GOTM V experiences

[Smash]

Been there,done that,got the T-shirt.

You'll be happy to know that the spaceship bonus DOES apply.

It ain't perfect.

 

[noughmaster]

If the spaceship bonus applies (and so it should), why shouldn't the early finish bonus apply as well? This seems to unfairly advantage spaceship finishers. If I'm under pressure at work, I may have to go for early conquest to submit the game.
Can we have a poll to get this scoring rule changed?

 

[starlifter]

posted July 08, 2001 11:16 PM
Just to clarify what I said earlier about no defenders in my cities:

I meant no defending military units. I do try to have one diplomat within a two-turn range of each city. One dip per 3-4 cities--with a bit of cash to back him up--is enough to handle most barbs, even on raging horde.

Same basic concept for my, esp. under an early Republic. For me, Writing is a key advance because it means the barbarian threat is now a tremendous advantage instead. Very little unit building... just bribe the barbs, distribute the spoils, & let Leos upgrade them. Plus, make a nice profit on all the Barb Leaders I kill by bribing the barbs to do the dirty work.

BTW, my defense network of dips relies on roads (speed!)... gotta have 'em for defense of my core empire.

Often, a lone caravan "defends" a city. Leaving a city completely empty will cause barbs not to hesitate just entering them. They sometimes pause after one attack, though. And during that brief pause is when my dips strike back.

 

[starlifter]

posted July 09, 2001 05:50 AM
If the spaceship bonus applies (and so it should), why shouldn't the early finish bonus apply as well? This seems to unfairly advantage spaceship finishers. If I'm under pressure at work, I may have to go for early conquest to submit the game.

Can we have a poll to get this scoring rule changed?

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with the threads about disqualification of part of the score (early finish?). Can someone point me to them, and I'll read them too.

I was under the impression that the score used in the GOTM was based on what Civ II reported... but I never finish real early anyway, LOL. It does seem unfair if the early finishers are getting cheated out of a portion of their Civ II score in the GOTM computation, though.

If Civ II says you earned a score, it seems to me the player should get it.

Can we have a poll to get this scoring rule changed?

Matrix has invited opinions about scoring before, but (no offense Matrix ) he has not been too logical in deciding some of the finer points of scoring, or correcting inherient inaccuracies. Based on reading his reply posts, this is probably simply due, in part, to his lack of experience/understanding about certain points. Another thing that prevents some further changes is just inertia; the bias to just leave things as they are.

BTW, I don't pile on Matrix too hard because I think he has good overall intentions, and it is better to have a GOTM working (albeit imperfectly) rather than to have it abandonded because people get up tight and offended.

 

[shadowdale]

Well initially the reason why the bonus from early finish was taken out of the GotM score was because that would unbalance the way people play way to much as the bonus for an early finish was to big, but that was back in GotM number two I think!

Whether the bonus should be counted in or not, isn't up to me, and I haven't really thought all that much about it since it was decided but in the end it just Matrix and TF that have the power to make it change!!!



------------------
We are species 8472 - assimilation attempts are futile - the weak shall perish

No wait we are species 5618 and we got beer...... don't harm us!!!!!!

 

[noughmaster]

Well initially the reason why the bonus from early finish was taken out of the GotM score was because that would unbalance the way people play way to much as the bonus for an early finish was to big, but that was back in GotM number two I think!

Using 50^pnp in the GOTM scoring formula AS WELL AS the early finish Bonus Score does give players who use 100% attack without building a large civilization a bit of a double bonus. I don't think it's a significant effect though, because if you conquer all but 1 city early, you can just use We Love The ... Day to build a massive civ from then on. But why bother? I assume good civ players know how to do this. Shouldn't we just assume they can and give them the bonus score?
The GOTM scoring formula does need some tuning however (see thread).
My main point was: how are new players supposed to know if this fact is not advertised (no-one would actually guess it)?
Lots of people got caught with this bad rule in GOTM5. It's not a true representation of skill and performance.
I want to see 78 as my score, not 14, goddamnit !!!

