AU Introduction Games

[Theseus]

Originally posted on MZO on 7/15/03

AU Introduction Games

(or maybe AU Champion Games? read on)

[Note: Some people may be aware that I and some others have been having PM / private discussions about developing a new AU course as sort of a surprise for everybody... coming out of those discussions, as well as the recent AU discussions in general, I've gotten to the idea presented below.]

The purpose of this series is to:

1) Have a defined set of referenceable games, at several difficulty levels and both with and without the AU Mod, so that newer players can learn the basics on maps that we have designed and know.

2) To also provide, using those games, a champion-level example including detailed DARs. The example games will be played by as many people as we can get, in concert and in phases, with a champion selected for each phase (e.g., scramble or "best ball" in golf).

3) To also provide an opportunity for players to pick up the examples games partly completed in order to either "feel" what a champion-level game plays like, and / or to just jump into a game to experience the later eras.

We set up six scenarios:

Regent - PTW
Monarch - PTW
Emperor - PTW
Regent - AU Mod
Monarch - AU Mod
Emperor - AU Mod

(and three more for C3C when it comes out)

Each of the scenarios should be "designed" to teach general lessons, lessons appropriate to the difficulty level, and perhaps lessons re certain of the more popular civs, traits, and UUs.

Everybody who wants plays one (or more) of the scenarios for the first phase, say up through 2000BC, and posts detailed DARs, including lessons learned, final conditions / stats and situation. We gather these up into some kind of comparison chart.

We vote on who was the "champion" of that phase for each of the scenarios. That save file is then re-distributed to everyone playing out that scenario; rinse and repeat in logical phases until the game is completed.

When we are ready, we post the whole mess, including the phase champion save files for those who want them. This will probably mean another web page in addition to the general AU page and the AU Mod page.


___________________________


There's an awful lot of cool stuff we can do with this concept, btw.

A couple of thoughts...

Doing champion phases makes it so that it's NOT a new player *versus* a veteran, say, Nathan or Aeson.... I was sorta uncomfortable with that personalization anyway. This is really a best performance demonstration... very non-threatening I think.

This also gets past Catt's concerns about my original idea, as there is no reason to do this in private or with just a few of us, but rather it should be done in the open forum with as much participation as possible... in fact, we should invite every Civer we can find, including CFC and the other boards, as well as Firaxis, as well as some of our missing luminaries (Vel!!!).

For those who are looking for competition, well, here it is phase by phase, both in the first-time playing of the six games and in the future as well. In addition to identifying the phase champions, we can start to introduce awards with this concept too... with the award holders potentially being replaced as future people play the game phases.

Across the six games, strong play concepts will clearly be demonstrated... we'll want to identify, categorize, and provide links to the relevant DARs, and refer to them often when answering questions or providing advice to newer players.

Down the road, those interested could in fact add to the Introduction courses, other forms of play such as OCC or 5CC.


Any thoughts?

[Theseus]

Response from bpayne1, originally posted on MZO on 7/15/03

Sounds Great to me. Good way for both new player and veteran to try and lean something new. I would take part in it.

[Theseus]

Response from Dominae, originally posted on MZO on 7/15/03

Very very cool. Sort of like a competitive succession game, but with an accent on the reports and learning (like QSC at GOTM).

Some thoughts:

1. We should forget the AU mod for this. Three different game running at the same time should be plenty. I like the AU mod, but it does get in the way.

2. The "champion" of each round should be voted for by the players who played the scenario at the next highest difficulty. So:

a. Regent would be "judged" by Monarch.
b. Monarch would be judged by Emperor.
c. Emperor would be judged by high-level Deity players, like Aeson, alexman or DaveMcW.

This way, the more experienced players are using their skills to determine which game deserves to be crowned champion. Hopefully, these players would describe their selection process in detail, which is where the teaching/learning/mentoring aspect comes in.

Note that only players who are playing get to mentor (other than the Emperor judges), which hopefully increases participation.

3. How should the phases be divided? Do we want more blocks than in the current DAR system (fewer would be too few, IMO)? Each block should last a reasonable amount of time. The 10-20 turn standard for succession games would simply be too short here.

4. Did I mention I like the idea?

5. The scenarios for the different difficulty levels should be different. This prevents spoilers and a whole bunch of other stuff.

6. How do we avoid spoilers? Are the "judges" the only ones allowed to read the reports until they next save is played? That would be a bad solution...Perhaps the blocks could be set around events that prevent spoilers (like at GOTM - again! - where you're only allowed to write reports once you've explored your entire home continent, met all other civs, etc.).

7. A great thing about this idea is that players can just skip a block if they do not have time. The whole process continues on without them.


This looks promising...


Dominae

[cumi]

Very nice!

I think it's a nice thing, that there are players on 'poly like you, who really cares for the AUs, competitions, advaices, etc.

I log in here every day and I find always something interresting.

Keep on like this!

[Rhothaerill]

Great idea Theseus. I liked the "play the veteran" idea, but this is even better and more user-friendly to newer people.

[stonewall]

I like the idea, but to me it seems like you are trying to accomplish two different things at once

1) you want courses that provide example play from known good players presented in a non-threatening way to help teach basic Civ strategy and..

2) You want to provide a public competition

I think these 2 are a bit mutually exclusive. When you have competition involving the likes of the very good players here, you are run the risk of intimidating many players into not participating. For these players, I think you need to keep it as a course where they can play the game and then read how/why the good players played the game and be able to load a game from one of the good players and see the game they played.

