Civ 3 Tournament Proposal
- Thread starter Grey Fox
- Start date
wohmongarinf00l
Immortal
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2002
- Messages
- 452
sign me up for veteran division.
Higis
Chieftain
I would like to try my hand at the regular division.
As to the map size, I believe a equitable destribution for all types. 1 small for every large and so forth. What interests me through is the novel playing style that a tiny cultural game or a huge conquest (not domination) game would require.
As to the map size, I believe a equitable destribution for all types. 1 small for every large and so forth. What interests me through is the novel playing style that a tiny cultural game or a huge conquest (not domination) game would require.
MightyMaus
Chieftain
I kinda like the status quo; 1 Tiny, 2 Smalls and a Standard... this saves on time and also gives a fair variety in gaming and point base; some of us don't have quite the time to play out a Large map game every couple of weeks. 
I doubt many people will like this, but I'll throw it out anyway:
I would like an extremely simplified scoring formula, based on whether the goal was achieved. As an example, if the goal is for a spaceship victory. First place (for fastest victory) can get 100 points, second place (for second fastest victory) 50 points, third place 25 points, fourth place 10 points, fifth place 5 points, sixth through tenth place 1 point.
If I'm playing the tournament under the current suggestions, I will have a hard time knowing the best way to optimize my score . As an example, if I keep my population very happy, my score will be higher but it will take me longer to get to space (or whatever the victory condition is). Which strategy should I take? Make my population happy, or race to space, or some unknown combination of both? I think that would be a hard question to answer.
During the world series, you don't get extra points for having a high batting average or beating the other team by 20 runs. You get 1 point for winning the game. Period. First team to four points wins.
I would like an extremely simplified scoring formula, based on whether the goal was achieved. As an example, if the goal is for a spaceship victory. First place (for fastest victory) can get 100 points, second place (for second fastest victory) 50 points, third place 25 points, fourth place 10 points, fifth place 5 points, sixth through tenth place 1 point.
If I'm playing the tournament under the current suggestions, I will have a hard time knowing the best way to optimize my score . As an example, if I keep my population very happy, my score will be higher but it will take me longer to get to space (or whatever the victory condition is). Which strategy should I take? Make my population happy, or race to space, or some unknown combination of both? I think that would be a hard question to answer.
During the world series, you don't get extra points for having a high batting average or beating the other team by 20 runs. You get 1 point for winning the game. Period. First team to four points wins.
Wow, some of your suggestions are just dumb.
Why don't a couple of the good people get together (Grey Fox, whose idea this was, Aeson, who knows a lot of stuff
and Sir Pleb or something) and make the rules. They already know what we think, and they don't seem to come up with dumb suggestions like "Lets make the tournament noncompetitive". Then, they will post the rules, and we can either play or not as we like. 
We've got to do something if this is ever going to actually get started.
Why don't a couple of the good people get together (Grey Fox, whose idea this was, Aeson, who knows a lot of stuff
and Sir Pleb or something) and make the rules. They already know what we think, and they don't seem to come up with dumb suggestions like "Lets make the tournament noncompetitive". Then, they will post the rules, and we can either play or not as we like. We've got to do something if this is ever going to actually get started.
God
God
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,354
Tiny and small maps are going to screw me over. I'm not a great at milking the game, but i hate warrior gambit or horsemen rush. I like those long drawn out games on the large map. It suits my style of playing.
I'm good at expanding and large maps let me do that.
I'm good at expanding and large maps let me do that.
donsig
Low level intermediary
What's so wrong with a simplified scoring system? The guy has a point. When is comes to sports you win or lose. how much you win by is only good for bragging points.
The trouble with scoring systems (for both Civ III and Civ II) is that no matter what scoring system you devise there is a strategy out there that maximizes the score under the given system. The Holy Grail of Civ III scoring systems is to find one where the scores can be meaningfully compared no matter what level, map size, victory type, etc. is played. Can this even be done? How can you compare a conquest victory to a diplomatic victory? I think Grey Fox knows this and has tried to reduce the problem by making a specific victory condition. With everyone trying to win by culture (for example) the scores are easier to compare.
The trouble with scoring systems (for both Civ III and Civ II) is that no matter what scoring system you devise there is a strategy out there that maximizes the score under the given system. The Holy Grail of Civ III scoring systems is to find one where the scores can be meaningfully compared no matter what level, map size, victory type, etc. is played. Can this even be done? How can you compare a conquest victory to a diplomatic victory? I think Grey Fox knows this and has tried to reduce the problem by making a specific victory condition. With everyone trying to win by culture (for example) the scores are easier to compare.
