The beauty and broad-based appeal of the CIV franchise is that there's something for everyone.
It's hard to say that my orange is "better" than your apple!
It's hard to say that my orange is "better" than your apple!
Another concern - scoring
- Thread starter A'AbarachAmadan
- Start date
LoneWolf5050
Warlord
I think what I'm trying to get at is that it shouldn't be possible to win so early. It's really not a scoring issue, it's a play balance issue. The fun of the game is in playing through the history of your civilization. A game design that lets you actually complete all of that by, say 100AD, is unbalanced IMHO. It just shouldn't be possible (well, maybe on lower difficulty levels, but not if you're playing a difficulty level that is commensurate with your skill level).
The scoring is a symptom of the underlying issue. Reaping huge scoring benefits that way is almost like taking advantage of a flaw in the game, though again, this is of course largely dependant on the difficulty level -- it obviously can't be considered a flaw if a really good player cleans up on Chieftan by 100AD.
--Julian
The scoring is a symptom of the underlying issue. Reaping huge scoring benefits that way is almost like taking advantage of a flaw in the game, though again, this is of course largely dependant on the difficulty level -- it obviously can't be considered a flaw if a really good player cleans up on Chieftan by 100AD.
--Julian
Are people winning ANY games at the highest Civ 4 level already?...........Let alone winning by 100AD!LoneWolf5050 said:
In Civ 3, to win by 100AD on Sid Level required a lot of luck with the start position (viz. MapFinder) and a lot of skill!.........close to impossible with a "random" map, "random" terrain and "random" opponents!
You want to make everybody go through the Tech Tree entirely before they win..........is that your point?.......or not be able to win before say 1700AD?
remconius
Deity
LoneWolf5050 said:
A few comments:
-the point of the game is not to play through history, the point is to rewrite history. Each player will have it's own priorities. There is no one way to play this game, some people like short aggressive games and some like long builder games. A huge empire winning later should score similar to a small empire winning early.
-In civ IV you're lucky to have a couple of cities by 100 AD let alone win. If a player can take over the world, build a space ship, etc I will have the utmost respect for this player. Even on Settler ;-) I havent seen any signs of the inbalance you are talking about.
LoneWolf5050 said:
I do feel difficulty level should be reflected in the scores. Lower levels should score less for the same accomplishments. I am sure the CFC gang will come up with a fair score system, if Firaxis doesnt fix it first.
GOTM is a competition. In order to run a competition we need a way to decide who played best, who was second best etc. That requires a scoring system.
The scoring system we use for the GOTM will drive the way competitors have to play the games in order to win awards. If competitors don't like the style of play that's enforced by the scoring system then they will vote with their feet and we'll have a less representative event.
One of our objectives has to be to maximise the number and quality of GOTM competitors, so an unpopular scoring system would be counter-productive. To be popular it has to be fair and objective, and it has to promote playing styles and standards that are enjoyable for a wide spectrum of players, so we shall obviously watch and learn as the Civ4 competition evolves.
As well as awarding the medals for highest scoring games, we currently give awards for fastest (and lowest scoring) finishes in each victory condition. And we give special Eptathlon awards to players who win fastest finish awards for all victory conditions over time. So if the scoring system doesn't feel right for you - and I guarantee one size won't fit everyone - then you have alternative targets.
We also aggregate score performance over time to provide a rolling table of player rankings. In order for this to make sense the scores for different games have to be comparable. So we have to take things like difficulty level, map structure and victory condition into account and normalise the scoring across games. If Firaxis don't do this already then we'll have to calculate a modified score that does. The Jason system attempts to do this for Civ3. It's possible that we'll have more control over the scoring algorithm in Civ4. It'll be interesting to see whether we are able to use these powers for good.
Visit our Civ3 awards tables, and the global ranking table if you are not familiar with the rewards and generous prizes we hand out currently, and please feel free to suggest additional or alternative ways to motivate players.
The scoring system we use for the GOTM will drive the way competitors have to play the games in order to win awards. If competitors don't like the style of play that's enforced by the scoring system then they will vote with their feet and we'll have a less representative event.
One of our objectives has to be to maximise the number and quality of GOTM competitors, so an unpopular scoring system would be counter-productive. To be popular it has to be fair and objective, and it has to promote playing styles and standards that are enjoyable for a wide spectrum of players, so we shall obviously watch and learn as the Civ4 competition evolves.
As well as awarding the medals for highest scoring games, we currently give awards for fastest (and lowest scoring) finishes in each victory condition. And we give special Eptathlon awards to players who win fastest finish awards for all victory conditions over time. So if the scoring system doesn't feel right for you - and I guarantee one size won't fit everyone - then you have alternative targets.