 

[starlifter]

My main point was: how are new players supposed to know if this fact is not advertised (no-one would actually guess it)?
Lots of people got caught with this bad rule in GOTM5. It's not a true representation of skill and performance.
I want to see 78 as my score, not 14, goddamnit !!!

For clarity, can you post the exact computations of both variations? Look at my earlier post (30 June... it's the #4 post in this thread) for a general format. I'd like to see how it all works out so I can understand it better. Since I'm not normally an early finisher, I'd like to see exactly how the rubber meets the road. Thanks.

 

[noughmaster]

For clarity, can you post the exact computations of both variations? Look at my earlier post (30 June... it's the #4 post in this thread) for a general format. I'd like to see how it all works out so I can understand it better. Since I'm not normally an early finisher, I'd like to see exactly how the rubber meets the road. Thanks.

I finished in 1220AD: 172 turns.
PNP = (470-172)/470
Civ bonus score was 1312.
This gives a GOTM of (1312/200)*50^pnp = 78.
The score Matrix used was my ordinary score, which was 239, so GOTM = 78*239/1312 = 14.
Even if I had put luxuries to 70% (I was in Monarchy), bought all available wonders, temples and finished next go, I would have had an ordinary Civ score of 348 -> GOTM = 20, so I'm not too happy about the 14.
I'm not certain how the Civ engine calculates the early finish bonus score.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by noughmaster:

Civ bonus score was 1312.

I don't know exactly the mechanics of how the built-in early finish score is calculated, but it seems to me to be a set sum no matter when you finish. As I played GOTM5, I saved and retired early sevaral times to check how my score was coming along, and guess what? My score was 1312 no matter which turn, rihgt up until my actual, bonus-free score was over 1312.

In other words, Civ II's built-in early-finish bonus is pretty useless for the kind of score-comparison we want to do. We need a finer tool, which is why this GOTM system was implemented.

 

[noughmaster]

I noticed that when I finished in 1230AD, my bonus score was the same: 1312, but I didn't follow this any further.

As I played GOTM5, I saved and retired early sevaral times to check how my score was coming along, and guess what? My score was 1312 no matter which turn, rihgt up until my actual, bonus-free score was over 1312.

I didn't know this happened with the bonus score. It must be a function of map size, number of civs and that's about all.

In other words, Civ II's built-in early-finish bonus is pretty useless for the kind of score-comparison we want to do.

Yes, it's bloody stupid. What were the game programmers thinking?

We need a finer tool, which is why this GOTM system was implemented.

Definitely. I suppose there's no other choice but to play past the bonus score. It's totally useless. I retract all previous comments on the matter expect one: Who would guess the bonus score calculation was so stupid? Players submitting games should be informed of this.

 

[starlifter]

OK, I understand the issue now, and can give a little more light on the subject. In Civ II, Brian Reynolds (main programmer) decided with Sid Meier that there would be the "normal" score, but realized that rapid conquest should be recognized. After some tweaking, they decided to compute a floor value ("bonus"), and compare it against the normal score. The player was then awarded the higher of the two. Plotted on a chart, it looks like a curve crossing a line. Where the two intersect is where it is no longer advantageous to use the bonus value.

Naturally, they did not expect a group of Civ II Fanatics (huuurah!) five years later to superimpose another scoring system on top of the one the game uses. So naturally, since the GOTM balances speed and size, the bonus has the effect of placing a severe inflection in the GOTM scoring curve. On the early side of the inflection (e.g., before the curves cross), the GOTM "assumes" the player has "built" the civilization to that score, when in fact Civ II simple spits out a flat score. By earning this flat score early and placing into the (50^PNP) adjustment of the GOTM formula, the reward is huge for achieving this bonus early.

Since the bonus is a flat function, there is no Civ II score differentiation. But in the GOTM formula, using a constant (the bonus) greatly unbalances Matrix's (50^PNP).

So, I agree the bonus should not be used in the GOTM score. The reason is that the GOTM score already rewards the time domain (early finish). The normal Civ II score does not reward the time domain; the bonus does. Understanding this will allow everyone to also understand why the SS bonus is both acceptable and necessary to include in the GOTM score... namely, the SS is not a reward for performance in a time domain. It is simply part of accumulating the overall Civ II score, like the FT bonus, or the Barbarian bonus, or even the Wonder bonuses.

