Changing the curve

[Aeson]

The Jason scoring system will be changing the equation for the curve for GOTM19. The one being used wasn't very close on the scores from ~1200AD-1800AD. The little utility I put together in Moonsinger's "I have another crazy idea for the GOTM" thread showed this pretty well.

The main reason for this thread is to ask if the community would be alright with using this curve for GOTM18's results. It's a much fairer curve IMO, but it also wasn't posted so that players could calculate exactly when they 'should' finish their game. The results will probably be posted with both curves so that everyone can see how the different curves affect the games. This poll is to see which one of them we should be using as the official results.

Mostly this change would balance out the early victory scores for Cultural 20k, 100k, and Space Race, to be more in line with the other victory conditions.

The equation I had in mind was:

curve =maxscore - ((maxscore * 520 / 1000) * sin((playerturns - 310) / 196) + (maxscore * 520 / 1000))

This is what it looks like:

 

[DaveMcW]

A link to the old curve might be helpful:

If you have a more accurate curve you should definitely use it! The old curve balanced fully milked games against non-milkers, but had a loophole where you could milk to 1200AD~1800AD for a higher score than both.

 

[CruddyLeper]

As a new player whose first GOTM was 18, it makes no odds to me at all.

 

[zagnut]

I would suggest you use the most accurate curve for GOTM 18.

 

[JonathanValjean]

While playing around with different variables on the Jason Calculator, I noticed this disproportion. First, I am in favor of using the more accurate curve, and second, thanks so much Aeson for slaving to come up with a better curve. Good work!

 

[Bamspeedy]

I voted to go with the more accurate system, because like I said elsewhere, I did notice my score blooming upwards and peaking at ~1600 A.D.

Perhaps you could do some comparisons (of old score vs. new scoring curve) from previous results? Probably not everyone's, if you have to plug in each score manually, but a select few, or top 10 from a previous month, like GOTM 17, so people have a better grasp for how this affects things.

 

[Skyfish]

I agree with the new curve but I'd rather see it in GOTM19 as I believe it would be fairer. The choice of victory condition might have been different for some if the knew beforehand of this change.
Even if it affects only a handful of people, it is fairer to introduce this month when (most) people still have time to adapt.

 

[Luithien]

My 2 cents..

GOTM 18 end score around 5000 with a domination victory in around 1980... probably my best score to date.. One of my most enjoyable wins.

Jason score 2700 or so from the web based calc. Was very disapointed with that...

Taking fully developed large cities takes alot of effort with alot of resources..

Also just like to say that domination was not what I was originally going for, its just the way it ended up...

Couldn't get the culture victory even with 160,000 in culture

I understand the skill involved in the early domination/ conquest victories and the scores should reflect and reward that. Just dont think you should be hit so hard if you go for a slower expansion, building culture and improvements in all cities as you go...

I think this new curve is a step in the right direction.

 

[Moonsinger]

I believe change is a good thing and the new improve Jason Scoring system would be better than the old one. However, I absolutely agree with Skyfish. Changing horses in mid-stream isn't a good thing. My guess is that it won't affect my GOTM18 score much, but that isn't the point. What do we think if the IRS decide to change the tax code for the current year after we already submit our taxes for the current year?

 

[Luithien]

Cant do anything but agree....

fair is fair

 

[Txurce]

If the new scoring system is more fair, then I support making the changes effective for GOTM18. Otherwise, it's unfair to the majority of players, who have trusted the scoring-system designers to devise the most fair system, and don't spend any time figuring out how to squeeze a few extra points out of one system vs. another.

OT: if the IRS changed the tax laws after I paid my taxes, and the changes were for the greater good, then I would support the changes, rather than have the greater good postponed for another year.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Txurce
OT: if the IRS changed the tax laws after I paid my taxes, and the changes were for the greater good, then I would support the changes, rather than have the greater good postponed for another year.

