CivIII at 'poly

[Konquest02]

Before we do anything, we must know what we will be doing. Hence this discussion. I don't mind AU taking the awards system, as long at least a bit different from those given at MZO.

I still think that awards given to players to underline a specific achievement (not necessarely winning the game) will spark interest from the people just lurking and not participating.

We could work out a system of experience given to the players each time they play and submit an AAR in an AU course. This would promote regularity among the players.

About visibility... I don't know: I'm not the marketing type (my girlfriend is, though...) I'm still debating in my head whether a separate forum from the Strat forum would be a good idea. It may fight the "clique" image which is often along with the Strategy forum (totally unjustified IMHO). On the other hand, it might create another separation in the community, which is something nobody wants.

Food for thought... Back to play AU 402!!

--Kon--

[vmxa1]

One thing to consider in any awards scheme. When people come in th e first time and see accumulated awards, they may feel excluded. IOW why join in a process if everyone is way ahead of you? So awards or whatever is used needs to be for that game only.
At least that is my perspective.

[Tassadar500]

Ok should I make a poll to see how many people are interested?

[Aramis]

No awards.
Let us who can benefit from this come into it with the clear idea that it is a learning process and not a contest. Do something else/similar for those who want a competition.
No awards.

[sabrewolf]

if you need someone to do some webbased programming (user interfaces, stats, etc. in php and mysql) i could help out there. it's just not allowed to be too time critical, because of my final exams and my thesis.

if you want to have a lot of people to participate in AU you'll have to consider some of these points (some of these have been said here already):
- make it solveable (e.g. no deity games on a 1tile isolated island ;-)) most people just want to win.
- different difficulty level (CFCs conquest, open and predator levels boosted the participation even more)
- do-able maps. the current AU402 is just too large to even start for most people. consider that some just have time for only the GotM game. let's make that the second (or first) game they do is AU.
- make something like the QSC integrated in it for "not-enough-time-people" and "hardcore micromanagers". that's basicly the AAR here plus an early save.
- controllable games: in AU208? (that eternal war one) it's difficult to know if people really declared war and never had peace...

are there actually enough people around to bring up the effort of cracker and his team? are there history buffs who'd like to research and write some interesting information matching to the game?

[Dominae]

sabrewolf and all others who volunteered help: thanks!

Originally posted by sabrewolf
- make it solveable (e.g. no deity games on a 1tile isolated island) most people just want to win.

In all official AU games it is possible to choose the difficulty level that suits you. You must be mixing AU up with GOTM, where there is a set difficulty.

- different difficulty level (CFCs conquest, open and predator levels boosted the participation even more)

Sounds to me like a GOTM idea, not an AU one. Are we to clone their ideas because they work? Personally I like to play Civ3, not some scenario with major changes (weird new units, extra Settlers, etc.).

- do-able maps. the current AU402 is just too large to even start for most people. consider that some just have time for only the GotM game. let's make that the second (or first) game they do is AU.

I was going to disagree with you, but this is the second Huge map game we've done, and frankly I think two is more than enough. The games take a long time and many probably feel excluded (like me!). Of course, we had to try it out, but in the future I think we should stick to Standard maps.

- make something like the QSC integrated in it for "not-enough-time-people" and "hardcore micromanagers". that's basicly the AAR here plus an early save.

Another suggestion that is an GOTM clone. I like the QSC idea, for sure, but then again it's more of a competitive thing, right?

- controllable games: in AU208? (that eternal war one) it's difficult to know if people really declared war and never had peace...

Since the point in AU is not to have the best score, the honor system works just fine for ensuring people do not cheat. I can understand the precautions GOTM takes to make sure no one gets an unfair advantage, but with AU there's really no need for that, simply because not only the top score hotshot players are respected here, but rather everyone who gives the games a good go (and writes a good AAR!). Cheaters do not gravitate towards events where they gain little or no recognition for their superior finishes.

