Apolyton Tournaments: 2, 3 or 4 weeks?

MarkG · December 11, 2001, 11:03

is 2 weeks limiting for you?

have you not submitted or even started a tournament cause you couldnt finish it in time?

Borc · December 11, 2001, 11:20

Yes, 4 weeks would be better!

MarkG · December 11, 2001, 11:47

of course if tournaments last longer, we'll have less of them. e.g. one new game to play every 4 weeks instead of 2....

Achnor · December 11, 2001, 15:45

Am I the only one thinking two weeks is to long?

Achnor

gus_smedstad · December 11, 2001, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Achnor
Am I the only one thinking two weeks is to long?

No, I agree. However, there is another answer - run them concurrently! That is, start a new tournament every 2 weeks (if that's Mark's intention), but allow submissions for 4 weeks. Hence, during any given 2 week period, two are running, one that is in its first 2 weeks, and one that is in its second.

Achnor · December 11, 2001, 19:48

I totally agree!

Achnor

Sirian · December 12, 2001, 08:18

I like the idea of two concurrent games running. That offers the best of both worlds: those who can't play as quickly or are shying away due to time pressures, can pick and choose, and get involved. Those who like it the way it is now, will still get a new tourney every two weeks. Those who can't play a game every two weeks will have to skip some of the tourneys, but they are doing that already, right? Is there any downside at all to this?

Well there might be one, but it's tied to the longer duration itself, regardless of concurrent games or not: posted information. I got started two days late on the current (English) game, and already there were people who had finished it or commented on it. But if there is a longer time period, will players who have finished and talked about their results offer unfair advantage to others who can play in two weeks but wait to get started until they hear back from some who start right away? In other words, do we care about keeping the details of the game hidden, so that each player is on a level playing field? Or does it just not matter, since those so minded could explore and then reload the game anyway? I wasn't particularly looking for clues, but I got some by default just coming in to contact with others who had already finished.

Even if there was some interest in keeping results private until time expires, is there a way to make that work? An email address or webform to handle submissions? Then making all the files available once the time expires, say on the tourney page? Should players talk about the game while the contest is still running? Talking about it is half the fun, but if you can talk about last month's games, that should fill that niche, right? Some things to think about.

- Sirian

Tilemacho · December 12, 2001, 12:01

Nice idea.....but then again no turney is fun without results......

Maybe a volunteer could help MarkG with the results.........

Aeson · December 12, 2001, 15:09

I think the map settings should play a part in how long each tourney is for. 3 weeks for a standard map, 2 for anything smaller, 4 for anything larger. I think the main reason there is a conflict over time is the difference between victory conditions though. On the maps we have played on, early conquest made for relatively short games. Diplomatic victories can be had in just a couple hours, while spaceship and histographic victories take longer.

More water, and a few "strategies" being disallowed, would make for longer games for those going the conquest route, evening the time needed for different victory conditions. Saving and Reloading can make galley crossings possible, ruining the whole point of having large oceans. Trading dummy cities makes it only nessesary to get contact with another Civ to conquer them, although the patch seems to deal with both of these somewhat.

Also, they run a Civ3 Game of the Month over at CivFanatics.com, so that really gives us all 2 games each month to play if you finish one early.

Zaphod · December 13, 2001, 16:40

I would like to put in my plug for the four-week tournaments.

The main difficulty for me, and I imagine for others as well, is carving out time to play. Work and family take up a great deal of time (as those of you who also have two-year-old children can attest), and I can usually only put aside an hour or two a day (if I'm lucky) to play Civ. It usually takes me a month to finish a game, so a shorter tournament means I can't finish the game in time.

I can understand the arguments for shorter games, so perhaps the two tournament system is the way to go.

Thanks, MarkG, for setting up the tournaments. Because it was a holiday week, I did play in the first tournament, and enjoyed it very much.

Ciao, Z

gnomos · December 14, 2001, 02:57

I think 4 weeks is much better. I jsut finished the 2nd tourney tonight, after playing it about 100+ hours (domination victory, 4480 points). At the end I had over 100 cities and 350 units, turns take a long time, and conquering a well developed country takes planning. I had eliminated 4 positions, and the russians were on the way out when the game suddenly decided I had won. Kinda anti-climactic actually.

I like the idea of running several tournaments at the same time. I think that each tournament should be set up with only one possible win condition, ie, space race, or conquest, or culture, etc. That way you aren't comparing apples to oranges at the end. Turn the other win conditions off for that starting setup.

philler · December 15, 2001, 13:48

ideally, 4-week game, a new map submitted every 2 weeks.

This way, you can take your time to finish your game, and if you don't like one of the maps you don't have to wait for a whole month before getting a new one

MarkG · December 17, 2001, 05:40

ok, we'll try it this way: New game every 2 weeks, submissions for 3 weeks