Crazy resources and an aggressive civ made for an entertaining game in this fantasy-realm based map. Unsurprisingly, its was conquest & domination victories that made up the bulk of the submissions. Jove walked away with the gold medal by a comfortable margin. In second, Doc TK was again not quite able to grab gold, but again showed his consistency. In third, Don Rumata is to be congratulated for nabbing his first medal.

Summary of Medal Winners:

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/GoldMedal.gif Jove: 1050 AD Conquest Victory, 150,103 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/SilverMedal.gif Doc TK: 1520 AD Domination Victory, 138,200 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/BronzeMedal.gif Don Rumata: 1625 AD Domination Victory, 130,333 points.

Other Award Winners:

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/world.gif Bradleyfeanor: 1250 AD Domination Victory, 127,754 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/parchment.gif ngraner42: 1540 AD Diplomatic Victory, 106,258 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/visor.gif Lexad: 175 BC Conquest Victory, 79,465 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/SpaceShip.gif julienheadley: 1842 AD Spaceship Victory, 60,717 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/MusicNote.gif anakin.d: 1700 AD Cultural Victory, 18,746 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/cow.gif chunkymonkey: 2050 AD Time Victory, 16,567 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/blueshield.gif tonlaan: 1976 AD Domination Victory, 22,399 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/burgundyshield.gif Gnejs: 1380 AD Conquest Victory, 13,113 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/purpleshield.gif Chamnix: 2028 AD Diplomatic Victory, 10,502 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/greenambulance.gif g_storrow: 1969 AD Spaceship Loss, 5,422 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/greenshield.gif honda tadakatsu: 2033 AD Spaceship Victory, 4,415 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/oliveshield.gif THE WIZ: 2039 AD Cultural Victory, 3,803 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/redambulance.gif deadloss: 2200 BC Conquest Loss, 86 points.


>> See the full results here (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/results/index.php?month=60005).
>> 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).

Well, at least my dairy skills are improving! :lol: I managed to milk my laboriously slow 1780 dom win for over 80 K "final score" (the score formerly known as Jason?) which came out 19th highest !? :crazyeye:

Which absolutely proves that speed, not score, is the skill barometer in this game! :lol: I mean, what kind of system has me listed above, say, Lexad's 175 BC conquest!?! :confused: :crazyeye:

Congrats to all the real winners and real talents! :goodjob:

Somwhere the past I recall AlanH wanting to expunge the term Jason Score from Civ 4. The GOTM results tables call it "final score", but the WOTM results tables still say Jason Score. Time to break out the "X-sponge" ;)

dV

Thx. Pleased to see my QA department is still on the ball :p

Congrats to all the winners! :)

Yippie! My first WOTM badge! Thanx for congrats, dV, I feel OK with scoring being the primary factor as long as I get first in Speed and Combined ratings - :p jesusin ;)

Which absolutely proves that speed, not score, is the skill barometer in this game! :lol: I mean, what kind of system has me listed above, say, Lexad's 175 BC conquest!?! :confused: :crazyeye:

Congrats to all the real winners and real talents! :goodjob:

dV,

I think you not really understand what you are talking about ...
Playing for fastest military victory (domination or conquest) is one of the easiest strategy in Civ4/Warlords. To say it with an analogy: you just have to put on speed and avoid crashing. On the contrary, when playing for score you have one more serious requirement: -continuing the analogy- you must end with your car in good condition too. This constraint prevents you from giving up all aspects of the game in favor of military production and total rush.
In fact, "fast military strategy" seems more adapted for a game called "Barbarization", and I consider quite relevant that the score formula does not reward it so much.

That does not mean that the score formula is well balanced for other victory conditions, but it's another story ... I just wanted to react to your words that are erroneously insulting for people playing for score.

dV,
I think you not really understand what you are talking about ...
Playing for fastest military victory (domination or conquest) is one of the easiest strategy in Civ4/Warlords. To say it with an analogy: you just have to put on speed and avoid crashing. On the contrary, when playing for score you have one more serious requirement: -continuing the analogy- you must end with your car in good condition too.

I don't think that last bit is true. When you're playing for score, you tend to keep the 'car' in good condition until, say, 20-30 turns before your victory and then you just start doing whatever to max your population - even if it means taking/planting totally useless cities, chopping forests on tundra (thus ruining those tiles for future use) etc. The result would not be considered to be in good condition if you had to play on beyond your victory date.

