A proposal for a slight modification of Jason scoring

[akots]

Also note that builders will be probably always behind warmongers in score on difficulty levels over Regent. Because it is easier to plunder the cities built by AI than to build your own points in population growth not mentioning territory.

 

[klarius]

You definitely can get a high score with a SS game. This was a thread dedicated to replaying SirPleb's GOTM 19 start which he ended with Conquest, and instead get a SS victory. SirPleb's actual submission was a 390AD Conquest that won the Gold medal and Conquest award with 11787. My SS from his 30AD save was a 1265AD launch that scored 12229 that would have won the Gold medal and Spaceship award.

You started this from a well organized SirPleb save. I doubt you could do the same when starting from a Drazek chaos.

Cultural 100k and 20k games would take a different approach from rather early on, but still can compete for top scores. Moonsinger won a Gold medal and 20k award in GOTM18. Plus you can even have a shot at the Cow award some months by going this route.

Moonsinger did not get the 20k award. She got a gold medal with a decent 20k date.
And that was Moonsinger and a large map - a deadly combination. I have no doubt she could have scored more, if milking all the way.
In addition this was the old Jason formula. With the new formula she would have fallen behind two of the top milkers.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I would like to see a steeper curve that rewards earlier victory more that it already is. I hate to see two alike victory condition games where the earlier finisher doesn't 'win'. Another neat option would be to set a 'challenge' victory condition in which that victory conditions 'bonus' score would be doubled or tripled for that game.

 

[a space oddity]

I disagree, I like the way both the high scores can win (medals) as the early finishers (awards). I personally value the 'eptatlon higher than 7 gold medals, and I have no doubt this view is shared by a few others.

 

[Darkness]

@klarius: I fail to see why a change in the Jason scoring system is needed. For all victory conditions the way to a high score is to get close to the domination limit ASAP. That is simply the way the firaxis scoring system works. Many players, including quite a few of the high scoring / best players simply go for conquest and domination often because those two are the fastest ways to win and they simply don't have enough time for a longer game each month.
I immediately agree that as a result of this conquest and domination wins dominate the medals, but when people like SirPleb have a month in which they can invest more time in the COTM, they can get medals with other victory types as well. For example, 2 of the 4 COTM gold medals have been milked games (which got the cow award). And in COTM 3 Kuningas got a bronze medal and the fastest spaceship award.
Aeson has provided two other examples of high scoring games with no-conquest/domination wins, and I have no doubt there are many more. So, really, what's the problem with the scoring system?

 

[eldar]

However you change the scoring system, it's going to please some people, and not others.

Neil.

 

[klarius]

I immediately agree that as a result of this conquest and domination wins dominate the medals, but when people like SirPleb have a month in which they can invest more time in the COTM, they can get medals with other victory types as well. For example, 2 of the 4 COTM gold medals have been milked games (which got the cow award). And in COTM 3 Kuningas got a bronze medal and the fastest spaceship award.
Aeson has provided two other examples of high scoring games with no-conquest/domination wins, and I have no doubt there are many more. So, really, what's the problem with the scoring system?

I'm talking only about the current Jason formula as used since GOTM19.
Since this time there was no culture or diplomatic victory that scored a medal. Even SirPleb didn't score medals with these victory conditions, though he had some.
There were 5 spaceship (3 fastest award) and 4 histographic medals.
The other 48 medals went to domination/conquest.

 

[Darkness]

I'm talking only about the current Jason formula as used since GOTM19.
Since this time there was no culture or diplomatic victory that scored a medal. Even SirPleb didn't score medals with these victory conditions, though he had some.
There were 5 spaceship (3 fastest award) and 4 histographic medals.
The other 48 medals went to domination/conquest.

I know. But that is simply the way the game works. Score is composed of teritory and population and these factors favour domination and conquest wins. All I am saying, is that it still is possible to win a medal with a non-miltary type win. Difficult, sure. That's just the way it works.
The only way to change that is to modify the best dates for either the military type (conquest/domination) best dates to an earlier date, or the builder type (diplomatic/spaceship/cultural 100K/cultural 20K) best dates to a later date.
This, basically, is favouring one victory condition over another. And that is a very bad thing, IMHO!

 

[killerloop]

Klarius is right. Diplo, 20K or 100K never won.

Is it the Jason system?
Or, are most of the best players warmongers?
Or, like Darkness is saying, Conq + Domi are quickest to realize, so the time constraints for top players makes them go for this?

Than here's the challenge: Who is the 1st to win a C/GOTM with Diplo, w/o milking till 2050?

