GOTM scoring system and Barbarian activity

[Ali Ardavan]

Sumamry: The predetermined level of barbarian activity has a significant effect on GOTM score, especially for early finishers.

Consider the following example of 5 players who range from very early finishers to relatively late finishers. (Late and very late finishers not considered as for our purposes they are no different than relatively late finishers.)

The following table has a row for each player identified by their raw score (not taking into account the barbarian bonus/penalty) and the game turns it took to finish the game. The table shows the GOTM score for each level of barbarian bonus/penalty in columns 3 to 6.

Raw	Game	| Barbarian bonus/penalty			
Score	Turns	| 25	0	-25	-50
--------------------------------------------------
220	100	| [B]340[/B]	323	304	284
515	150	| 333	[B]326[/B]	318	309
1170	200	| 327	324	[B]320[/B]	317
2640	250	| 322	321	319	[B]318[/B]
5000	300	| 292	291	290	290

Notice how the score of the early finishers are greatly affected by the level of barbarian activity. Notice that the GOTM score of the first row goes from being the top score to 3rd best, to 4th best, to worst based on barbarian activity. Notice how the top GOTM score is different for each level of barbarian activity. The higher the barbarian activity the better off the early finishers versus the late finishers.

Another way to look at this is that in any GOTM the higher the level of barbarian activity the better off your chances of being a high scorer if you finish early.

In my opinion this effect is undesirable. I propose we change the GOTM score to eliminate this effect. There are various ways this can be accomplished. The easiest is to not count barbarian bonus/penalty when calculating the GOTM score.

 

[Ace]

No, the scoring system should not be changed. To do so would just give the early finishers an unfair advantage. Remember, the whole point of the GOTMs is competition, NOT just a race to be the first one to conquer the world, irregardless of score! Part of "winning" the game is to get the best score and the GOTM scoring system is already slanted in favor of early finishers. I.e., the more turns you take to finish, the lower your score multiplier in the formula. What this poll is really trying to do, is change the point of diminishing returns in regards to early finish vs. raw score. As the scoring now stands, the fastest finisher is awarded a "medal" for the fastest finish, even if his score is not the best. But, in a lower barb level game, the fastest finish does not always yield the best score. The real challenge is the best score in the shortest time, which favors an early finish, but there is a point where a faster finish is offset by a lower "raw" score. In effect, the barb bonus is over 10% of the raw score at 100 turns, but is .05% of the score at 300 turns.

The real deal is that at higher levels the barb bonus helps the early finisher, and, at lower levels, it works against them.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

It certainly makes sense that the impact would be larger for early finishers due to the fact the barb bonus is a fixed amount, but the impact of score diminishes as turns are played. Think of an extreme example where you win with no other points than the barb bonus. If you end in turn 1, you get the full 25pts. if you end in turn 420 you get no points (or something close to it). every where else falls in between. The same applies for games like gotm60 where there was already points on the board when we started, or any other game. Every turn that is played, the GOTM-score benefit of those starting points decreases.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

... If you end in turn 1, you get the full 25pts...

That is a good example. If barbarian setting is at its highest, you could just build a city on turn 1, max out the luxuries to get a happy citizen, and retire with a score of 27 which translates into a GOTM score of 260. Quite often that GOTM score will get you a spot among the top 3 finishers!

 

[Sharkbait]

That is a good example. If barbarian setting is at its highest, you could just build a city on turn 1, max out the luxuries to get a happy citizen, and retire with a score of 27 which translates into a GOTM score of 260. Quite often that GOTM score will get you a spot among the top 3 finishers!

I'm going to try that! I'll get a better score than I would any other way!

 

[Peaster]

I'm going to try that! I'll get a better score than I would any other way!

I guess you are joking, but if not, better check the rules. IIRC the game must end with conquest or a landing... you can't just stop.

My 2 cents on barb scoring: It is a pretty small part of the score, and I don't see a problem with the current system. But I wouldn't object to removing the barb score either - IMO high barb levels don't make the game much harder.

2 cents on early finishes: IMO there should be an even greater reward for finishing early. Example: in GOTM 62, I played 10 turns (very boring ones) past the real conquest year just to drive up my GOTM score. That should be discouraged, to keep the game fun. [same opinion on black-clicking and maybe helper programs]

On the other hand, the gold star usually goes to a conquest, which probably indicates some unfairness in scoring. So, I wouldn't mind some bonus points for players who land a ship... and maybe a higher bonus for OCC. Also, IMO the tiny HOF point bonuses for the green star, blue star and OCC could be increased compared to the major medals.

On the other other hand, the GOTM system has been around long enough that is has its own dignity, and maybe we shouldn't mess with it.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

No, the scoring system should not be changed. To do so would just give the early finishers an unfair advantage.

