I want to post the GOTM VII results but...

[Matrix]

...you guys give me a head ache. It's all about the Global Ranking. Everyone seems to agree with the best 3 of 5 system except me. I've made the damn thing and now I don't agree even more. It just doesn't work.

Why does a GOTM five months ago count as much as the last one, but the one six months later suddenly not at all? Is that logical? Plus the fact that there is a hard line between whether you've played 3, 2, 1 or 0 GOTM's the last 5 months. Just try to convince me one more time.

The only thing that the present Global Ranking lacks is the big punishment for not playing the GOTM. I'm seriously considering Thunderfall's suggestion to just scrap the GR. So much trouble for something only a handful of people actually care...

In any case, results will be ready by tomorrow afternoon/evening, after I've read answers to this topic. I'm off to bed now.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/images/Flags/Straland1.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/tmp/CivFanaticsMatrix.gif" border=0>member of staff: Game of the Month administrator & moderator.

 

[starlifter]

Everyone seems to agree with the best 3 of 5 system except me.

It's pretty much a planetary thing, dude. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/beerchug.gif" border=0>

Even lots of school teachers often let students "drop" some scores. That is, the "best" efforts are counted, and students are not penalized on some work because it was done "early" (but done well) in the semester.

It just doesn't work.

Actually... it does work. What you mean is that you don't prefer the 3 of 5 idea personally, right? <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

Why does a GOTM five months ago count as much as the last one,

LOL, why not? That is, you are laboring under a presumption that a "more recent" GOTM should count "more". That is called a faulty premise.

Hey, if a player plays a GOTM, then it is a real result... and it is mathematically arbitrary of you to presume that a more "recent" GOTM must weigh heavier! Simply take a player's 3 best efforts in a five month period and be done with it <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>.

It is unfair in the extreme to use the current system of arbitrarily penalizing a player for "missing" a GOTM. A player should be able to skip a GOTM (or try a low-scoring game style) without penalty. The current system rides the player hard and puts him (or her) away wet...

but the one six months later suddenly not at all? Is that logical?

It is logical in the extreme! If a person plays a GOTM with an alternate gameplan (e.g., OCC, ten cities only, quick conquest, etc), the score might be miniscule. The player would do this, knowing it tiny score would not hammer the GR.

I will say this... it is quite unlikely that I will personally try some of the alternate game approaches (like OCC) until the current penalty is removed, and some games can be omitted (such as the 3 of 5).

Let's put it another way. If some of the regular "mongo" scorers were "free" to try an "alternate" gamestyle once in a while, that presumed medal contention would dissappear that month. The result would be good for the GOTM at large, and would make for a more diverse GOTM experience.

I'm seriously considering Thunderfall's suggestion to just scrap the GR.

That sounds rather arbitrary, LOL. The headaches would also be gone if the GOTM were disbanded, or Civ Fanatics folded up shop.

So much trouble ...

Once you have any system up and running (e.g., tweaked as time goes along), it will likely continue with minimal effort. Should you need it, I believe several folks made offers to help (in the June/July discussions, I think), though it does sound like you've actually got it under control at the moment.

EDIT: Typos



[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited September 07, 2001).]

 

[Matrix]

You didn't follow me starlifter.

<FONT COLOR="blue">Why does a GOTM five months ago count as much as the mast one</FONT c>,<FONT COLOR="red"> but the one <u>six</u> months ago suddenly not at all</FONT c>?

You took these things separately, but I ment: Why is there such a hard line? You said that an older score should count as much as a recent one, but in that case I should count all previously played GOTM's. (Or actually: <u>half</u> of all previously played GOTM's.) I start from the fact that people progress. Therefore, the more recent GOTM's are more important.

Another problem occurs when someone hasn't played 3 GOTM's in te last 5 months. (S)he will be penalized as much as someone who hasn't played a GOTM now. You can't call that fair, can you?

I agree with you that people should be able experiment and shouldn't be influenced by the fact that they will drop in the GR. But I doubt that anyone will let himself be influenced by the GR at all.

I'm seriously considering Thunderfall's suggestion to just scrap the GR.

I don't say this to brag, but I created the Global Ranking. Without me there wouldn't be one and you wouldn't miss it.

So much trouble...

I was referring to the discussion part with you. I'm easy with Excel and have created this in no time. In fact, I've already done it, but while creating it I just felt it doesn't work. Just as when I used the median score for the newbies. That didn't feel right too; and then you start thinking about it and scrap or modify it.

