Another concern - scoring

[ainwood]

Please enlarge on how you suggest we run a competition that doesn't have a scoring system, and doesn't reward the better players.

We don't keep scores - in fact, we mod it so there are no scores - and give everyone a medal for 'trying really hard'?

 

[AlanH]

This hasn't really happened in the past. In the Civ3 GOTMs, many of the best players tended to just play as they liked and not worry too much about the scoring, at least not in every month.

The best players know who they are and know they are the best. The rest of us want to know where we stand relative to them, and whether we are improving. I don't know how to do that except with numbers, but I guess that's my scientific education leaking out.

 

[Shillen]

I think Alan's analogy to the boston marathon is perfect. Just because you personally don't care about the competition aspect of it doesn't mean other people don't.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

For me, I'll be going for fastest finishes even if it hurts my score some. I like the dual system so you can go either way. When I started C3C I went for score and then switched to fasest finishes. I just hope the best players are keeping good logs so others can learn.

 

[Birdjaguar]

We don't keep scores - in fact, we mod it so there are no scores - and give everyone a medal for 'trying really hard'?

If I write you a few verses for the GOTM will you mod my score a little higher, just enough to get me out of the bottom third?

Caesar ruled in the ancient world,
All around his throne the bodies swirled;
The first to fall beneath his blade....

etc. etc. I don't want to spoil the ending for those still playing.

 

[LeSphinx]

As Birdjaguar spoke about log file of the best players in order we can learn a little from them, do we known someting about QSC for c-iv GOTM ?

LeSphinx

 

[AlanH]

We'll try to get something going for a QSC, but not for this game.

What do people think? Compare scores and progress at 1000 BC? 1 AD? Suggestions welcome

 

[StanNP]

Compare scores and progress at 1000 BC? 1 AD? Suggestions welcome.

I still think 1000bc is a good cut off. In some cases, less will have happened then CiVIII, but maybe not always!

1000bc on standard speed is still around the same number of turns (80ish) as CIVIII.

StanNP

 

[DaviddesJ]

I think Alan's analogy to the boston marathon is perfect.

It's not a perfect, or even good, analogy, because the GOTM is fundamentally incapable of measuring the "best" performance in the way that a marathon does. The marathon is conducted under controlled conditions, where one can be sure that the finisher actually did run the race as claimed, while there are plenty of ways for unscrupulous players to cheat in GOTM. The marathon has prizes and sponsorships for the winners, which enable marathon-running to be a viable career, so the top players can devote themselves to nothing but running the marathon, while Civ players mostly have other things to do in their lives and some people put much more time and effort into GOTM than others. The marathon has an unambiguous goal---cross the finish line in the least amount of time---while different people have different ideas for what constitutes a well-played game, and will often pursue different paths in the same game, each of them successfully on their own terms.

There are a whole lot of people who probably could be "the winner" of any particular GOTM if they really wanted to, and if they put in the time and energy to do nothing else that month but play the game as "perfectly" as possible. But no one takes it that seriously, and I think that's a good thing.

 

[DaviddesJ]

The best players know who they are and know they are the best. The rest of us want to know where we stand relative to them, and whether we are improving. I don't know how to do that except with numbers, but I guess that's my scientific education leaking out.

It's unlikely you have more education than I do (I have a PhD in mathematics), and I see plenty of ways to compare players without comparing numerical scores. In the Civ3 GOTM, it was always far more enlightening to read what other players wrote about their games, and see what they did, than it was to look at who stood where on a sorted list of scores. E.g., the QSC used a rather arbitrary weighting of different factors. Different people played in different ways and therefore ended up with different sorts of positions at 1000BC. Comparing those positions to one another by comparing the actual positions was, to me, far more informative than just by imposing a single arbitrary weighting and then adding up the components of the score for each player. It certainly wasn't always the case that the player with the highest QSC score was the one who seemed to be in the "best" position. Having numerical rankings is interesting and fun, but it's really unwise (in my view) to get obsessed with them.

 

[Shillen]

It's not a perfect, or even good, analogy, because the GOTM is fundamentally incapable of measuring the "best" performance in the way that a marathon does.

Not true. If the scoring guidelines are put in place then it becomes extremely clear what you need to do to "win". Whoever maximizes their score definitely played the best based on that scoring system.

The marathon is conducted under controlled conditions, where one can be sure that the finisher actually did run the race as claimed, while there are plenty of ways for unscrupulous players to cheat in GOTM.