Actually, given the GOTM designers unbalanced preference for higher barbarian settings (I have never seen -50, -25 is rare, and +25 more common than 0), it would give the early finishers a slight disadvantage.

But that is neither my point nor my intention. My point is that this minor game setting has a significant effect on the GOTM score of early finishers. I find that more unbalanced than unfair.

At the start of a game, some of us spend quite a bit of time on what strategy to choose. The barbarian setting should not play a bigger role in that decision than it deserves due to some quirk in the GOTM Scoring formula.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I guess you are joking, but if not, better check the rules. IIRC the game must end with conquest or a landing... you can't just stop.

Herer is what the rule page says:

You must finish by either:
Conquest
Spaceship (Yours or the AI's)
Forced Retirement at AD 2020

2 cents on early finishes: IMO there should be an even greater reward for finishing early. Example: in GOTM 62, I played 10 turns (very boring ones) past the real conquest year just to drive up my GOTM score. That should be discouraged, to keep the game fun. [same opinion on black-clicking and maybe helper programs]

I have played conquest on occasion though never as early as you. Your results always look like magic to me! I can tell you that you see a disproportionate amount of the effect you are talking about. In later conquests you can do this for a handful of turns at most. In landing games it is almost never to your advantage to delay the landing even by 1 turn.

On the other hand, the gold star usually goes to a conquest, which probably indicates some unfairness in scoring. So, I wouldn't mind some bonus points for players who land a ship... and maybe a higher bonus for OCC. Also, IMO the tiny HOF point bonuses for the green star, blue star and OCC could be increased compared to the major medals.

Very good points. (I started this item on a very specific issue and these are scope creep, but good ones , so I am going to contribute to the creep.)

I agree with you first point whole heartedly. I have played both conquests and space ship (though more of the latter) and I can tell you a good space ship player can never beat a good conquest player with this GOTM formula. That is because it takes so long to get all the techs needed to launch a space ship. It would be nice to fix this by giving some kind of bonus for landing like you suggest.

I have played OCC often and there is no question that an OCC player stands no chance of getting a medal in a GOTM game. Just look at the results. Maybe the GOTM score should factor in the number of cities you end with? Actually this idea could give enough of an edge to the space ship players to help on the above issue as well.

Your points on the HOF bonuses are well made. I too think, the Green and the Blue medals deserve more than .25. I would say .5 each. I would also like to add the following: I think there should be a small HOF bonus for wining the game, period. As is, unless you are an OCC player, you could be participating in dozens of GOTMs and never get any HOF points because you never get one of the medals. This small bonus is already in place for OCC players (.15 per win). Furthermore, the best OCC player (highest GOTM score among OCC players) should get an even higher HOF bonus.

On the other other hand, the GOTM system has been around long enough that is has its own dignity, and maybe we shouldn't mess with it.

True. But I rather say it this way: the GOTM system has been around long enough that we should take great care in messing with it. The scoring system was not in place at the begining and it took a while to come up with this formula. I do not see any harm in evolving it as long as it is done with proper care.

 

[Ace]

Ali, The whole point of GOTMs is to have fun and enjoy our great game of Civ2. By changing the scoring rules to favor a fast finish, you are forcing them into a simple race to see who can conquer the world the fastest, period. That is only consentrating on one small aspect of the game and forcing the exclusion all the other parts of the game. Those of us who like to build a "mighty" empire with a couple of hundred cities and/or like to "run" the tech tree (encluding FT) and try the spaceship route really don't enjoy constantly playing to "pop a few huts, get a couple of fast movers, and kill everything in sight". You might as well just make all the games bloodlust!

IMO, the goal of the GOTMs, is to create an arena where civers can compete with each other while enjoying the game. Thus, the DoM and his helpers are always trying to give us a different challenge in each new game. Instead of a little something for everyone, you might as well just split up the GOTM forum into "bloodlust, OCC, and early landing sections.

PS. IIRC, the winning player is the player with the best score, yet, the current scoring system already massively favors a fast finish over a high "raw" score. Sometime in the past, someone calculated that one has to add at least 20 points to his score each turn just to stay even under the current system.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

The real deal is that at higher levels the barb bonus helps the early finisher, and, at lower levels, it works against them.

By changing the scoring rules to favor a fast finish...

How does this proposed change favor a fast finish? As you implied correctly, the proposed change works against the early finisher at higher barbarian settings. And most of our games are at higher barbarian settings.

I agree with you that the GOTM scoring formula already favors a fast finish too much. My intention is to remove a factor that introduces too much variance for early finishers.

 

[Ace]

At the lower levels, the -25 or -50 has much more effect on the fast finisher. The minus effect hurts him more than a slower finisher, its just the opposite of the effect of the +25. I was looking at the effect on your chart if you eliminated the bonus at the "minus" levels and the subsequent change in gotm scores would than help the fast finisher because a greater % of the negative score would be removed from his score, althrough at the highest level it would hurt him.