I agree the current system isn't what it should be, but it's really better then 3 of 5. (Don't suggest to use 7 of 9.

) But the only thing it lacks is flexibility for the players.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/images/Flags/Straland1.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/tmp/CivFanaticsMatrix.gif" border=0>member of staff: Game of the Month administrator & moderator.

 

[willemvanoranje]

I say just keep it the way it was!

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/willemvanoranje/NET.gif" border=0> CFC Official Reviewer <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/willemvanoranje/GER.gif" border=0>

 

[CornMaster]

I say scrap it and just stick with the awards for each place!!

 

[LeBigMec]

I agree with Cornmaster, scrap it and let the Hall of fame be the historical reference.

 

[starlifter]

...
I don't say this to brag, but I created the Global Ranking. Without me there wouldn't be one and you wouldn't miss it.
...

And a fine idea it is... in fact, you're done a great job with the GOTM, too (as myself and others have said on may occasions

). I strongly suspect there would be suggestions for "averaging" some prior results, or something along those lines if you hadn't the foresight to create a GR.

You said that an older score should count as much as a recent one, but in that case I should count all previously played GOTM's.

Do not read more into what I said; as in my June and July posts, I'm saying that (if) when a player's game is used, the score should be used straight up... no weighting, no modification, no penalty. I don't care if the player earned it in May or August, LOL. Just don't "tweak" a score that was earned

.

I start from the fact that people progress. Therefore, the more recent GOTM's are more important.

I know you do, and that is the faulty delimna that you are honestly not seeing. It is grossly wrong to make that assumption and implement a scoring system around it... each game's results are not necessarily indicative that a player is "better" or more "progressed". The game difficulty, starting postition, and dare I say it... bad luck in the game! Not to mention the player's choice of playing style that month.

I agree with you that people should be able experiment and shouldn't be influenced by the fact that they will drop in the GR. But I doubt that anyone will let himself be influenced by the GR at all.

Matrix Matrix Matrix, tsk tsk. I already know you to be a very intelligent person, and so you must know that this form of logic has no bearing... Extending that form of logic would result in things like "People would play the GOTM anyway, so why track the results" or "Why bother with a GOTM formula (the 50^PNP function) since people probably don't look at their own score anyway". The point is... there's no need to continue making "assumptions" about such things, as they really don't affect the underlying issue that you have with changing the GR.

Another problem occurs when someone hasn't played 3 GOTM's in te last 5 months. (S)he will be penalized as much as someone who hasn't played a GOTM now. You can't call that fair, can you?

You example is not a "problem" with the 3 of 5 method. It points out yet another reason why the 3 of 5 should be used! If a player is not playing the GOTMs, it is reasonable that after a period of time, games will begin to "drop off", and their score will decline. It is this way in many sports, and it is this way in all team sports. Just because a nation wins the World Cup (and the games leading up to it) does not mean their wins should carry over year after year. Ditto for Basketball, American Football, etc. And as we've discussed in prior posts, quite obviously in professional tennis.

But remember, if you keep a "hammer" ther player kind of mindset, there will be less participation in the long run. You must make it possible for even newer players to be able to "catch" the long-time GOTM players (assuming the new player can produce the scores,

). Players like Shadowdale, Kev, Smash, and now yes, even myself, will have scores entrenched by the "system" that are difficult to ever catch, and mathematically impossible if the "newer" player performs to the same level as the "old time" player.

On the other hand, when Shadowdale misses a game (like he did in Au

 

[starlifter]

The Civ Fanatics BBS suddenly won't let me edit my own messages anymore for some bizarre reason. In my prior post, the date in the 1st paragraph should be "750 BC", not "AD". <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>


EDIT: The Civ Fanatics BBS is really messed up at the moment, because this post is placed in the total wrong spot... it was actaully added about 10 spots further down, on page TWO... yet now it is here in this place, and some text in prior posts (and even maybe entire posts) is gone. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/confused.gif" border=0> Well, at least the BBS seems to allow me to edit a post again...


EDIT#2: Correction... I still cannot edit some posts, and several posts from several people (in fact, the entire remaining Page # of this thread!!) are wiped out!?!! Time to report this glitch to the Site Feedback section.

EDIT#3: WOW!!! A LOT of posts in this thread are wiped out... that's a HUGE "glitch", and perhaps Thunderfall or the BBS administrators should restore this thread from a daily backup (or archive). A lot of people's posts are gone...