We also aggregate score performance over time to provide a rolling table of player rankings. In order for this to make sense the scores for different games have to be comparable. So we have to take things like difficulty level, map structure and victory condition into account and normalise the scoring across games. If Firaxis don't do this already then we'll have to calculate a modified score that does. The Jason system attempts to do this for Civ3. It's possible that we'll have more control over the scoring algorithm in Civ4. It'll be interesting to see whether we are able to use these powers for good.
Visit our Civ3 awards tables, and the global ranking table if you are not familiar with the rewards and generous prizes we hand out currently, and please feel free to suggest additional or alternative ways to motivate players.
Xerol
Emperor
I thought the shields were just for lowest scoring victory, not for latest victory.
Corrected.
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
The key to a good scoring system is that it doesn't force competitors to play the game the same way over and over again. In IIIOTM one was forced to play to the domination limit no matter the victory condition in order to score high. We should do better this time.
What if there are scoring bonuses - special targets to achieve - that differ strongly from month to month?
What if there are scoring bonuses - special targets to achieve - that differ strongly from month to month?
LoneWolf5050
Warlord
Ribannah said:
Yeah, I think that's what I'm getting at.
--Julian
DaviddesJ
Deity
AlanH said:
It's important to remember that it's only secondarily a competition. It's primarily a social activity (an opportunity for players who play a game that normally doesn't involve any interaction with other people, to interact with others by posting about their games and reading what others write). And it's secondarily a test of skill, but that still doesn't imply competition: players can try to do as well as they can without caring very much about their relative standing with respect to others. The competitive aspect of whether one player does better or worse than another does exist, but it's far down the list of things that GOTM is about.
I don't agree with Ribannah about everything, but I do agree that Civ3 GOTM eventually became fairly boring because the "best" strategy in every game was really the same. It's not yet clear whether that will be true in Civ4: so far, it seems to me that the purely military approach to the game is a lot less effective than in Civ3, but, we have limited experience, and time may yet prove that judgment wrong.
And while I don't personally enjoy "milking", either, I can't agree with Shillen that it's somehow against the spirit of the game. Indeed it would make more sense to me to say that the whole point of a game called "Civilization" is to fully develop a civilization, and that the game shouldn't end just because the other civilizations have been conquered. Not to mention that I think most people would probably agree that it shouldn't really be possible to conquer the whole world in 100 AD---that just doesn't make sense thematically. So if Civ4 succeeds in preventing that, then great, and if it doesn't, then I think it makes perfect sense to have GOTM scoring methods that at least don't excessively reward it.
Agree 000.00%.....For me, GOTM is PRIMARILY a Competition.....and that's the best part! (I guess there's something for everyone in GOTM.)DaviddesJ said:
Tiger Woods doesn't play Majors golf 'cos he needs the money!
Well, it *is* a competition. But a world-class marathon competition can provide stages for fun runners, sponsored charity workers, politicians trying to prove they can still cut the mustard ... Oh, and also for elite athletes who want to compare finish times and to break world records.
The bit of GOTM that involves working out a score is of zero interest to those who use it as a social event. But for those who do want to compare their performance, either to their own previous efforts or to others, the scoring system is important, and it does need to reflect the things that are generally considered effective measures of a well played game. Let's see if Firaxis have managed to create such a system.
FYI, and BTW, the version 1.09 patched scoring system does now take account of difficulty level.
The bit of GOTM that involves working out a score is of zero interest to those who use it as a social event. But for those who do want to compare their performance, either to their own previous efforts or to others, the scoring system is important, and it does need to reflect the things that are generally considered effective measures of a well played game. Let's see if Firaxis have managed to create such a system.
FYI, and BTW, the version 1.09 patched scoring system does now take account of difficulty level.
DaviddesJ
Deity
AlanH said:
That's not true. At the least, it's one more thing to discuss. And a game needs goals, even if players are not fanatical about maximizing their results, or about "competing" with others.
It seems pretty silly, to me, to compare GOTM to a "world-class marathon", but I guess everyone can have a different point of view.
akots
Poet
Don't know about marathon or athletes, but I'd like to beat E-man, that's for sure. 
The main question before actually starting to play the game is to understand how the scoring system works in the patch. There is some HOF discussion about it going on.
If may be somebody who is good at reading XML can make a post which lists the score components in a concise form and sticky it here in the GOTM forum ... please. Otherwise, many people are imho.