As far as I know there have been histories of cheating in marathons. But I'm not sure what the possibility of cheating has to do with having a scoring system.

The marathon has prizes and sponsorships for the winners, which enable marathon-running to be a viable career, so the top players can devote themselves to nothing but running the marathon, while Civ players mostly have other things to do in their lives and some people put much more time and effort into GOTM than others.

I don't get your point here, either. First of all I don't think many people have running marathons as their career. It's more something they do in their free time, just like civ. Some people spend more time practicing than others, just like civ. Second, many people who run the boston marathon are not doing it to win. There are so many people who run for the fun of it or for charity or a number of other reasons, once again just like civ.

The marathon has an unambiguous goal---cross the finish line in the least amount of time---while different people have different ideas for what constitutes a well-played game, and will often pursue different paths in the same game, each of them successfully on their own terms.

If there's a scoring system then the competetive players trying to win will play towards the scoring system. It's not an ambiguous goal whatsoever. Not to mention the fastest finish victories, which are almost the exact same thing as the marathon's victory objective.

There are a whole lot of people who probably could be "the winner" of any particular GOTM if they really wanted to, and if they put in the time and energy to do nothing else that month but play the game as "perfectly" as possible. But no one takes it that seriously, and I think that's a good thing.

I disagree. Many people played towards getting the best global ranking they could in civ3 GOTM.

It certainly wasn't always the case that the player with the highest QSC score was the one who seemed to be in the "best" position. Having numerical rankings is interesting and fun, but it's really unwise (in my view) to get obsessed with them.

Not always. But seeing how players scored definitely helped me figure out who were the better players. It wasn't the only factor I considered but it wasn't a baseless one, either. Also, no one is getting "obsessed" with scores. We're just coming up with a fair scoring system to be able to use. You're the one arguing for no scoring system at all. Just because we want a scoring system that most accurately represents good play doesn't mean that we're going to base all our judgements on a person's ability on how they scored.

edit: I realize you haven't really argued "against" a scoring system. But if you're not arguing against one then I don't see what your point is. Many people do view the GOTM as primarily a competition while others do not. That's a fact.

 

[DaviddesJ]

As far as I know there have been histories of cheating in marathons. But I'm not sure what the possibility of cheating has to do with having a scoring system.

It doesn't have anything to do with having a scoring system (which I entirely favor). It has to do with whether the GOTM is like the Boston Marathon. AlanH's original analogy was to compare the GOTM to a "world-class marathon". It's not like a world-class marathon, because it doesn't have the world-class, professional competitors that a world-class marathon does, because the possibility of cheating is much greater and this makes it hard to take comparisons too seriously, because the ultimate goal of the game is different for different players and no one scoring system can capture the differences, and for a variety of other reasons. Personally, I think that all of those differences are entirely for the good: I like the GOTM better than I would the "world-class marathon" type competition, which might be conducted under controlled (monitored) circumstances, with professional competitors, and only a single strictly defined goal. The more that GOTM is like that, the less fun it will be.

If there's a scoring system then the competetive players trying to win will play towards the scoring system.

That's right. But all of the rest of the competitive players, of whom there are, in my observation, more than of those trying to win, will play as they like. And I think that is a good thing and it would be a bad thing if all of the best players felt very strongly motivated to play for the highest GOTM score. Which never happened in Civ 3 GOTM (at least during the time I was playing), and I hope won't happen in Civ IV GOTM.

I realize you haven't really argued "against" a scoring system. But if you're not arguing against one then I don't see what your point is. Many people do view the GOTM as primarily a competition while others do not. That's a fact.

To put it as simply as possible, my point is that people, especially those new to the GOTM, should feel to enjoy the GOTM without being much concerned with the scoring system. The original post in this thread is all about the problems with the scoring. My reply to that poster, and anyone in a similar position, is to encourage them to enjoy GOTM, and play as well as they can by their own standards, and not care at all about the score. The scoring simply doesn't matter, unless you choose to let it matter to you.

That doesn't mean there can't be a scoring system for people who do care. It just means that I encourage people not to care. If, despite my advice, they do care, of course that's their decision.

 

[AlanH]

Shillen has answered the points far more eloquently than I could, but I will pick up a point we can agree on. I totally agree that the QSC scoring system is not very useful, and that the QSC should be purely educational. It's all about the write-ups and the structural variations in players' approaches to the early game, and shouldn't be considered as a competitive sport.

