InstantForum.NET v4.1.41BC Civ Forumshttp://www.1bcciv.com/forums@1bcciv.comThu, 08 Jan 2009 12:08:38 GMT20http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxI agree with Carlucas. I have periodically tried to get an "unofficial GOTM" going with little success. I blame you guys :DMon, 21 Jul 2008 09:17:00 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspx[quote][b]Locus Coeruleus (7/20/2008)[/b][hr]ya. The question is, what in the hell happened to Mongoose? [/quote]<P>I disagree with you, anyway... the question isn't that because anyone can have individual and unexpected problems in life. And, if the GOTM is under only that person's task, naturally no GOTM for us.</P><P>I insist that the real question is: why not one or two more people helping in that area ? Certainlly, chances for delays will be too reduced.Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:29:09 GMTCarlucashttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxPerhaps a Marathon game is in order now to make up for having no July gotm. :P<br>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:21:08 GMTNuclearcowhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxDont make foolish comments about rich pplz. They got ppl :PMon, 21 Jul 2008 03:48:02 GMT-M-http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxya. The question is, what in the hell happened to Mongoose? He seemed to disappear after the Dave Ramsey comment he foolishly made!Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:41:25 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxWell... I still remain curious about that question.Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:17:39 GMTCarlucashttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxI have been practicing on Emperor and now Immortal level. You guys are going down! :D (sounds good, at least)Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:37:08 GMTNuclearcowhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxI know. I was lookin' fo'rad to beating yo'all this month :PFri, 18 Jul 2008 08:26:56 GMT-M-http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxOne question: why the GOTM's creation is, or it would have to be, under only one person's task ? </P><P>Consequently, it's not surprising if that person has any problem with the time there will have not game. Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:28:06 GMTCarlucashttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxHEY! Start yer own bleeding thread... :PFri, 16 May 2008 11:45:53 GMTZigeunerhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxThe argument Mongoose (and myself) have used before is that by playing with the recent official patch version and no other mods, we increase the likelihood of participation from the most amount of people.<br><br>I have never played Civfanatic's HOF mod and maybe I'd fall in love with it, but I'm not keen on modding my CIV if I don't have to. Also, it seems kinda cheesey to me to use another site's mod, but maybe I'm cranky. :P<br><br>Out of ignorance of not playing that mod and having no intent to try it, I'd oppose it, but thats just this cow's opinion.Fri, 16 May 2008 11:37:14 GMTNuclearcowhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxWell maybe I am just complaining . . . cause I am now in the process of patching after having reinstalled Civ4 and BTS. It took a little over an hour I guess . . .</P><P>We'll see if I can DL and play those old GOTM files that I have had no luck playing!</P><P>But I do think that running off CivFanatics HOF mod would facilitate a lot.Fri, 16 May 2008 09:41:56 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspx[quote]the big time investment to uninstall and re-install everything. For me, participating regular would be pretty much cinched if we used the HOF mod.[/quote]</P><P>I really like your idea of adapting the HOF mod (even though I've never used it personally). Mongoose, are you listening? :) </P><P>But is it REALLY that big of a time investment to uninstall and reinstall everything? :P I mean what, an hour? Less? :w00t:Fri, 16 May 2008 09:38:31 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxI am a 1BC proponent to the max. But I got one thing I think we really should pay attention to CivFanatics on, and that is the GOTM.</P><P>First off, for whatever reason of how BTS works, I have not been able to load a GOTM for the longest time. Most likely because I have mods on my machine. Sure, I could uninstall everything, just keeping the folders for the mods I've DLed. Then re-install, and then move those mod folders back into place and hope that it solved the problem and it worked. But a more efficient option would be if we used the HOF mod that they use at CivFanatics. I can play their GOTMs no problemo.</P><P>CivFanatics ain't goin' nowhere, so I really don't think that using their [url=http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/mod.php]HOF mod[/url] is in anyway a long-term problematic idea. Plus, it would standardize things, and insure that everyone was able to load the GOTMs. Heck! by basically having a SECOND GOTM (in addition to their monthly one) we might attract more folks from CivFanatics to play "our" GOTM, and also to hang around and contribute here more often. I just don't see the problem of integrating this part of our cyber life with theirs.</P><P>Second, they have [url=http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/index.php?month=70004]multiple difficulty levels[/url] all the .sav files for a game.</P><P>I love participating in the GOTM, but I simply have not been able to, and as long as my application is working in general for the things I want to play right now, I'm not going to go through the big time investment to uninstall and re-install everything. For me, participating regular would be pretty much cinched if we used the HOF mod.Fri, 16 May 2008 07:52:53 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxI most certainly do. :DThu, 15 May 2008 18:18:24 GMTZigeunerhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxYou do realise how decidedly patronising that sounds:PThu, 15 May 2008 18:14:40 GMTtoneshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxKasparov used to start games (of chess) with amateurs by removing his own queen. He didn't lose so many of those games. ;)Thu, 15 May 2008 18:07:42 GMTZigeunerhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxBeing a bit of a novice at GOTM's I'm not sure I'm qualified to say. However, my first reaction is that veteran players <EM>may</EM> feel they are being more challenged by your proposed handicap system but what about everybody else? Does it then mean anything if they win if they know the only reason was that Zig was playing blindfolded with one foot suspended over a bunsen burner and only allowed to build ironclads? What happens to the learning process where NC modestly describes how he scored three trillion by AD1580? There is absolutely nothing wrong with you deciding unilaterally to play a whole GOTM using an inflexible strategy of, say, building a maximum three cities or (don't do this one at home folks) vowing not to attack anybody, but why should it be made mandatory?<P>Just my thoughts.Thu, 15 May 2008 17:57:14 GMTtoneshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2255575-80-1.aspxWould it be fun to impose artificial, in-game restrictions for players that usually play at a higher difficulty?<br><br>Let's say mongoose uploads a prince game. Quite a few people still struggle with that level, so they'll have a hard time winning the game, let alone the GOTM. Those that win regularly on monarch or emperor are just going through the motions, trying to win as quickly as possible. Why not *hamper* these players? Why not say, in this game YOU can build NO cottages, or NO wonders, or you cannot use slavery, or found/ spread religions. Plenty of options to keep things interesting, and make the playing field a bit more level.<br><br>Let's say mongoose uploads a noble game. Now prince players can be asked not to build cottages, wonders, etc. Monarch/ emperor players would need even further hampering: In this game you cannot build workers, or settlers, or use ANY civics.<br><br>I would be thrilled to play weird games like that, as they'd push me to adapt, and try out new stuff. What say others to this?Thu, 15 May 2008 15:33:33 GMTZigeuner