Also, the "uncontrollable" rules of certain games (i.e. never declare peace in AU208) allow a greater diversity of scenarios to be played, while still keeping the original flavor of Civ3. They also generate interest for those Civ3 veterans who cannot play a normal Civ3 game anymore without falling asleep.

are there history buffs who'd like to research and write some interesting information matching to the game?

This would be cool, but again: why do we have to copy of all of GOTM's ideas? I'm sure we're a more creative bunch than that!!


Dominae

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Dominae
In all official AU games it is possible to choose the difficulty level that suits you. You must be mixing AU up with GOTM, where there is a set difficulty.

yep, ofcourse. but if you're e.g. a monarch player, then you'll choose that level. but maybe the scenario is just so hard, that surviving is impossible...

Sounds to me like a GOTM idea, not an AU one. Are we to clone their ideas because they work? Personally I like to play Civ3, not some scenario with major changes (weird new units, extra Settlers, etc.).

no, i don't like that custom stuff either. (except civ3 replacement units for those who don't have ptw)
and i'm not talking about cloning GotM - that's not the idea at all. but otoh you can't just say "it's already been done, so we can't have it" ... one should inspire oneself from it and maybe even adapt a concept or two... but it's important to have something different.

I was going to disagree with you, but this is the second Huge map game we've done, and frankly I think two is more than enough. The games take a long time and many probably feel excluded (like me!). Of course, we had to try it out, but in the future I think we should stick to Standard maps.

huge could be ok, if the landmass is reduced to something like a 60% water standard tile count. e.g. a polynesia map.
but too many cities and too big map means that already a whole load of people with not enough time or computing power are excluded.

Another suggestion that is an GOTM clone. I like the QSC idea, for sure, but then again it's more of a competitive thing, right?

again, i don't mean to copy it. but many players already submit their AARs.. why not give them some kind of bonus for that work and help for the community?

Also, the "uncontrollable" rules of certain games (i.e. never declare peace in AU208) allow a greater diversity of scenarios to be played, while still keeping the original flavor of Civ3. They also generate interest for those Civ3 veterans who cannot play a normal Civ3 game anymore without falling asleep.

true...
but this thread is about making AU more popular and getting more participants. but OCC- and eternal war-challenges just doesn't attract too many new people (i once managed an OCC game... and it was on a tiny pangea map on an easy level)

maybe the idea of making AU mass-compatible is illusionary and there should be a branching. AU stays as it is but additionally theres something like the mini tourneys?

This would be cool, but again: why do we have to copy of all of GOTM's ideas? I'm sure we're a more creative bunch than that!!

ok, i agree that would be too much of a copy


well, i better keep out of giving ideas. i havn't even completed an AU challenge yet (started 208 and 402, but got kicked real bad).

i'll stick to programming


edit: got the smilies wrong...

[vmxa1]

As to people not doing the all war all time and having peace. I would say the fact that only two people finished the game so far tells you that people are playing fair or at least it did not matter.
I agree with Dom that cheating wil be of little use to most players of AU.

[BigDork]

Sabrewolf....

Your first two AUs were 208 and 402? Ouch. IMHO those were probably two of the harder ones. I didn't even finish 208 and I think most people lost that one. And 402 is just taxing on the computer.

I suggest going back and playing some of the other AU games. There are some fun ones like Power of Randomness and the Celt one.

And as for difficulty levels, all the AUs I've played you've been able to pick which level to play at. I started on Warlord and am probably going ot be playing the next AU on Monarch. Shoot, for one go at the OCC I played at Chieftain.

Dom....

If I remember right 402 wasn't originally even brought up as an AU. It was just a game someone mentioned that eventually got turned into an AU. But I agree we should stick to smaller maps so that everyone can participate.

We definatly need to come up with our own ideas for AU. We want to be seen as different from GOTM. And heck maybe we'll get some of the GOTM crowd to participate in AUs.

