Wow! What a tough game! Out of 45 entries, only 9 managed to win. Yours-truly was one of the losers - missing the green ambulance by a couple of places. :gripe:

Anyway - this is about the winners: And it was Doc TK who lead the way; scoring a relatively fast domination victory. Second and third places were also domination victories, with Gnejs edging-out Erkon.

Summary of Medal Winners:

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/GoldMedal.gifhttp://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/world.gif Doc TK: 1388 AD Domination Victory, 174,223 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/SilverMedal.gif Gnejs: 1472 AD Domination Victory, 115,321 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/BronzeMedal.gif Erkon: 1547 AD Domination Victory, 104,905 points.

Other Award Winners:

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/cow.gif Mutineer: 1822 AD Domination Victory, 63,017 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/SpaceShip.gifhttp://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/greenshield.gif RobertTheBruce: 1846 AD Spaceship Victory, 36,047 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/blueshield.gif cas: 1970 AD Domination Victory, 14,919 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/greenambulance.gif Mythinite: 1873 AD Spaceship Loss, 4,571 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/redambulance.gif pious_pete: 530 AD Conquest Loss, 251 points.


>> See the full results here (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/results/index.php?month=60003).
>> See the updated global rankings here (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/rankings/civ_global.php).
>> See the latest Pantheon of Heroes here (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/pantheon/index.php?table=civ_gotm_medals.php).
>> Award symbols are listed here (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards.php).

wow...that's probably the toughest game we've had all around. congrats to the 9 winners! I'm actually somewhat surprised I beat 12 people lol

Wow, definitely a tough game. Respect to the people who did win it. :worship: At least quite a few people did make it as far as a spacerace loss. And thanks for the super-speedy results announcement, satisified my curiosity before xmas :).

It seems both my predictions came true when I wrote in the final spoiler thread:

I'm starting to wonder if this'll be the first Civ4 GOTM/WOTM where someone suffers a defeat and still manages to be one of the top 10 or so entries :-) And where there'll be some fastest-finish awards that don't get awarded coz noone won that victory type. :mischief:

Turns out noone managed to win anything except domination and one spaceship.

That was really tough, even in the results, that usually look better than expected.
I got rank 13 with a retired game, very funny! :)
Is there a difference in score between retire and loss?
I retired, because the next turns my empire would have fallen apart. :)

While of course I offer my congratulations to the winners, I'd also like to extend congratulations to everyone who sucked it up and submitted their loss. Like me, for instance. :mischief:

Congrats DocTK and all the others who managed a win.

Congrats to the 9 "winners" and congrats to the bold losers.
I'd think retiring may be a winning move here :lol:

I retired, because the next turns my empire would have fallen apart. :)

Judging by the unusually high proportion of retired submissions, I'd say quite a few people did the same thing.

Have to admit, I respect your honesty in saying that's what you did, but I do feel a little uneasy at people submitting retired games for that reason. I tend to imagine the option to retire as being there for people who simply don't have time to complete their games (or perhaps: They've got bored with their game due to too many units to move in the late game or summat). Retiring coz you get a higher score than you would by completing your game doesn't quite seem to me to be in the spirit of the competition?

Judging by the unusually high proportion of retired submissions, I'd say quite a few people did the same thing.

Have to admit, I respect your honesty in saying that's what you did, but I do feel a little uneasy at people submitting retired games for that reason. I tend to imagine the option to retire as being there for people who simply don't have time to complete their games (or perhaps: They've got bored with their game due to too many units to move in the late game or summat). Retiring coz you get a higher score than you would by completing your game doesn't quite seem to me to be in the spirit of the competition?

if milking is in the spirit, then retiring also is!
You still acknowledge a defeat.
An AI would capitulate to you, you cannot so you retire.

My 15 minutes of fame! :king:

I never imagined having this success as I am usually a notch behind the best players. So many times have I read the spoilers and shaken my head in disbelief at how well some people play. But not this time.... muahahahahaha! :) :) :)

Congrats to Doc TK for the first place, definitely a great game there!

Also, pious_pete, I am happy that you got an award! That spoiler was sure fun to read! :)




Now, if I only hadn't made this stupid mistake. Made peace with Shaka and then I realize that this means peace with his vassal Isabella as well. Check were my stack is and the culture borders....

144629

Delayed me a bunch of turns before I could get open borders with Izzy...

if milking is in the spirit, then retiring also is!
You still acknowledge a defeat.

An AI would capitulate to you, you cannot so you retire.

I don't think either analogy holds.

In milking, you are still playing the game through to it's end, you're just playing in such a way as to maximize your score at the expense of developing a civ that (in some subjective measure) looks like a 'good' civ. (And you're also playing in a way that becomes tedious and repetitive). (Besides, I'm not convinced that extreme milking is in the spirit of the game anyway)

AIUI capitulating is a way of ensuring your survival. You're admitting defeat in a war, not in the game. It certainly carries with it the possibility of regaining your 'freedom' later in the game, and I think (not certain) it's even theoretically possible to win the game even while you are capitulated.

From the submit-page:
"You may submit a Retired game. This will be scored the same as a defeat, but will not be eligible for any award. "
I don't see any abuse, nor a big advantage.
If I know for sure from this turn on I am on the loosers' side, why continue?
Why do you judge people by that?
Why is finishing the game something worth to achieve?
I don't laugh at people who spend their time loosing the game, although I can understand it for one reason:
They are able to win an ambulance award.

Wow, two awards at once!:D :D :D

I guess I'm the only player who failed to achieve domination but still survived. Best unsuccessful domination attempt, I rule!

I retired because while I had been holding on fairly comfortably up to that point (survived three wars without losing a city and actually gained a couple) my game was going nowhere.

Wow! Grats to the winners and grats to the rest of us who stood up to the challenge and dared submit. Lessons in (relative) humiliation are lessons still! Aye? :D

Congrats to PiousPete on 'edging' me out for the Red Ambulance :) This is as close as I'd like to get! :lol:

An interesting game - I learned a few things from it and I hope we have some more 'tough' ones ... just not too soon! :thumbsup: to all the players who submitted their losing games.

Ahhh, a lovely blue shield for all that hard work. Hehe. That was the most difficult Civ4 game I've played by far.

8 dom wins and 1 SS. I thought at least one person would get a VC of each type.

