Hall of Fame Question.

CornMaster

Romulan Commander
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 19, 2000
Messages
3,761
Location
Cloaked Warbird in the Neutral Zone
I got a question about how you do the scoring for the Hall of Fame???

In my opinion Catcus Pete should be higher than Smash (Nothing against you Smash). Even though Smash has a Gold, Pete has 2 silvers, and star too..... so I would think he should be higher.

I would do scoring something like this:
Gold = 3 pts
Sliver = 2 pts
Bronze = 1 pts
Stars = .5 pts
Who ever has the most points would come 1st, then 2nd, etc....

So what do you do???

EDIT: When I said Catcus Pete I meant to say Kev. Opps.
smile.gif


------------------
<IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CornEmpire Owner/Operator
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

[This message has been edited by CornMaster (edited July 07, 2001).]
 
Your concept is a good idea, IMHO! I can already hear the "No No No's" from Matrix, LOL
wink.gif
.

However, the specific progression you suggested favors lower performances in general, and unnecessarily involves fractions <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>.

With a point sysem, a function such as ((prior value)*2+1) might be more appropriate.

To keep it brief, this is how such a function would look when translated into points:

1 - Stars (high score, fastest finish, etc)
3 - Bronze
7 - Silver (three bronze surpasses a silver effort)
15 - Gold (three silver surpasses a gold effort)

Note the pattern. It takes over two of any prior award to equal or exceed the value of the next higher award. This rewards good work, and in practice means that it is better to win a game every other month, rather than always finish second.

Here is another progression that I personally find to be a better balance overall (key difference is that the bronze is worth 2 points, hence 2 stars equals a bronze effort):

1 - Star
2 - Bronze (two stars equals a bronze effort)
5 - Silver (three bronze surpasses a silver effort)
11 - Gold (three silver surpasses a gold effort)

I might suggest we 'lift' the number of the "star" awards (is this somehow a pun with my 'starlifter' name? <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0> ). For instance, two new star categories (value: one point) might be strongly considered:

- Fastest OCC finish (since OCC is a game of speed, not score,no award for OCC high score is necessary)

- Lowest scoring conquest victory (quite a efficiency challenge to conquest this way, and a fast game to play)

EDIT: Added more detail.


[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited July 07, 2001).]
 
There are 3 main parts to this summary:

1. Global Ranking Suggestions
2. Global Ranking Example Computation
3. Hall of Fame Suggestions


1. GLOBAL RANKING SUGGESTIONS

As currently implemented, the existing GR is illogical and faulty in the extreme... both mathematically and in common sense... because a new player can NEVER overcome the "penalty" of being a newbie. The bias is a permanent. And it reeks.

Veteran players are ridden hard and put away wet if they dare miss a GOTM, or (heaven forbid) try a lower-scoring strategy like OCC.


The fair (and stunningly self-evident) solution is to institute a sliding window of games that are used to compute the GR.

The Sliding Window is simple and professionally accepted (in the corporate, academic, government, and military worlds). It merely averages the highest X in Y scores. A good model to use is take the top 3 GOTM results of the last 5 GOTMs offered, and average those 3 to obtain the Global Ranking (GR). This means a player can miss a game, get a low score, try a new strategy, even lose a GOTM in spectacular fashion, and not blow their GR. This system emphasizes the players best efforts, and discards the worst results. And the history is never older than 5 months, which means any results from 6 or more months ago are stale and no longer used. This is excellent news for player that are improving (they are not stigmatized for life, like the current system does).

With this mathematically fair Sliding Window method, I favor using 0 for the score in a new player's unplayed games. However, those zeros are rapidly erased as the new player finishes a 2nd and 3rd game. At the 3rd and later games, a new player is on equal footing with all Good Ol Boys.
wink.gif


I am opposed to using ANY score that a player did not actually earn (like Zero or Median in the current, flawed GR method)!! HOWEVER, if using a Sliding Window (best 3 of 5), it is OK to use Zero for the newbie's unplayed games... until the newbie either plays 3 future GOTMs, or plays the current one and the two immediately prior GOTMs (results used for that player's initial GR only; the player's "catch up" games would not affect concluded GOTMs in any way).



