Tweet
This will be the second in a series of polls regarding Apolyton University and the four Civ3 democracy games played here on Apolyton. Per the initiative of Theseus in this thread http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...threadid=90953 we are attempting to increase the attractiveness of each with introduction pages, new ways of approaching players, and generally more fun. This second poll will provide a compilation of ideas from the thread expressing the viewpoints on competitive games for Apolyton University. Please vote on whether you believe Apolyton University should remain a non-competitive game with its current During Action Report (DAR) format, should become a competitive game similar to the Game of the Month (GOTM) at CivFanatics, or should become an amalgam of the two incorporating ideas such as fun awards; and then post with your reasons. Thanks.
The case against competitive:
1) It's the whole community aspect that keeps me interested in Civ3. It's being able to play with a group of people from around the world and sharing our hardships and our victories. It's cheering for each other, giving a piece of advice, or a pat on the back that makes AU so great and why I will continue to participate in it.
2) Also, once people began posting images to the AARs and DARs, the marketability, ease and enjoyability shot through the roof. Still love to see when people lay out their battle plans and I still read the AARs because I find them enjoyable and I need to vicariously play somewhere
3) AU isn't about scoring/grading, but rather about playing a game along with other people and discussing it during and after. No pressure, but still plenty of opportunity to learn.
4) The advantage is that we would be targetting a different group, instead of competing with CFC. Let us take take the novices on and turn them into good players (so then they can go and compete in the GOTM competition)
5) A community to play and share the same game in the spirit of Zachriel's posted games: the chance to play a fun game, face some of the same circumstances as other players, compare your circumstances and decisions to others', learn a little, teach a little, and maybe tell a good story, too.
6) The offer of moving up difficulty levels in a non-competive environment. 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.
7) In addition to advertising that the AU hones the skill of all players, maybe insert a blurb noting the AU is a good "Newbie Training Ground" or similar. Emphasize AU can help with the basic aspects of the game at the basic level. Maybe even include basic information on how to capture screen shots and post them - all the first time stuff that feels inclusive.
The case for competitive:
1) The biggest single event that developed people's interest in GOTM to the point where we have 250+ entries each month was the introduction of the QSC - the Quick Start Challenge. It was a contest over the first 80 turns of the game ie up to 1000bc to see who could develop their civ the best. Inevitably there has been a lot of ahem discussion about the mechanics of the scoring but one spinoff has been that everyone keeps really detailed records turn by turn of every move. That in conjunction with Crackers guide to the opening moves has done more to raise standards of play than anything. SGs are great but it’s not possible for 200+ people to play in them and compare.
2) Even more so than AU games, competition makes one consider the game and one's gameplay more closely. They discourage static play, but encourage taking gambles to further one's gain. And it is always good to see how one stacks up against other players to find out where his strengths and weaknesses are.
3) Lets say the AU is split in two. One is competitive and one is for learning. In the learning one there will be "professors" there that help with the learners game and stuff like that. Also how to improve. In the competitive side well that could be worked out later.
4) From CanuckSoldier - Speaking as an Admin of Civ3players Ladder, we have a thriving internet online MP community. We, however, are not inherently limited to just online games. We have so far provided a framework for a competitive ladder, many varied Tournaments, and a very popular Epic game format. There is nothing that says that wins/losses can't be recorded on the same ladder for any other type of game....we have thought of creating specific rules to accomodate PBEM veterns, although there are many sites catering to this already. If there is someway we can provide a system for friendly competition of any format just drop me a line, we have a very dedicated staff of Admin's and TD's.
The case for awards:
1) 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. So awards or whatever is used needs to be for that game only. All awards should be given for each level of play. Many newbies will be interested in playing if they have chances to win an award at their present level of playing.
2) Examples of MZO awards: The Kofi Anan Award: Fastest Diplomatic Win. The Neil Armstrong Award: Fastest Spaceship Win The Hernan Cortés Award: Fastest Domination Win.
3) As AU is non-competitive and learning-oriented, what about awarding prizes based upon something like an "artistic impression" (something NOT based on score or not solely based on score). Like: most impressive/elegant win, best AAR/DAR, best story. After a new AU course would be announced and published, there would be a certain period (1,2,3 months) people could submit their AAR/DARs and stories for a "contest". After this period would be over, all entries would be organized into a simple poll and people would choose the ones they will have liked most. Those that played the AU course and submitted their AAR/story might have multiple votes or something, to encourage participation, while not excluding those that are happy just watching...
4) Not "Most Improved" from game to game, but rather "Most Improved" in a single game. 1. Mucho invitations to new players. 2. DARs at 2150BC or 1000BC... in a supremely nice way, every one jumps in with the "standard" suggestions (e.g., 3-tile CP, mine, more workers, don;t over-garrison, etc.). 3. Award goes to most 'improvement' by 10AD. It's sorta analogous to the Quick Start Challenge in the GOTM, but much more in the 'poly style.
