GOTM I should be included in Global Ranking!!

[CornMaster]

The GOTM I results should be included in the Global Ranking.

I've compiled the results below. I've also created a spreadsheet template to help keep track of it, if you want me too. Not a problem. Take some of the work off of you, Matrix. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

<font size="+2"><center>GOTM Global Ranking</center></font>

<font size="+2"><pre>
Rank Name GOTM I GOTM II TOTAL
1 shadowdale 63 430 493
2 Kev 0 303 303
3 goodbye_mr_bond 56 235 291
4 MadMelkor 54 211 265
5 David Wilkinson 0 218 218
6 Stormerne 0 166 166
7 BigWheel 2 145 147
8 Smash 55 62 117
9 KaaK 40 71 111
10 Jabah 0 107 107
11 TheViking 0 93 93
12 sarge 0 93 93
13 Cactus Pete 0 85 85
14 Matrix 14 67 81
15 oryx 13 63 76
16 WideWhale 0 75 75
17 Psycho 0 72 72
18 Haakan Eriksson 7 59 66
19 Efe 0 66 66
20 Leowind 0 59 59
21 Johan511 55 0 55
22 doriengard 0 54 54
23 Fearlessleader 0 51 51
24 LRY 51 0 51
25 Corona10 0 49 49
26 DearBear 0 47 47
27 TimTheEnchanter 41 0 41
28 Newt 0 39 39
29 hotrod0823 0 25 25
30 Vedda 0 17 17
31 radman 9 0 9
32 art 0 6 6
33 flash 5 0 5
34 PaleHorse76 2 0 2
35 CornMaster 1 0 1
36 madman 0 0 0</pre></font>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/king.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/king.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CivFanatics Civ 2 Ladder
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

[This message has been edited by CornMaster (edited April 09, 2001).]

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Sounds fine to me.

 

[Matrix]

Well, wasn't the first GOTM a beta game??? That's why I (and I thought we) decided not to include the first GOTM.

In any case, thank you for the list, CornMaster, but that's not how the GOTM will be calculated. Look in the rules page how it does work. And you don't have to do that. I can do that within one minute. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/tmp/MatrixBW.gif" border=0>
<FONT size="1">Studying chemistry means: having fun, drinking beer, having more fun, drinking more beer, hang above the toilet and have a good night sleep!

And each time Pedro says: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrggh", I feel so good!!!</FONT s>

[This message has been edited by Matrix (edited April 10, 2001).]

 

[CornMaster]

Oh....I see.

But what if someone (like me for example) misses a GOTM. How can this formula (NewScore = 0.7 * OldScore + 0.3 * GOTMscore) work for everyone?

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/king.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/king.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CivFanatics Civ 2 Ladder
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

In a selfish way, I wish GOTM I was included, especially since I had to skip GOTM II (I'm getting into this Roman Numeral thing!) while I was moving.

But Matrix did say he was dropping I and starting with II. I also understand why. My score was probably inflated relative to others because many of you finished very late running up the civ score, but would have finished earlier if the GOTM scoring system had been finalized by then.

It's not like I'm going to win any awards either way. It's all for fun.

------------------
DEATH awaits you all...with nasty, big, pointy teeth.

 

[Matrix]

In all honesty, I don't know what to do with people who missed a GOTM. Well, I figured out that it would be best to use the median score as old score for newbies, but when you're already in the global ranking - I can't see another way of dealing with the situation by using a score of 0 for the new score, because otherwise it might be more profitable to not sending your results instead of sending a bad result. But this is harsh and also inconsistent with the way I deal with new players.
(But than there's the question: Does it has to be consistent?/Is the a relation between newbies and people who missed a GOTM?)

Do you understand this at all anyway?? Or at least stormerne?

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/tmp/MatrixBW.gif" border=0>
<FONT size="1">Studying chemistry means: having fun, drinking beer, having more fun, drinking more beer, hang above the toilet and have a good night sleep!

And each time Pedro says: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrggh", I feel so good!!!</FONT s>

[This message has been edited by Matrix (edited April 10, 2001).]

 

[stormerne]

I agree with you Matrix.

The main problem is, as you said, discouraging people from NOT sending in a game because they did badly and their bad score would drag down their rating. That would not be fair. Therefore it makes sense to count games not played as zero and this will unavoidably cause your ranking to drop by 30%. You would still have to miss two whole months for your ranking to drop by half.

The other thing to understand is that it would also be unfair to allow people to rise to a good position and then just stay there by not playing! "Resting on your laurels" should not be encouraged in my opinion.

With this second point, take the example of a ladder. At work we have a foosball ladder. The rules are you can challenge the person one or two rungs above you in the ladder. This means that people who don't play get jumped over and they end up at the bottom of the ladder. This doesn't mean that they're not good players - it means that they aren't currently winning games. It works.

One solution to this is to make games easier to finish so that there's more likelihood of people submitting something. Large maps are therefore probably not a good thing!

So I say keep zero as the score for a month missed.


------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Matrix,

I assumed I would just head into the April game with a score of 0. No sense rewarding me for not playing.

I've been looking at the Global Ranking method and I do have a couple concerns. Because you just take a percentage of the prior score, You never completely eliminate the impact of earlier scores (although they eventually become negligible.)

After 6 months, nearly 17% of the first score is still included in your total. It doesn't even drop below 2% until the 12th month.

I realize it would require keeping more data around, but is there any way to completely drop scores that are over 6 months old, or something like that? That way, people who join GOTM later aren't always trying vainly to catch up to the leaders. I really think once someone has been in this for 6 months straight they should be on even footing with everyone else.

Or maybe you could at least change the percentage to 60% instead of 70. After 6 months, only about 7% of the first score would be included in the total, and after a year the effect of the first score would be negligible (under .5%).

I realize you're probably tired of tweaking the rules, but these shouldn't affect how someone plays during any single game and I thought you might want to consider them before we got too far along.

 

[CornMaster]

Remember this is supposed to be a friendly competition!!!

Now with that said.....I really don't care what you do with the Global Ranking...I just want to know what the final decision will be.

Might I suggest that you just apply the formula to the GOTM's that the player has completed? Like if I play 1, 3, 4, 7 then after game 1 the score would be calculated....if I missed a month then my score should either 1) carry over to the Global Rankings after GOTM II or 2) I should be left off the Global Ranking after GOTM II but after my score in the GOTM III, I should be put back on the Global Ranking and the formula would use my most recent scores GOTM I and GOTM III.

I think number 2 would be the best for everyone and the most fair too. If you need help understanding #2 just ask. I'm known to be as clear as mud.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/king.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/king.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CivFanatics Civ 2 Ladder
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

I completely agree with the GOTM being just friendly competition, but we have to realize that, by tabulating scores--especially a global ranking--you are encouraging competition.

A simple monthly score is good enough, I think. That way, people can compare their performance against others for their own individual benefit, and you'll (potentially anyway) have different winners every month.

I can see how a ladder might be useful in multiplayer--you want to play people who are about evenly matched with you--but why does it figure in a 'fun' competition?

I'd be perfectly content to just look at the monthly scores if I want to get an idea of how people rank. Finished in the top ten 8 out of 10 games? You're an expert. Beyond that, we're just splitting hairs (and maybe sending Matrix to an early grave

)