Bottom line: Good job, Matrix, and everyone else who must have looked into this at one time. The right thing to do is use the "normal" Civ II score, not the early finish flat bonus. Equal kudos for including all the other bonuses, like the SS bonus. This aspect of the GOTM, together with the (50^PNP) concept is a job well done!

Last note: Since so many play the GOTM, and no telling who might be browsing and decide to play (like I did 3 weeks ago), I do think the time has come to make a proper and complete set of rules, just so even newbies know things like this. They don't have to understand why (necessarily), but it is good to know, and only fair. The only way to really know all the basics is to search and read quite a few threads. Personally, I had no idea about this whole GOTM bonus issue (since early finish is not my usual style ) until yesterday, and had no idea where it was documented.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by starlifter:
OK, I understand the issue now, and can give a little more light on the subject. In Civ II, Brian Reynolds (main programmer) decided with Sid Meier that there would be the "normal" score, but realized that rapid conquest should be recognized. After some tweaking, they decided to compute a floor value...

Alright, newbie , who the heck are you? Shall we call you Sid? Brian?

Hmmm, Seattle... Bill...?

 

[noughmaster]

the bonus has the effect of placing a severe inflection in the GOTM scoring curve. On the early side of the inflection (e.g., before the curves cross), the GOTM "assumes" the player has "built" the civilization to that score, when in fact Civ II simple spits out a flat score. By earning this flat score early and placing into the (50^PNP) adjustment of the GOTM formula, the reward is huge for achieving this bonus early.

I don't think the bonus score makes the double reward nearly as significant as it appears at first glance. When I first learnt from Goodbye Mr Bond about how Civ2 calculates the bonus score, I thought that we definitely couldn't use it, but now I'm having second thoughts.
The flat function gives an estimate Civ score. The 50^pnp raises this for an earlier finish. But this is what would happen without the bonus score. The earlier you get down to 1 opposition city, the earlier you can just build settlers/engineers and build you civ. If you increase your Civ score at 1% or more per turn, your GOTM score will increase. I think I could easily have gotten a GOTM score of > 78 (what I would have got if my bonus score had been counted) had I continued and built a spaceship.
After some revision of thought, I'm not convinced counting the bonus score is a bad thing. Should we force people to farm for years to get a high GOTM score if they can conquer early, or just assume they can do it?

 

[noughmaster]

Just an addition to the above:
Everyone finishing early enough got a bonus score of 1312. This translates into

FINISH DATE GOTM SCORE
1 AD 143
500 AD 116
1000 AD 94

These seem to be roughly what a player could get if they continued on to farm the whole planet while building a spaceship. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in retracting my statement that the bonus score should be counted.

 

[starlifter]

This post was a duplicate of the next post...

[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited July 13, 2001).]

 

[starlifter]

LOL, noughmaster, it is funny that you (as an obviously skilled mathematician ) immediately recognized that the Civ II Flat Score for early finish did not belong in a (50^PNP) function. The Flat Score ("bonus") is arbitrary, and in no way integrates into Matrix's excellent (50^PNP) concept.

The really funny part of your prior post is that when you tested a few numbers, and saw the results, you rationalized and said in effect "Heck, I could have achieved that score anyway, so why not give it to me now and save me the trouble?"

LOL, how funny! I would not have anticipated an "ends justify the means" argument coming from you!

OK, so lets look at that some more. If you really want to introduce a flat score into the (50^PNP) function, the magnitude of the score should be set by Matrix (he is the Moderator). Why use 1312 (after all, it is arbitrary and unaware of our GOTM's 50^PNP modification)? Why not 1476? or 849? or 3,219? Why don't we add other score substitutions to Matrix's 50^PNP to save the player the "trouble" of actually having to play the game to earn the desired score?