I will echo civ_steve and hope we have some difficult games in the mix now and then. I learned a lot in WOTM3 and had to use every trick I knew just to eeek out a victory.

cas

Have to admit, I respect your honesty in saying that's what you did, but I do feel a little uneasy at people submitting retired games for that reason. I tend to imagine the option to retire as being there for people who simply don't have time to complete their games (or perhaps: They've got bored with their game due to too many units to move in the late game or summat). Retiring coz you get a higher score than you would by completing your game doesn't quite seem to me to be in the spirit of the competition?

DS:
Admitttedly I retired too.
Faced with no metal (my fault), no horses (again, that would be me) and with only archers garrisoned, a declaration and incoming stack of cats/knights and swords suggested, to me at least, that retirement seemed a good option at the time?
I could have played out about another 5 or 10 turns max to see my four cities fall, but...

Just not a good outing. :cry:

The upside was that this was my highest finish EVER in a GOTM/WOTM!!! ;-)

I tend to imagine the option to retire as being there for people who simply don't have time to complete their games.
Hmmm, I have never considered retiring for that reason. It wouldn't feel like a genuine result, especially not since I was winning. :spear:

By the way, this was a good game!

IIRC, Retiring was originally not allowed. With Civ3, we relented because of the issue with people not having time to complete their games. This wasn't a huge issue, because in Civ3, your score doesn't really go backwards (much). In civ4, it IS an issue though. Should we stop accepting retired entries?

Why?
-The number of submissions would fall even lower.
-You won't get people to finish their games, at least not me. :P

I would like to continue to be able to submit games one retires from. I almost didn't make the submission deadline this time because of the holiday (in the US). It would be nice to still submit an entry when running out of time.

After all, in this game we'd probably like to see how long each of us lasted.:ack:

IIRC, Retiring was originally not allowed. With Civ3, we relented because of the issue with people not having time to complete their games. This wasn't a huge issue, because in Civ3, your score doesn't really go backwards (much). In civ4, it IS an issue though. Should we stop accepting retired entries?

(Probably the wrong thread for this but....) I don't think you should stop accepting retired entries, because the issue of people not having time to complete games is still relevent (as is the issue of some games just getting boring to play towards the end), but I do think you need to remove the incentive to retire for score maximizing purposes. A simple way could be to just reduce the recorded score of retired games - eg. halve it (halving is a random guess, it'd probably be worth examining a few games to see how much score is typically reduced when a game goes to a conquest loss, to determine what the appropriate % reduction should be). Or (more sophisticated) only count the technology part of the score of retired games (since that's the part of the score that can't go down). The key issue I think should be that the system should be weighted so that if you retire and submit at the point where it becomes apparent you're heading for a conquest loss, your score when the results are published will most likely be a bit lower than if you'd actually carried on and submitted the final loss. That seems fair to me.

me as well...I was going to suggest halving the score of retired games as well.

I've submitted a few retired games, but that was cause I ran out of time to finish(and each one of them I ended up winning when I went back and finished them :() It does feel against the spirit of the competition to retire simply to avoid losing your poitns and encountering a conquest loss. I had over 300 years to do that in this game, and if I had, my score would have been almost twice as high as it ended up.

I personally respect people who lose to conquest, and actually submit it because its somewhat painful to watch your carefully built empire fall apart like that.

From the submit-page:
"You may submit a Retired game. This will be scored the same as a defeat, but will not be eligible for any award. "
I don't see any abuse, nor a big advantage.
If I know for sure from this turn on I am on the loosers' side, why continue?
Why do you judge people by that?


Oh sure, I agree, submitting a retired game is completely within the letter of the rules, what you did is perfectly legal etc., my point was about the spirit of the competition. (And btw I'm not trying to judge anyone, I'm trying to point out what looks to me like a loophole in the rules and expressing the opinion that it's bad to take advantage of it).

Take my game as an example (Mine was a spaceship loss rather than a conquest one, but I did lose a lot of score when Hannibal invaded me in 1821). I rolled in 22nd in the actual results. If instead of completing, I'd submitted my 1821 save as a retired game, it looks like I'd have come 16th. There's 4 completed submissions between those places, and to the extent that the score measures how well you play, it seems reasonable to say that all of those games were slightly better played than mine. But if I'd submitted a retired game I would've leapfrogged over them, pushing each of them down 1 place. That seems wrong somehow, and I think if I had done that then I'd have felt bad about it (without completing the game, I wouldn't have known how many people I'd pushed down, but I'd have known there'd be some people). (I think that is all to some extent a problem with the system, as what you did is within the current rules; as I've said elsewhere, I think the problem would be solved by just reducing the score of retired games, so you'd have the option to either retire once you see the game going badly, or carry on to get what should then be a higher score on completion).


Why is finishing the game something worth to achieve?
I don't laugh at people who spend their time loosing the game, although I can understand it for one reason:
They are able to win an ambulance award.

Perhaps finishing the game is worth it for exactly the same reason that you enter the competition in the first place? ;)

As for reasons for completing: One example: In 1821 I seriously thought my game was over, the odds were so overwhelming (Hannibal was much bigger than me and invading with tanks and artillary against my grenadiers and cannon). By playing on, I lasted another 137 turns, including seeing out the end of that war, and I discovered that if you're careful enough, sometimes you can survive against overwhelming odds. I now feel really proud of my game during those wars, and I learned a lot about Civ tactics. All that would've been lost if I'd retired.

(Should stress I think there are genuine reasons for retiring. I have no quibbles with someone who submits a retired game, eg. because they don't have time to complete it, or because they find it disheartening and not fun to watch their carefully constructed empire getting razed, as a main point of the competition is after all to have fun. Indeed, 6 months ago, faced with my 1821 situation, I probably would've retired. But I do hugely respect the people who do go through that and submit conquest losses.)

Is it possible to just take the max score of a game, not the final one?
That way at least players that play on are not disadvantaged towards the ones that retire exactly when the score goes down (and maybe then one could subtract 2% from retired games as an incentive to finish it)

I think recognizing your probable defeat is a sign of knowing the game.
It's rewarded by a better score than those who won't admit defeat and also won't be able to grab anything from being stubborn.
Getting no award makes sure it isn't going to be abused.
I think it's alright the way it is.
But since I personnaly never submitted any games (the ones I had played where lost, and it wasn't very appealing), I guess my opinion isn't the most relevent one.

