A proposal for a slight modification of Jason scoring

[solenoozerec]

If someone very strongly wants to make a new scoring system, I suggest the following: This someone creates an idea, contacts expert players on person-to-person bases, so that they will help to develop an idea.
Then he/she creates formula or utility to produce this score. Then this someone will apply this new scoring system to old save files available at GOTM pages, publish results somewhere and invites other players to discuss this new scoring system.

2As and other officials will listen to such a discussion and will make a decision whether it is reasonable to commit to such a system.
This is the only way to change something.

This thread is not going to do this.

 

[jeffelammar]

There are technical solutions to all these issues, of course, but I think you are looking at a major development and testing project.

Agreed. That is why I like a simpler approach.

This is just a strawman of my idea (similar to Doc's)
Score is divided into 3 sections.
Assume a best Score (much like the current system uses)
Now calculate that best score based on the following percents.
1. 60%: Current Jason Scoring (including milk curve)
2. 30%: Bonus for Finish Date compared to best date.
3. 10%: Culture based bonuses

Each section broken down would look like
1. Duh, just like today.

2.
0 if you lost
approaching 0 as the year approaches 2050.
30% of calculated best score at best date.
So hitting the best date gets you that bonus, beating it gives you more.

3. Culture bonuses are per city. For each city check it's culture and give a bonus based on current culture.
0-500: no bonus
After that bonus is
(culture/500)^2 * some modifier (to get to the 10%)

For a 20K run the 20K city would be worth
20000/500 ^ 2 = 40 ^ 2 = 1600

For a 100K run you might have (just for demo purposes)
1 at 5000 = 1 * 10 ^2 = 100
10 at 3000 = 10 * 6^2 = 360
20 at 2000 = 20 * 4^2 = 320
15 at 1000 = 15 * 2^2 = 60
20 at 500 = 20 * 1^2 - 20
Culture Bonus: 860
This is less than the 20K because of the fact that you give up less type 1 score in a 100K.

The advantage of this is that all necessary data is availiable in the final save.

I do realize that something like this will probably never be implemented, but it might be worth spinning off a thread for some of us to work on this. It could be a complete waste of our time, but might still be fun. I am a math geek so would be willing to crank out formula after formula.

IIRC: The Jason system came about because some people
were unhappy with the scoring system, then Aeson went off and worked out a new system, and suggested it.

It doesn't guarentee that things will change, but it is a lot more useful to come in with a suggested new system than to sit here saying we don't like it and waiting for someone else to formalize our ideas.

 

[jeffelammar]

If someone very strongly wants to make a new scoring system, I suggest the following: This someone creates an idea, contacts expert players on person-to-person bases, so that they will help to develop an idea.
Then he/she creates formula or utility to produce this score. Then this someone will apply this new scoring system to old save files available at GOTM pages, publish results somewhere and invites other players to discuss this new scoring system.

2As and other officials will listen to such a discussion and will make a decision whether it is reasonable to commit to such a system.
This is the only way to change something.

This thread is not going to do this.

You posted this while I was typing up my response. Great minds think alike.

 

[delmar]

Would it be worthwhile to improve the best-date estimates alone, regardless of the rest of the scoring system? I am thinking that we could simply select the best GOTM date so far for given conditions (victory type+difficulty+map characteristics). It would solve the debate whether certain victory conditions are not suitable for high score or just not chosen by good players. It would be like free market. If good players don't bother to play for a given victory type, then the best date will be high and people chosing that condition as goal will have an advantage. Similarly, domination and conequest dates would be very low in comparison. This would automatically balance out the dates over time.

An important part of this system would be to publish these best dates. Alan or Ainwood said earlier that the best date for the given game would be a spoiler, but if the rules were known then the players would know the best date after exploring the map and could select the appropriate goal.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Honestly, I do notunderstand the slightly aggressive tone here.

Basically, the only real problem I see currently is that one VC (20k) is disadvantaged. The Jason scoring is by far an improvement over Firaxis score.
Are there ways to make a different and more elaborate scoring system?
Sure.
Is this feasible?
No.
Not because of the programming, but because many many players would need to agree on basic values. Now, that problem is absolutely understandable. Point taken.
But what seems to cause even more problems is that it would require 'changes in playing style'... a sad argument, IMHO.

Someone.
Who is not a programer, but a mod maker. And we do not tell 3rd parties making a suggestion "Umh, yes. Mod that yourself, find supporters, test it, beta-test it, and then we may consider thinking about it."