If you want to continue the analogy, playing for speed might involve trashing your car the moment you buy it by running it faster than it's supposed to go down a racing track. Playing for score might involve keeping your car well serviced for ages, then suddenly trashing it by driving it up a mountain that's far steeper than it's designed to go up. Neither would be seen as good examples of looking after a car.

Congrats to Julien Headley on the space race - beat me into 2nd fastest - by, umm, 99 years! That must've been an impressive game. None of the other spaceraces come close: 17 spacerace victories spread between 1941AD and 2033AD, and then Julien's in 1842AD!

It sure says something about the scoring system that the fastest cultural victory got barely 1/7 of the score of the fastest domination.

That does not mean that the score formula is well balanced for other victory conditions, but it's another story ... I just wanted to react to your words that are erroneously insulting for people playing for score. Oh my! :eek: I was not intenting to insult anyone with my reference to real winners and real talents, other than to acknowledge that there are many more talented players that I who are lower on the list ranked by score. I see that my choice of language was misleading, and I apologize to anyone who felt is was a criticism or insult to them. :blush:

Particularly with the way that an inefficient domination victory can post a huge score compared to other victory types and even more efficient domination wins, I was mainly reacting to the fact that in my case "finishing 19th" does not mean, in terms of relative skill, what a high finish in most other arenas does. I surely can't say I was the 19th best player in the competition, or even that I played the 19th best game. But I had the 19th highest score. A fundamental disconnect. That is all I meant.

Don't get me wrong, I did have fun seeing how high I could run the score, including an end gimick of taking 5 cities at once in one turn just before I tripped the land limit.

I agree that playing for fast military victory is easier than other victory types in that there are perhaps fewer game nuances to account for. But to achieve these very fast (175 BC!) requires incredible efficiency in builds, research, and tactics (just enough troops), something I have not yet mastered.

I think that within any victory type, a faster victory should generally reflect a more skillfully (i.e. efficiently or elegantly) played game (I could be wrong here, as I have little experience with non-military wins). I can't see how it can be argued that wining later takes more skill. Winning early usually means winning small (or at least relatively small), and it seems that winning later and bigger is more rewarded in score, except after 1800 or so when the lateness factor starts to overcome size growth.

To the extent that very fast military victory will always be faster than very fast culture or diplomatic (or space for that matter), then we really can't compare across victory types in any meaningful way. Which is why we have the type-specific awards, which are based on speed.

Don't mean to rehash or reopen an old debate, but felt I needed to explain myself given any perception of an insult.

dV

Thx. Pleased to see my QA department is still on the ball :p No problem .. . after all, that is why you pay me the big bucks! :D Oh ... wait ...

Mostly I'm just the Q department (except when A can be added for annoying), and the answers come from you.

I am pleased to see that the stick out tongue smilie still has its most loyal patron ;)

dV

Never mind me...

Hmmm... I was playing for fast domination and vassalized the last civ as I crossed the limit just to see what the game would do. So I could've won a fastest domination, but whatever. Gold's good enough for me :) I don't believe a gold proves I'm 'the best' player in civdom (I can't compete in the other VC's for example), but shhh! let me pretend it does for a couple days :lol:
Congrats to the fastest finish winners!!!

Welcome back, Bradleyfeanor! :)

Thanks, Obormot! It's good to be back. Sorry to all that I didn't write a game spoiler. Between being rusty after my year off and it being my first Warlords game, I made a great many mistakes and just wanted to move on to the next game.

The only thing interesting about my game was that I decided to forego researching fishing or meditation in order to use engineers or scientists to lightbulb my way through engineering and the expensive techs on the path to Chemistry. It backfired though, and my great leader pump decided to gift me with three artists due to the national epic: very unlikely odds of that happening. It made me into one unhappy civver--and also made me wonder if Warlords were tinkering with Leader probabilities behind the scenes.

I was utterly shocked to see I had won an award. :eek: It looks as though I am reaping the benefits of someone's idle curiosity, by Jove. :)

Congrats to everyone who played! Lexad's game was amazing. Wouldn't have thought a BC victory via Impi rush possible. Very, very impressive.

Hmmm... I was playing for fast domination and vassalized the last civ as I crossed the limit just to see what the game would do. So I could've won a fastest domination, but whatever. Gold's good enough for me :) Now my curiosity is up! How many cities were left in that last civ you vassalized? In my limited Warlords experience, they won't capitulate until there is only one or two cities left.