The main question before actually starting to play the game is to understand how the scoring system works in the patch. There is some HOF discussion about it going on.
If may be somebody who is good at reading XML can make a post which lists the score components in a concise form and sticky it here in the GOTM forum ... please. Otherwise, many people are
imho.
OK. You asked for it 
The game calculates your score as follows:
1. A raw score is calculated for each component - land, population, wonders (culture) and technology.
Land scores 1 point per tile
Pop scores 1 point per head
Wonders score variable amounts per building
Techs score increasing points per era from 1 to 7
The raw score components are not accumulated/averaged over the turns as the score is in Civ3. They are a snapshot at any point in the game.
2. The score components have individual "Max" and "Initial" values, and weighting factors:
The Max values are defined for the game, but they are reduced when you win, according to the number of turns you have completed. The win modifier is linear for wonders and a power law for the other components.
The basic Max values are:
Land - the domination limit for the map
Pop - not sure, but might be to do with the amount of food on the map
Wonders - the total wonder points possible - 230 standard
Techs - the total tech points possible - 300 standard
The Initial values are related to the starting situation. If you start with one settler then you are assumed to have 21 land points and 1 pop point in the bag, so these are your normal Initial values. You also get a credit of 18 tech points for an Ancient era start. Later era starts use the tech point values of the prior eras as the Initial tech value.
The Weighting Factors are 5000 for pop, 2000 for techs and land, and 1000 for wonders.
Each score component is normalised to the weighting factor and adjusted to reflect how far up each curve between the Initial and Max values you have climbed.
3. The score components are finally multiplied by a difficulty factor and added together to give your final score. The difficulty factors start at 60% for Settler level and increase by 20% for each higher level.
The real masochists among you may want to look at getScoreComponent() in CvUtil.py for the real low-down on how the victory modifier works on the Max values.
You can see that population has the highest weighting at 5000. So it will come as no surprise that one key to a high score is probably to build your population.
The game calculates your score as follows:
1. A raw score is calculated for each component - land, population, wonders (culture) and technology.
Land scores 1 point per tile
Pop scores 1 point per head
Wonders score variable amounts per building
Techs score increasing points per era from 1 to 7
The raw score components are not accumulated/averaged over the turns as the score is in Civ3. They are a snapshot at any point in the game.
2. The score components have individual "Max" and "Initial" values, and weighting factors:
The Max values are defined for the game, but they are reduced when you win, according to the number of turns you have completed. The win modifier is linear for wonders and a power law for the other components.
The basic Max values are:
Land - the domination limit for the map
Pop - not sure, but might be to do with the amount of food on the map
Wonders - the total wonder points possible - 230 standard
Techs - the total tech points possible - 300 standard
The Initial values are related to the starting situation. If you start with one settler then you are assumed to have 21 land points and 1 pop point in the bag, so these are your normal Initial values. You also get a credit of 18 tech points for an Ancient era start. Later era starts use the tech point values of the prior eras as the Initial tech value.
The Weighting Factors are 5000 for pop, 2000 for techs and land, and 1000 for wonders.
Each score component is normalised to the weighting factor and adjusted to reflect how far up each curve between the Initial and Max values you have climbed.
3. The score components are finally multiplied by a difficulty factor and added together to give your final score. The difficulty factors start at 60% for Settler level and increase by 20% for each higher level.
The real masochists among you may want to look at getScoreComponent() in CvUtil.py for the real low-down on how the victory modifier works on the Max values.
You can see that population has the highest weighting at 5000. So it will come as no surprise that one key to a high score is probably to build your population.
akots
Poet
Thanks a lot. 
But, it IS complicated. The player has to win as rapidly as possible while accumulating as much population (and land) as possible all at the same time. Techs and wonders do contribute but apparently minimally.
But, it IS complicated. The player has to win as rapidly as possible while accumulating as much population (and land) as possible all at the same time. Techs and wonders do contribute but apparently minimally.
It appears to be 5 per wonder and national wonder, 0 for projects.
It is 6 for ancient starts, 18 for classical area starts.
techs will start to contribute a bigger share as you get later into game and each tech is worth more points (7 per future tech).. but at this time the victory bonus takes a hit due to being close to end of game, so if you want high scores you need to win early
But that is elitist.AlanH said:
Like post counts.
There's no official competition on this site related to post counts as far as I know.
Please enlarge on how you suggest we run a competition that doesn't have a scoring system, and doesn't reward the better players.
Please enlarge on how you suggest we run a competition that doesn't have a scoring system, and doesn't reward the better players.
DaviddesJ
Deity
AlanH said:
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.
Similar threads