 

[solenoozerec]

Honestly, I do not understand the slightly aggressive tone here. ...
... Someone.
Who is not a programer, but a mod maker.

Someone does not have to be a programmer. Someone needs to have a very strong will to change current system. In this case, this someone can find people with programming and math skills willing to help. It sounds like there are such people.
If you wish, doc, I endorse you to make some action instead of just pronouncing suggestions.
I am happy with current Jason system, but I support an idea of trying to make a better system.

Are there ways to make a different and more elaborate scoring system?
Sure.
Is this feasible?
No.
Not because of the programming, but because many players would need to agree on basic values. Now, that problem is absolutely understandable. Point taken.
But what seems to cause even more problems is that it would require 'changes in playing style'... a sad argument, IMHO.

Disagree and disappointed that you are about to give up. The basic values of all players are fun and fair competition.
A change in a play style is much more difficult issue. But civ community supported new system that required a change in a style play once before.
Jason system favors earlier victories compared to Firaxis.
It may happen once again.

 

[denyd]

What seems to be the issue here is the differences between the builder and warmonger styles of play. Finding a scoring system that can balance the two different divergent styles, that can also conpensate for not milking and adequately reward early victories is a delicate balance. If there were awards for QSC performance, I'm sure people would be arguing that a scout (0 points) is more valuable than a warrior (10) and that the Pyramids is worth more that than the Oracle (both 100).

Maybe some "new" system with people, land, improvements, research & wonders weighted against completion date could be devised, but each players style would effect their preferences and would undoubtly lead to more threads of this nature.

Since the only way I win awards is by dumb luck (which calls to mind a phrase about blind pigs & truffles), any suggestions on scoring that I make should be taken with a grain of salt the size of Gibralter.

 

[solenoozerec]

What seems to be the issue here is the differences between the builder and warmonger styles of play. Finding a scoring system that can balance the two different divergent styles, that can also conpensate for not milking and adequately reward early victories is a delicate balance.

Sure it is very delicate. But current system does not balance these two game styles. It is clear that warmongering is much more efficient.
Therefore, almost anything that will balance them will be better than what we have now.

 

[delmar]

Honestly, I do not understand the slightly aggressive tone here.

Emotions are not always as they appear in an internet forum. Don't take it personally. We all like you.

But what seems to cause even more problems is that it would require 'changes in playing style'... a sad argument, IMHO.

I am curious where you got this impression. Improving your score in any scoring system requires changes in playing style. I have been changing my playing style ever since I started to play GOTMs in order to get higher scores.

As a matter of fact the exact opposite is true, IMHO. You want to change the scoring system instead of your playing style, don't you? At least I am very clear on the fact that my motivation for a change in the scoring system is to get the optimal playing style (as defined by the system) closer to the style I like.

 

[delmar]

Sure it is very delicate. But current system does not balance these two game styles. It is clear that warmongering is much more efficient.

The most interesting lesson from this thread for me is that senseless warmongering is not at all the most efficient approach in the current system. Just everyone (including yours truly) assumed it so.

Therefore, almost anything that will balance them will be better than what we have now.

"Delicate balance" means that it will be hard to improve the balance. Surely, if you could improve it, it would be better. But chances are you won't improve it at all, you will just fall over to the other side of the spectrum.

 

[ainwood]

But one thing is not a problem IMHO: That kind of scoring will not require new playing styles - on the contrary, it will finally reward 'balanced' gameplay (at least, that's what it is supposed to do). Get big, get culture, get top cities, keep some AI Civs around, keep your people happy - isn't that exactly what you should do?

Well, I personally think that half the challenge is in keeping focused on a certain victory condition. And I would go further to say that most people find this very, very difficult. Hence they favour a victory condition that fits best with their personal style of play.

 

[Ronald]

The current Jason system is much, much better than the original Firaxis system and the most balanced we have been able to come up so far.
To find a scoring system that reflects every aspect in the game is impossible to find and even more impossible to agree on.

One solution to this provided the civ tournament: It concentrated on just one goal - the fastest finish of a given victory condition. Since everybody was playing the same game and had the exact same goal a fair comparison was possible.

Unfortunately this type of competition no longer exists (I was somewhat guilty of it).

With all the automated tools which are existing for the Gotm plays it might be possible to play once in a while a game with the old tournament format without adding much work for getting results.