If you had not vassalized, and won by domination, how high would the score have been? Would you have doubled (medal + award)?

EEO may have a point that I don't understand all of the issues ... the interplay of score and speed at the finish dates you guys inhabit are outside of my experience (1780 earliest finish ever, before that all 20th century or later). Meaningfully higher scores that are only slightly later, within the same victory type, may well reflect a "better" game (but "better" is so much in the eye of the beholder). My original reaction was to the way that much later victories can still have rather high scores (which may be unique to domination?).

dV

Congrats to all! And thanks to the moderators for running the game, and posting the results very quickly!

Congrats to Julien Headley on the space race - beat me into 2nd fastest - by, umm, 99 years! That must've been an impressive game. None of the other spaceraces come close: 17 spacerace victories spread between 1941AD and 2033AD, and then Julien's in 1842AD!

It sure says something about the scoring system that the fastest cultural victory got barely 1/7 of the score of the fastest domination.

Couldn't agree more! To each their own, etc. but that's why I like the speed rankings best. BTW, maybe someday I'll be able to actually grab one of those awards - this time anakin.d finished 10 years before my 1710AD cultural win. So, special congrats to him! :goodjob:

Thanks, Curufinwe, luckily I had top-class mentors - Obormot, Dynamic, akots - to help me understand the game and learn to define the priorities, and most worthy adversary Grey Cardinal.

If you want to continue the analogy, playing for speed might involve trashing your car the moment you buy it by running it faster than it's supposed to go down a racing track. Playing for score might involve keeping your car well serviced for ages, then suddenly trashing it by driving it up a mountain that's far steeper than it's designed to go up. Neither would be seen as good examples of looking after a car.

Of course, I agree. Your analysis goes one step beyond what I was talking about. My point was: in military victories, playing for score is more difficult than playing for fastest finish. In other words: the current score formula is more relevant than a formula based only on speed for military victories.
But I'm sure you have not missed that I think the current formula can be improved ...

How many cities were left in that last civ you vassalized?
If you had not vassalized, and won by domination, how high would the score have been? Would you have doubled (medal + award)?

It has always kind of bugged me when the winners neglect to post spoilers. I'd have done one by now if I thought I might win-I'm a little surprised honestly. So why don't I write one and answer your questions there?

Now my curiosity is up! How many cities were left in that last civ you vassalized? In my limited Warlords experience, they won't capitulate until there is only one or two cities left.

dV

In my game, Huayna vassalized when he had 6 cities left. I took 3 cities from him, and he was actually about to take one back and destroy my entire invasion army with a SOD when he surrendered to me :crazyeye:

Also, congrats to all the winners!

Perhaps my luck has changed...after getting wiped out quickly in WOTMs 2 and 3, and failing to finish or even submit 4, I placed 28th this time...my first time in the top quarter of the standings :)

Oh my! :eek: I was not intenting to insult anyone with my reference to real winners and real talents, other than to acknowledge that there are many more talented players that I who are lower on the list ranked by score. I see that my choice of language was misleading, and I apologize to anyone who felt is was a criticism or insult to them. :blush:

That's OK. :)

I can't see how it can be argued that winning later takes more skill.

It is because I felt you think this, that I said you don't understand what you are talking about :mischief: . When playing for score, the importance of population factor prevents you from doing several things as

- stopping research early
- razing cities
- extreme pop rushing
- producing only military units
- accepting extreme WW

At each moment, you have to find a balance between the different aspects of the game, especially speed and population. For what I have experimented :crazyeye:, this complexity requires more skill than the extreme techniques listed above, that are the basis of quick military victories.

It all comes down to what you mean by "skill". I think we can all agree that playing for high scores (as opposed to fast wins) takes more time and effort. This has always been true, back to the early days of Civ3 at least. One point of view is that, because such results depend more on being willing to spend the time to manage large numbers of cities, they naturally depend less on skill (i.e., there may be many highly skilled players who don't get such results just because they aren't willing to put in the time and effort). A different point of view is that such wins require new kinds of skills (in addition to time and effort) that are of value in their own right. I don't think there's a single "right" answer (which is why it's good that Civ can be played in many different ways).