Let's just state for the record that we were discussing this before I posted my Idea. And there were more then 5 participants in that discussion, including Aeson and SirPleb.
So we have been discussing. Many hours infact. (on the chat that is)
Anyway, we will have to have a discussion about mapsizes. Now that large maps are getting smaller.
We might be using custum sizes even.
Anyway, here are some new players. Many thanks to TF for posting the news!
38 More players!
Elite (6 more players)
- Napoleon
- monaco
- Aleric
- Lee More
- IronKnight
- Hobbes
Veteran (18 More Players)
- Beammeuppy
- Conner McLeod
- KithrupFugitive
- mirrorball
- DMA57361
- jcm4ccc
- gfrast
- bbamerican
- Prince of Dorne
- jdoury
- Magnum
- crabapple
- Gnid
- Ronald
- ben_matthews
- merle corey
- rapid
- wohmongarinf00l
Regular (14 More Players)
- Nazgi
- titansfan216
- The Big O
- Kill-O-Byte
- dgerards
- lemming
- Kevin Ault
- smith21
- Steve Dave
- Goat guy
- TheRealGameSage
- Parchy
- Higis
- Richie
I think we should have different promotion numbers for different Divisions. The 25% i posted first was only an Idea.
We should try and have like 25% in the Regular Division, 50% in the Veteran and 25% Elite.
So we have been discussing. Many hours infact. (on the chat that is)
Anyway, we will have to have a discussion about mapsizes. Now that large maps are getting smaller.
We might be using custum sizes even.
Anyway, here are some new players. Many thanks to TF for posting the news!
38 More players!
Elite (6 more players)
- Napoleon
- monaco
- Aleric
- Lee More
- IronKnight
- Hobbes
Veteran (18 More Players)
- Beammeuppy
- Conner McLeod
- KithrupFugitive
- mirrorball
- DMA57361
- jcm4ccc
- gfrast
- bbamerican
- Prince of Dorne
- jdoury
- Magnum
- crabapple
- Gnid
- Ronald
- ben_matthews
- merle corey
- rapid
- wohmongarinf00l
Regular (14 More Players)
- Nazgi
- titansfan216
- The Big O
- Kill-O-Byte
- dgerards
- lemming
- Kevin Ault
- smith21
- Steve Dave
- Goat guy
- TheRealGameSage
- Parchy
- Higis
- Richie
I think we should have different promotion numbers for different Divisions. The 25% i posted first was only an Idea.
We should try and have like 25% in the Regular Division, 50% in the Veteran and 25% Elite.
baseballtwin86
Warlord
Wow, a lot more people have signed up since TF put the link to the thread on the front page. Looks like a lot more competition!
fRisKy
Chieftain
Great idea, count me in for the ELITES...
My recent GOTM06 large map spaceship didn't take toooo long to finish, and with large maps now smaller I would be in favour of small/standard/large (as long as the large didn't have a histograph win condition specified
)
I think the scoring system is pretty damn good, HOWEVER, I still have a concern that the "milked" scores are too close to the "fastest" scores, eg in Aeson's example...
Now say Player 4 goes for the fastest spaceship launch and just misses out, launching in... errr I forget how many year/turn in the 1800's... say after 380 turns with a slightly higher (due to more turns) score of say 3100... that would give an OverallAverage of 0.788... LESS than the milked victory.
I would be in favour of biasing the scoring system even more towards the fastest criteria and away from the milked victory as if I was Player 4 above I'd be pretty pissed off...
Anyone got any ideas how?
My recent GOTM06 large map spaceship didn't take toooo long to finish, and with large maps now smaller I would be in favour of small/standard/large (as long as the large didn't have a histograph win condition specified
)I think the scoring system is pretty damn good, HOWEVER, I still have a concern that the "milked" scores are too close to the "fastest" scores, eg in Aeson's example...
Now say Player 4 goes for the fastest spaceship launch and just misses out, launching in... errr I forget how many year/turn in the 1800's... say after 380 turns with a slightly higher (due to more turns) score of say 3100... that would give an OverallAverage of 0.788... LESS than the milked victory.
I would be in favour of biasing the scoring system even more towards the fastest criteria and away from the milked victory as if I was Player 4 above I'd be pretty pissed off...