As I explained earlier, the "early bonus" is not really a bonus; it is a completely different score that is used by Civ II to reward a fast finish. The (50^PNP) function rewards a fast finish. Combining the two adds two time adjustments for finish, and the effects compound (similar to a SSC compounding science).

So your initial math instincts were right when you said the Flat Score should not be used in the GOTM computation. Until I looked into it, even my first reaction was wrong (ugh!)... my first thoughts were based on the description of it being a "bonus", which in fact it is NOT a bonus. It is a completely different score, using a totally different computation basis, and it is not added to the baseline Civ II score, but substituted for it. And it is a time domain dependent function.

So Matrix did a fine job when he thought that out. We've been trying to convince Matrix to improve some aspects of the GR, HOF, GOTM, etc., but in the big picture he did a great job in getting a lot of basic things right, including not using the Civ II Flat Score in a curve (the 50^PNP function).

Bottom line: the Civ II Flat Score ("early finish bonus") has no business in the GOTM, and must remain excluded.

EDIT: correct spelling.

[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited July 13, 2001).]

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by noughmaster:
Perhaps I was a bit hasty in retracting my statement that the bonus score should be counted.

I'm not even within spitting distance of being a mediocre mathematician, so I'll just say this:

You are thinking too hard about the score and missing the point of the game. Civilization (or at least the way most of us play the GOTM) is neither all about war--i.e. early finishes, down and dirty and damn the cities--nor is it all about expansion and happy Love Days. It's about a combination of both.

The reason the built-in Civ II early finish bonus shouldn't be included is that it's not ONLY how early you finish, but also how 'great' you can get your civilization by the earliest possible date

If I can grow to 1,000,000 citizens by 1000BC and you're only at 200,000, we shouldn't get the same score just because we both finished on the same turn. Right?

EDIT: grammar

[This message has been edited by goodbye_mr_bond (edited July 16, 2001).]

 

[noughmaster]

The reason the built-in Civ II early finish bonus shouldn't be included is that it's not ONLY how early you finish, but how 'great' you can get your civilization by the earliest possible date

If I can grow to 1,000,000 citizens by 1000BC and you're only at 200,000, we shouldn't get the same score just because we both finished on the same turn. Right?

True. You'll eventually get a much bigger score if we kept going.

LOL, noughmaster, it is funny that you (as an obviously skilled mathematician ) immediately recognized that the Civ II Flat Score for early finish did not belong in a (50^PNP) function. The Flat Score ("bonus") is arbitrary, and in no way integrates into Matrix's excellent (50^PNP) concept.
The really funny part of your prior post is that when you tested a few numbers, and saw the results, you rationalized and said in effect "Heck, I could have achieved that score anyway, so why not give it to me now and save me the trouble?"

LOL, how funny! I would not have anticipated an "ends justify the means" argument coming from you!

You're right. It wasn't a sound argument. The famous "proof by three examples" technique so often favoured by first year students.
The bonus score can't be used. It can never act as a predictor of a "farming the world" score because it doesn't take into account current civ size.
I said my second thoughts occurred during lunch. The only excuse I can offer is that it was a liquid lunch with a couple of friends. I often get a bit indecisive when pissed.

One thing that is very important: the submit page needs a message to tell people the bonus score will not be counted and why.

Now, provided we can get Matrix to accept the finite history GR method, my score of 14 won't haunt me forever (although I think I'm only going to get about 20 in GOTM6).

 

[starlifter]

...
Now, provided we can get Matrix to accept the finite history GR method, my score of 14 won't haunt me forever (although I think I'm only going to get about 20 in GOTM6).

Hopefully everyone will see, if from nothing else then from your bottom offhand comment, that it is nice to being able to look forward to the future to overcome an undesirable score. Or maybe a player is really scoring his/her best right now, but improves, yet the score is always depressed. Even Pro Sports have finite time periods of consideration... Wrold Cup Soccer, Pro Tennis, Stock Car Racking, American Football... Imagine if all these sports did not "drop" older games/events after a period of several months to a year, LOL?

So let's just get the GR switched to the "Finite History" or "Sliding Window" or whatever term, and take the best 3 of 5 or 4 of 6 starting in August and be done with it.