Epics Feedback

[sooooo]

1) How do you feel about the difficulty of the games we've been running? Would you like to see more Gentle/Medium/Extreme games?

S'alright as it is. I like the extreme ones the most. It looks like our two extreme events for the spring were/are deity (not so keen on deity) and epic 12, which will have a bunch of restrictions. However, I would like to see more immortal or emperor games, even at first with few/no variant rules. Just a random leader, fractal game on immortal would be a good way to see what's going on in the extreme community. After that, you can bring in, say, emperor variants.

2) Should we run more Warlords games? (I've been sticking mostly with Civ4 1.61 because the turnout was VERY low for the first two Warlords games, so please let me know if you want more games on the expansion!)

Warlords is fine by me. Personally I would like to see them called Epic X or Adventure X depending on their speed, and ditch the Warlords tag altogether.

3) What kind of games would you like to see? Let me give you some general types:
a) Fastest-finish competitions (ex: Adventure Four)
b) Points scoring (ex: Warlords Three, Epic Eleven)
c) Restrictive variant (ex: Always War, Honorable ruleset, etc.)
d) "crazy" rule-breaking game (ex: Adventure Nineteen)
e) no scoring

I like (A), but for a given victory type (like adventure 4). Fastest spaceship or fastest diplo are good games. Or fastest conquest on a continents map. (B) is OK, but I wouldn't want the scored games to appear too often because the scoring systems are often flawed (no offense). © is fine, (D) is fine, also (E) is fine. Mixture is good.

Elegant variants are obviously the best, and unlike T-Hawk I think there are still plenty of ideas. I'll get around to submitting a few when (if?) my new macbook finally arrives.

I like the games which have few or no rules, but unusually difficult aspects to them. For example, games like adventure 11 (teamed AIs), adventure 5 (no resources), adventure 2 (eskimos). Could be the map, or the AIs, or the settings.

4) What game speeds should we use? More Epic speed, less Epic speed? Should we experiment with Quick or Marathon speeds? (There was a very low turnout for Quick speed in Adventure Seven, and Marathon is pretty broken, but we CAN run games if there is desire for them.)

I like a 50/50 mix between normal and epic. For culture and diplomacy games, normal is the way to go.

5) Are the games too long? Too short? There have been a lot of incomplete games turned in recently - should we try to implement scenarios that are easier to finish quickly?

Not really sure. A mixture between long and short games I suppose.

6) Anything else I haven't covered yet: what would you like to see that we're not providing right now?

Not at the moment, I'll get back to you on this one.

[Dantski]

1) How do you feel about the difficulty of the games we've been running? Would you like to see more Gentle/Medium/Extreme games?

At the moment I feel the mix is right, however since my skill level is possibly a bit lower than many others here, maybe those monarch games should be Emperor?

3) What kind of games would you like to see? Let me give you some general types:
a) Fastest-finish competitions (ex: Adventure Four)
b) Points scoring (ex: Warlords Three, Epic Eleven)
c) Restrictive variant (ex: Always War, Honorable ruleset, etc.)
d) "crazy" rule-breaking game (ex: Adventure Nineteen)
e) no scoring

There needs to be some kind of competitive element to the games or they feel like a normal random game of your own. I personally find it a bit of a hassle to follow points scoring and that puts me off a bit, but I'm also sure that if the right game came along, I'd have no problem.

4) What game speeds should we use? More Epic speed, less Epic speed? Should we experiment with Quick or Marathon speeds? (There was a very low turnout for Quick speed in Adventure Seven, and Marathon is pretty broken, but we CAN run games if there is desire for them.)

I think Marathon can be safely ignored, the Epics/Adventures could mix in different speeds perhaps more, I quite like the difference between faster/slower speeds and quick games almost feel more fun to play since you're always closer to that tech you want etc.

6) Anything else I haven't covered yet: what would you like to see that we're not providing right now?

I would like to see a return of RB players playing vs the AI in multi. I think its very educational and fun to play with other RB players and without the stress of a turn-timer or a choke by a human player, it has plenty of potential for fun!

[FeedBack]

As many stated, I'm also new here, but I have some wordings!

1) How do you feel about the difficulty of the games we've been running? Would you like to see more Gentle/Medium/Extreme games?