Anyone got any ideas how?
Someone asked "if it's a tournament with promotion/relegation, why can we enter whichever division we like"
Ok, it's a tournament, but it's also supposed to be FUN. Far from saying that everyone has to prove themselves before they can enter, I'd really encourage people to decide which division they want to play in and enter it. Within a round, we'll know if they're meant to be there.
I'd also suggest that people be able to withdraw from the tournament, sit out 2 rounds, and then re-enter either Reg or Vet as they like, regardless of which division they are in. This solves the problem that people [like me] might well get relegated, but don't enjoy playing 4 Chieftain/Warlord games (I find the game dynamics very different and not so much fun at lower levels).
There's a very good argument to say that you must qualify to enter Elite division, though. That way it's a bit like the Champions' League!
whb.
Ok, it's a tournament, but it's also supposed to be FUN. Far from saying that everyone has to prove themselves before they can enter, I'd really encourage people to decide which division they want to play in and enter it. Within a round, we'll know if they're meant to be there.
I'd also suggest that people be able to withdraw from the tournament, sit out 2 rounds, and then re-enter either Reg or Vet as they like, regardless of which division they are in. This solves the problem that people [like me] might well get relegated, but don't enjoy playing 4 Chieftain/Warlord games (I find the game dynamics very different and not so much fun at lower levels).
There's a very good argument to say that you must qualify to enter Elite division, though. That way it's a bit like the Champions' League!
whb.
nbarclay
Chieftain
What if, instead of having each game be 12 days, the games would last four weeks (or just under) but with a two-week overlap? That way, once the pipeline gets going, games would still be finished every two weeks, but people who go on vacation or get busy with something else for a while wouldn't be effectively knocked out of competitition. Movement up or down would have to be handled a little differently since a new tournament would start two weeks before the last game of the previous one is finished, but reasonable workarounds could be found. For example, the person in first place after three games might be forced up, and also the winner of the previous tournament if that was a different person from the one who had been in first after three games.
Overlapped games with a longer "time window" for each would also make it a lot easier to work in a large-map game, perhaps in a "Small, Large, Tiny, Standard" pattern. Players who aren't finished on the large map yet after two weeks could spend a little longer on it and still have time to play the tiny-map game.
In regard to whether movement up or down should be mandatory or voluntary, consider the implications of each. If I struggle at a higher level instead of playing at a lower level where I would be more competitive, I am not harming anyone else in any way. Therefore, there is no compelling reason why I should be forced to move down against my will.
On the other hand, if I stay in a lower bracket when my skill level is such that I really belong in a higher one, I am taking away a big chunk of opportunity for players who do belong in the lower bracket to get top finishes. It therefore makes sense to force the person who finishes first in a lower bracket to move up and make room for others. (Below that, forcing people up deprives them of their chance to be first now that last time's winner is in the next bracket up, so the situation is less clear.)
One last thing: I think cultural victory definitely SHOULD be turned off when the goal is some other kind of fiinish. Expecting people to avoid conquering so much territory that they achieve domination or conquest before they win the space race does not harm the realism of the game, since there is nothing at all unrealistic about a nation's being content with ruling less than the entire planet. But the idea of having to deliberately hold back on improvements that make for a better empire for fear of building up too much culture too quickly seems ludicrous. I have no real interest in a Civilization game where one of the goals is to avoid getting TOO civilized.
I'm not sure yet whether I want to commit as much time as something like this tournament would take. I'm a micromanager (albeit not focused so much on score as on other aspects of building a great and glorious nation), and that means each game tends to take a big chunk of time. I'm also not sure whether I'd go for the middle or top division if I do play; my skill level is such that I pretty definitely do belong on Emperor level, but I'm almost equally sure I don't belong on Deity level at present (especially given my distaste for exploiting every available weakness in the rules). And going down in glorious defeat isn't exactly my idea of fun.
As I've said before elsewhere, I play tournament games mostly for fun. I enjoy seeing how my results compare with how others do on the same basic game (especially when I do well ), but I have no interest in sacrificing the fun factor of the game just to play on a higher level or do a bit better in tournament rankings.
Nathan
Overlapped games with a longer "time window" for each would also make it a lot easier to work in a large-map game, perhaps in a "Small, Large, Tiny, Standard" pattern. Players who aren't finished on the large map yet after two weeks could spend a little longer on it and still have time to play the tiny-map game.
