What difficulty do you think GOTM should be at?

[Eliezar]

Monarchy and Regent are so easy I have lost interest. If GOTM were to be mostly emporer which is still easy with an occasional deity I might decide to keep playing.

The thing is that if people read how people do things on here and apply what they can learn they should be able to crush monarch and lower games at will. The current GOTM is a great example of how even with a terrible starting place and being far far far away from the nearest horses it was just a roll over the enemy game. I don't feel like taking the time to build up my score, but I've conquered all but maybe 6 opposing cities at around 1000ad.

Anyway, I think in time a lot of things will have to be worked out. I would prefer a switch to harder games and results being by year of victory with score as a secondary factor to break ties. Or anything else to remove the milking of a game gets you a higher score/rank.

Eliezar

 

[Grey Fox]

I had conquered ALL the civs by the year 1000 AD, and I milk the game only because that's the way you get a High score...

And even if everyone milked the game, their is only going to be the fastest conquerers and the best players with the High scores anyway...

 

[Matrix]

It almost sounds like you've grown tired of the game. Next GOTM will be emperor. And probably after that we'll have an easy GOTM. But I'm having difficulties with Monarch! Not everyone is as good as you are...

 

[LaZZyCaKe]

I'll sure participate at next GOTM even if it is on Emperor, but look who will be last

I don't really care to lose a game, it's part of the game... but to get my a$$ totally wiped before AD ... that is not so cool .... even if it is just a game... And I want to play GOTM cuz it help me to learn how to play harder level ... but I would need to start learning at warlord right now

Anyway, do it as you like, I'll get on board at the next one

 

[Aeson]

I play mostly Deity games personally, though they tend to be rather boring games. I usually don't play them out past the BC's, because the game is either won or lost by then it seems. The lower difficulty levels allow for more deviation from "the one and only way to win" that seems common on Deity. In the GOTM the competition/comparison between players is what makes it fun, not the difficulty level.

 

[Grey Fox]

I could'nt agree more with you Aeson, but the difficulty does one thing that's bad.

When set too high, the less experienced Civ players are having a hard time coping and often dies early and might think it was a boring or just agrevating confused: right word?) game...

Or when the difficulty is set to low, the more experienced players might think that the game is to easy and not enough challange.


I personally in my first GOTM, GOTM2, I had never played a Monarch game before. I had just started to manage Regent, actually... So the game was a good and fun learning experience for me. Now I play Monarch games often, and more often I play emperor games nowadays... I have even played a Deity game once... (well, my settings were too win... I played Iroquai, against Americans on a small Islands map with culturaly linked starting positions... Just wanted to see what score I could get...)

 

[Ari]

Deity, it is so easy even then.

 

[Trash]

Yeah Diety is sooooo easy, i give the AI a 2000 year head start before planting my settler just to give them a chance



bored and waiting for the next GOTM, sometimes i hate the timezone here in NZ

 

[Zirnike]

I personally like the idea of two GOTM. I just tried a Regent game, and by 500BC I gave up because I had already lost. I was behind on tech, cities, etc. and I had just watched the Japanese (whom I was at war with) build a road to their iron deposit. This is probably because I didn't play Civ2...

But a Beginner GOTM would keep my spirits up while I was getting stomped on a more advanced one (I'd probably play both, as the 'advanced' game wouldn't take that long...)

 

[Exsanguination]

i think there should be two GOTMs each month:
1) chieftain, warlord, or regent
2) monarch, emperor, or deity

because i am not a "civfanatic" (maybe just a civlover) and i find regent challenging enough (shoot me). So if there were two games each month, then the not-so-advanced players could have at least a chance. And then the verts could try and go for the hard ones.

(or, at least do the rotation thing. Cause i could n't play emperor on my life)

 

[ChumChum]

i quite like the mix of difficulty levels atm, though i'm sure as the year goes on and the regular players get better, the difficulty level will go up.

one thing though - i know its a small forum and all, but should this thread not be a sticky one?

-ChumChum

 

[Grey Fox]

It might be a good Idea if this thread was a sticky one. Might ask one of the Moderators, I'll do that now in fact...

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I think we should have all levels. But not 1 Chieftain and then 1 elit, then 1 regent and so on, but rather a bell curve distribution. Monarch and Regent should be the most common game, Emperor and Warlord slightly rarer, and Deity and Chieftain the exception.

How about 1: 2:3:3:2:1????

Or rather 2:3:4:4:3:2??? Yeah i guess that`s what i want!

 

[ERIKK]

Exsanguination has a good point: two GOTM's has my vote!

ERIKK

 

[Khellendros]

I completely agree with Exsanguination.

I like the idea of GotM, it's a great initiative but it's limited to a small crowd due to the high difficulty level. I can understand that experienced players don't even bother to play games on Regent difficulty or lower, but for not-so-skilled players (like me), games on Monarch, Emperor or Deity difficulty are ones I would not even dream of making past the ancient ages. Arguments that say novice players will *eventually* (being a few centuries ?) catch up by looking at the GotM savegames of experienced players or read their comments about the GotM are not helping us novice players out much... Sure, we read some strats and tactics we try to copy and imitate to the best of our ability, but don't expect us to go from Chieftain to Emperor so easily (if we ever get that good at all !?).
The GotM provides us with an excellent way of comparing your progress and skills with other players, but since there's no games for the novice crowd, we lag behind and the distance between the good and novice players increases with each GotM.

Splitting up GotM in 2 or 3 categories would be an ideal solution for this. A much broader audience would be reached, more civ-fans would play GotM since everyone can pick a game at his/her skill to compete versus equally skilled players !

Exsanguination's solution would be perfect

 

[LaZZyCaKe]

Originally posted by Khellendros
I completely agree with Exsanguination.


Exsanguination's solution would be perfect

That was MY idea dammit !! Go read the first Tread !!

 

[Matrix]

(Grey Fox, Thunderfall made this a steaky thead. )

Splitting the GOTM into two divisions: the harder and the easier difficulties would mean the best player will always play the difficult GOTM and the worse players (like me) will play the easy one. That way the worse players can't compare their game with the best players and also can't see as good as they can now what the best way would've been to play the game, hence they can't learn.

And again: the two GOTM's will have a less importance. It stays a very bad idea.

 

[Matrix]

Oh, by the way, I think the difficulty will differ according to this poll more or less. Sporadically a chieftain/warlord game or a deity, but mostly monarch and then regent or emperor.

 

[Grey Fox]

Then I have succeded. Thanks everyone that have voted on this poll.

It seems like there is almost as many votes as submitted games, or even more. Maybe everyone doesn't submit their games?

 

[LaZZyCaKe]

Originally posted by Matrix
(Grey Fox, Thunderfall made this a steaky thead. )

Splitting the GOTM into two divisions: the harder and the easier difficulties would mean the best player will always play the difficult GOTM and the worse players (like me) will play the easy one. That way the worse players can't compare their game with the best players and also can't see as good as they can now what the best way would've been to play the game, hence they can't learn.

And again: the two GOTM's will have a less importance. It stays a very bad idea.

Yes, it was my idea, but to think about it, it is not a really good idea... but it is not BAD!!

It is true that if we split the game, it would'nt be challenging for the worse player (like me too!!) to try and persevere to win and maybe get to the top someday! The goal is to compare with the other player... if you finish last, well, it is because you are not a good player. Just too bad !