Ronald

 

[solenoozerec]

The most interesting lesson from this thread for me is that senseless warmongering is not at all the most efficient approach in the current system. Just everyone (including yours truly) assumed it so.

It is based on my own change of game style. Becoming a warmonger helped me a lot with getting high scores.
As for “senseless warmongering”, I am not sure what is it.
Any game style should be reasonable. Killing everybody or building many wonders in one city – both tasks require experience and serious thinking. None of these styles is “senseless”.
But what I was trying to say is that current system favors warmongering.

But chances are you won't improve it at all, you will just fall over to the other side of the spectrum.

I will not even try, I am happy with what we have. But I am not against of somebody trying that. Perfection has no limits anyway.

One solution to this provided the civ tournament: It concentrated on just one goal - the fastest finish of a given victory condition. Since everybody was playing the same game and had the exact same goal a fair comparison was possible.
Unfortunately this type of competition no longer exists (I was somewhat guilty of it).

What do you mean no longer exists? Awards? A group of players are competing for a fastest finish in a particular victory type. I think it is the most interesting part of GOTM.
And that statue that you recently got is the ultimate GOTM award.

 

[Ronald]

What I meant is, that everybody is playing for the same victory condition and that the scoring is based on the fastest finish.

Ronald

 

[akots]

Actually, the Firaxis scoring system may be somewhat unfair. But personally I like it since it is very simple. Land area and happy people that is all that matters. Regarding the finish bonus which is a weak point of Firaxis, Jason's scoring offers a great improvement. But still only territory and happiness matters. IMHO, this is very fair scoring system. It might be possible to include culture, may be even other improvements (why only culture, number of banks or number of harbors are also important), even size of military or tech advances (+1000 points for researching ironclads) and certainly cash including treasury and gpt income. But land area and happiness rule this game. And it would be against general ideas of game mechanics to include other parameters in score. However, it might be of interest to try and see how it might work.

Actually, in this kind of sense, the suggested scoring system comes to power rating as it is calculated by the game. But power means nothing. You need also means to implement this power. And with final result only being evaluated (land and citizens) this creates the ultimate experience and is the best feature of the game.

 

[denyd]

akots: My thought was something along the lines of the QSC, where each item, whether it be a worker or modern armor, barracks, nuclear plant or SS Planetary Party Lounge, pottery or advanced tech #5, The Oracle or Strategic Missile Defense has a value. The sum of those values pro-rated by the number of turns you played would be your score. A quick conquest victory would have a smaller divisor but with less accumulated points, while a spaceship launch would have a larger divisor but more points, so that a spaceship launch in 1400 AD would be quite a bit more impressive than a conquest the same year (unless the the conqueror had taken the time to improve all his cities and research the full tree).

Of course variant wins such as a 5CC or 1CC would have smaller scores, but that's already an issue that I'm not sure there's any way to incorporate into this.

I would hope the fact that the divisor would continue to grow would make the desire to milk much less. It might be an increasing divisor would be preferable, but I'll leave that to the mathematicians in the group.

 

[akots]

Yes, what you are talking about is moving average power per turn.

 

[ainwood]

"Power" is extractable from the save file format fairly easily, and might be an interesting comparison, however I can't remember exactly what factors go in to making up the value.

 

[AlanH]

QSC score is designed for a completely different purpose. It is intended to calculate the scale of early development of the 3000 year old civilzation to give players a feel for how well they are playing the early turns.

GOTM score is not looking at a work in progress. It's measuring how successfully a goal was achieved. The GOTM is a goal-oriented competition. I see little merit in scoring the components that a player built or obtained in the pursuit of the victory objective. Banks were a means to an end. Any culture that was accumulated during a non-cultural victory was only a means to an end. Even culture outside the 20K city is irrelevant to a 20K win. From that perspective, Firaxis score is only of value in rating a Histographic victory. For all other conditions it's measuring the method and not the result.

All other conditions should really be judged purely on date. If it were practical to set accurate best dates and design a date-only score algorithm around it that allowed well played Military, Diplo, Cultural or Space victories to be compared against Histographic wins then I think I'd argue for that approach. I have no idea how feasible this would be

[EDIT] Actually, I think Delmar has hit on a possible means to establish best dates - let the market decide

 

[Sandman2003]

Firaxis score is only of value in rating a Histographic victory. For all other conditions it's measuring the method and not the result.

All other conditions should really be judged purely on date.

I am 100% in agreement with this concept!!!