4) 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.
5) I like the idea of giving learning awards more than grades. I don't think I would have ever joined if I were to be graded. It's kind of discouraging for the newbies. Instead I got some good constructive critisism and a lot of help. I personally didn't feel any elitism at all.
The case against competitive:
1) It's the whole community aspect that keeps me interested in Civ3. It's being able to play with a group of people from around the world and sharing our hardships and our victories. It's cheering for each other, giving a piece of advice, or a pat on the back that makes AU so great and why I will continue to participate in it.
2) Also, once people began posting images to the AARs and DARs, the marketability, ease and enjoyability shot through the roof. Still love to see when people lay out their battle plans and I still read the AARs because I find them enjoyable and I need to vicariously play somewhere
3) AU isn't about scoring/grading, but rather about playing a game along with other people and discussing it during and after. No pressure, but still plenty of opportunity to learn.
4) The advantage is that we would be targetting a different group, instead of competing with CFC. Let us take take the novices on and turn them into good players (so then they can go and compete in the GOTM competition)
5) A community to play and share the same game in the spirit of Zachriel's posted games: the chance to play a fun game, face some of the same circumstances as other players, compare your circumstances and decisions to others', learn a little, teach a little, and maybe tell a good story, too.
6) The offer of moving up difficulty levels in a non-competive environment. 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.
7) In addition to advertising that the AU hones the skill of all players, maybe insert a blurb noting the AU is a good "Newbie Training Ground" or similar. Emphasize AU can help with the basic aspects of the game at the basic level. Maybe even include basic information on how to capture screen shots and post them - all the first time stuff that feels inclusive.
The case for competitive:
1) The biggest single event that developed people's interest in GOTM to the point where we have 250+ entries each month was the introduction of the QSC - the Quick Start Challenge. It was a contest over the first 80 turns of the game ie up to 1000bc to see who could develop their civ the best. Inevitably there has been a lot of ahem discussion about the mechanics of the scoring but one spinoff has been that everyone keeps really detailed records turn by turn of every move. That in conjunction with Crackers guide to the opening moves has done more to raise standards of play than anything. SGs are great but it’s not possible for 200+ people to play in them and compare.
2) Even more so than AU games, competition makes one consider the game and one's gameplay more closely. They discourage static play, but encourage taking gambles to further one's gain. And it is always good to see how one stacks up against other players to find out where his strengths and weaknesses are.
3) Lets say the AU is split in two. One is competitive and one is for learning. In the learning one there will be "professors" there that help with the learners game and stuff like that. Also how to improve. In the competitive side well that could be worked out later.
4) From CanuckSoldier - Speaking as an Admin of Civ3players Ladder, we have a thriving internet online MP community. We, however, are not inherently limited to just online games. We have so far provided a framework for a competitive ladder, many varied Tournaments, and a very popular Epic game format. There is nothing that says that wins/losses can't be recorded on the same ladder for any other type of game....we have thought of creating specific rules to accomodate PBEM veterns, although there are many sites catering to this already. If there is someway we can provide a system for friendly competition of any format just drop me a line, we have a very dedicated staff of Admin's and TD's.
The case for awards:
1) 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. So awards or whatever is used needs to be for that game only. All awards should be given for each level of play. Many newbies will be interested in playing if they have chances to win an award at their present level of playing.
2) Examples of MZO awards: The Kofi Anan Award: Fastest Diplomatic Win. The Neil Armstrong Award: Fastest Spaceship Win The Hernan Cortés Award: Fastest Domination Win.
3) As AU is non-competitive and learning-oriented, what about awarding prizes based upon something like an "artistic impression" (something NOT based on score or not solely based on score). Like: most impressive/elegant win, best AAR/DAR, best story. After a new AU course would be announced and published, there would be a certain period (1,2,3 months) people could submit their AAR/DARs and stories for a "contest". After this period would be over, all entries would be organized into a simple poll and people would choose the ones they will have liked most. Those that played the AU course and submitted their AAR/story might have multiple votes or something, to encourage participation, while not excluding those that are happy just watching...
4) Not "Most Improved" from game to game, but rather "Most Improved" in a single game. 1. Mucho invitations to new players. 2. DARs at 2150BC or 1000BC... in a supremely nice way, every one jumps in with the "standard" suggestions (e.g., 3-tile CP, mine, more workers, don;t over-garrison, etc.). 3. Award goes to most 'improvement' by 10AD. It's sorta analogous to the Quick Start Challenge in the GOTM, but much more in the 'poly style.
4) 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.
5) I like the idea of giving learning awards more than grades. I don't think I would have ever joined if I were to be graded. It's kind of discouraging for the newbies. Instead I got some good constructive critisism and a lot of help. I personally didn't feel any elitism at all.
Comment