It is because I felt you think this, that I said you don't understand what you are talking about :mischief: . When playing for score, the importance of population factor prevents you from doing several things as

- stopping research early
- razing cities
- extreme pop rushing
- producing only military units
- accepting extreme WW

At each moment, you have to find a balance between the different aspects of the game, especially speed and population. For what I have experimented :crazyeye:, this complexity requires more skill than the extreme techniques listed above, that are the basis of quick military victories. Well, let's put what I said in its full context:

I think that within any victory type, a faster victory should generally reflect a more skillfully (i.e. efficiently or elegantly) played game (I could be wrong here, as I have little experience with non-military wins). I can't see how it can be argued that wining later takes more skill. Winning early usually means winning small (or at least relatively small), and it seems that winning later and bigger is more rewarded in score, except after 1800 or so when the lateness factor starts to overcome size growth.

To the extent that very fast military victory will always be faster than very fast culture or diplomatic (or space for that matter), then we really can't compare across victory types in any meaningful way. Which is why we have the type-specific awards, which are based on speed. I am curious, EEO, do you feel that winning later takes more skill in the non-military victory types as well? Or are your comments limited to military victories?

You seem to suggest that stopping research early, razing cities, extreme pop rushing, producing only military units, and accepting extreme WW are easy ways to play, and require less skill than doing the opposite of each. You might be right, but at present that seems counter-intuitive to me, mostly based on my sense that the novice usually plays doing the opposite of all of these. I know I have not mastered all of these yet, maybe when I do I will see it differently? :crazyeye:

I guess my thoughts on this are mostly colored by my own experience, which is that as I gain new skills, my ability to score relatively high has outpaced my ability to win relatively quickly (pretty much restricted to domination wins so far), which has left me in awe of the speed demons! But maybe my experience is not typical?

Then again, if I just agree with your arguments, maybe I can take more pride my 19th score ranking for this game! ;)

dV

It all comes down to what you mean by "skill". I think we can all agree that playing for high scores (as opposed to fast wins) takes more time and effort. This has always been true, back to the early days of Civ3 at least. One point of view is that, because such results depend more on being willing to spend the time to manage large numbers of cities, they naturally depend less on skill (i.e., there may be many highly skilled players who don't get such results just because they aren't willing to put in the time and effort). A different point of view is that such wins require new kinds of skills (in addition to time and effort) that are of value in their own right. I don't think there's a single "right" answer (which is why it's good that Civ can be played in many different ways).

Good point. Before Civ4, I agree that obtaining high scores was a matter of time and effort (in Civ1, Civ2 and Civ3 I always played for fastest finish). In Civ4, it's different, probably thanks the influence of Jason score.
Sure, the concept of skill is not easy to define, but it's generally correlated with complexity level. As you have more parameters to take into account when going for score, it seems not absurd to say it requires more "skill". I am not sure it requires significantly more time and effort in Civ4. Maybe the problem is it gives less fun ...

Well, let's put what I said in its full context:

I am curious, EEO, do you feel that winning later takes more skill in the non-military victory types as well? Or are your comments limited to military victories?

My comments are relevant for military victories with the current score formula. A formula judging properly other victory types is still to be invented.

You seem to suggest that stopping research early, razing cities, extreme pop rushing, producing only military units, and accepting extreme WW are easy ways to play, and require less skill than doing the opposite of each. You might be right, but at present that seems counter-intuitive to me, mostly based on my sense that the novice usually plays doing the opposite of all of these. I know I have not mastered all of these yet, maybe when I do I will see it differently? :crazyeye:

I didn't say it's easy: it requires important tactical skills. But the strategy involved is limited in such a way that I can describe it within a few lines.
I could not do this so easily for a high score military victory ...


Then again, if I just agree with your arguments, maybe I can take more pride my 19th score ranking for this game!

Well, the question is how many people were really trying for score :p ?

It depends on the map a lot. I agree that fast conquests on a pangaea map and low difficulty level are trivial. But as the map/level gets more difficult, it gets more and more interesting to play for a fast military win. You do need some kind of a balance between research/expansion, you do need carefull planning, etc. Also note that the strategy for these kind of games depends on the map type the most. You need to create a unique plan for each map (especially in civ4!). This actually makes fast military wins the most interesting on harder maps. Milked games don't depend on the map type that much, because when you have cavalry against longbows and can research astronomy in 5 turns it doesn't really matter much anymore.