BigD

[vmxa1]

AU208 and AU402 where games that grew out of ideas being tossed around. They were not very well suited to most players, but I think it fair to say that at the time not all that many were playing.
It seems funny that with the advent of those two games, more players decided to take a look.
A better game for most to come in on would be AU207, if that is the UP game.
You can play anyway you want in that game.

[Theseus]

OK... (being written between AU 402 turns )

Lots of interesting discussion and viewpoints. I'll try again to summarize and make some suggestions:

1) VISIBILITY AND TENOR

We want more visibility for AU and the DGs, and we want to make all of the above more inviting to new players / posters on an ongoing basis.

1a) Visibility: We need to get better coverage on the front CivIII page of 'poly. I suggest that at the top right, the links be changed as follows:

News | Archive
Downloads | FAQ | Help
Reviews | Links | Suggestions
Price Comparison
Strategy Articles | Stories
Forum-General
Forum-Strategy
Forum-Creation
Democracy Games
Apolyton University


The DG and AU links are to Intro pages, discussed below.

Also, a number of things should be posted as news items:
* This initiative.
* New AU courses
* Significant events in the DGs

1b) Intro Pages: I think we depend a little to heavily on the forum format. I suggest that we design an Introduction page for each of Strategy, AU, and each of the DGs. That will probably mean one - two people per in terms of content (or more... we can set up a thread for the design / content of each), whereas we will probably want just one HTML person in order to maintain a consistent design. Obviously, the content should be very inviting and clear (e.g., make it clear how easy it is to play an AU game, stock or mod, at any level). We could have a lot of fun with this, btw... the DG intro pages could be a great place for game status teasers (e.g., the GS-Vox Conflict).

1c) 'poly Links: We get a topped post linking to the Intro page in each respective forum (AU in Strategy). Also, we should consider topped posts linking to the AU Intro page in the Files and Creation fora (also discussing the AU Mod), and a topped post linking to all of the DG Intro pages in Strategy and in PBEM.

[Note: As you can tell from the above, I am very inclined to keep AU in the Strategy forum, not separated.]

1d) Non-'poly Links: The various Intro pages should also have relevant links to other sites, including

1e) We should go ahead with Rhoth's idea of making AU into a civgroup.


2) AU COURSES AND AWARDS

2a) Chancellor: We need someone to sorta take a step back, look at the curriculum thus far, and suggest what courses are needed / would be fun to round things out. This also might include re-visiting some of the early concepts. This is what I refer to as the Chancellor position. If up for it, I again nominate badams. If not, then I nominate NM.

2b) Intro Courses: I loved alva's thought about having something special for newer players / posters. I think an ongoing series of succession games works, but I would also consider a series of designed courses, one for each difficulty level, which would be the AU standards. This would make it easy for us to measure / advise newer players on their skills.

2c) The Next Course: I am sort of privately hatching an idea, but it will take a little time. Is there a way of encouraging people to go back and play the older courses or can we focus on roling out the Intro Courses for a bit?

2d) Course Descriptions: I think we need to go a bit further than badams did... I am sure many jaws dropped upon reading posts like "AU 208 and 402 were my first AU games"!! We need to make sure newer players know which courses to play!!

2e) Awards: When you think about, given the way that AU is set up, we really *can't* have outright competitions (well, we could, but it would be limiting and a huge PITA). I'd like to go with a modified version of the award system that Kon came up with for MZO Boot Camp. These can be handed out per game. Also, we should have a special and unique award for each game (as I sorta suggested in my earliest AU proposals).

2f) Civ Levels: I was intrigued by NM's idea... complete X number of AU courses, and get a promotion. Let's play around with this a bit though; should there be AU Levels? Didn't cracker do something like this with GOTM?

____________________________________

Volunteers?