If someone of the top players can prove this is possible, than Klarius (and other people) can maybe get convinced that Jason isn't off balance vs. culture or diplo wins! I'm on! Something for COTM06?

In quick diplo wins there is:
-hardly time for milking, or improving score by getting better than the milking curve.
-a critical balance between infrastructure improvement and empire expansion (wars?) to get to and keep the 4-turn tech rate
-need for the right diplomatic behaviour. Nourish your neighbours to help develop tech, or squeeze it out of them with peace deals. And get their final vote by not letting another civ get too big.....

Some final comment on the Jason:
1) quick conquests and domination wins are almost independent of terrain. Milking gets terrain independent by optimizing on the long run. How terrain independent are early diplo and culture? SS hangs somewhere in the middle, because of the later finish dates, and therefor more milking opportunities. Any thoughts?
2) Conq, Domi & Histo to me seem quite independent to the amount & traits of civs in the game. How is this for Diplo & SS, where research rate is important for early finish dates? Any thoughts?

 

[Renata]

@klarius: I fail to see why a change in the Jason scoring system is needed. For all victory conditions the way to a high score is to get close to the domination limit ASAP. That is simply the way the firaxis scoring system works. Many players, including quite a few of the high scoring / best players simply go for conquest and domination often because those two are the fastest ways to win and they simply don't have enough time for a longer game each month.

Maybe we can bribe them to do so more often? That's probably the only way to settle the question for good. Or, conversely, if the second-rank players start taking home the medals instead, then we'd know for sure that there was a problem.

I tend to think that the current scoring is pretty good, but it's very hard to be sure when so few top ten games are ever played to the slower victory conditions.

Renata

 

[a space oddity]

[...]
1) quick conquests and domination wins are almost independent of terrain. Milking gets terrain independent by optimizing on the long run. How terrain independent are early diplo and culture? SS hangs somewhere in the middle, because of the later finish dates, and therefor more milking opportunities. Any thoughts?
2) Conq, Domi & Histo to me seem quite independent to the amount & traits of civs in the game. How is this for Diplo & SS, where research rate is important for early finish dates? Any thoughts?

ad 1) Milking *is* very dependent on terrain because of the max population supported by the land, but Jason compensates for it, IIRC. Thing is, you *need* to milk optimal the later the victory date is. In Conq/Dom you get optimal milking value for free. That's where the difference lays.

ad 2) For Diplo/Space it is important to have Scientific AI around, for their free techs. Commercial is important too IMHO, for the total economic value of the world, the amount of money that goes around.

 

[Darkness]

ad 2) For Diplo/Space it is important to have Scientific AI around, for their free techs.

Yes, but scientific AI's also influence conquest/domination games to some (but smaller) extent. It's always nice to get feudalism and engineering for free upon entry to the MA when beelining for MT.
But scientific AI's definately influence diplo and space far more. (I wonder if this is factored into the best dates? But Aeson is probably at least a dozen steps ahead of me here..... )

 

[solenoozerec]

I agree with both Klarius and Darknes.
Klarius@ - there is a problem with a scoring system
Darknes@ – this problem lies not in the Jason scoring system, but in the Firaxis scoring system and the game itself.
The way score works in this game is that it rewards domination (territory and pop), it does not reward for researched techs, culture, buildings, good relationships with other civs etc.
There is a scoring system that tries to count this kind of things – QSC. The question is should something like that be implemented instead of Jason score?

 

[killerloop]

@Space Oddity

I guess we're making the same point. Conquest & Domination 'just get' the milking bonus, regardless of terrain/map.
Milk runs can on the long run optimize their territory (close to domination limit) to have best terrain, and outperform the Jason curve, making them quasi 'terrain-independent' as well, on the long run this is, although I guess I should use the word 'map-independent' to prevent confusion.
Early Diplo wins IMO could suffer from the fact that terrain occupied is not optimal for score (yet) with little time to improve to get better than the milking curve. That's why I guess you will not see Diplo wins scoring high in C/GOTM.

 

[a space oddity]

It's close, Killerloop. People tend to underestimate the value of the early score IMHO. Even when you're playing a milking game, the first part of the game should be played 'optimal', the early score is a big part of your final score.
Getting to the domination limit is essential, in all types of games. In Diplo/Spaceship games there's an additional concern as to whom you let occupy the other 33% of the map , and how well they are able to contribute to the tech pace. In an ideal game you conquer all the non-science/commercial civs, while staying buddy-buddy with the remaining civs.

 

[killerloop]

@Space Oddity

In full agreement there!