2. GLOBAL RANKING COMPUTATION

1. Consider the last 5 GOTMs. GOTMs older than 5 months will not be considered anymore.
2. Determine the player's highest 3 GOTM scores.
3. Use straight mean on those top 3 results ("mean" is a specific mathematical method of averaging).
4. For newbies, 0 will be used for unplayed GOTMs.

====== EXAMPLE ========

For newbie, here is month one (assume GOTM of 60): (0+0+60)/3 = GR of 20

Month 2 (assume GOTM=90): (0+60+90)/3 = GR of 50

Month 3 (assume GOTM=75): (60+90+75)/3= GR of 75

===== END EXAMPLE ======

As you can see from my example, I actually do think the "fair" way is to use zero for new players, but only in a best 3 in the last 5 method (not in the current GR method). Zeros are replaced as the player submits completed GOTMs. In Matrix' faulty system, a player never rids him/her self of the unfair influence of the
"Good Old Boys" penalty for not discovering and playing GOTMs from the very start.

Fair. Simple. Flexible. Questions?

3. HALL OF FAME SUGGESTIONS

Cornmaster has an awesome point, and excellent idea, which can be easily tweaked. Using a point system properly will add credibility to the Hall of Fame, and encourage a variety of gameplay, like OCC and Fast Finishes, even if such strategies do not gain the highest GOTM score.

Thanks, Cornmaster, for "thinking outside the box" and pointing the way!

This system is primarily based on Cornmaster's awesome idea for the HOF rankings:

HOF Points (for computing the HOF standings):

1 - Star
2 - Bronze (two Stars equals a Bronze effort)
5 - Silver (it takes three Bronze surpasses a silver effort)
11 - Gold (need three silvers to surpass a gold effort)

HOF Star Categories:

1. Fastest finish.
2. Highest score.
3. Fastest OCC finish (New!).
4. Survivor Award (New!).
5. 1500 AD Retirement (New!).
6. Lo-Boy (New!).
7. Player's Choice (New!).

Notes on #3 (Fastest OCC finish):
- Since the purpose of OCC is to finish in the earliest possible year, an additional category fo high scoring OCC award is not necessary

Notes on #4 (Survivor Award):
- This is for the best "Survivor" (highest non-victory score) in a given month.
- Players must survive until 2020!
- If the AI eliminates a player, they are not eligible for this award.
- This will primarily be a consolation award for those who cannot win via a Spaceship or Conquest by 2020.

Notes on #5 (1500 AD Retirement):
- This is for those that cannot or do not choose to finish a GOTM.
- If someone submits a game in which they retired in 1500 AD (exact year, not approx), they are eligible for this one-point Star award.
- A 1500 AD retirement is not eligible to win any other category or medal.
- A player cannot submit a 1500 AD retirement plus some other game ending; it is one or the other.
- The purpose of this is to recognize, in some small way, the efforts of those that wish to play fast and furious, and get it done quickly.
- A 1500 AD retirement is not treated as a victory, and such a GOTM score is still officially computed using 2020 AD.

Notes on #6 (Lo-Boy):
- This is for the lowest-scoring player who still achieved a standard victory with more than one city (landed SS or conquered world) in a given month.
- Players must achieve a Civ II Victory!
- If the AI wins, the player is not eligible for this award.
- If the AI lands a SS first, the player is not eligible for this award.
- The player must have more than one city; this is not an OCC strategy award.
- This will primarily be a consolation award for those who can struggle to a win, but do it with a LOW score!

Note on #7 (Player's Choice):
- All of that months GOTM participants can vote on their favorite 3 saved games of another player.
- Voting period for 14 days after the zipped .SAVs are posted.
- Other Star/Medal winners ineligible (?)
- Can consider a player's included text narration (.TXT or .DOC file with the .ZIPs)
- This category could be expanded to Favorite Narration, Closest Call, Most Impressive Comeback, etc.
- Player's Choice Award(s) would be one Star (one point for HOF)
 
Well First of all I would think that we should use the Olympic standards of:

Gold = 5 points
Silver = 3 points
Bronze = 1 points

I don't think that the stars should give points at all, only they should make the difference between players who have the same amount of points!