Communication with 'poly owners

Intro pages:
Strategy
AU
SPDG2
PTWDG1
PTWDG2
ISDG

Page-Layout Coordinator

New AU Intro courses

Past course descriptions

Award system design

[Tassadar500]

Ok well if people think I should be Chancellor I would not say no. Any jobs that no one wants to do I will do. Since all the jobs interest me

[Theseus]

NM, is there something else you feel particularly well-suited for?

(Thanks for the enthusiasm, btw!! )

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Theseus
1b) Intro Pages: I think we depend a little to heavily on the forum format. I suggest that we design an Introduction page for each of Strategy, AU, and each of the DGs. That will probably mean one - two people per in terms of content (or more... we can set up a thread for the design / content of each), whereas we will probably want just one HTML person in order to maintain a consistent design. Obviously, the content should be very inviting and clear (e.g., make it clear how easy it is to play an AU game, stock or mod, at any level). We could have a lot of fun with this, btw... the DG intro pages could be a great place for game status teasers (e.g., the GS-Vox Conflict).

I would think setting up a new thread for intro page design would be the way to go. I'm sure a lot of people would have good ideas that wouldn't get implemented if we left it to only one ot two people...the more people with input the more refined the ideas become.

For the DG intro pages, I would suggest an intro written by each team about themselves (bias is okay ) and also some of the stories from UnOrthOdOx's S.P.I.N. thread. There are several good stories in there already (my own being the worst of the lot).

Originally posted by Theseus
1c) 'poly Links: We get a topped post linking to the Intro page in each respective forum (AU in Strategy). Also, we should consider topped posts linking to the AU Intro page in the Files and Creation fora (also discussing the AU Mod), and a topped post linking to all of the DG Intro pages in Strategy and in PBEM.

[Note: As you can tell from the above, I am very inclined to keep AU in the Strategy forum, not separated.]

I agree that it should be kept in the strat forum. There are already many different forums to choose from. And AU was designed to be a strategy aid in the first place.

Originally posted by Theseus
1e) We should go ahead with Rhoth's idea of making AU into a civgroup.

I'm definitely for this one. People do look at the civgroup icons. They are eye catching if designed right. I think the ISDG icon is the best looking of the lot. If we can design something eye-catching like that for an AU civgroup icon then that will increase the AU visibility right there. And no unfortunately I don't have an idea for it yet.

Originally posted by Theseus
If up for it, I again nominate badams. If not, then I nominate NM.

I agree that either one of them would be good for it. Badams has already done the groundwork so far, but may not have the time for it. Nuclear Master seems to have the energy to get it done (and the added plus of being a new ACS News Editor so he can easily add AU news articles ).

Originally posted by Theseus
2d) Course Descriptions: I think we need to go a bit further than badams did... I am sure many jaws dropped upon reading posts like "AU 208 and 402 were my first AU games"!! We need to make sure newer players know which courses to play!!

Those were the first two for me as well simply because I never got into the AU until right after AU207. I haven't gone back and played the old ones yet because there was a kind of "everyone's been there and done that already" (and time constraints ). For the ones before PTW it was essentially "I don't feel like going back to regular civ3." Maybe that was just me though.

Originally posted by Theseus
2f) Civ Levels: I was intrigued by NM's idea... complete X number of AU courses, and get a promotion. Let's play around with this a bit though; should there be AU Levels? Didn't cracker do something like this with GOTM?

That's an interesting thing to guarantee. I like the idea, but it should have some conditions. Just playing through a few courses of AU won't automatically make you a better player. If you're badly losing several games with the same strategies, then using those strategies and losing on AU is no different than losing on a regular game. But discussing your game with others, reading what strategies they used, and then implementing new things...that's what helps make you a better player IMHO.

Great job again Theseus! I don't know how much I'll be able to help out, but I'll try where I can.

[Tassadar500]

Maybe after you have finished your AAR you discuss it and the "professors" tell you how to improve. Professors would post and tell the player how to improve. Of course any other person could post their opinion as well. I'm just worried the Strategy forum will get much to crowded.