Did I misunderstand anything?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by stonewall
When you have competition involving the likes of the very good players here, you are run the risk of intimidating many players into not participating. For these players, I think you need to keep it as a course where they can play the game and then read how/why the good players played the game and be able to load a game from one of the good players and see the game they played.

Did I misunderstand anything?

I think so. There will be three different scenarios, not only different maps, but different difficulties as well. The newer players will be encouraged to participate in the Regent game, the more experience players in the Emperor game. It is my firm belief that just reading these boards for even a few days will make even Chieftain and Warlord players feel confident in moving up to Regent.

The games are competitive in the sense that a block "champion" is selected. But this does not, I think, remove the fun of playing each block yourself to do your best and see how others did things differently. Because after each block everyone starts at the same point (that is, with the savegame of the champion), throughout the game all non-champions are constantly "pushed up" to the level of the champion. This allows you to not only see what works, but play with it as well!

Thus, as you can see, the the focus of AU games will remain on learning. The selection of champions is not meant as a competition (although it is an incentive to play better), but rather as a tool for teaching everyone "what works".


Dominae

[vmxa1]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=36486

This is a great example of how it could be handled. Basically as Dom said.

[Dominae]

That's sort of the idea, but it's different in important respects here.

1. This is not a succession game; instead, everyone "succeeds" the champion
2. The blocks last a lot longer than 10 turns.
3. We're using a system whereby everyone plays from the same save at the beginning of every "block".

These may seem like minor differences, but they should make for a better format, I think.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Ok, I just re-read the post and I agree that it's basically what we're going for here (silly me for speed-reading!). Points 2 and 3 above are still valid differences, though.


Dominae

[vmxa1]

No, I understand and agree with you. I stuck that in for players to get an idea of what it could be like and see the potential value to them.

[Mountain Sage]

Looks really great. I will be back on this forum in 2 weeks. Maybe for the 1st play?

[Dominae]

Originally posted on MZO on 7/16/03

Originally posted by Arrian
The process used to determine the "champion" is certainly the most difficult aspect of this thing.

If it's done wrong, it could really turn people off. Ideally, one would like to see a solid concensus form, such that the decision is pretty much a formality, but there may be times when that doesn't happen. Unfortunately, I don't have any fantastic ideas to bring forth. I'm just bringing up rather obvious pitfalls at this point.

I agree, which is why I've been putting some thought into exactly how it's going to be done.

We're going to need someone like cracker (the AU Chancellor, or someone else) who is officially responsible of the logistics behind the AU Introduction games. This person sets up the threads, determines deadlines for completion of the new blocks, and essentially makes everything "go". It makes sense if this is the same person setting up the maps, although this need not be the case. Call this person the "AU Dean".

How to choose a champion? Well, the process I'm thinking of would work like this:

1. The Dean posts the three scenarios (one for each of Regent, Monarch and Emperor) in new threads, along with a screenshot of the start spot. Included in this post is a relatively hard deadline for submitting the block, with instructions as to when in the game this should be done.

"You have until September 1 to submit your game of up until you contact all other civilizations".

2. The players who officially want to take part in one of the three games indicate their intention of doing so in the same thread that they download the file from. So, I would say something like:

"I [Dominae] am registering for the Monarch-level scenario of AU Introduction 1".

3. The rest of the thread can be used for disussion of the start spot and other non-spoiler info (just like we've been doing all along).

4. The Dean records which players are playing in which course.

5. The Dean opens report threads for each course. Reports must be submitted by the same deadline as the save file.

6. Players submit their reports and save file.

7. At the deadline, the Dean indicates in each spoiler thread which players are eligible for being block champion, and which players make up the panel that is to determine this champion. Those eligible are simply those who registered for the course; those making up the panel are those who registered for the next most difficult course (a special panel is created for the Emperor-level course).

"The students for the Monarch-level course are: panag, Coracle, [etc.]. The panel for the Monarch-level course comprises: Arrian, Catt, Theseus, [etc.]".

8. The panels vote for which game is to be block champion, and post comments in the spoiler threads explaining their choice.

9. The Dean rounds up all the votes, determines the block champions, and goes back to step 1 with the save files of three champions. The first thread of every game begins with the report of the previous block champion (for continuity).

10. The block champions are prominently recorded in a special thread, just to add a little incentive. Perhaps they could get an addition to their 'Poly post count as an extra bonus!

---

This may look complicated, but it's really quite simply if someone organizes the whole thing. The players must: 1) play the game, 2) write a report and (possibly) 3) sit on the panel for the next-lowest difficulty, which involves following the other game and reading their reports. Note that a player never sits on a panel for their own game, unless they move up in difficulty!

The panel is not a jury, in which everyone tries to arrive at the same verdict. This avoids any conflict. However, I imagine the panel will get "into it" enough that they will want to say others to their opinion. The students therefore get to see their games scrutinized/critiqued by more experience players.


Dominae

[stonewall]

Dominae

I think I understand you now.

I believe the DARs are going to have to be very detailed with a lot of WHY explanations so less experienced / less skilled players going through the course can be taught why decisions are made, not what decisions are made.

[Theseus]

I am so into this...

stonewall makes a good point, in that "why" not just "what" becomes a very important issue. In the MZO thread, for instance, Arrian pointed out that if at the end of a phase (Dominae, you prefer 'block'?), one has built a huge Chariot or Warrior phase for upgrade, without the "why" its not that impressive... but with the "why" and a bagful o' gold, it rocks.

Welllll, GOOD!! This is why it's AU, and not GOTM.