A Gentle adventure took me here. So, it's good to grab some new faces. Medium adventures are ok for me, as it seems the best scenario to try something different. Extreme scares me off, but if I find the time, I'll play. I guess balancing is the key here. If there's a Extreme on the way, may be useful to throw a Gentle with it for the scared players like me!

2) Should we run more Warlords games? (I've been sticking mostly with Civ4 1.61 because the turnout was VERY low for the first two Warlords games, so please let me know if you want more games on the expansion!)

Unlike most here, I like Warlords. I agree that vassals are broken, but without it the games are cool. The Chariot X Axes bonus is good and the interface changes are even better. I'm trying the current adventure!

3) What kind of games would you like to see? Let me give you some general types:
a) Fastest-finish competitions (ex: Adventure Four)
b) Points scoring (ex: Warlords Three, Epic Eleven)
c) Restrictive variant (ex: Always War, Honorable ruleset, etc.)
d) "crazy" rule-breaking game (ex: Adventure Nineteen)
e) no scoring

I like the restrictive and crazy ones. The fastest finishes are unfair, as there are so many good players around here and I don't think I'm one of them. And competitive is not what I like in civ. It's the fun of report reading. The points scoring are cool, but as stated before, too many scoring factors should ruin a game for me. I always forget about taking pictures of the most important dates....

4) What game speeds should we use? More Epic speed, less Epic speed? Should we experiment with Quick or Marathon speeds? (There was a very low turnout for Quick speed in Adventure Seven, and Marathon is pretty broken, but we CAN run games if there is desire for them.)

I'm used to Normal speed. But it's something you need to adapt yourself to. I always get lost with the 45 hammers/whip, instead of 30, and never know when a tech is too expensive in Epic. But you cannot use this argument against playing on a particular speed. So, as long as you don't use Marathon (I just don't have the time), I'm in!

5) Are the games too long? Too short? There have been a lot of incomplete games turned in recently - should we try to implement scenarios that are easier to finish quickly?

Time constraints are a big problem for me. Now, I'm only playing RB events and it consumes all my available gaming time. Sometimes, I see the deadlines earlier than they really are.... I even reduced my SGs to be able to play the events.
The main problem here should be balancing, again. If you put, say, 8 weeks for an event, students would finish them too early and wouldn't be happy to have nothing else to play. But if you put 2 weeks to finish a game, only students, again , would finish!
The actual deadlines (4 weeks for normal and 5 for Epics) are good to me. Even if it means getting some negative diplomatic modifiers with my wife....

6) Anything else I haven't covered yet: what would you like to see that we're not providing right now?

I would like to see you guys provide a way for me to play and earn money at the same time, so I don't have to go working!

Seriously, this community is providing me almost every moment of fun I have with computer games right now. I just want to thank you, Sulla and other sponsors, for making this possible.

[Woebearer]

Having been a lurker here for quite a while, I think I'd like to throw my two cents in...

I think one method to break up the monotony, encourage new players to participate, and to allow those with little patience or time to finish games with those who have plenty of both is a new type of RB challenge: The Mini.

Take Epic 11 as an example. The first scoring date of 260 AD you are to count up the number of Temples and Libraries you have built as part of the overall scoring. When I got to 260 AD on my "real attempt" I got so annoyed at how I played to this milestone, I reset the save and tried again. I became a bit obsessed with maximizing this score and have run this particular chunk of the Epic about 6 times to figure out the best method of obtaining the highest score possible. Obviously this little sidetrack precluded me from finishing the Epic clean, but it does illustrate a point.

A lot of the complaints about Civ in general is that empire management becomes tedious towards the end of the game, particularly if that game is already in hand. After all, it doesn't matter how nifty the variant or restrictions are if every end game looks exactly the same as every other end game you've played a hundred times. How many times have you heard the phrase "So now I needed to decide how I was going to actually win" (i.e. now that the fun variant is over, time to get down to the boring stuff). I don't know about you, but most of the reports lose my interest at this point.

What I'd propose is this:

RB Mini

A game set in a specific part of the game. It could be in a standard start, or it could be a game already in progress. The Mini will be designed to be played quickly, you should be able to complete the game in an afternoon. My guess would be that this type of game would lead itself well to a scoring challenge like the one above, or a race to complete an objective (like generating one of each type of GP).