 

[Jazz_Newton]

It doesn't have anything to do with having a scoring system (which I entirely favor). It has to do with whether the GOTM is like the Boston Marathon.

Using that as my premise, I'm not talking about GOTM scoring but about the Boston Marathon analogy.

The marathon has an unambiguous goal---cross the finish line in the least amount of time---while different people have different ideas for what constitutes a well-played game, and will often pursue different paths in the same game, each of them successfully on their own terms.

To defend the marathon analogy... I went with a group of people in the Sydney marathon this year (one of the stages) but not everyone was aiming to finish as quickly as possible. In a sample of just my work colleagues:

- Some (like me) just wanted to go hard and try and do the best time we could - pain and everything - even though we knew we were no chance of coming anywhere near the top.
- Some were more interested in making sure they paced themselves properly; they could've gone faster, and probably finished quicker, but they chose precision and control instead.
- One lady actually went and walked the whole way because she wanted to talk to people on the track. (i.e. she wanted to hang out with strangers!)
- One girl knew she was injured and had no chance of making it to the finish line, but she started just so she had the experience of starting the race and crossing the harbour bridge.

None of my colleagues (myself included) cared about where we placed... we knew when we signed up that the rules of the race were 'first past the post wins' - but we had fun anyway. I can easily imagine GOTM players who would fit into all four of the categories i mentioned. The analogy holds because marathons, like GOTM, draw a whole group of people for a whole variety of reasons. Not all of those reasons have to do with the "official" winning condition.

 

[al_thor]

One thing that neither the 'Firaxis" or the "Jason" scoring took into account: The 'Big Picture'. No matter what your victory type or date, these systems cared not a wit about all of the aspects that truly define your civilization as Great as compared to the rival civilizations (i.e. difficulty level).

What makes a Civilization great?

Number of tiles owned? No.​

Number of citizens? No.​

Military conquests? No.​

Cultural achievements? No.​

The first one to reach a particular 'defining limit'? (Spaceship, Domination, Conquest, Cultural) No.​

None of these by itself define a truly great civ, it's ALL of them together. Sure, you can own a lot of land, but has it been improved? You can have a lot of citizens, but are they happy? You killed everyone else, but is your civ a band of un-educated, un-cultured slobs? You made it to space, but are there other civs with happier, healthier and larger empires with greater culture?

I guess what I'm trying to say is: If you made it to Space, Culture, Domination, Conquest, 2050AD, whatever, how were the other aspects of your 'score'? For instance, if you made it to Space first, how was your culture, happiness, land area, etc. compared with the other civs? If terrible, your Space Score would be high, but the other aspects that SHOULD be contributing factors would be/could be very low, resulting in a not-so-great score for a not-so-great civilization.

 

[al_thor]

More thoughts on the subject:

I'd like to see some sort of 'Composite Scoring' system, that takes into account all of the defining aspects of a Great Civ: Culture, Technology, Happy Citizens, Healthy Citizens, Land Area, Military and pro-rates these against the Finish Date, Difficulty Level, Map Configuration, etc.

Possible?

 

[AlanH]

Anything's possible technically. The problem is getting a consensus about
whether any particular mix is good or bad. Firaxis has made a different stab at it this time, with more factors taken into account. Why not see what that scoring system produces first, then decide if we want a different one?

 

[al_thor]

Yep, I've got no problem with the 'wait-and-see' approach. The game is still new to most of us, the scoring is a mystery, etc, etc. No sense in trying to re-invent a wheel that we don't even understand yet.

I was just trying to convey what I thought should go into a determination of Final Composite Score, something I think the Jason system was sadly lacking.

 

[DaveMcW]

I calculated a composite QSC scoring system for Civ3, but apparently it was too much work to implement.

You start by calculating the exchange rate of all resources, based on tradeoffs skilled players are willing to make. The numbers don't have to be perfect, but the closer they are to perfection the more accurate the scoring system will be.

Example:
1 hammer = 1 food
1 hammer = 2 beakers + 1 GPP
20 hammers = 1 hammer per turn
1 Combat II unit = 1.5 regular units

With a bit of calculation you can convert every resource in the game into shields (or gold, or points). This gives a very accuracte QSC score, though it breaks down after players start specializing towards one victory condition.