In regard to whether movement up or down should be mandatory or voluntary, consider the implications of each. If I struggle at a higher level instead of playing at a lower level where I would be more competitive, I am not harming anyone else in any way. Therefore, there is no compelling reason why I should be forced to move down against my will.
On the other hand, if I stay in a lower bracket when my skill level is such that I really belong in a higher one, I am taking away a big chunk of opportunity for players who do belong in the lower bracket to get top finishes. It therefore makes sense to force the person who finishes first in a lower bracket to move up and make room for others. (Below that, forcing people up deprives them of their chance to be first now that last time's winner is in the next bracket up, so the situation is less clear.)
One last thing: I think cultural victory definitely SHOULD be turned off when the goal is some other kind of fiinish. Expecting people to avoid conquering so much territory that they achieve domination or conquest before they win the space race does not harm the realism of the game, since there is nothing at all unrealistic about a nation's being content with ruling less than the entire planet. But the idea of having to deliberately hold back on improvements that make for a better empire for fear of building up too much culture too quickly seems ludicrous. I have no real interest in a Civilization game where one of the goals is to avoid getting TOO civilized.
I'm not sure yet whether I want to commit as much time as something like this tournament would take. I'm a micromanager (albeit not focused so much on score as on other aspects of building a great and glorious nation), and that means each game tends to take a big chunk of time. I'm also not sure whether I'd go for the middle or top division if I do play; my skill level is such that I pretty definitely do belong on Emperor level, but I'm almost equally sure I don't belong on Deity level at present (especially given my distaste for exploiting every available weakness in the rules). And going down in glorious defeat isn't exactly my idea of fun.
As I've said before elsewhere, I play tournament games mostly for fun. I enjoy seeing how my results compare with how others do on the same basic game (especially when I do well
), but I have no interest in sacrificing the fun factor of the game just to play on a higher level or do a bit better in tournament rankings.Nathan
da_greatest
deity
Please sign me up for the regular division.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
- Messages
- 2,686
I like your suggestion about overlapping the games Nbarclay. If we were to include a large map that would definitely be the way to go. It might even be possible to just present the 4 different maps all at once. Then people with less evenly distributed free time would be more apt to finish all four games instead of 'wasting' time waiting for the next to be released.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
- Messages
- 2,686
That's a good point. Keep in mind that it was SirPleb doing the milking in that example, and he has shown repeatedly in the GOTM that he is very good at that. The victory conditions in GOTM05 didn't encourage a fast launch, so the earliest date used might have been later than if many people had been trying for it. Not to take anything away from Nathan Barclay, an 1810 launch under such conditions is impressive as well. We'll just have to wait an see how the scoring system holds up under the specific tournament conditions when everyone is shooting for the same goal.
The bigger problem is how the weighting of the turns percentage amplifies the variance between players finish dates. This could lead to people realizing that they didn't launch soon enough, so they have to 'make up' some percentage by milking. I hadn't thought of this, good pickup fRisKy!
To combat this, we can 'naturalize' the turns percentage a bit. Instead of:
TurnsPercentage = FewestTurns / PlayerTurns
we would end up with something like:
TurnsPercentage = (FewestTurns + NaturalValue) / (PlayerTurns + NaturalValue)
With your values of 380 and 3100 (seems reasonable) we would get .788 with the current score version:
Player 4's OverallAverage = ((2 * 370/380) + 3100/7412) / (2 + 1) = .788
With the second version, and a NaturalValue of 200 we get:
Player 4's OverallAverage = ((2 * 570/580) + 3100/7412) / (2 + 1) = .795
The NaturalValue would need to be based on the victory condition I think. 200 was just the number that made your example work about how I think it should, ie. Player 4's average is about midway between player 2's and player 3's.
Just off the top of my head NaturalValue should look something like this (needs refining obviously):
NaturalValue
Spaceship: MapSize * 100
Culture: MapSize * 100
Diplomatic (if we ever do that, doubtful): MapSize * 100
Conquest: MapSize * 150
Domination: Mapsize * 125
This way the 'earlier' victory conditions won't have such a dramatic turns percentage variance between players. So launching 10 turns after the first launch date (ie. 370/380) would be closer to conquering the world 10 turns after the first conquest date (ie. 128/138). It takes into account the weighting going on (with MapSize), and counteracts it by a similar margin.
If this addition meets with general approval (and the NaturalValue values are refined a bit) I think it would be a good addition to the overall scoring formula. What does everyone think?
Similar threads