And as we currently have fastest finish and highest score, which both seem logical. Then I think that one more award would be reasonable - I like the OCC award, but there should be a minimum on the number of players before we can give such an award!!! I mean what is the big deal if only one plays OCC and therefor gets a (color) star?

As to the three other suggestions that you have made, well I don't think that any of them would be any good, because they don't really reward anything!!! And I think that we should keep the number of awards at a minimum!

snipersmilie.gif


------------------
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!!!!!!
 

Well First of all I would think that we should use the Olympic standards of:

Gold = 5 points
Silver = 3 points
Bronze = 1 points

Assuming there is no credit for Stars (and I think a star should get a point), this structure is OK.

But I do think the GOTM should recognize a larger variety of game efforts. The reward should be minimal, e.g. just a star (worth o singl point). It is a simple mathematica matter to adjust the Medal ponts to the relative values:

11 - Gold
5 - Silver
2 - Bronze (or maybe 3)
1 -Stars

Since this is not a "serious competition" (based on the original GOTM definition), I think it is important to recognize more people, not fewer. Those that want black and white can simply play MP.

I think it's important to respond to GOTM players as a whole, and based on posts. For instance, many would like to finish early in some months... hence the 1500 AD suggestion for a star.

None of the "star" ideas detract or substitute for medal finishes. There are doubtless much better star ideas than the ones I listed to begin with.

So as long as the GOTM is for the masses, and meant to be informal, educational, fun, and engender discussion... I think we should not be uptight about finding ways to accomodate others.
 

I like the OCC award, but there should be a minimum on the number of players before we can give such an award!!! I mean what is the big deal if only one plays OCC and therefor gets a (color) star?

BTW, that sounds like a good thought. Maybe there should be at least 2 or 3 entries for OCC before awarding a star. But then again, if the award is there, some will doubtless play. I know I will, assuming Matrix adopts a Sliding Window (e.g., best 3 out 5) type of GR format starting in August. But if the current opressive GR ranking is continued, I doubt anyone will be inclined to play OCCs once in a while.
frown.gif
 
Well I still think that the current rules for the GR are OK and that they shouldn't be changed - but I think that it would be ok to award OCC players by giving them a GotM bonus - say 25-50 extra points so that you don't get totally squished!!!
biggrin.gif


snipersmilie.gif


------------------
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!!!!!!
 
I don't think we need anything for OCC.Only 1 person has been stupid or lazy enough to play a GotM that way
wink.gif


 

by Shadowdale:

I think that it would be ok to award OCC players by giving them a GotM bonus - say 25-50 extra points so that you don't get totally squished!!!

An OCC player knows the score will be small. I don't favor giving any extra score to a particular style of play (including OCC). But I think recognition of the best OCC game in a GOTM is a good thing. If no one plays an OCC game, naturally no OCC award would be given that month.
smile.gif


In general, recognition is a postive motivator. There really is no reason to be stingy with it, since there is no cost to it, and it does not impair the GOTM. In fact, recognition of various GOTM styles and accomplishments encourages more GOTM participation, and encourages people to submit their GOTM games, something Matrix has been trying to convince people to do in some of his posts.
 
Can someone explain what an OCC player is? Is it a very bad player or someone who tries to conquer the world?

------------------
And I'm proud to say: 'Ich bin ein Civfanatics Official Reviewer!'
 
Nope OCC is actually mostly for rather good players as OCC stands for One City Challenge.
And that can be both SS victory or conquest, but normally it's SS victory.

snipersmilie.gif


------------------
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!!!!!!
 
Aaaah! Well, then there should be a certain bonus, but since it's really hard to think of an acceptable number of bonus points.....Well maybe there should be an OCC League.

Btw, my first game ever was an OCC, I couldn't read nor speak English and those damn units couldn't even attack, so I didn't build them. I did win the game, by the way.

------------------
And I'm proud to say: 'Ich bin ein Civfanatics Official Reviewer!'
 
Back
Top Bottom