:goodjob: to the winners, :thumbsup: to the others for admitting defeat, be it retirement or plain loss.

A simple way could be to just reduce the recorded score of retired games - eg. halve it (halving is a random guess, it'd probably be worth examining a few games to see how much score is typically reduced when a game goes to a conquest loss, to determine what the appropriate % reduction should be).

Dynamic, I'm not sure which score you are referring to.

If we went the route of reducing score for retired entries, I would suggest adjusting the Jason score. I think halving the Jason score is too much a penalty, as that would reduce it below the base score.

Instead I'd suggest reducing the difference between Jason score and base score by 50%, that is,

Final score = Jason - (Jason - Base) * .5

For example, using Airny's score,

Final = 2766 - (2766 - 1976) * .5 .. result is 2371.

At the end of the day, I would rather we did not adjust the score of retired entries. It feels like an unnecessary rule to me. If players choose to forgo the learning that comes with being fully and completely destroyed, well, so be it.

By playing on, I lasted another 137 turns, including seeing out the end of that war

That's the spirit! :thumbsup:

I retired this game. Not to preserve score but to end my frustration. I had already quit the game once and had to load from the autosave to continue it. It was either quit again or retire so I picked retire. The day someone wins an award for retiring then I would consider not accepting it.

It's unlikely that someone would end up in the top 10 with a retired game (WOTM3 might be an exception :) ), and it certainly wont boost your GPR much, but it does count for something. If someone played on to a conquest loss, their score would be based only on Technology learned (having lost all Wonders, People and Territory), so DynamicSpirit's suggestion seems rather fair. Players who retire because of time constraints will still get a chance to submit for some GPR points. Players who retire because of dwindling chances will get a smaller score than Players who play on, get conquered, but gain at least a Tech or two, and smaller still than Players who play on and either turn things around or lose to Spaceship, Domination, Cultural or Diplomatic wins by the AI. But at least you have the option to retire and submit if you choose to. (or retire, submit and end the frustration)

Question on this point: A player, presumably struggling, is attacked and is fearful that he will be conquered. He saves the game at that point, let's say 1000 AD. He then continues and is eliminated in 1200 AD. The 1000 AD score is higher that the 1200 AD score. Can the player submit the 1000 AD save as retired? If so, this would address any problems raised here, and I don't see any unfairness in permitting this.

And, to echo civ_steve, this isn't much of an issue in most GOTMs, and hopefully not in many more. :)

It's unlikely that someone would end up in the top 10 with a retired game (WOTM3 might be an exception :) ),

I'm sure it will happen when the first Deity GOTM arrives. :)

And, to echo civ_steve, this isn't much of an issue in most GOTMs, and hopefully not in many more. :)

Ainwood has previously indicated there'll be a deity level GOTM in this cycle. I imagine it'll be a big issue in that game, possibly also in the surrounding immortal/emperor level ones depending how generous the starting location is. It may be more of an issue in the WOTMs since the AI there is substantially more challenging than the GOTMs; December's emperor WOTM is on marathon, and consensus seems to be that marathon makes things easier; I imagine marathon games'll be unusual though.

I think we can expect a substantial number of future GOTMs/WOTMs with ~50% of people losing their games (though a lot of those'll be spaceship losses). And as time passes, awareness of the ability to submit retired games will inevitably grow (possibly with a feedback effect: Some people submitting conquest losses see that they are losing out in the sense of being beaten in score by other people who didn't play any better but who retired, so they then resolve to retire instead of playing their game to completion next time they are losing...)

:confused:

I'm somewhat confused that so much energy can be deployed debating a rather minor issue relating to score, in a clearly non-typical game, when so many players have previously debunked the scoring system. The speed ranking system, which seemed to be preferred last time it was discussed, gives zero credit for losses or retirements.

never mind

I'm somewhat confused that so much energy can be deployed debating a rather minor issue relating to score, in a clearly non-typical game, when so many players have previously debunked the scoring system. The speed ranking system, which seemed to be preferred last time it was discussed, gives zero credit for losses or retirements.

Guilty on all charges :)

I guess the answer is that, although I don't think much of the current scoring system, it's the one we've got and that people (including me) play against; so it's the one that I'm going to be considering if I'm thinking about the results list.

As to 'minor issue', I think it has the potential to become a not-so-minor issue, given that part of the difficulty of GOTM03 is the relative toughness of Warlords 2.08, which is presumably a permanent feature from now on :) . And I guess there is some motivation for the discussion in that it is somewhat - umm - irritating - to submit a completed game and then observe that other people who, as far as one can tell from comparing scores with ones own mid-game score, played no better, got a noticeably higher score for no reason other than that they - in effect (and maybe with good reasons) - gave up on their games partway through.

As to 'minor issue', I think it has the potential to become a not-so-minor issue, given that part of the difficulty of GOTM03 is the relative toughness of Warlords 2.08, which is presumably a permanent feature from now on :)

I think you can assume that, although there has been significant positive feedback about WOTM 3 as a one-off wake-up call, that feedback also said it would not be welcomed as a regular feature. If we continued to deliver games with a high ratio of losses/resignations then this would become a rather tiny competition. Even WOTM 3 was not originally intended to be such a bloodbath.

Retiring was originally a civ3 thing; allowed because some people had time constraints. With the score being the average of all turns, then there was not the same problem as with Civ4, where the score is instantaneous.

I think that retiring in Civ4 just before you're going to get smashed is somewhat outside the spirit of the competition. To get smashed, and then go-back and submit a save from an earlier point in the game where you were doing OK is, IMHO, outside the rules of the competition.

What problem would a retirement penalty solve and at what cost? IMO the problem solved (eliminating or reducing the benefit of retiring just before an overwhelming force smashes you) is too rare an event for competitive players and too irrelevant to the rankings to justify additional penalties on the vast majority of people who want to participate but simply run out of time. The cost could be less participation and lower submissions and that potential cost seems too high to me.

A retirement penalty in this game would have made sense but this game was an exception and typically exceptions to the rule make for bad law.

Players have a month to complete games. IMO, the 'ran out of time' argument to justify retiring doesn't really wash if you then manage to find time to play both WOTM & GOTM.

"The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty."

Eugene McCarthy, Time magazine, Feb. 12, 1979
US politician (1916 - 2005)

I am for an inefficient system, meaning no penalty for retirement.

