GOTM difficulty levels...

[starlifter]

"It's actually Starlifter & Shadowdale who'll worsen your GR score (and mine)."

I hope you both realise I was being facetious here. I don't agree with the cap for the GR score. If you get a GOTM of 392, that's better than 300, so you deserve a better GR.

First, what I suggested is not a cap for the GR. In fact, the Normalized GR is already "capped".... at 100. The highest GOTM each month gets a GR of 100, and everyone else's score is reduced proportionately.

Let me restate that and beat the dead horse... the GOTM score does not change, nor is it capped. You get a GOTM of what you earn, exactly as Matrix planed it. I'm only talking about the computation of the Normalized Global Ranking (NGR). And this itself is not a "cap", but a change in normalizing factor. Instead of normalizing to the top GOTM score of 200, 250, 300, 400, etc. (which really squashes all other players' NGR), I'm saying use a normalizing factor of say, 120. The exact number is unimportant and irrelevant, and can even be decided by Matrix each month, as long as it stays in a fairly low range (like 100 to 150). That way, everyone else's GR's in a given month do not take an absurd pounding if one or more of us get a really high GOTM (like a GOTM above about 150 or so). This also means all the GOTM scores above the normalizing Factor (120 in my example) will have a GR that month of 100. And this should address some of Smash's point in a post of his several days ago about reducing the reward of "farming". The GOTM scores and score method would not change, nor would the medals, finish order, etc... just the Normalized GR score is affected. No player's GR score can be "reduced"... everyone's GR would increase, except the top GOTM scorer that month... and his (hers) NGR would remain the same (at 100). But the entire spectrum of scores would converge toward the top scorer's, not diverge as it now does.

Take an example. Assume the to GOTM score is 400 this month. Assume you score 20. Your normalized GR (NGR) would be only 5. that's right, a measly 5.

Here is the math:

20/400*100=5

in this case, the normalizing factor (NF) was 400 (the "top GOTM" score that month).

What I'm saying is to use an NF of 120 (or 150 or 100 or 110, etc... it doesn't really matter the exact number!!). Let's assume 120 for arguement's sake...

20/120*100=16.67 = 17

So you would have an NGR that month of 17. And it is this 17 that is used to calculate your overall GR. 17 is a helluva a lot better that 5, but more importantly, means a big GOTM score won't squash your hard-earned (albeit low) GOTM score!!


Let's assume another player scored a GOTM of 175. Yes, they did not win the Gold Medal (400 still beats 175, of course). But guess what:

NGR = 175/120*100= 100

The NGR is 100, because by definition, 100 is the highest possible NGR (100 is, after all, the number all scores are normalized relative to). That means no players who score above the 120 threshhold will "punish" the rest of the GOTM players in the monthly GR, and it also means that once a player hits the NF in their GOTM score that all other farming, sim-citying, etc. of that high-scoring player is not rewarded (nor is it punished) in the GR.

Now I know this is a long post, and may be hard for some folks to follow. In effect, this will have the effect of tightening the long-term GR of the vast majority of players, yet not encourage excess "farming" that will squash the average player's GR quite a bit.

Anyway, this really is the "right" thing to do for the Global Ranking... one need only look at the current (yet needless) pummeling that the vast majority of the GOTM participants are taking each month because of the high scores of the Gold Medal winners.

To kick the dead horse... this suggestion will help the Global Ranking of all players, except the "top" GOTM scorer. And the "top" scorer's NGR will not change at all... it will still be 100.


Well, I hope everyone who reads this at least has a general feel for the point. If not, just go look at your GR that is pummeled each month (check the spreadsheet). <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

EDIT: Fixed Boldfacing

[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited September 06, 2001).]

 

[starlifter]

by Noughmaster:

....
with lots of engineers, heaps of food and trade and no pollution,
...

No Pollution?! LOL, you make me hurt from laughing, Nough! Pollution control is a HUGE drain on resources, which in turn slows expansion and growth. It takes a Mass Transit in every city, and often a Recycling Plant (and sometimes a Solar Plant)... and I usually pay the bill for that stuff up front, LOL...