In a major deviation from the RB norm, players would be able to repeat the mini as many times as they like. There would be two scores, a "1st attempt no spoilers" and a "best attempt with spoilers". After they have made their first attempt they would be allowed and encouraged to discuss the mini in the forums (with proper spoilage warnings naturally). This solves two problems. One, is lack of confidence a new player might have at attempting a RB challenge. Knowing that he can repeat the mini as many times as want will give the new player a wide margin of error. It will also allow discourse between the players WHILE the game is in progress, improving the community as a whole (and again encourage new players, who won't have to be flying blind). It will allow those MM fiends a chance to flex their maximization prowess, and give those nutty inventive types carte blanche to let their fevered imaginations run wild with new strategies.

[Kodii]

1) How do you feel about the difficulty of the games we've been running? Would you like to see more Gentle/Medium/Extreme games?

For me, Medium and Extreme are the best. Gentle is great once in a while for a relaxing game as well as for attracting new players, but too many could become hindering.

2) Should we run more Warlords games? (I've been sticking mostly with Civ4 1.61 because the turnout was VERY low for the first two Warlords games, so please let me know if you want more games on the expansion!)

I have Warlords, but easily prefer Vanilla. If games in both versions are released, I'll play both anyways.

3) What kind of games would you like to see? Let me give you some general types:
a) Fastest-finish competitions (ex: Adventure Four)
b) Points scoring (ex: Warlords Three, Epic Eleven)
c) Restrictive variant (ex: Always War, Honorable ruleset, etc.)
d) "crazy" rule-breaking game (ex: Adventure Nineteen)
e) no scoring

All of the above (including No Scoring, if it involves one of the other above), as long as it has been worked in appropriately. I know it is a lot to ask for, but it can be done. I think someone before me mentioned something about matching the game type to the game speed etc.

4) What game speeds should we use? More Epic speed, less Epic speed? Should we experiment with Quick or Marathon speeds? (There was a very low turnout for Quick speed in Adventure Seven, and Marathon is pretty broken, but we CAN run games if there is desire for them.)

Not Marathon. We'd have another Warlords 2 incident. I don't see anything wrong with Quick, but I would much rather prefer Normal or Epic.

5) Are the games too long? Too short? There have been a lot of incomplete games turned in recently - should we try to implement scenarios that are easier to finish quickly?

(EDIT- Oops, caught myself backwards) - Too long. I always start but almost always never finish. Either that or the time given for the game is too short.

6) Anything else I haven't covered yet: what would you like to see that we're not providing right now?

Continuing on the website updates. Griselda probably has her hands full, but having results up, and SGs updated makes the community seem more alive.

[sunrise089]

In a major deviation from the RB norm, players would be able to repeat the mini as many times as they like. There would be two scores, a "1st attempt no spoilers" and a "best attempt with spoilers". After they have made their first attempt they would be allowed and encouraged to discuss the mini in the forums (with proper spoilage warnings naturally). This solves two problems. One, is lack of confidence a new player might have at attempting a RB challenge. Knowing that he can repeat the mini as many times as want will give the new player a wide margin of error. It will also allow discourse between the players WHILE the game is in progress, improving the community as a whole (and again encourage new players, who won't have to be flying blind). It will allow those MM fiends a chance to flex their maximization prowess, and give those nutty inventive types carte blanche to let their fevered imaginations run wild with new strategies.

This is a really good idea, but probably a major mistake to ever implement. There are a few critical flaws with the idea that IMHO simply don't fit in well with the RB mindset. The first is that the more we reduce the game down to small subsections, the more important luck and RNG roles become. It isn't necessarily going to reward the best players or playstyle to be on top at any one tiny specific moment, so the games would have a huge element of randomness to them. The other idea, allowing replays, shoots to the opposite extreme in gameplay but leads to the same result: it makes everyone play essentially the same and fails to differentiate between different playstyles or skill levels. I could easily play certain games as well as Sullla or Sooooo or any of the other top players if I could play them an infinite amount of time. That (IMHO) isn't what RB is all about.

[DaveV]

1) How do you feel about the difficulty of the games we've been running? Would you like to see more Gentle/Medium/Extreme games?

Difficulty is just right so far. I'm probably a Monarch/Emperor level player, and never would have tried Deity on my own, but Epic 10 was a lot of fun. Lower level games with variant rules are fun, too.