Yes, but its not only about efficiency - its about fairness. Why should someone about to get beaten who does a tactical retirement get a higher score than someone who plays on to the bitter end?

Players have a month to complete games. IMO, the 'ran out of time' argument to justify retiring doesn't really wash if you then manage to find time to play both WOTM & GOTM.

Yes - but then, each game unless you lose early takes many many hours, and while I LOVE this game, between job, sports and friends there is just not always enough time.

I always thought that you want to encourage people to post games that are less than perfect. Usually if you run out of time in a game you were winning, that's already bad enough - no reason to then get your score cut in half. (I was sooo bummed I couldnt finish WOTM3 - at cut-off I was in 1256 AD with a game that was ok but undecided. I even missed the 6am posting deadline by a minute or 2. It was only 1367 points, but cutting them in half ?? Then why bother to even submit :cry:)

What is the worst possible abuse - someone with a high score isn't careful enough, makes a mistake at 4 a.m. and gets run over by a sudden AI invasion. Tough luck. So he cuts his losses by retiring - hey I'd rather have him do that, and get some hours of sleep, than see him reload :mischief: the game ! You can't really ask people to keep playing for hours until they are completely killed.

Again, running out of time (that includes refusing Huge maps and Marathon games) is for me the number one reason to not submit. In the a.m. WOTM3, at 1256 AD I had spent already 24h hours playing, and now at 1831 AD it is up to 53 hours, and it will take me a few more to get the last few squares for my domination victory. And I'm already a week overdue, which means also week late start for WOTM4 - and that I'll never be able to finish, given the size.

So bottom line, I guess what I was trying to say is, leave things the way they are. Everything's great ! Except that I might get fired if I keep gaming all night :D

Hmmm just as I finish this, there might be a solution: ask people to play until PEACE, or just cut the score in half if the player is involved in a WAR when retiring.

Yes, but its not only about efficiency - its about fairness. Why should someone about to get beaten who does a tactical retirement get a higher score than someone who plays on to the bitter end?

because he was wise enough to see it coming?

I retired because I gave up. I would certainly have lost eventually but I was not at risk of imminent defeat before I retired. It never occured to me that I might improve/reduce my score by retiring/continuing so I'm surprised that this has become such an issue.
Maybe I've underestimated the level of competitiveness in GOTM/WOTM.

Retiring was originally a civ3 thing; allowed because some people had time constraints. With the score being the average of all turns, then there was not the same problem as with Civ4, where the score is instantaneous.

Thank you for explaining scoring difference between Civ3 and Civ4 games relative to retiring.

I think that retiring in Civ4 just before you're going to get smashed is somewhat outside the spirit of the competition. To get smashed, and then go-back and submit a save from an earlier point in the game where you were doing OK is, IMHO, outside the rules of the competition.
I agree, that in particular, to submit a Retired game entry from an earlier save is outside the rules of competition, and is in my opinion the equivalent of reloading the game.

its about fairness. Why should someone about to get beaten who does a tactical retirement get a higher score than someone who plays on to the bitter end?
Given your points, I'll reverse my previous position. I feel fairness should rule, and would be willing to forgo the option of submitting retired games in the interest of fairness.

Yes - but then, each game unless you lose early takes many many hours, and while I LOVE this game, between job, sports and friends there is just not always enough time.
I'm in the same boat! So it is good to have a retirement option? So that you can get some notice and points for participating, even if you can't complete the game? There didn't use to be a retirement option, and having that option at least provides players with time-challenges more of an incentive to participate.
(I was sooo bummed I couldnt finish WOTM3 - at cut-off I was in 1256 AD with a game that was ok but undecided. I even missed the 6am posting deadline by a minute or 2. It was only 1367 points, but cutting them in half ?? Then why bother to even submit :cry: ) Wouldn't you be a bit less bummed to have half than 0? And to have your name on the results list? In general people are not going to move up the GPR list by submitting retired games so IMO the advantage of a retirement option is to have an entry on the results list - I did participate but wasn't able to finish in time.
What is the worst possible abuse - someone with a high score isn't careful enough, makes a mistake at 4 a.m. and gets run over by a sudden AI invasion. Tough luck. So he cuts his losses by retiring - hey I'd rather have him do that, and get some hours of sleep, than see him reload the game :mischief: !Players have options on how they respond to game situations, and it does get more intense when playing against the clock. Reloading is never an option, and often will result in 0 points and other possible penalties beyond simply missing a submittal deadline!
You can't really ask people to keep playing for hours until they are completely killed. A player will take whatever option they wish. Are you saying that someone who takes the option to play on to the bitter end should be penalized for doing so vs someone who retires? Besides, you may find a way out of your predicament if you do play on.
Again, running out of time (that includes refusing Huge maps and Marathon games) is for me the number one reason to not submit. ...
I understand completely. Which is why I'm glad that a retirement option exists. There are many players with many different backgrounds and environments - some players finish the game within 24 hours! GOTM tries to make the competition available to all within constraints, and to be fair.
So bottom line, I guess what I was trying to say is, leave things the way they are. Everything's great ! Except that I might get fired if I keep gaming all night :D Needless to say, we take no responsibility for firings due to too much CIV! ;)
Hmmm just as I finish this, there might be a solution: ask people to play until PEACE, or just cut the score in half if the player is involved in a WAR when retiring.This is somewhat arbitrary and will lead players to make choices not due to the game but due to the competition. Other than the option to retire, which is competition derived due to time limits and having both GOTM and WOTM, we'd like remove any penalties that a player gets for simply playing the game to completion.

(About why someone should get a higher score for retiring)

because he was wise enough to see it coming?

I don't think that's fair: I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who suffered conquest defeats were equally wise to the fact that their score was going down each turn they played and that they were facing a near-certain conquest defeat, but they continued going because they believed it was in the spirit of the GOTM to complete your game if possible.

The published score is I think supposed to be your score at the end of the game, not the highest score that you obtained at a turn you selected during the game ;)

I always thought that you want to encourage people to post games that are less than perfect. Usually if you run out of time in a game you were winning, that's already bad enough - no reason to then get your score cut in half. (I was sooo bummed I couldnt finish WOTM3 - at cut-off I was in 1256 AD with a game that was ok but undecided. I even missed the 6am posting deadline by a minute or 2. It was only 1367 points, but cutting them in half ?? Then why bother to even submit :cry:)


Sympathies for your WOTM03 experience :(

But I don't understand the logic. You say 'why bother to submit' [if your score is reduced], but lots of people do bother to submit after they've played to a conquest defeat, and after the fact of getting conquested has cut their score in, maybe more than half.