Okie dokie, back to your main points:

Properties:
(1) Divide the set P of all possible scores into 4 parts: scores obtained by conquest wins C, scores obtained by spaceship wins S, scores obtained by the game ending in 2020 E, scores obtained by AI spaceship win A. When the domain of the function is restricted to any of these single subsets of P, the function should be continuous and increasing. This means that if two people finish in the same way, the higher Civ score gets the higher GOTM score.

(2) A score from A cannot beat a score from E, which in turn cannot beat a score from C or S. These properties are meant for discussion. We'll need a few more to derive a function. Should C and S be treated the same? I think so, but other people don't seem to.

I understand exactly what you have explained. However, most feel (and I really do, too) that you simply play the game and the top GOTM score wins. The second highest takes the silver, and #3 takes the bronze. The avenue of victory is up to the style and method of each player, and each player is free to change their approach and/or learn from what worked out well for players in prior months.

In a limited way, other styles of play are recognized (and very rightly so) each month, too. Specifically, the fastest finish and highest Civ II score.

Now comes the beginnings of varied opinions. I personally feel there should be several more areas of recognition, especially in light of the relatively high number of players each month. I call these the "star" awards, after myself of course. LOL, just kidding... yes, I call them the "star awards", but that's because Matrix uses "stars" to denote the High Score and Fastest Finish awards each month.

So I'm simply saying we should add a few more "star" categories, with the primary input for these categories determined by the suggestions and general feeling of the GOTM players. The final decision for adding (or in the future, axing) a "star" award, however, must still rest with Matrix and Thunderfall.

This relates to your suggestion, Noughmaster, because the best scores in the sub-categories you mention could have a "star" award.

Some suggestions for "star" awards might include:

1. Fastest OCC (one City Challenge) finish.
2. Best score for "retirement" in 1000 AD (this would let folks have an "out" for terminating a long game!).
3. Best score in a non-conquest, non-SS game.
4. Honorary "star" for lowest score that completed a "standard" Civ II victory condition.
5. Best improvement in raw Civ II score in consecutive months.
6. Best improvement in GOTM score in consecutive months.

People can doubtless think of even better suggestions, which the GOTM players as a whole should express their feelings about, then Matrix and TF can decide which ones should be added (or later removed), as is in the best interest of the everyone as a whole.

OK, so it's yet another long post... but I've never been known for short posts, right?

 

[starlifter]

posted September 06, 2001 09:16 PM
As far as a cap goes: Why don't we make GOTM9 a limit of, say, 10 cities, on Emporer? I'm not suggesting we have a city limit every game, but it would be fun every now and then.

Interesting idea, but if you cap aspect of the game such as that, you've effectively transformed the GOTM into pure race for the finish date... It becomes one-dimensional, since we are all going to have ten size 41 or 42 cities, a SS, and probably all the wonders. Some of the newer players probably have a hard enough time with the "normal" rules anyway.

Personally, I'll play any game under almost any rules people want.

Perhaps every couple three months, those of us that like to pummel the Civ II score might choose an "informal" thing to do amongst us, like play a GOTM as an OCC, or a 10-city limit, etc. Such games are bound to be low-scoring, and none of us would medal...

. But there could be a special "star" award for the best game in the "oddball" contest. My input would be that prior medal-winners be encouraged to join such a pool, so the door could be open for other folks to have a shot at a medal once in a while. But no one would be "forced" to play an "oddball" GOTM, of course. This idea is particularly good if Matrix decides to go with a best 3 of 5 type of system for the GR, since the "usual" contenders for a GOTM medal would not be hurt in the GR department

.

Anyway, the GOTM is a good way for people to have fun and learn new things no matter what map, level, etc. is used.


Oh, I have another idea for a "star" award... the best "newcomer" score (highest GOTM score for a new GOTM player).

