General QSC Scoring updates - Wonders, GLs and Techs

[ControlFreak]

Oh, you meant just limit 1 cities stored shields, not the total. I thought you meant a maximum of 100 sheilds stored total for the civ. I guess that would be a good fix to convince the player to build a wonder as soon as possible. I was afraid you meant to limit the total shield storage which would kill a player using ics or the like that had 50 cities with 20shields in each = 1000pts->100pts.

What about a player who is intentionally not building the wonder (like switching from palace prebuild to wonder) because he/she is trying to grab two wonders at the same time to kill the cascade? This could be a ton of stored sheilds that would bet wiped out in the max of 100.

I think I like devaluing the points for stored sheilds. That seems to make more sense because you're right, a built thing is worth more than a building thing. Especially when I got beat to the pyramids and I didn't have anything to switch too. (Yes, that happened in my GOTM16 and it happened 3 turns after the end of the QSC so it didn't hurt my score.) What are the arguments against devalued sheilds?

 

[hotrod0823]

The focus should not be on just the score. One could argue that having 4 settlers at 70 points has a higher score than building 4 cities at size 1 or 2 with a citizen value of only 20 points. I think we all agree that the "potential" of the cities higher than that of a settler sitting idle waiting for 1000BC to roll around. The same can be said for wonders. Yes the shields are work 1 pt and yes if you are 2 turns from completing the Oracle then you will get a 200 pt bonus vs. actually finishing it. Is that 200 points worth fighting over?? I don't think so. Why are you building the oracle anyway? Aren't 15 spears more valueable?

Why stop at devalueing shields why not units or settlers or food? I understand you are focusing in on areas of concern that there may be various interpertations but let not get too excited. What does that extra 200 shields get you? Does it change your "power" rating, move you up a few pegs? I don't think so.

Regardless of the scoring involved poor play will give you a poor QSC and a poor GOTM.

I would like to see a QSC game played out just for score regardless of wether or not the player intends to win. Go for max QSC score and see how well you do in the game overall. I don't think your game will be much fun at all.

The QSC tries to give a balance to power. It is a tool not a be all end all. Weaker players can compare and see where they need work. In my case lack of workers, other poor worker usage, others poor balance of units, buildings and settler builds. All these things are pointed out in the QSC and have nothing to do with the absolute score. You can look at a players relative power and know quickly how their game went.

I have first hand knowledge of how that is: QSC16 was weak for me and my game was an uphill battle from the get go. The QSC pointed that out. If I had a bunch of shield built up and had a touch higher score that wouldn't have made my game any better. Higher score just for the sake of higher score is not the answer. Better focus on what needed to be done as far as worker actions, unit builds, tech choice thats how you improve. Look at the big picture compare your game to the others in your group. Compare with other outside your group. It is a learning experience and anyone who doesn't treat it that why and treats it as a competion just for higher score is missing the point.

Okay my rant is over back to work

Hotrod

 

[BillChin]

Originally posted by hotrod0823
The focus should not be on just the score
...
Regardless of the scoring involved poor play will give you a poor QSC and a poor GOTM.
...
I would like to see a QSC game played out just for score regardless of wether or not the player intends to win. Go for max QSC score and see how well you do in the game overall. I don't think your game will be much fun at all.
...

Okay my rant is over back to work

Hotrod

Hotrod, I did that for my first QSC. I thought I played an average game with an excellent strategic plan. I only glanced at the QSC scoring and used a plan I have used often "Swordsmen Conquest." I hate to say it, but I was disappointed by my 50th place finish. Many players without a plan, without much thought to their games, scored much higher than me in the QSC.

When I read the scoring details I realized why. Swordsmen Conquest involves building a few cities, many warriors, then upgrading the warriors to attack. The attack window on Emperor level is exactly before the QSC ends. It is an accident that this turns out to be just about out the worst idea for QSC points.

QSC scoring devalues unit upgrades over gold. QSC overvalues techs over gold. I would have gotten a much higher QSC score trading all my gold for basically useless techs (useless to my strategic game plan). A player with gold that has a choice of unit upgrades, keeping the gold, or trading the gold for techs, will maximize score by trading for techs in 95% of cases. Now that I know the rules, it unfortunately will have an effect on my game play.
+ Bill

 

[cracker]

Originally posted by BillChin
QSC scoring devalues unit upgrades over gold. QSC overvalues techs over gold.

Bill, I am not 100% sure that this true diplomatic smilie face: ). The QSC scoring has always included a specific provision that recognizes the transition value of unit upgrades in the final turns of the QSC and allows you to claim points that equalize the upgrade value of your warriors to swords example.

All you have to do is claim the point equaliztion when you submit your QSC to help us make sure we do not miss it in the scoring process.

The key point is that there is a point penalty for upgrading units because the units shields of the cheaper unit plus the gold cost of the upgrade exceeds the cost of the more expensive unit if you do not have Leo's Workshop. This is a designed in feature of the game. It costs more to buy a swordsman than it does to build a swordsman. Admittedly the two sources of power come from different emphasis directions.

If you are upgrading warriors to swords with the near term purpose of using those swordsman to gain power in terms of territory or techs then you will come out a head. A specific example using your swordsmen woudl be that each warrior costs 40 gold to upgrade to a swordsman but the point gain effectively means you lose 20 points each time you do this. If you swordsman just stands around and watches daisies grow or wanders in the hinterlands, then you have lost power. If that same swordsman goes forth and smites thine enemies then you will game power.

Capturing a city is worth at least 67 points {20(town) + 9*3(territory) + 20 (at least one citizen) } which means you could afford to lose one or two swordsmen per captured town and come out ahead on the power curve even if you do not gain in other ways through captured slave, extorted techs/gold etc.

This upgrade cost equalization has always been designed into the QSC scoring but only a few players have needed it or taken advantage of it so far.

The real key is to have a proximate use for the upgrades instead of just gratuitously upgrading units. We frequently see examples where players have upgraded units defensively even when these units could not possibly be used for any offensive or defensive purpose. Upgrade and strike.

Part of this system is to realize that doing harm to your neighbors may put you closer to winning the game by conquest of domination but it does so be reducing the power of your enemies and not necessarily increasing the power of your civilization.

 

[Renata]

Originally posted by cracker

The real key is to have a proximate use for the upgrades instead of just gratuitously upgrading units. We frequently see examples where players have upgraded units defensively even when these units could not possibly be used for any offensive or defensive purpose. Upgrade and strike.

What about deterrence? I can't remember if the AI calculates your strength with total A/D points or total shield cost of your units, but say you upgrade five warriors to swordsmen. If it's calculated the first way, you've quintupled the value of those units in the eyes of the AI. If the latter, you've tripled them. In either case, a few judicious upgrades can surely lessen your chances of getting overrun, reduce tribute demands, etc, which can only improve your overall power in the long run.

Renata

 

[BillChin]

Originally posted by cracker

Edit: I had second thoughts about my post a few minutes after posting. I have deleted its contents as it was in poor taste and nasty in tone.
+ Bill

 

[cracker]

Originally posted by BillChin
... key point in my mind is that the committee has a clumsy kludge to mask inherent unfairness in their scoring system. ...

That was unkind. and may be clouding your judgement a bit. We may need to give you several more months to more thoroughly balance your initial assessment against the list of goals set for the QSC scoring system.

Change in the system will be evolutionary and may seem to be too slow for you if you arrive at the dance with the opinion that all the girls will be ugly and stupid.

I just encourage you to play the big games well for now and to help us actively look at ways we can integrate meeting your needs into the system without compromising the major objectives of helping players determine how to build and expand the power of their civilization more quickly.

Fundamentally, a truly aggressive warmonger can be disadvantaged in these processes because becoming the relative winner by reducing or impeding the power of your rivals is not the same thing as becoming a more powerful civilization in absolute terms that can be compared across many different games. You have to begin looking at many different games across many different situations to get a better perception of why the objectives of the scoring system may need to be more clearly understood.

 

[ControlFreak]

Originally posted by cracker

Fundamentally, a truly aggressive warmonger can be disadvantaged in these processes because becoming the relative winner by reducing or impeding the power of your rivals is not the same thing as becoming a more powerful civilization in absolute terms that can be compared across many different games.

Is this along the lines of the milker vs non-milker debate? What I mean is milkers are going for a big score and to get that they must have a lot of happy people in a lot of productive towns. If the only goal of a player is to crush the enemy without using the gains of war to further his own civilization then he is not as powerful as someone who selectively acquires territory that is meaningful to his or her populace.

The QSC scoring is designed to emphasize the strength of civilization. Swords in themselves are not powerful. When used properly, they add power points interms of cities/territory/growth. When used improperly, they die and thus loose power points. Cracker repeatedly is saying that you need to use them.

If you are constantly frustrated by the fact that you are ready to upgrade right before 1000BC and "lose" the gold points, maybe you can study the players that were able to upgrade early enough to use their swords. Your lower QSC score, as it is for the rest of us, should be an indication of what you can improve about your play rather than the other way around. Think not of the QSC score as a predictor of whether on not you'll win the game. Think of it as a measuring stick to which all strategies can be compared and their advantages or disadvantages can be illuminated.

At quick glance, you might say that tech being over emphasized and upgrades under emphasized favors the builders over the warmongers but four of the top 10 players had followed the war path and had upgraded warriors to legions in time to convert their attack strength to QSC points.

I think I agree with HotRods rant that however the score is now, its not the +/- values but rather the relative numbers that help to point toward my opportunity areas.

 

[cracker]

Originally posted by hotrod0823
The focus should not be on just the score. One could argue that having 4 settlers at 70 points has a higher score than building 4 cities at size 1 or 2 with a citizen value of only 20 points.

Hotrod,

Remember to look at the value of ALL the things that a settler turns into to get your comparison here. A settler is worth 70 points because he/she costs 30 shields plus two population points for 40 total grain bundles. That's fairly easy to see.

When you use a settler to found a new town, you get 1 town worth 20 points even if it has no people and territory. The town also always starts with one citizen that is worth 20 points. Then the town may add territory and each territory square adds three points to your total. If you plop down an isolated town it will have 9 territory squares for 27 points, which makes the settler conversion a 70 versus 67 comparison. The average city also produces a net yield of at least 4 to 5 power points per turn, so within just a turn or two any city location will be worth more than any settler.

If you look at most QSC games, the territory/per city ratio gives you a better feel for the average territory value of a settler. ICS style players who strive for "Cramus" benefirts end up taking a hit in the territory score but this is often offset by more turns impacted by each city.

Again we want to look at the big picture objective here of the QSC and that is to encourage you to build the settlers that you need at the right imes and then to get those settlers on the ground and converted into twons, territory, citizens and production potential as quickly as possible.

 

[Jurimax]

Cracker, will there be a file available with the info inside it so we can add up our own QSC scores? It's just that I'm always curious to see how much points I've gathered. This is mainly to compare my start to the starting moves of the other QSC's.

In case such a file already exists, could someone please post a link to it here?

Thanx in advance.

 

[hotrod0823]

That is the problem when I get off on a tanget like the settler. Forgot the other points, territory, city etc as cracker pointed out.


The settler was poor example I agree . Anyway, my point overall was what does it matter if you get shorted a couple hundred points because your Oracle completed and mine didn't until 980 BC.

 

[ControlFreak]

@ Jurimax,

I think Cracker has removed links to the scoring sheet because it is evolving and may be different each GOTM. You run the risk of having an outdated algorithm. If you know excel, you can download the scoring.xls file from last GOTM results, delete all players data and use that as an estimator for any games you want to evaluate. There is some data that I couldn't be bothered to try to figure out, like the partial credit portion of tech so I never track my own progress. Don't let that stop you.

The link to the GOTM16 scoresheet with all the results in it is here

 

[BillChin]

Okay a clean slate. I'll start with the premise that any near deadline linear moves should not have a large effect on QSC score. Perhaps the committee encourages quicky bonuses towards the deadline, but it seems 100% against what they claim.

1) The non-controversial proposal: limit any shields-in-hopper bonus to 100 shields for any specific city. This always yields a higher score for a player completing a wonder before the deadline and avoid results where a player that completes the wonder two turns after the deadline gets a huge bonus over a player that completes the same exact wonder two turns before the deadline.

2) Okay now to more controversial stuff. Take any hypothetical game where a player has gold, units and tech (like all games). A player can use the gold to upgrade units. A conversion near the deadline should have little impact on score as gold is not inherently an indication of power or a great civ than units. I believe this needs to be in the formulas, not any special adjustment kluge.

2a) In my mind the same goes for tech. Trading gold for techs does not make a civ any more powerful, does not require any more thought or planning than keeping the gold. There should be very similar scores for each. Now if a player can buy a tech and trade it for more techs or more gold, there should be a bonus for doing that as it requires more than a straight trade gold for tech.

3) GNP: I have not gone over the formula with a fine-tooth comb, so while GNP is probably already in there, I believe it needs a double weighting relative to where it is now. Gold per turn (after corruption), and shields per turn for the entire empire are a perhaps the best measure of the power of a civ. Any research boosts from libraries can be added into the formula. Gold produced by the empire is more valuable in comparison to any temporary boosts from tax men or trades.

---
I believe the committee needs to think in terms of these three points. I believe that rewarding players for simple tech trades is a clear bias that needs correcting. I believe that tech is not inherently any indication of greatness or good game play or strategic thinking. The same arguments used for military units applies to tech. Tech in of itself is of no value unless it is used to increase production or gold, or used to get other things of value (in the case of tech by trading, in the case of units by using).

I believe all players can agree that GNP in terms of gold and shields are a good measure of a civ. I believe all players want to discourage near deadline shenanigans that have a large impact on score. The only exceptions may be for moves that require a good deal of planning and thought
+ Bill

 

[Birdjaguar]

In all competitive games (including GOTM and QSC) the best players use the rules and scoring system to “milk” the system to the best of their ability. The better a player understands the details of the rules and how to score points, the better they will do, if they any aptitude for the processes involved. The best players use the 2050 AD and 1000 BC deadlines as ways to increase their scores and not as end points. They are part of their strategies not boundaries or static lines. Its like using the edge of the map in board game to keep opponents from going around you.

The way to reduce the use of artificial boundaries as strategic elements is to randomize them. For QSC how about having the end be a random year somewhere between 900 and 1100 BC for any given game. The end point would be determined once the game has closed. The question of trying to decide about finishing a wonder goes away. The same would work for the GOTM. The game could end anytime after say 2000 AD. This would encourage players to end the game sooner rather than later or they would be stuck with the histograph victory at a random time.

I think this would add a great "uncertainty" element to a game.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Birdjaguar
In all competitive games (including GOTM and QSC) the best players use the rules and scoring system to “milk” the system to the best of their ability.

How do you define 'the best players'?

Personally I don't care about my score, I find playing for the fastest time in any category (including OCC) much more interesting.

 

[Birdjaguar]

"Best players" are those that do well in the competition: the consistent top scorers. Right now, the measure we (cracker) use to determine who is at the top of the list at the end, are points that are tabulated a certain way. Moonsinger, for example, knows she has to keep from tripping the domination victory until 2050 and her milking strategy uses that endpoint right from the start.

In your case, trying for a fastest win is just that get there quickly. It is a race against the clock and does not use the time factor to enhace victory points. If the scoring system gave enough bonus points for the quickest victory so that finishing very early would move you to the top of the winners list, and if those points were more than could be gotten by milking to 2050, we would see new strategies develop. The scoring system will shape game play. Right now milking pays off in the winner's circle.

I've only played OCC once, so I guessing here, but when you play OCC for the fastest time, it's all about calculating. You build the culture producing items and wait for the counter to trip 20,000. The risk is that the AI will build a wonder before you and then you have to change your plan and at that point the victory date will change. The more wars you fight (perhaps tough with one city) the more GLs you could have and the more wonders you can build. Quite a challenge.

But back to scoring. When I play by myself I don't watch the score or care much about it. My slow builder style is all about having a cool empire. GOTM is not about personal of play. It is a competition by which players are ranked on how well they did compared to the other players under the same circumstances. Cracker and the civfanatics site uses the competition to teach better play, but it is still very competitive.

A good scoring system will allow players to compare themselves to one another and permit a variety of playing styles. If a clear pattern develops that says this is how to win the QSC, then players will migrate to that style. Random factors in the rules and game play (like goody huts and combat seeds and human opponents) make play more interesting and varied.

If the GOTM were played as multi player, with brackets for advancing etc. I don't think you would see any milking. The risk of "strange " human behavior" would necessitate a more aggressive go for the early win style of play.

 

[flexo]

Originally posted by Birdjaguar
But back to scoring. When I play by myself I don't watch the score or care much about it. My slow builder style is all about having a cool empire.

That pretty much sums up how I play all my games, GOTM or not.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, but it is a competitive world and many people play to to be the best. With a complex game like Civ 3 it's tough to create a balanced scoring system across versions, victory conditons, styles of play and 6 continents. Cracker's approach is similar to open source programming with lots of input from all over. I'm sure it will continue to evolve.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I came up with another reason to dislike the current weighting of techs. In my QSC17, I could have gone for Republic, but chose not to and I picked up Polytheism and was 3 turns shy of Monarchy. I wanted Monarchy because I felt in that game I needed the military police more due to lack of luxuries.

At 1475 BC (19 turns until 1000 B.C.) , it said I would have taken 20 turns to get Republic. This meant I would have missed Republic by 1 turn before the deadline. However, the turns required to get the tech would have gone down as I continued to expand and grow, so I know I would have got Republic at or before 1000 B.C.

Republic would be worth more than getting polytheism and almost getting monarchy researched, just for the fact that Republic is farther to the right on the tech tree.

Cracker, I know you want us to emphasize progressing as far to the right as possible to open up trading opportunities, but sometimes doing that does not create any trade opportunities (in fact I traded for Republic later on). All your doing here is making people bee-line down one part of the tech tree instead of using more creative ways of accessing techs for trade opportunities. People will figure out on their own that just randomly picking any tech won't get them very far along the tech tree, and they will eventually figure out that you need to either 1.) bee-line down one particular part of the tech tree, like you want people to do, and/or 2.) Learn what techs the AI avoids.

Just getting mathematics isn't worth very many points, but it does allow you to trade for other techs, because the AI avoids mathematics most of the time. But how many techs you can get from mathematics depends solely on what the AI researches. Same problem with polytheism. Instead of avoiding Republic (because the AI loves to research that anyways), I'm forced to get it myself. And since all the AI would be researching that anyways (if they are caught up in techs), I have no opportunities to trade that tech for other techs when I do get Republic, because they've all been researching that same tech.

Techs should be valued strictly on how much gold was required to research them. The players that use the knowlege of how to progress down the tech tree quickly and what techs the AI avoids will still score at the top of the charts for technology points, because they can use those techs to trade for the techs the AI always researches. So they would still end up with more techs when all is said and done.

In the QSC17 results, (note, I did have horseback riding so my real score should be much closer to Yndy's score), Yndy did get Republic, but he lacked Polytheism and only had a very small amount dedicated towards a tech (probably had 1-2 turns worth of research). So had I also chose to go for Republic, I would have tied Yndy (or it would have been extremely close).

 

[Yndy]

Bamspeedy, I understand that your tactic was to get Philosophy and Code of Laws, gift them to the AI (Egypt) and research Polytheism, Monarchy and by the time you get Monarchy the AI would have researched Republic. That is very ingenious and shows perfect control of the techs the AI researches most.
But I did not outscore you because I went for the higher prized tech. My tactic was to get Repblic asap and switch to it. I researched it around 1050BC and went into anarchy. I could have waited a couple of turns to maximize my QSC score and research towards some other tech.
Like I have said before, if the formula used to calculate score represents the real performance with 90% accuracy I would not be bothered by a small error margin.

Until now I thought that the Pyramids has the largest single influence towards QSC score and anyone building it would rank so much higher. Now I believe that tech contribution to score is overrated. But overall QSC does reflect the impact of the initial moves between an experienced player and a novice one.