With all due respect to people devoting their efforts to achieving high scores, I have yet to play for one, primarily because going for different quickest victory types requires significantly differing playstyles and strats. Even the fastest conquest may be achieved with Impi (WOTM5) or Grenadiers (GOTM14) depending on map settings and difficult level. While milking for score seems to me pretty much the same - the start may differ, but in the end it should be still the same spamming coastal cities to avoid dom. limit + HG with +/-max number of cities + beeline for Biology and Communism and turning everything into farms - I think I got it right, correct me if not. Being the best surely demands much skill here, but how interesting is this after 20 G+WOTMs? Dunno.

While milking for score seems to me pretty much the same - the start may differ, but in the end it should be still the same spamming coastal cities to avoid dom. limit + HG with +/-max number of cities + beeline for Biology and Communism and turning everything into farms - I think I got it right, correct me if not. Being the best surely demands much skill here, but how interesting is this after 20 G+WOTMs? Dunno.

That's it ! You have to do all that and conquer the world as fast as possible. That combination of constraints makes the complexity ...
But I agree, it becomes boring ...

I didn't say it's easy: it requires important tactical skills. But the strategy involved is limited in such a way that I can describe it within a few lines. I could not do this so easily for a high score military victory ... I wonder if both have pretty straightforward strategies, and score is achieved by managing a large number of tasks and tactics that are of moderate difficulty, while speed requires fewer tasks that are more difficult to execute correctly? If one accepts this proposition (I am sure there will be disagreement), then the issue boils down to which package represents more skill. For me, I would tend to rank the skill of the package by the skill required for the one most complex task, not by the sum of the skill required by all of the tasks. Others will see it the opposite. And we are back to the eye of the beholder.

Well, the question is how many people were really trying for score :p ? Good point! I guess my first instinct to not take my placement too seriously was correct after all! :D

dV

I wonder if both have pretty straightforward strategies, and score is achieved by managing a large number of tasks and tactics that are of moderate difficulty, while speed requires fewer tasks that are more difficult to execute correctly?

That sums it up for me, and is why I always play for fastest finish rather than highest score. Both score and speed goals require a strong knowledge of the game and good decision making skills, but going for speed usually requres a lot less time. As Lexad mentioned, once the game is won, the procedure for maximizing score is much the same--and therefore a bit tedious in my opinion. I would rather start a new game and ponder those critical first moves than run a hundred workers around for hours. But, to each his own--many of the gold medal games have been very impressive in both speed and game insight.

Also, going for fastest finish provides more variety in gameplay because you can focus on the various victory conditions. That usually isn't the case when going for score.

Wait a minute. Is that just 3 numbers in front of BC. Lexad...what did you do to those poor civs around you? This is pure evil. :hatsoff:

For me, I would tend to rank the skill of the package by the skill required for the one most complex task, not by the sum of the skill required by all of the tasks. Others will see it the opposite. And we are back to the eye of the beholder.
dV

For some equations complexity will be a summation of the complexities of the variables, but in others it is an exponential relationship. I think Civ4 is a bit in-between. So overall when evaluating skill level across games, I say more variables (will tend to) = greater complexity.

Doc TK was again not quite able to grab gold, but again showed his consistency.

Thanks - I think. Man - this must be a record for second places. And someone different beats me every time.

But I'm very happy because I think this is paired with the deity level GOTM for ranking...

Thanks - I think. Man - this must be a record for second places. And someone different beats me every time.

But I'm very happy because I think this is paired with the deity level GOTM for ranking...

Paring for a game alternates between the previous and subsequent games, because pairing is always done in reverse order, starting from the most recently published game.

Paring for a game alternates between the previous and subsequent games, because pairing is always done in reverse order, starting from the most recently published game.

I'm not sure I follow that. Reading what you've said literally, that seems to imply that each time a single new set of results (say result N) is published, the paring gets reversed as N gets pared with N-1 (until publication of N, N-1 would've been pared with N-2. I'm numbering through the GOTMs and WOTMs so that if N is a GOTM then N-1 was a WOTM, N-2 was a GOTM etc.)

Well that's how I understand your comment, but that isn't what I see on the global rankings: The global rankings are showing that the most recent result, WOTM05, is currently not pared with anything. I do notice that the paring order isn't the same as the game release order, which I guess has something to do with your remarks but I'm not clear how.

I'm not sure I follow that. Reading what you've said literally, that seems to imply that each time a single new set of results (say result N) is published, the paring gets reversed as N gets pared with N-1 (until publication of N, N-1 would've been pared with N-2. I'm numbering through the GOTMs and WOTMs so that if N is a GOTM then N-1 was a WOTM, N-2 was a GOTM etc.)