There's another way to look at it. I'm sure one day there'll come a month when I'm forced to retire through lack of time or something. When I do that, I'd quite like to be able to submit the retired game and not immediately arouse suspicion in some quarters that I'm just retiring to maximize my score by avoiding a conquest loss. At the moment, because of the possible abuse of retired games, that's not possible. If retired scores were reduced so that abuse wasn't easily possible, then people who do need to retire will be able to do so without anyone wondering what their motives were.


So bottom line, I guess what I was trying to say is, leave things the way they are. Everything's great ! Except that I might get fired if I keep gaming all night :D


But think how much more time you'll have to play civ if that happens... :mischief:

Let me throw out of some concepts being discussed with my two cents worth. (1) spirit of the game/competition, (2) fairness, and (3) spirit of the community regarding time considerations.

(1) If this is purely about competition then don’t allow retired submissions at all. What other competitions allow incomplete games to be counted much less score higher than completed games? If this is about spirit of the game then I fall into a similar conclusion. Not giving any weight whatsoever to intermediate progress implies to me that the only meaningful score is at the end of a completed game.

(2) I’m not tracking the fairness discussion; I think its just semantics. To me fairness simply means a level playing field and the rules are the same for everybody. That would seem to be the case now or however the rules are changed.

(3) This to me is where the debate lies. Civ is a very time consuming game but if the spirit of the community leans heavily toward competition then competitors just have to suck it up sometimes or pay the price. If however the spirit of the community leans more toward growth and inclusiveness then maybe time limitations should not be penalized.

Maybe a compromise would be that the top ranking 25, 50 or 100 (or pick a cutoff point) couldn’t submit an incomplete game. For the most competitive players time limitations aren’t considered legitimate excuses. For the players above that give them a break. Why be punitive to struggling players whose score is already low?

Or maybe allow players who haven’t submitted for a month or two submit an incomplete game. Not submitting could be an indication that person is backsliding into having a life outside of Civ and maybe this could help lure them back in.

Nice post slowrider.
I'm not agreeing with you, but I like how it makes sense :lol:.

About fairness I totally agree with you. Fairness is to obey the rules. No reloading, no anarchy exploit, submit the game in time...


to dynamicspirit
There is a retirement option in the game. When you retire, your score goes into your hall of fame. It's not halfed, or reduced. It's a loss, just as good as a conquest loss or a space loss.
IMHO giving up before dying is a wise move IRL. I don't see why it wouldn't be so in CIV. I'd vassalize myself to a strong AI if there was an option to do so. But there isn't.

Note that I just state an external opinion, since I never submitted my retired games (although I never had the time to finish a GotM or WotM, and the one I really want to submit is on marathon speed :crazyeye:). So I'm really convinced, I'm not protecting my own score.

Nice discussion, if the admins want to let this discussion last longer, they should perhaps outsource it ot make it sticky. ;-)

I'm still against changing the rules, but IF you change it, I'd prefer the solution someone already proposed:
If someone submits a retired game, only count the score he got from technologies.

I don't see why there is a debate.

If this is a competition, do whatever you can to get the highest score. Without breaking the rules, of course. If this means retiring, then so be it. If you see that you are going to be destroyed or that your score is going down every turn, then it would be in the spirit of competition to retire so you get a higher score. If you chose to play on knowing that you are going to lose or that your score is only dropping, that seems to be outside of the spirit of competiton. Its almost like pitching in the bottom of the 9th when the batting team has more runs. All you can do is get beaten even worse.

I don't see why there is a debate.

If this is a competition, do whatever you can to get the highest score. Without breaking the rules, of course. If this means retiring, then so be it. If you see that you are going to be destroyed or that your score is going down every turn, then it would be in the spirit of competition to retire so you get a higher score. If you chose to play on knowing that you are going to lose or that your score is only dropping, that seems to be outside of the spirit of competiton. Its almost like pitching in the bottom of the 9th when the batting team has more runs. All you can do is get beaten even worse.

I don't think you understand wha spirit of the competition means, if that is your stance. I would gather from your statement that you are an opportunistic person, one I would undoubtedly not trust if I met you in real life...because you care more about results than about how you got there.

I don't think you understand wha spirit of the competition means, if that is your stance. I would gather from your statement that you are an opportunistic person, one I would undoubtedly not trust if I met you in real life...because you care more about results than about how you got there.

1) You shouldn't judge other posters. Leave that to god or judges (depending on what you believe in).
2) It's a competition. A friendly one, sure, but still a competition. If you play tennis, and you know your opponent has a hard time with low balls, will you still play high balls? I know I wouldn't. Retiring for score preservation is perfectly in the spirit of competition. Maybe not in the spirit of cIV, but that's a different matter.

I don't think you understand wha spirit of the competition means, if that is your stance. I would gather from your statement that you are an opportunistic person, one I would undoubtedly not trust if I met you in real life...because you care more about results than about how you got there.

:lol: I take that as a compliment! You are right, too. I'm the kind of guy that will kick someone in the balls when I fight.:eek: When I was a delivery driver, my customers only got change if they asked for it.;) When I play, I play to win, but what I won't do is cheat or steal. I'll lie, but only to the police or my boss.:D

To me, the spirit of competition means that you will do whatever it takes to get closest to the top without cheating. If that means retiring while you still have a decent score, then that's what you should do. If you are competing, its foolish to do something that would lower your score. Playing on until your assured destruction will lower your score. If you're just playing for fun, do whatever you want, but for me, competing is fun.

To me, the spirit of competition means that you will do whatever it takes to get closest to the top without cheatingRetiring will never get you closer to the top! Certainly not in the Global Player Ranking system, and for an individual game retirements and losses are not eligible for any awards or medals.
If that means retiring while you still have a decent score, then that's what you should do.I have two issues with this statement. 1.) Accepting a retired game for the Civ3 GOTM was originally adapted to allow non-submittals due to time limit to get some recognition for their effort; score preservation for Civ3 wasn't even a concern. 2.) There is a LOT to learn about how to play CIV by encountering and attempting (and sometimes succeeding) to overcome a bad situation; taking the position that one will just retire and submit at the loss of the first city to maintain the highest amount of what will be a minimal score is contrary to the desire to improve overall player game skills, a significant element of GOTM. Some of the best Spoiler entries over the years have been from players overcoming such bad situations!

