[BTS] Earth challenge (huge size)

[TheMeInTeam]

Originally Posted by Matrix

Ah, I see you noticed a few bugs! I'll make the change a.s.a.p..
My thought was that people can choose the speed and difficulty and play a normal Civ-game, so the max number of turns should change accordingly.
Players may figure out themselves what's the best way to achieve the highest score.
I'll check the starting techs too.

Thanks for the remark!

A couple notes, from a semi-retired longtime forum game hoster .

- It's possible to spawn the AI with archers or not, but would require a 2nd world builder save for monarch +. However since you've given EVERYONE 2 settlers I'm hesitant to advocate making modifications to "beginunit" in the XML
- It's very useful to provide how you're going to weight submissions ahead of time. For example, if you don't weight marathon differently in your ranking this *will* be a marathon-only competition; other speeds will be for "fun" but can't possibly compete (HoF has proven this rather emphatically; it has to due with relative movement speeds and a reduced cost on units relative to other speeds). Those seeking competition will want definitely to know the weighting for both speed and difficulty, as well as possibly civ.
- Maxturns=0 will allow the save to change the #turns according to speed chosen
- I have a guide to WB save creations in my sig that links a youtube video on the matter if you're interested; the find/replace in particular might save you some time.

[Matrix]

I'm apt in file editing, but haven't made that many scenario's yet. Anyway, I have omitted the maxturns tag. Is that ok too?

The scoring system is pretty straight forward. Only the in-game score counts, with this footnote that I take the root of all score. Just based on experience: a better game results in an exponentially higher score. If I don't take the root of the scores, the better results will skew the rankings.

I'll make a nice mathematical overview of how the scoring between everyone works out. It's pretty easy to work the system, but that's alright. The more people that do that, the more reliable the results are.

[JoeHollywood]

Originally Posted by Matrix

I'm apt in file editing, but haven't made that many scenario's yet. Anyway, I have omitted the maxturns tag. Is that ok too?

The scoring system is pretty straight forward. Only the in-game score counts, with this footnote that I take the root of all score. Just based on experience: a better game results in an exponentially higher score. If I don't take the root of the scores, the better results will skew the rankings.

I'll make a nice mathematical overview of how the scoring between everyone works out. It's pretty easy to work the system, but that's alright. The more people that do that, the more reliable the results are.

Um, TMIT and others have a point with how you plan to score/grade the different settings/scores. If you don't eliminate as many variables as possible, you're going to have a less accurate scoring sample. Your response is analogous with saying. It's OK if some of you turn in apples, and some of you turn in oranges, and some turn in bananas. And it's alright if some of the bananas are overripe and some are still green. Because in the end, you're just going to measure them as car parts anyway. It will end up being a mean nothing set of statistics.

I'd suggest eliminating as many variables as possible and then trying to get a large enough sampling set to get a reliable result.

[Kid R]

Originally Posted by Matrix

The scoring system is pretty straight forward. Only the in-game score counts, with this footnote that I take the root of all score. Just based on experience: a better game results in an exponentially higher score. If I don't take the root of the scores, the better results will skew the rankings.

Strictly speaking if score went up exponentially in proportion to play quality the adjustment should be to take the log of all scores, not the square root. But I know what you mean - I think the technical term is applying a fudge factor

Personally I don't mind anyway, I've just been enjoying the scenario without actually getting anywhere near actually finishing a game yet. 2 settlers = fun

[MarigoldRan]

2 Settlers... AND a worker!

Yeah, Marathon can make a difference. Also, Slavery + Nationalism means that you don't have to worry about shields as much. And can focus on cottages. When will you post the fixed scenario?

[TheMeInTeam]

Originally Posted by MarigoldRan

2 Settlers... AND a worker!

Yeah, Marathon can make a difference. Also, Slavery + Nationalism means that you don't have to worry about shields as much. And can focus on cottages. When will you post the fixed scenario?