 

[starlifter]

by Smash:

...
starlifters use of a large engineer brigade is impressive and very scary at the same time.In 7, I never had more than 80 engineers at any one time.The idea of controlling 200,300,400,500 or more!!! is terrifying to me
...

LOL, LOL.... I'm not sure you understand... In the context of GOTM 7, I considered 500 engineers an inadequate and relatively small force

...

The mathematics of the game are pure and immutable, which is why I was unable to come anywhere near accomplishing my original "grand plan" of transforming all terrain to grassland for max growth. Given "real time" constraints and the GOTM deadline, I had to simply launch a SS do a real "hack job" of clearing forests and swamps, and letting "nature" take it's course. 1,200 engineers and about 40 years more was really needed

.

That said, I tend to put things off until the last 80 or 100 years. A much smaller number of engineers is possible to do the same job if one begins transforms in earnest a few centuries earlier than I typically do. For instance, Shadowdale usually gets a good jump on settler & engineer work very early in the game, which I assume makes for a far less hectic 100 or 200 years.

..I killed off 20 civs!..too bad that can't be reflected in a gotm score.

Now that is impressive... I suggest we add a "star" award (see my prior posts for context) for the greated number of Civs destroyed when the Respawn option is "ON". I could not even get a single Civ to respawn, but I didn't start killing civs until 1521, after my SS was launched. I now assume there is a piece of code in the Civ II program that turns off respawns when a SS is launched.

 

[noughmaster]

Interesting idea, but if you cap aspect of the game such as that, you've effectively transformed the GOTM into pure race for the finish date... It becomes one-dimensional, since we are all going to have ten size 41 or 42 cities, a SS, and probably all the wonders.

I don't see anything wrong with this once in a while. It will test people's city selection and micromanagement technique.

Some of the newer players probably have a hard enough time with the "normal" rules anyway.

It will teach them more about the nuances of the game (just like OCC does). Most new players don't have many cities anyway, so a limit of 10 probably won't affect them much.

However, most feel (and I really do, too) that you simply play the game and the top GOTM score wins.

So do I. The 2 suggestions were premises for the derivation of a single GOTM scoring formula which fixed some of the anomalies in this one.

I don't agree with the normalised GR score. If you say a GOTM of 150 = NGR of 100, then everyone who does better than 150 will get 100, as you say. I don't agree with this at all. Someone who gets 250 deserves more than someone who gets 200.

My point was that it's the current formula which causes the skew in the GOTM scores. A different formula (which still has an idea like the 50^pnp) can address this problem by itself.
For example, suppose that
Old formula 100 = New formula 100
Old formula 150 = New formula 125
Old formula 200 = New formula 140
Old formula 300 = New formula 160

I'm not suggesting that we tabulate like this. Having a function like 50^pnp but with different convexity would take care of it. The new formula would just not skew for high scores and/or early finishes as much, but still differentiate between genuinely better/worse performances.

I'm surprised you don't prevent pollution. Do you think the man hours for the engineers cleaning it up quickly to prevent global warming is worth it vs. mass transit & solar plants? I always build them.

 

[starlifter]

I'm surprised you don't prevent pollution. Do you think the man hours for the engineers cleaning it up quickly to prevent global warming is worth it vs. mass transit & solar plants? I always build them.

LOL, I must have mis-stated something, since Pollution control is a major effort in my cities. In fact, in the rapidly growing cities of the last 100 years, they usually get a Rushed mass transit even before an offshore platform. My engineers are always overworked, and have too many tasks to do without chasing pollution every turn. Sometimes a bit of pollution will pop out (it seems to come in clumps), and unless it hits a critical square or a total of 7 or 8 polluted squares, I normally let it sit for a while until an engineer can be spared without impact on a current project. With only 200 or 300 engineers to choose from, help is hard to come by

.

Most of my cities get Recycling Centers, too, as I optimize most cities to produce over 41 shields per turn.

BTW, in most OCCs, pollution is basically irrelevant, since I have 2 engineers standing by ready to pounce on any pollution. The taxes are better used for the SS construction, in most cases.