Changing the retired game scoring for GOTM to just the Technology element of the score equates retiring score with score due to a conquest loss. This is a relative disadvantage for players with a good game who are up against the time-limit, but any retirement option is still better than none. Enticing players facing a bad situation to continue their game may result in them learning a thing or two, and might even increase their score vs retiring at the first sign of real trouble. And the player still has the option to retire and submit at any time, if they choose to.

I like the way Moxxa thinks, because that's the way you have to act in this world.
In german we have a say like this: step on the back of the lower and kiss asses of the higher.

Anyway I think this is a bit offtopic. This is about changing rules, because some people think retiring is an abuse.

Changing the retired game scoring for GOTM to just the Technology element of the score equates retiring score with score due to a conquest loss. This is a relative disadvantage for players with a good game who are up against the time-limit, but any retirement option is still better than none. Enticing players facing a bad situation to continue their game may result in them learning a thing or two, and might even increase their score vs retiring at the first sign of real trouble. And the player still has the option to retire and submit at any time, if they choose to.

That's convincing enough for me. Up to now I've thought the current system should be changed but have not been totally certain how. But that sounds to me like and extremely good argument for only counting the science part of the score for retired games - so I'm now going to nail my colours to that mast :)

A couple of people here have argued that retiring is sensible because you're admitting defeat. Well in that case, ISTM retiring should be scored the same as a complete defeat - a conquest loss, as civ_steve suggests.

When I was a delivery driver, my customers only got change if they asked for it .... but what I won't do is cheat or steal
That must be a local cultural or legal distinction. Where I come from, deliberately not giving change is considered cheating or stealing.

@ civ_steve:
hey thanks for answering in such details to my post - I feel so honored - even though I'm not sure I completely understand (probably you also didnt fully get my points, but hey !).

I think my approach was a bit more laissez-faire, but many here seem to be really serious about this. I simply like to look my results up afterwards to see how others are doing, and submitting is just me giving others a chance to check if they beat me or not. I'm not retiring a game that I'm losing to preserve my score. But I will do it if something sets me back drastically and will prolong the game too much (e.g. in WOTM 4 I'm near a culture victory, but if I happen to foolishly lose a Legendary city to the AI and have to go for domination instead, it will just be too much 'work'.
And like DynamicSpirit said, I might not even really want to submit this then, because it smells like defeat. (well it would be, sort-of :crazyeye: )

However, reading through the posts, I start to like your idea about counting only the tech value. It does make sense, looking at how serious a topic this is for some of us.

One last remark, and it's probably too much effort to check always, but how about this:
- if you are at retiring while at war, it means you'll probably lose turn by turn, so treat it as a defeat, only tech value counts.
- if however you are able to establish peace, maybe at the cost of some land/score, you're clearly holding your own for the moment and can retire proudly at whatever your score is, as there should be no immediate defeat.

1) You shouldn't judge other posters. Leave that to god or judges (depending on what you believe in).
2) It's a competition. A friendly one, sure, but still a competition. If you play tennis, and you know your opponent has a hard time with low balls, will you still play high balls? I know I wouldn't. Retiring for score preservation is perfectly in the spirit of competition. Maybe not in the spirit of cIV, but that's a different matter.

from his response, I'd say my 'judgement' was dead on. And I wasn't actually judging him, just trying to get an impression of the type of person he is...totally different. Everyone does that all the time.

When I was a delivery driver, my customers only got change if they asked for it.;) When I play, I play to win, but what I won't do is cheat or steal. I'll lie, but only to the police or my boss.:D


that sounds a lot like cheating and stealing to me...and there's never a reason to lie to the police or your boss unless you've done something wrong.

To me, the spirit of competition means that you will do whatever it takes to get closest to the top without cheating. If that means retiring while you still have a decent score, then that's what you should do. If you are competing, its foolish to do something that would lower your score. Playing on until your assured destruction will lower your score. If you're just playing for fun, do whatever you want, but for me, competing is fun.

Well, considering the GOTM is a continuous competition...I'll be perfectly glad to have you retire every time you are faced with a hardship...if I'd done that I'd still be playing adventurer saves and considering myself a prince level player. Instead I won an immortal game, play contender saves now and consider myself a monarch+ player now. I've also learned how to recover from nearly untenable situations as well(almost won an emperor game via space race in which various setbacks caused my research to drop badly enough that I didn't learn Iron Working until 1070AD!!!)

That must be a local cultural or legal distinction. Where I come from, deliberately not giving change is considered cheating or stealing.

Its more like I would just assume that all the change was my tip. If they said "HEY! What about my change?" I just tell a joke and play it off like I'm in a serious hurry. They would understand and still tip me anyway. After about a year, quite a few of the customers would request me to deliver to them. How else are you supposed to make 200$ a night delivering pizza?:king: Ahh...the stories I could tell...good times...

I agree that retiring is a loss. I think that you should play to win. What I don't think is that your score should be reduced for retiring. I just don't see any good reasons for it. If you are facing imminent destruction, not hardships, but 100% guaranteed destruction, and retiring will give you a higher score, it is your best option and you shouldn't be penalized for making that strategic decision.

I plan on playing in the next WOTM and I don't plan on retiring.

EDIT: Good job Thrallia. May you continue to improve and learn.

That must be a local cultural or legal distinction. Where I come from, deliberately not giving change is considered cheating or stealing.



Of course it is, if you live in the modern, Western World.

Took a look at some of the game files from recent retire submissions. There were about 20 retires for GOTM 10, 11 and 12. I also looked at the 10 retires from WOTM 3.

The games fell into 3 categories. (1) Retiring when the player was in a competitive position relative to technology, power, etc. They were not under attack but for some reason just retired. I assume this was due to time constraints. (2) Retiring under attack, which I subjectively determined they could have survived while protecting their land and population. Had they continued playing they would probably lose but their score would have been higher than the retire score. (3) And finally tactical retirement in the face of certain conquest defeat.

From GOTM 10-12 about 25% fell into the time constraint category. The most, about 50%, were type 2 and the remaining 25% were the type 3 tactical retirement. There were 6 tactical retirements out of a total of 449 submissions or 1.3% and the average Global Ranking benefit was about 1 point. The average player ranking was 308.

