folks that have mastered Monarch) that should bring benefits of its own because there will be more expert players involved to learn from.

My POV exactly. I'm curious, how many actually play adventurer save? The answer to that might be a gauge of how likely anyone is to play the "junior league."
...
I also would never consider playing anything but contender in the "normal" league -- the whole point of xOTM is to me is comparable play.

Mark - I'm not sure I've understood you exactly, but are you saying that maybe no-one would play in the lower division, because they'd always want to play the same start as the best players? (and personally, I'm with you on that).

From reading some of the posts in this thread (and looking at the response to the poll) it does seem there are plenty of new players who want to have some consistently more accessible games, and would welcome such a 'junior' league. While at the same time, a 'challenger' division is desirable to provide ongoing challenge for the most experienced players.

I don't think Noble-level players really benefit from forcing elite players to play at Noble, because ultimately many will chose not to. And similarly, forcing newer players to play at Immortal when they haven't yet mastered Prince seems equally unwise (again for the same reason)..

I'm not so sure that there would be an incentive to move from the low tier to the high tier for most players, some would probably move up because the higher tier is more prestigious, and I assume the Heptathlon(now that BtS is in) would require you get it in the upper tier. How would you go about keeping the player base interested in improving their games once they begin to outclass the lower tier games?

By providing them the opportunity to play in an Emperor / Immortal / Deity game each month! The challenge is its own incentive. It's less fun (for me, anyway) when you already know you are going to get an easy win.

 

[MarkM]

Mark - I'm not sure I've understood you exactly, but are you saying that maybe no-one would play in the lower division, because they'd always want to play the same start as the best players? (and personally, I'm with you on that).

Well, I'm not so much saying no one would play, but just that (maybe) no one should play. But I freely admit my own personal POV on the point of xOTMs is infused in my post.

I guess the next question would be if things do go that way, if there is going to be a "junior league" that's always prince or noble, does that mean the "varsity league" will always be monarch and above? That would only make sense, and I would vote for that. (I'd prefer to have just one pool for playing each xOTM, I guess I'm saying, but if there is always going to be a pool of defined difficulty for the "juniors" to play in, then it seems the same should be true for the "seniors"?)

... added: or what dV said (just saw it, quoted below ) makes sense too. Maybe more sense than what I just said. At great risk of contradicting myself I'd consider choosing "league" each month along the same lines he says (primarily considering playing the monarch over the deity, until I win at immortal (I have maybe once, but that's it))

This might not be as bad as you think. If you match the two tiers so that it is noble/emperor, prince/immortal, and monarch/deity, then for example I would play emperor, tossup, and monarch out of that set at my current ability. As I get better (I hope) it would be emperor, immortal, tossup, and finally emperor, immortal, and deity.

No one is necessarily locked into one or the other league, I assume. With some global ranking penalty for the lower tier, should be incentive enough (along with just wanting the greater challenge) to play upper once one is competitive there.