I have not researched it, but my feeling is that the barb level has mostly varied between the top 3 levels, with a rare "huts" only. Really, the actual number of points involved is not signficant compared to the number of turns played. Besides, anyone who can actually finish a game in 100 turns deserves to finish first.

 

[Ace]

I agree with you that the GOTM scoring formula already favors a fast finish too much. My intention is to remove a factor that introduces too much variance for early finishers.

We could just play all GOTMs at restless tribes, that would be an easy way to achieve your intent (and avoid "raging hordes".

A better adjustment might be to reduce the effect of the penalty of each added turn. For example, in GOTM 58, Old N Slow, with a score of 6,252 and 340 turns finished in 5th place, while Carrot, with a score of only 507 but only 184 turns finished in 3rd place. Those extra 166 turns cost Old N Slow 5,745 points. (and a medal!)

 

[Peaster]

I would like to make a subtle point. But I just can't think of one

No, No... now I remember - my subtle point is that barb adjustments also have a lesser effect when the raw score is high [due to the square root in the formula]. So, if you are talking about typical gold medal scores, maybe your data should be more like: raw score = 600, turns = 115, GOTM score = 400. I haven't actually checked, but I suspect the barb points would be pretty insignificant with these numbers ... probably more like line 2 of your table than line 1.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

We could just play all GOTMs at restless tribes, that would be an easy way to achieve your intent (and avoid "raging hordes".

No, it would not. Players want variety. All I want to do is to reduce the unbalanced effect of this setting on the GOTM score.

Perhaps, a more palatable solution for you would be to divide the barbarian bonus by 5 instead of ignoring it. That way instead of +25, 0, -25, and -50 we would get +5, 0, -5, and -10 which are far more reasonable in my opinion and are small enough not to cause undue variance.

Even ignoring the GOTM score, I think the barbarian bonus/penalty is way too much. Consider two games identical other than the barbarian setting. Say you play both in the same manner. In the +25 game you get one fewer wonder and one fewer future tech compared to the +0 game; otherwise the results are identical. The Civ2 scores would be identical, but I believe most Civ2 players agree with me that the +0 game was definitely superior.

A better adjustment might be to reduce the effect of the penalty of each added turn.

It would be a different adjustment; I am not sure about better. I do agree that the reward/penalty for number of turns is too much.

I have been thinking along a different dimension recently and will probably start a new thread about it soon. As I said in one my earlier replies to this thread I think we should change the GOTM scoring formula to factor in the number of cities the player ends with. In other words there would be a bonus for having fewer cities.

 

[Ace]

Even ignoring the GOTM score, I think the barbarian bonus/penalty is way too much. Consider two games identical other than the barbarian setting. Say you play both in the same manner. In the +25 game you get one fewer wonder and one fewer future tech compared to the +0 game; otherwise the results are identical. The Civ2 scores would be identical, but I believe most Civ2 players agree with me that the +0 game was definitely superior.

.
Agreed. But, in a GOTM, everyone is playing each game at the same level.

It would be a different adjustment; I am not sure about better. I do agree that the reward/penalty for number of turns is too much.

I have been thinking along a different dimension recently and will probably start a new thread about it soon. As I said in one my earlier replies to this thread I think we should change the GOTM scoring formula to factor in the number of cities the player ends with. In other words there would be a bonus for having fewer cities.

Here is a thought: instead of limiting/changing the number of cities, why not just make the use of ICS a cheat?

 

[Ali Ardavan]

(Quote brought over from another thread.)

your proposal for adjusting the Barbarian bonus does seem to carry weight. However, how great is the need for an adjustment? That is to say, has there been any game to date where the application of the Barbarian bonus has proven to be the deciding factor in final standings of the game? If there has been, then there probably should be an adjustment; and knowing exactly when and how it has been a determining factor would give us a better idea of the extent to which an adjustment must be made.

I took this as a challenge to find the actual evidence.
I started looking at the final posted result, GOTM59, and found nothing.
I next looked at GOTM58 and I found the evidence that you asked for:

Position Score GOTMscore
3          507    203 
4         5154    194

This game was played at barbarian level +0. Had it been at -50, the standings
would have been reversed:

Position Score GOTMscore
4          507    193 
3         5154    194

So, in this case the barbarian setting could have decided who gets a medal and who does not. I am sure I can find more examples by looking further.

 

[LordValuna]

Player going for a long game get two scoring bonuses not available to EC player. The spaceship ( I believe max 400 points) and the peace bonus.
Not to mention more time to build/capture wonders.

So I think it is fair that the Barbarian Activity gives more to an early victory