EDIT #4: I see Shadowdale and Matrix have made posts in the last few moments, which appear after this. I'm archiving what's left of this thread on my own machine, as a last ditch backup for whatever is causing this CFC BBS glitch (just in case). I'm assuming all the other posts in this thread that used to be here are now toast, unless there is a daily backup that can restore them, or something. Hope more don't suddenly "disappear", LOL!


[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited September 09, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited September 09, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited September 09, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited September 09, 2001).]

 

[shadowdale]

Well I must say that those scores are pretty impressive.... And congratulations to all who participated and to those who won an award!!!

But I must say that I'm not in favor of this new GR system - for some weird reason a system where it is quite "easy" to get MAX points doesn't seem right!! In the old system a GR of 100 was only theoretically possible but using this new system you "only" have to win three games in five to get a GR of 135, which is the max!!!

I'm not saying that the old system was more fair but at least you could see that if good players had a low rating then it was either because they had just missed a game or hadn't played all the games!!!

I feel more and more inclined to agree with TF about removing the GR because there will always be people that don't like the way it is calculated!!

I hope that I will find the time to play this months Game, but I don't think that I'll have time to play GotM again until June next year - maybe if I get some good holidays.......

------------------
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!!!!!!

 

[Matrix]

In essence, he didn't finish his game. Which normally means that he won't be in the results list. Now, in my believe this has been a failed GOTM since the restarting Civs totally screw it up, but what should I do? Remove him from the results? Leave his score, but give the blue star to alain (he's got a pathetic GOTM score anyway)? Or just forget about it?

No, he shouldn't be in the list, because he knows that when he presses enter, his game doesn't finish. I think I'll remove him...

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/images/Flags/Straland1.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/tmp/CivFanaticsMatrix.gif" border=0>member of staff: Game of the Month administrator & moderator.

 

[starlifter]

By Shadowdale:

...
I hope that I will find the time to play this months Game, but I don't think that I'll have time to play GotM again until June next year - maybe if I get some good holidays..

Your excellent skill and esp. early game strategy has been making us all improve out own games, dude... hope you don't have to sit out that many GOTMs... Hey, don't they give you guys holidays in Europe? In America, we get a couple good ones called Thanksgiving and Christmas, LOL!

And my college favorite was.... SPRING BREAK!! but I totally understand if you don't want to play during Spring Break, at least play Civ, that is, heheheheheee.

BTW, if you do sit out a few GOTMs, you can re-establish your own GR more rapidly under the 3 of 5 method

.

 

[starlifter]

By Matrix: posted September 09, 2001 03:09 PM

In essence, he didn't finish his game. Which normally means that he won't be in the results list. Now, in my believe this has been a failed GOTM since the restarting Civs totally screw it up, but what should I do? Remove him from the results? Leave his score, but give the blue star to alain (he's got a pathetic GOTM score anyway)? Or just forget about it?

No, he shouldn't be in the list, because he knows that when he presses enter, his game doesn't finish. I think I'll remove him..

My input would be to award the blue star to the next earliest player, and either remove the game or use a 425 BC score to compute the score, even as small as it is. As the Administrator, you can make whatever ruling you see fit. Hopefully, people will just remember that all civs must be conquered and vanquished to get an "Early Conquest" win.

BTW, Richard's amazing game, if continued to be properly played to a SS landing, could easily break a 14,000 points and 500 GOTM score by about 1500 AD.

EDIT (Added): This reply from Matrix & myself arise from posts in the "Deleted" part of this thread. I have re-posted the original comments a bit further down (the post with the GIF of the 2 ******** Russian settlers in it).


[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited September 09, 2001).]

 

[starlifter]

**** SPECIAL NOTE BECAUSE OF THE CFC SERVER GLITCH THAT DESTROYED OVER A DOZEN POSTS AN HOUR AGO ****


I didn't have a browser screen up with page 1 when the crash occurred, but page 2 was up. FWIW, here are pictures (GIFs) of the posts that were on page two before they were destroyed:

<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/GOTM7_matrix_2-1.gif" border=0>


<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/GOTM7_matrix_2-2.gif" border=0>


<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/GOTM7_matrix_2-3.gif" border=0>


<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/GOTM7_matrix_2-4.gif" border=0>




[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited September 09, 2001).]