There were 10 retirements in WOTM 3 and 8 of them were clearly tactical. Imminent destruction wasn’t obvious for a couple of them but I lumped them in as well because the situation was so bad. The average benefit was only half a point due to a relatively large high score. The average global ranking was 280 but there were 3 top 100 players. One of these players didn’t submit a GOTM 12 so that tactical retirement score counted. The other players submitted the second game and of coarse that score counted.

Its more like I would just assume that all the change was my tip. If they said "HEY! What about my change?" I just tell a joke and play it off like I'm in a serious hurry.


Translation: I thought this was an easy situation to get away with stealing, so that's what I did. When people were paying enough attention and caught me, they let me off with a feeble excuse, which just encouraged me to steal even more!

A discussion this heated, on a topic of this sort, without me in it? We have to fix that! :D

Have not had warlords until this Christmas, so had not wandered into these threads. When I get some time to learn it, you will have to put up with me here too. :lol:

But first, some levity. Based on his post 36, AlanH must think he is watching Seinfeld when he reads this thread: wasn't that the show about nothing ... ? :D Usually, when he opines that a post is about inconsequentia, he is talking to me! :lol: Now I don't feel so alone.

Now for the serious discussion

To get smashed, and then go-back and submit a save from an earlier point in the game where you were doing OK is, IMHO, outside the rules of the competition. No doubt about it, this is precisely a reload: going back to an earlier time in the game, and replaying to change and improve the result. In this case, the replay is the retirement. I am surprised that the mods did not jump on that idea more strongly.

slowrider hit the nail on the head with the different types of incomplete games: the ran out of time when viable (or even hugely winning), and the retired in the face of doom. How can we appropriately reduce the score of the retired in the face of doom (face it, in that case the score is a sham - the game was misplayed if you are that desperate, regardless of the untenable score that you have at the retirement) without unfairly penalizing those who played well but ran out of time? The reality may be that we cannot do both.

As far as the relative placing in the results of the single game, the problem is comparing apples to oranges. Making it half an apple makes the comparison more sensible? Maybe not. The reason that we don't accept reloads is that they are not comparable to first played games. So for the same reason, comparing retired games to completed games doesn't make sense if the retirement was in the face of doom.

But if we made one table for completed games and a separate table of the incomplete games when posting results, that might solve the within game issue.

Global rankings is a tougher issue. How to give some credit to the incomplete when winning due to time, but not too much credit to the retired in the face of doom? And the rather separate issue (from the competetion issue), the desire to incentivize completing the game in any case. The best (and by no means perfect) solution may be that the points for the retirement are not more than the points for a conquest loss, which is the tech points only method if I understand it right. Yes, it is really not fair to the ran out of time winning group, but it does address the other two issues. It seems that any other approach to be more fair to the out of time winners is too good to the retired disasters and incentivizes retirement.

No win-win on this one, sad to say. :(

dV

well, the only retirements I've submitted were for games in which I was winning and ran out of time(GOTM7, GOTM10), I've played out all my losses...those don't seem to take as long :D I can say I would certainly not complain about a reduction in my score down to my tech points only for my retirements. I'm happy to have the option to submit them at all, since for most things you get no credit for something that is unfinished.

Thinking more about this, there is one win-win if it is feasable.

If there is a reliable and not too cumbersome way to adjudicate retirements into losing retirements and time retirements, and the mods are willing and able to do this, then they could be handled differently. That would be a win for all three issues (no penalty for time, the right penalty for loss, incentive to finish). Only the mods "lose" by having more work, so as I say, it may not be feasible. It opens a Pandora's Box of what the adjudication method should be.

If you weight the three issues (time, loss, incentive) equally, then the tech points only seems best (not perfect). But if you weight being fair to the time retirements more heavily, then maybe we don't penalize retirements.

Suppose we decide (and now we are in the realm of value judgements) that incentivizing completion is not really a competition related issue. Player can always retire, and finish later for the education (and that is now their personal responsibility).

Then we are balancing fair to the time retirememt with adjust the loss retirement. In that case, I would say don't reduce the score. In this one to one (instead of one to two) decision, I would go for max fairness to the time retirement.

The loss retirement then becomes an allowed exploit (and it IS an exploit). We post it on the exploit page as such. Is is like the settler chop exploit that we allow. Since everyone can know about it and use it if needed, it is not unfair from a competition standpoint.

Maybe that is the best solution in the long run.

dV

No doubt about it, this is precisely a reload: going back to an earlier time in the game, and replaying to change and improve the result. In this case, the replay is the retirement. I am surprised that the mods did not jump on that idea more strongly.

I agree. Such a reload to affect the outcome is clearly in breach of the rules, as the player would be using knowledge of the future score trajectory to change the earlier decision to continue. As such it would be treated the same as other reload/replay misdemeanours.

I have a proposition: I hope it is possible to extract from the save the following:

Let score be the maximum score that a player has achieved during the game.
Then at least someone who tries to play on doesn't get punished for that if he fails. But then the player still has an incentive to play on cause if he survives the war he might get to a better score but still he doesn't lose anything comparing to retiring instantly.

Let score be the maximum score that a player has achieved during the game.

I think this has merit, if it can be done. While the max score ever in the game probably overstates the quality of a game that goes south, it is the same for all players and thus is fine from a competition standpoint. And it does remove any penalty from playing on in a tough position, which it seems we want to encourage. Finally, it does not penalize those who are doing well but run out of time (any more than the running out of time does).

Oh, and it would remove any temptation for players to play on, then if it goes bad, reload to retire earlier. Which means one less infraction type for the mods to have to worry about.

An excellent suggestion, socralynnek! :goodjob:

dV

Alan, any comment whether this is doable?

I have a proposition: I hope it is possible to extract from the save the following:

Let score be the maximum score that a player has achieved during the game.
Then at least someone who tries to play on doesn't get punished for that if he fails. But then the player still has an incentive to play on cause if he survives the war he might get to a better score but still he doesn't lose anything comparing to retiring instantly.