Well that's how I understand your comment, but that isn't what I see on the global rankings: The global rankings are showing that the most recent result, WOTM05, is currently not pared with anything. I do notice that the paring order isn't the same as the game release order, which I guess has something to do with your remarks but I'm not clear how.

Getting an unfair advantage by actually looking at the current table, eh! :rolleyes:

Yes. The results appeared out of order due to recent erratic finish dates. So I've changed the sort order to use start date. Now it conforms with my description :)

Sorry for the thread hijack, but while we're on the subject there's something else I don't understand about the global ranking parings. I thought the point of the parings was to not disadvantage people who can only play one game a month, which seems to imply parings should occur within a month. But that doesn't seem to have happened. For example, September's games were WOTM01 and GOTM10, so I'd have expected those games to be pared. They're not - WOTM01 (mid Sept) is pared with October's GOTM. That mismatch seems to go right through the results. :confused:

(EDIT: I posted that before AlanH reordered the parings. The months match up OK now so you can ignore my query :) )

Getting an unfair advantage by actually looking at the current table, eh! :rolleyes:

Yes. The results appeared out of order due to recent erratic finish dates. So I've changed the sort order to use start date. Now it conforms with my description :)

Thanks! That all makes sense now! :goodjob: :D

I'll pass on any thanks for the fact that the reordering has caused me to drop two places from 34 to 36. Perhaps next time I'll keep my gob shut... :mischief:

Pairing happens as I described, not by calendar month. The most recent game is paired with the previous game if they are different versions (vanilla/warlords), then the next two are paired and so on.

When GOTM 15 is published it will be paired with WOTM 5, then GOTM 14 with WOTM 4 etc down to GOTM 11 and WOTM 1.

When WOTM 6 is published if will be paired with GOTM 15 and the current pairings will be used again further down the table.

Pairing breaks when there are not two consecutive games for different versions, and that was why the table was confused when the sort order was by finish dates.

[cross-posted, but maybe the description will help others who are as confused as me :p]

I'll pass on any thanks for the fact that the reordering has caused me to drop two places from 34 to 36.
You're more than welcome :D

:)

I think the way you've designed the paring makes for a very good system btw. And I love the UI - especially the way the scores link to the savegames but the popup hint boxes tell you about the victory condition: Very nice touch!

An interesting question about pairings will be whether pairing the deity GOTM with less difficult WOTMs gives some advantage to those playing both. I think we had at least one victory in the deity game (curve-louser!:mad: :lol: ), but even with that, the relative nature of the point awards may limit any advantage to playing and using the easier game of the pair.

If it does, then the alternating pairings is not a problem. But if being able to play an easy warlords game when there is a hard vanilla game is a big advantage, we will need to think about whether matching difficulty for the pairs is a good idea, with a fixed pairing system The drawback to doing this is that more novice players would not have a less difficult game to chose in the double hard months.

dV

Game difficulty affects the *distribution of rankings*, I guess, but the *range* is always 0 to 100, as rankings in each game are normalised to the best score/date as 100.

True if we select "Score" or even "Combined" ranking methods. However, for the "Speed" ranking method, even the highest scoring loss will score zero in the cumulative global rankings. That is surely an incentive for playing the easier games if one chooses to be more competitive in the speed rankings.

I never realized that the pairings changed. I should pay closer attention.

So, I should make sure any G/WOTM I blow will get paired with the one before and after alternatively forever more - thus, better get good scores on the one before and after.

BTW - the concept of pairing is great! It makes you feel like a really bad result on a game (like deity level game) isn't as bad on you.

You are describing a change in distribution. The distribution of speed rankings has a group at rank = zero containing all lost games, and that peak is higher when there are more losses.

My statement remains true.

So, I should make sure any G/WOTM I blow will get paired with the one before and after alternatively forever more - thus, better get good scores on the one before and after.

Well, not quite forever more. After nine months the effect of any game disappears off the rankings radar screen.

So, I should make sure any G/WOTM I blow will get paired with the one before and after alternatively forever more - thus, better get good scores on the one before and after.


Wot? You mean like - any G/WOTM that you only get bronze instead of silver? :mischief:

Wot? You mean like - any G/WOTM that you only get bronze instead of silver? :mischief:

I was thinking of a particular deity level one. :cry: