GOTM 2 Results & congratulations

[Obormot]

@DaveMcW: thanks for making that spreadsheet. I didn't play in this game. but read the spoilers carefully, so i can confirm that this list (sorted by combined rating) reflects things much more accurately then just the score does.

@Dynamic: is that the average of the two ratings? I don't think calculating the avearge rating makes sense because people usually go either just for score or just for speed, not for both at the same time. I like DaveMcW's combined rating ( max{GPR,GSR} ) more.

I think it would be neat on the FF page to have Gold/Silver/Bronze finishes. For the eptathlon award you could require 5 points in each category, with G=5, S=3, B=1 points respectively. There is nothing for frustrating than going for a FF and getting beat by a few turns, so you see nothing of it. I remember in Civ3 getting beat by 1-3 turns on multiple occasions; it would have been nice to see Silver or Bronze when I was close.

We could have gold, silver and bronze epthatlons , the gold requiring all gold awards, the silver all silver or gold, etc. Missing the FF award by a few turns hurts, happened to me several times too. But the more attempts you make, the more satisfaction the award brings when yoy finally make it .

As for the cow award i really think it is even less meaningfull then in civ3 and really has to be removed from the ward systems. But guess it's too late after you put so much effort to get that cow.

 

[Dynamic]

Obormot
For example (theoretically, not in this game), only one player won by Culture near 2000AD and got around 300-th place by score. Must this player get 100% in GPR?

P.S. Yes it's normalized to 100 sum of score and speed ratings.

 

[jesusin]

Thank you for this wonderful event, the GOTM. Special gratefulness to those that make it possible and to those that gift the community a write-up of their tactics (successful or failed).

I was quite satisfied with my plenty-of-errors-game… till I saw I was second in a FF category. I didn’t think I was really competing, but now I feel I have been defeated.

Silver and bronze medals for FF? Oh, please, yes, that would give me something to show my wife when she says “Once again playing silly games? Turn off the computer now!” ;-)

And what about medals for major dedication? If we discard the two first, which I think don't reflect real playing time, I would have been the third slowest player! ;-) Now, seriously, I could use some advice about real-time saving tecniques.

 

[Obormot]

Obormot
For example (theoretically, not in this game), only one player won by Culture near 2000AD and got around 300-th place by score. Must this player get 100% in GPR?

Well, he'll get the fastest culture award with a mediocre game and this will be recorded in the Pantheon of Heroes for ever. And such cases happened several times before in civ3 gotm. And nobody complained much about that. So i don't see anything wrong with giving 100% rating for such a game, this will have only temporary effect in the global table. One cannot be lucky all the time.

 

[Grogs]

Well, he'll get the fastest culture award with a mediocre game and this will be recorded in the Pantheon of Heroes for ever. And such cases happened several times before in civ3 gotm. And nobody complained much about that. So i don't see anything wrong with giving 100% rating for such a game, this will have only temporary effect in the global table. One cannot be lucky all the time.

If you're the fastest finish, you're the fastest finish and you deserve the medal for that VC. I wouldn't have any problems with someone who got a cultural victory in 2000 being the fastest cultural win because he was one of the few who aspired to that particular VC. The problem is, using the max{GPR,GSR} method, that game would show up as one of the top-6 overall games, when it clearly isn't. Ideally, I think we'd want the FF points to be normalized off a theoretical 'best' date for that particular map. That would also eliminate the problem of having 5-6 finishers with 100 points each time. Beyond that, I think the combined system has a lot of potential.

 

[DaveMcW]

Ideally, I think we'd want the FF points to be normalized off a theoretical 'best' date for that particular map. That would also eliminate the problem of having 5-6 finishers with 100 points each time. Beyond that, I think the combined system has a lot of potential.

The danger with an exponential formula is it gives insanely high scores if you beat the 'best' date. That is why it wasn't used in the Civ3 GOTM.

But the fix is easy, just cap the score at 100.

 

[Grogs]

The danger with an exponential formula is it gives insanely high scores if you beat the 'best' date. That is why it wasn't used in the Civ3 GOTM.

But the fix is easy, just cap the score at 100.

Agreed. Scale it off the 'best' date, or the FF in the event the FF is before the best date. Normalize the scores for that VC to whichever date is appropriate.

 

[solenoozerec]

DaveMcW scoring
Scoring should be a quantitative measure of a good playing. Good playing is subjective, so I’ll speak just for myself: I like DaveMcW system more than the currently existing one (not because I am above Hendrikszoon in that table. Oh, God, no. I would not stand a chance if he was going for the fastest victory).

Why I think the time-based system is good:
First, it is simple, it is based on two measurements – victory date and type.
Second, It will promote diversification of the game. Currently most good (but not the best) players who do not pursue epthatlon play conquest or domination to get a higher score. With a time-based system, you’ll get a better score by playing a less popular victory types. In other words we will see much more diversed spoilers with a bench of good players going for different type of victories.
Last, but not least. The scoring system for losers can work in a backward way. The longer you survived, the better your score is. It will reward survival. I remember, when I was loosing one of my games, I realized that I’ll be better if I loose immediately while I have >50% territory instead of fighting. This was weird.

Why I think the time-based system is bad:
There is an element which I do not like: Your success will depend on choosing a type of victory which is the least popular among elite players. Thus, we will be awarding not only a good play, but something not-related to the game directly.
To reduce this factor we will need to prohibit mentioning an intended goal in pre-game discussions. But then it spoils pre-game discussions, since your starting moves depend on your goal.

Why I do not like the current system
The current system has 4 components. All these components are indicators of a good game. But there are more components which are indicators of good game which are not in the score. Moreover, their relative input is not the same for all games and all possible ways to play these games.

What scoring system does to gotm and why we might want to change it
I think for most people it should be clear that the scoring system will not change whose names appear at the top (unless such a system has no relation to the game). Good players appear at the top, not because they are good at growing large populations. They understand the game, hence they can grow population. If the major component of the game would be not pop, but something else, like gold, they will be getting more gold then other players.
So what scoring system does to gotm? It affects the way how good players are playing their games . If we want to change this, we should change the scoring system.
IMHO, I’d like a change in the scoring system. Yet, I won’t worry if it will remain the same. I am pretty satisfied with what we have.

On bronze and silver epthatlons
The same as above: it will be a nice add-on, since there are more people in gotm now, but I won’t cry if we will not have them.
However, if we are going to have something like that then I believe it should work the following way: An epthatlon should be given to someone who has all awards. Whether it is golden, silver or bronze depends on the lowest award. If, a player has only bronze for one type and gold for others, then he should have only bronze epthatlon.

 

[Velvet-Glove]

Wow, congratulations to the winners of this game, those were astounding results! I didn't think the first set of results could be beaten but they have, and by a considerable margin too, you guys are awesome.

Thank you for my Red Ambulance award - I've never won an award for anything before and I have to say this was truly deserved! I really suck at this game.

Thanks to the CFC team for putting these games together.

 

[kingjoshi]

velvet-glove, thanks for submitting your game. There are so many people that quit and don't submit. It just takes a minute! I think with how much the community gives in helping each of us get better, submitting your game is the least you could do to give back. But I guess to each their own...

 

[Nichelle]

Well, I guess it's time to go for the shield eptathlon!

Congrats to all the award winners!

What fabulous scores by Hendrickszoon, Grey Cardinal and Shillen!


Congrats to all the FF'ers, the amazing times you all achieved were wonderful to see! Especially A'AbarachAmadan's Time and Moo victory!

A special Congrats to my personal civmaster Bradley, who is correct in saying that civ victory positions don't necessarily mirror real life!


I would like to give a great big thanks and hug to the civ staff! You guys rock!!!!!!

You can take all the time in the world (civ world that is) in getting the results in; considering all that you guys do for us!!! I don't think you all get nearly enough thanks and congrats for everything that you put up with in giving us this great game and site!


Final thought.....I know there are issues with the scoring system and it seems that there are a couple of good suggestions for solutions, but I would REALLY VOTE AGAINST there being multi metals for the Fastest Finish or muli-colored eptathlons. I think everyone can see in the full results who was the second or third fastest and it seems kind of pointless to have more medals and add more work to the staff. Besides, the one award per victory condition or medal for highest score makes them more special (IMHO).

Thanks to the staff again!!

 

[jesusin]

I have compared my game to those of Bradleyfeanor, hendrikszoon and DaveMcW, as every player eager to improve should. Well, please, understand me correctly, you should compare your game to theirs, not to mine! ;-)

I have come to some conclusions I would like to share with you.

Results
jes Brad Hend Dave
conq conq domi cult
1470AD 1150AD 1480AD 1490AD
95969 132095 262405 53450

Research
jes Brad Hend Dave
Agri Agri Agri BW
AH AH (hut) AH Agri
BW BW Wri Whee
Myst Wri BW Pott
Whee Myst Alph IW
Sail Whee Whee(tra) Myst
Pott Poly Myst(tra) Poly
Wri Prie Hunt(tra) Pries
IW CoL Pott(tra) Wri
Maso Maso Arc(tra) CoL (Orac)
Alph CS (Orac) IW AH
IW Poly Maso
Alph Maso(tra) Mono
Prie Theo
Sail Alph
CoL
CS(Orac)

Production
jes Brad Hend Dave
Wor Wor Wor Wor
War War War Wor
War War War War
War War Lib War
Set War Wor
Wor Wor Set
War Lib Wor
Set War War
Barr Set Wor
Light Wor Wor

1AD stats
jes Brad Hend
cities 6 5 5
pop 20 21 19
Wor 5 7 7
Set 0 1 0
Milit 12 7 8
Acad 0 1 2
Lib 2 1 3
Gra 4 2 1
Ligh 2 0
Barr 2 2 0
Court 0 1
Mona 0 1
Temp 0 1 0
Ston X
NatEpi X
Orac X X
Pyra X X
Glib X
Religion 0 1
bpt 27 53 ?


Analysis:

DaveMcW’s game is very different to the others as was to be expected, since his goal was a cultural victory, and his initial strategy was Worker spam and CET. I will let his game out of the analysis this time. The other games have similar initial strategies. First techs and fists items produced were the same. Differences came later. The main differences and the conclusions I come to are the following:

1.- First GP and Academy asap.
I like Libraries because of the 25% tech increase. They like Libraries mostly because of the 2 specialists. They put 2 scientist to work asap, sacrificing growth and hammers so they get an early Academy. So, after this (small?) sacrifice, they have a 75% tech increase compared to my 25%. That’s a good idea I have to test. And that’s the reason why they prioritize Writing more than me.
Let’s see, for normal speed and any given Civ, 17 turns of 2 scientist specialists give an Academy. In those same 17 turns they could have worked something like 68f, 34h, 17b. As happiness will be limiting growth, 68f could be equivalent to maybe 136 whipped hammers. Would I exchange 170h+17b for 102b+1Academy? I think I would.

2.- Reaching CS asap.
I love the techs that follow Maths, they give money, they give happiness and they give Cats to take down city walls. I almost never go for early religions, as worker-tasks-techs are much more important. And once I have neglected the religious part of the tech-tree, I am reluctant to investigate them later. So I always get to CS through the upper part of the tech tree, 800AD in this game.
On the other hand, they both revolted to Burocracy around 800BC, much sooner, because they used the poly-priesthood path. And they didn’t research Maths until they had already CS. So they can research all those expensive techs with a 50%- multiplicative advantage. Ummmm. In several of my games I have suffered research stagnation between Maths and CS, maybe that’s why. I think I will become a great fan of this approach.

3.- So, why not take Oracle?
As a consequence of the previous point, in my games I have never tried to get the Oracle. If I am going towards CS through the religious techs from now on, I could as well go for the Oracle and exchange a few hammers for an expensive tech.


The GOTM is great, it surely opens my mind to new ideas and that is bound to make me play sharper games. Let’s keep the fun going!