I think the problem with that is you could end up accidentally penalizing players for winning: The reason is that using max score in the game would only sensible for players who lose (or retire). Players who win get an early-victory bonus that is typically huge, but which is only marginal if their victory is close to 2050AD. Most games go through periods in the early -mid game when the 'score for winning this turn' is massive and totally unrelated to their eventual winning score, so you wouldn't want to use that score for winners. So in order to keep scoring winning players in a sensible manner, your scheme would have to work something like:

(1) If you win, you get your winning score, including early victory bonus just as currently.
(2) If you lose, you get the max base score you achieved (with the small extra scaling to final score that the game gives to losing games)

The trouble is that for someone who wins the game very late , (2) could theoretically be bigger than (1). In effect they'd get a smaller score than they would've done by just retiring, or doing something to make themselves lose.

A smaller problem is that it could encourage players who suspect they will lose to play 'badly' in the sense of temporarily getting an absolutely massive empire that they know they are in no position to defend and will lose very quickly, maybe not even bothering to defend it, just so they get a high 'highest base score achieved'.

I apologize for being one those who launched this discussion.

I firmly believe that rules are rules, and you should not change the rules for some minor reasons.
For the first GotMs and WotMs, the retiring was allowed, with no "special" rule.
I vote (for what it's worth) for keeping this rule, until there is a bigger problem to solve.
The top players aren't retiring, and if they do it's not because they are losing the game (since they are winning!).
So it's only an issue for second half players in some rare games were winning is really hard (or even surviving! since survivors will continue to tech and grow and thus have better scores than retirers).

just my 2 cents

Alan, any comment whether this is doable?

The final save does include score data for each turn, as part of the replay history. In theory we could track back through these records and find the max base score, and use that to score losses or retirements.

I'm still unconvinced that this is a worthwhile way to spend time and effort, either in discussion or in implementation. I believe it's very unlikely that GOTM competitions will continue to generate the levels of losses and retirements we saw in WOTM 3. While the occasional exceptionally hard game is interesting, doing it frequently would alienate players, and participation would fall. So anyone trying to build a Global Ranking career out of regularly getting high GR scores from retirements is likely to have very few opportunities.

DynamicSpirit also raises a valid point that any change in scoring is likely to affect player behaviour, and this option does seem to make it possible to play the game in a very artificial way just to increase the peak base score.

What about people who win? Shouldn't they automatically be awarded the maximum score they could get from milking, instead of forcing them to postpone stepping over the winning line and to actually carry out this agonizing milking stage? :)

Is there an agonising milking stage in Civ4? I thought the fast finish bonus was strong enough to make an early finish better than hanging on for a long time to increase base score?

Is there an agonising milking stage in Civ4? I thought the fast finish bonus was strong enough to make an early finish better than hanging on for a long time to increase base score?

In my experience, during the late game, eg. post 1600, that is the case. In earlier periods though, you often can increase your winning score by hanging on a while and using the time to increase your population.

Yes, but how long is "a while"? It would be a pretty subtle scoring algorithm that could calculate your "possible best score" based on an actual victory state and projections as to what pop and territory you might achieve, in what number of turns, while the victory bonus decays. Is it really "agonising" to play those extra turns out? You don't *have* to, you know - you could just take the fast finish ... which I understood to be the preferred measure of performance anyway :p

I'm fairly sure Ribannah, was joking, not making a serious suggestion ;). I was simply replying directly to your question.

To continue directly answering your questions (purely for the sake of conveying information :) ), it's certainly true that a lot of people (including myself) think that fastest finish is a far better indicator than score. However the results are always presented in score order, and that gives quite an incentive to maximize score. I've done it myself by taking measures to increase my population at the end, I'm not sure whether I'd describe it as 'agonizing', it's certainly moderately boring, very repetitive, and gives a sense of 'not really playing properly' - eg. founding numerous cities that will never grow beyond size 3 or 4, and are in effect totally useless - except that they happen to increase your population score in the crucial last few turns.

Is there an agonising milking stage in Civ4? I thought the fast finish bonus was strong enough to make an early finish better than hanging on for a long time to increase base score?
***Spoiler warning***
Read this only if you have completed WOTM4
Deleted. Please don't post spoiler information outside the relevant threads during the game. AlanH

I have absolutely no problem with milking. It's up to each player to select their style of play (I play GOTM/WOTM to learn and to discuss with other players). Don't change any rules that are not obviously faulty. It's better to spend the time to create interesting saves :D

BTW, thanks for the effort you spend on managing GOTM/WOTM.

As far as I can see (I have only completed two games so far), milking is as big an issue with Civ4 as it was with Civ3, if not bigger.

So in order to keep scoring winning players in a sensible manner, your scheme would have to work something like:

(1) If you win, you get your winning score, including early victory bonus just as currently.
(2) If you lose, you get the max base score you achieved (with the small extra scaling to final score that the game gives to losing games) When I suppored this idea, I assumed that win score is the same, and loss/retire score would be the usual loss score, or the highest ever base score (whichever is higher). Not sure if highest ever base score would need to be modified to maintain the incentive to continue. And I expected that the highest ever base score would never be more than an ultimately winning Firaxis score.

The trouble is that for someone who wins the game very late , (2) could theoretically be bigger than (1). In effect they'd get a smaller score than they would've done by just retiring, or doing something to make themselves lose. I find that to be insane! (I'm not saying it is not true, as I don't know, but if true, it is crazy :crazyeye: ). Does the scoring system really do that, or only if you are winning big, then blow it big, and then pull out a win anyway? And how often does that happen?

A smaller problem is that it could encourage players who suspect they will lose to play 'badly' in the sense of temporarily getting an absolutely massive empire that they know they are in no position to defend and will lose very quickly, maybe not even bothering to defend it, just so they get a high 'highest base score achieved'. That did not occur to me, but is that any different from the current approach? Since retirement is not penalized at present, this approach, which gives up any chance of winning, could be equally done now as in the socralynnek system, couldn't it?

It comes down to three considerations:

Do we want to incentivize completion? Current system does not.

Do we think that retiring to max score in face of certain defeat is somehow unsporting? Current system does not penalize this.

Do we think that retiring when winning due to running out of time should not be penalized? Current system does not penalize this.

If we like that, no change is required. If we think we would like to incentivize playing on without penalizing the time retirements, the socralynnek system seems to be a way to do this, if the scoring system is not too insane!

And if we think incentivizing completion is not a competition issue, then I am happy to leave it alone, not penalizing the time requirements, and allowing retirement to maintain score as an allowed exploit (posted as such, so all know). Then each player can decide whether to add such a farce score to their GR totals or not.

dV