2) Should we run more Warlords games? (I've been sticking mostly with Civ4 1.61 because the turnout was VERY low for the first two Warlords games, so please let me know if you want more games on the expansion!)

I don't have Warlords, though I'll probably buy BtS.

3) What kind of games would you like to see? Let me give you some general types:
a) Fastest-finish competitions (ex: Adventure Four)
b) Points scoring (ex: Warlords Three, Epic Eleven)
c) Restrictive variant (ex: Always War, Honorable ruleset, etc.)
d) "crazy" rule-breaking game (ex: Adventure Nineteen)
e) no scoring

B, C, or D. Like several other people have said, the charm of RB events is their "outside the box" nature. If I want to power-game, there are other places that run that sort of event.

4) What game speeds should we use? More Epic speed, less Epic speed? Should we experiment with Quick or Marathon speeds? (There was a very low turnout for Quick speed in Adventure Seven, and Marathon is pretty broken, but we CAN run games if there is desire for them.)

I'd prefer Normal or Epic.

5) Are the games too long? Too short? There have been a lot of incomplete games turned in recently - should we try to implement scenarios that are easier to finish quickly?

Too long, too many for me. I can just about play one game in a month and write a report. So far, I've been sticking with the epics, although I was greatly tempted by Adventure 19 - I just didn't think I could finish that one in the time left after Epic 10.

I realize other people have a lot more time to play, and having more events and adventures for those people is a good thing.

6) Anything else I haven't covered yet: what would you like to see that we're not providing right now?

Have some games where the game is cut off early: i.e. everyone stops playing at AD 1800 instead of 2050. This would avoid some of the late-game tedium, and might lead to more completed games. Or, cut things off at the BC/AD transition, for a focus on the early game.

[Atlas]

I forgot to mention in my first post, but I also REALLY like the comments from the sponsor (maybe it should be a requirement from all sponsors? like part of the process of scenario design)

[mostly_harmless]

1) How do you feel about the difficulty of the games we've been running? Would you like to see more Gentle/Medium/Extreme games?

Playing and struggling on Monarch I am fine with the mix of difficulties here.

2) Should we run more Warlords games?

Don't have warlords, don't plan to buy it. Will wait for the feedback on BtS.

3) What kind of games would you like to see? Let me give you some general types:
a) Fastest-finish competitions (ex: Adventure Four)
b) Points scoring (ex: Warlords Three, Epic Eleven)
c) Restrictive variant (ex: Always War, Honorable ruleset, etc.)
d) "crazy" rule-breaking game (ex: Adventure Nineteen)
e) no scoring

a) & e) I like least, as I will never be as good as some of the pros here. Some mild scoring system like in the current Epic11 is nice.

5) Are the games too long? Too short? There have been a lot of incomplete games turned in recently - should we try to implement scenarios that are easier to finish quickly?

The current schedule is fine for me. I just finished Epic11 in two evenings. If the games get more frequent or longer I have to pass on some, which is just my problem. Will have even less time in a months time as we are having a baby. Any tips from the fathers around here regarding bringing girlfriend, baby, job & RB together?

mh

[Kylearan]

Hi,

since I'm planning to return to CIV, I guess I should answer this too...

1) How do you feel about the difficulty of the games we've been running? Would you like to see more Gentle/Medium/Extreme games?

Difficulty mix seems about right. I don't mind the difficulty, be it easy or hard, as long as the variant is interesting.

2) Should we run more Warlords games?

I don't have Warlords, and won't buy it. I might buy BTS though, depending on reviews.

3) What kind of games would you like to see? Let me give you some general types:
a) Fastest-finish competitions (ex: Adventure Four)
b) Points scoring (ex: Warlords Three, Epic Eleven)
c) Restrictive variant (ex: Always War, Honorable ruleset, etc.)
d) "crazy" rule-breaking game (ex: Adventure Nineteen)
e) no scoring

a) and e) is boring w/o any variant involved. Love b) and d) games, as they require out of the box thinking which makes CIV look fresh again. c) can be okay, too.

Bottom line: The crazier, the better.

4) What game speeds should we use?

Epic or normal. Hate quick, never tried Marathon.

5) Are the games too long? Too short? There have been a lot of incomplete games turned in recently - should we try to implement scenarios that are easier to finish quickly?

I'd prefer less games or longer running times over less complicated scenarios.

-Kylearan