Question to the ('top') players:
-is it a bigger challenge to get a high scoring Diplo win, than a Conquest/Domi win?
-if so, why? if not, why not?
-and, if not, why don't we see Diplo wins in C/GOTM?

 

[jeffelammar]

Sorry - I meant that the score favour getting to the domination limit ASAP. Of course, to actually achieve the victory condition requires the investment in infrastructure, so you need to strike the balance.

This statement to me fundamentally sums up the entire debate.
Does the current scoring system compensate for the balance?

In my opinion No.
The early decisions when going for 20K (and to a lesser extent SS and 100K), make a substantial dent in your ability to get to Domination.

As you can see from reading this thread many of us do not believe that the current scoring system adequately compensates players for the necessary sacrifices that are required.

In a 20K try you effectively remove one of your most productive cities from helping expand to the domination limit. To make matters worse, you also often divert workers that would normally be used to build roads to help expansion in order to gain a few turns of higher production by adding them to the city.

All of this sacrifice in the AA delays approaching the domination limit by a fairly large margin. The Colossus is worth 20 upgradeable warriors or 7 horses. The Oracle 30 and 10 and the Great Library 40 and 14. This is 31 less horsemen to use to expand. Or assume you would have built 20 Warriors and then 20 Swords. Either way, that is easily 50 turns in an attempt to hit domination, but the current best date bonus barely scratches the surface of this sacrifice. Since 50 or more turns of milking are worth more than the paltry 555 bonus mentioned by Klarius.
Once out of AA, the sacrifice is less because you probably have a second core to offset the problem.

I personally don't care if we change the scoring system. There is a lot of disagreement what it should do.
1. If you want the score to avoid milking, then the current system is fine.
2. If you want the score to balance out all victory conditions, then we need to change.

I like the idea behind Klarius's suggestion. I haven't run the numbers myself yet, but it seems fair to me.

 

[CKS]

As a builder, I like that the Jason system gives me better relative scores than the in-game system. I will never be anywhere near the top, so the exact details of it don't really matter to me. I will enjoy the game whatever happens. If I had my druthers, though, I'd like a totally new scoring system that counted everything on solenoozerec's list. I'll expect it when pigs fly.

From my perspective near the bottom, I'd like a modification to losing games, giving more points for lasting more turns. Something simple, like a bonus of a half a point (or maybe a point) per turn before losing. When my growing civ meets the enemy and gets almost wiped out, but I manage to get out of the war and continue on, I should do better than when I get all the way wiped out.

 

[ainwood]

This statement to me fundamentally sums up the entire debate.
Does the current scoring system compensate for the balance?
All of this sacrifice in the AA delays approaching the domination limit by a fairly large margin. The Colossus is worth 20 upgradeable warriors or 7 horses. The Oracle 30 and 10 and the Great Library 40 and 14. This is 31 less horsemen to use to expand. Or assume you would have built 20 Warriors and then 20 Swords.

And yet you get free techs from the great library, and a LOT of commerce from the colossus - indirectly these can help with reaching the domination limit as well. The GL can help you get to knights a bit faster whilst saving a lot of money for upgrades (zero research), and the extra money from the colossus can be used to buy techs, unit etc.

Its not like the decision to pursue a culture 20k means a complete sacrifice of getting to the domination limit - it just means you're following a different road to get there.

 

[jeffelammar]

Its not like the decision to pursue a culture 20k means a complete sacrifice of getting to the domination limit - it just means you're following a different road to get there.

Good points Ainwood. Maybe it isn't as drastic as I made out, but I still can't kick the feeling that the trade off is not being offset by the scoring.

When I look at history it just seems that the 20K is sorely slighted.
COTM 03 - DaveMcW wins cow and fastest 20k, but is #18 in score.
GOTM 34 - Bradleyfeanor gets a 1545 culture 20K, an astounding time, and obviously with milking, but still is #7.

This all goes back to my previous statement.

I personally don't care if we change the scoring system. There is a lot of disagreement what it should do.
1. If you want the score to avoid milking, then the current system is fine.
2. If you want the score to balance out all victory conditions, then we need to change.

To me I would like to see a 1545 culture 20K given more recognition than a "690 domination" regardless of any other scoring choices. To me it is simply a more masterfully played game.
Unfortunately it is a far less scientific/mathematical system of gathering scoring info and much more subject to various opinions. Any time we try to compare different victory conditions we have this problem. It's just apples and oranges.

We all have different opinions.
Akots thinks 20K/100K is boring.
I think those are the most fun way to win the game. Different opinions for different people. Should either of us be punished for our opinions? NO, but we both have every right to voice them.

The current system IS fair, it's just that it rewards a different play style than the one I prefer.