May be you are rich and you don't care paying a little extra in taxes, but when the IRS comes knocking on you door, you may be singing a different tune. May be the following example may make more sense:

Let's say that you killed someone because you were high on drug or something, so you ended up serving a 20 years for your crime. That's fair - no problem there "I did the crime and I'm willing to do the time" you said. Now, let's say some time next year, they will change the law and will say that for the good of the majority and for the good of humanity, all murder convicts (past, present, and future) should be immediately executed. Do you still think that it's fair to change the rule after the fact as long as the majority are supporting it? In this case, the majority of people probably don't mind to see you dead. Just one less criminal for them to worry about. Therefore, it must be a good thing. But really, is it really fair? If you had known year ago that you would be excuted if you do the crime, may be you would think twice before you committed the crime.

 

[Txurce]

Moonsinger, I love your latest analogy, and hope I can do it justice with my response.

Statistics show that capital punishment is not a deterrent to homicide - especially if the crime is committed while in an altered state. So in theory, I wouldn't find it unfair if the penalty for a murder I committed while in an altered state (let's say, sleep-deprived due to playing Civ3) were increased and applied to me retroactively.

There are two issues on the table here: fairness and the will of the majority. We all trust Aeson's opinion that the revised scoring system is more fair, and a majority seem to want it implemented retroactively. You are placing the potential unfairness to the minority who may have counted on the old system and now would be adversely affected by having it revised retroactively, ahead of the potential unfairness to the majority who played GOTM18 assuming that the scoring system was whatever is most fair.

Unlike an immediate death penalty, the GOTM scoring is not a life-and-death issue. (Pause for dissent.) It doesn't really matter much what someone thought prior to playing GOTM18 - the changes aren't going to affect the scores that much. I'm in favor of applying the most fair system as far back as the GOTM administrators are willing to go, because I prefer comparisons via a "most fair" scoring system. I understand what a player might lose from this perspective, but don't find it as relevant.

 

[Moonsinger]

Txurce,

I agree that the GOTM isn't a life and death issue and I know the changes won't affect me in anyway. It was really a matter of principle I was talking about. Therefore, I rest my case.

 

[Aeson]

Given the results of the poll, I think we will wait till GOTM19 for the change. The only way I'd would have felt right about making the change this month is if it was unopposed.

I'm in favor of applying the most fair system as far back as the GOTM administrators are willing to go, because I prefer comparisons via a "most fair" scoring system. I understand what a player might lose from this perspective, but don't find it as relevant.

Hopefully in the not very distant future we will have a database set up so that players can look at the games based on their own criteria.

 

[Moonsinger]

Aeson,

I hope you didn't do that on my account. If you think the change is a good thing, please go ahead. I'm really ok with it either way. If you take me off the list, you only have 5 more people to convince. If you decide to wait to do it for the GOTM19, then may be perhaps a two columns display of both scores for the GOTM18 so that we can see the difference of what could have been and what should have been. I know that would be some extra work on your part; therefore, if you need some help with some HTML editing, just say a word and I will see what I can do.

 

[Aeson]

No worries Moonsinger. I don't really want to change anything in midgame as I've said previously. I do think the change is good, but it's not worth making the change midgame unless everyone is behind it.

I think the games rank the way they should using the old curve, because that was how the 'game' was defined at the time. I think the games score the way they should using the new curve though. If that makes any sense.

If you decide to wait to do it for the GOTM19, then may be perhaps a two columns display of both scores for the GOTM18 so that we can see the difference of what could have been and what should have been.

Will do. Not to take anything away from (or add anything to), the games that are affected, but rather to give people an opportunity to see what the effects of the change will be in the future.

 

[JonathanValjean]

Thanks Aeson for your painstaking effort and concern about doing what is best for the GOTM players. Also, thanks for the selflessness displayed by your willingness to crunch through all those extra numbers in order to show us the differences between the two systems. Keep up the great work!

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Aeson
Will do. Not to take anything away from (or add anything to), the games that are affected, but rather to give people an opportunity to see what the effects of the change will be in the future.

Great! Thanks for your tireless effort. I'm sure a lot of people (including me) appreciate that. It would definitely give us a chance to see the new curve in action.

 

[Aeson]

The number crunching is actually something I enjoy doing as long as it's on my own terms, I'd hate it as a job...

I have a very strange concept of 'fun' it seems.