It's not marathon *can* make a difference. Marathon *will* make a difference to the point that other speeds can not possible compete with it for score or finish date. Unless there are tiered rankings by speed or faster speeds are given a tremendous weighted advantage, leaving speeds as an option will turn this into a marathon competition.

That's not necessarily bad considering it's a huge map, but there's no point in having illusions that speed is actually an option for people looking for competitive finishes.

[Matrix]

Noted. So what do you all think? Should I set the game speed to epic or marathon?

[Optical]

I usually play marathon, but I think for the sake of this being on the forums, where most people play normal, epic is the better choice of those two.

[TheMeInTeam]

I prefer epic but can play any speed and will participate in this at least once or twice regardless. Normal or quick will make this pretty difficult on a micro level (good players can still compensate but it will probably scare rookies away); I'd say epic or mara depending on whether you want more spectacular outcomes or (possibly) more competitors based on what people vote.

[Kid R]

IMO all the slower speeds do is let you win on higher difficulty than you would otherwise, and the downside is the game becomes more effort to play. I don't see any gain there - why not stick to a nice game speed, normal, and if it's a bit harder scenario then so what?



Maybe the deities would be too proud to drop down to immortal. Whatever - if it's a fixed speed go with the one most people will play.

[TheMeInTeam]

Originally Posted by Kid R

IMO all the slower speeds do is let you win on higher difficulty than you would otherwise, and the downside is the game becomes more effort to play. I don't see any gain there - why not stick to a nice game speed, normal, and if it's a bit harder scenario then so what?



Maybe the deities would be too proud to drop down to immortal. Whatever - if it's a fixed speed go with the one most people will play.

The pacing of normal on a huge map is a little awkward. For higher level players we'd definitely not be able to war effectively in most eras..maybe you'd be able to finally pull something in the renaissance (after cheese rushing someone very early) if you tech super fast, but after that it's modern warfare.

On the bright side, units move so quickly and the AI blows so hard in modern times that one can usually swing it anyway. Actually the optimal strategy itself might change due to the speed constraint; however I'm not sure about participation on normal. I'd certainly give it a go, but how many would play immortal/normal/huge? I really don't care what speed we use as long as it's universal.

[Matrix]

I think the map is too big for normal speed. By the time your units have crossed the ocean they are already outdated and outnumbered. So I'll set it to epic speed then.

I don't have a lot of time now, so I'll do so tonight or tomorrow. Right now I'm just going to warn people on the first post that their result might not be taken into account if they play now.

[ATC1983]

TMIT: Would it be possible for you to do a Let's Play of an Earth18 map? I would be interested to see how you handle it at the higher difficulties and get a few pointers.

[Optical]

Had abandoned my Mali attempt anyway. Will start another game soonish (i.e. whe the file's up and I've finished my Ragnar NC game).
EDIT:

Originally Posted by ATC1983

TMIT: Would it be possible for you to do a Let's Play of an Earth18 map? I would be interested to see how you handle it at the higher difficulties and get a few pointers.

Seconded, I like this idea.

[TheMeInTeam]

Originally Posted by ATC1983

TMIT: Would it be possible for you to do a Let's Play of an Earth18 map? I would be interested to see how you handle it at the higher difficulties and get a few pointers.

I have a let's play of Mongolia on earth18 on immortal already .

[Optical]

Oh... I should have searched before seconding that.

[Matrix]

What's Let's Play?

[Optical]

TMIT's Youtube series.

[Kid R]

Originally Posted by TheMeInTeam

For higher level players we'd definitely not be able to war effectively in most eras.

So play on lower difficulty! Instead of moving to a slower speed with effectively the same effect on difficulty but making the game drag more. That was my point.

Originally Posted by Matrix

By the time your units have crossed the ocean they are already outdated and outnumbered.

Plenty of people won conquest on an Earth 18 in a challenge thread recently with no obsolete unit problems. (Besides from which on Earth 18 the game is pretty much won before you need to go very far overseas anyway).

OK I know I'm being boring now. Epic away

[ATC1983]

Never knew you had an Earth18 up How about a deity game for the Inca?