 

[starlifter]

BTW, I'm sure it was simply overlooked by all due to the fact the Russians have not yet built a city, but Richard's GOTM 7 is still in progress. It has not yet been won by conquest in 750 BC. Two Russian settlers are in South America, just south of the central Amazon, and could found a new city anytime they desire.

I'm not an early conquest kind of player, but to my understanding, all Civilizations & their units must be tracked down and killed to win by conquest, right?


<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/GOTM7_Richards_Russians1.jpg" border=0>

Yes, the 2 Russian settlers seem kind of ******** (they don't seem to want to go found a city with any particular speed). But assuming one can have a "magical" looking glass and know exactly where to go, one can run the game further and move the elephant that was carried by "The Luckiest Trireme I Have Ever Seen" (you know, the one that crossed the N. Atlantic, and did not touch a shore for at least 4 turns without sinking ).

Oh BTW, all the English triremes in this game seem particularly blessed with a sailor's good fortune, as the "Southern Indian Ocean Express" (currently harbored in Hamburg) had at least one turn of wonderful luck in it's shorcut, too. Personally, I hate triremes in the open ocean, because they seem to sink about half the time when the end their turn away from shore... which is why I like taking the longer (but safer) routes near shorelines. Those early-game units are just too valuable to me (personally) to run a 50% risk of loss. All a matter of strategy, I suppose

.

Eventually, the wounded South American Elephant can heal and kill the 2 settlers in about 425 BC, and no more civs respawn. But don't forget about all the unhappy cities in the empire as you move the elephant, LOL.

So mathematically, the soonest the game can actually finish is about 425 BC, which is still a very astounding, awesome, breathtaking, fantastic, and impressive achievement on a large map!!!

[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited September 09, 2001).]

 

[Smash]

The game is finished.There is a bug or whatever.You can get different end results from the same save.I had it in a game where when I finshed it was done.Later I went back to get the particulars and the game didn't end.I thought I saved wrong but actually a civ spawned.

I suggest we keep no restart as the default.

..and we're do for a bloodlust only game...

 

[starlifter]

posted September 09, 2001 04:54 PM
The game is finished.There is a bug or whatever.You can get different end results from the same save.

I took another look at it, and the Russians were still there. But even if the game is "done" at this point in 750 BC (Game turn #71), the game is supposed to be saved just before the final "kill" (or the SS landing), right? Evidently, Richard did not save before the kill, which would have avoided this issue, too, I presume.

However, I've not tried an early conquest before. And in my GOTM 7, I did not track down any civs to kill. I would, however, be interested in learning the secret for how a BC civ can "home in" on respawning civs all over the map. That is, making a beeline right for the exact place where each civ respawns. I looked for that function on my 'Orders' menu, but could not find it. Yet, that South American elephant must have quite a nose, as it seemed to smell the AI over the mountain range and know the exact tile to jump off of the trireme and kill the South American city, LOL

.

To be fair, if Richard completely finished the conquest despite the Russian settler's presence, then of course his 71-turn lightning game should be counted as the astounding Fastest Finish.

 

[shadowdale]

Well Starlifter I know that I can get a high GR in only three games, but I still don't like it - anyone who can win three games in a row would automatically be the numero uno on the GR - no matter is others had won 10+ games!!!

All that matters with this new system is that you win three out of five games????

I think that I was hoping for something similar to the old system, but only cumulative, so that it would never fall, but just continue to rise - I know that some people would always be the leaders, but since you can see how many games each players has played that wouldn't really matter!!!

Sniper I miss you......

 

[willemvanoranje]

I'm 15th! I thought I'd go down a few places 'cause more people would participate. Guess not!

 

[starlifter]

<br />Well Starlifter I know that I can get a high GR in only three games, but I still don't like it - anyone who can win three games in a row would automatically be the numero uno on the GR - no matter is others had won 10+ games!!!<br /> <hr></blockquote>

Anyone that wins three GOTMs in a row deserves to be #1, since only one GOTM is played each month. LOL, in tennis, you don't see Bjorn Borg demanding a new tennis ranking system, even though he won 11 grand slams. Almost all sports and events have a limited time-frame for cumulative results. I wonder where Jack Nicklaus would rank if all golf results were considered all the time.

So, it is pretty much standard to have a limited shelf-life of results, and in the case of the GOTMs (which are an informal thing anyway), 5 months seems like a good lifespan for results in the GR. And of course, the GOTM results are in the HOF forever, regardless of the GR.

<br />

<br />I think that I was hoping for something similar to the old system, but only cumulative, so that it would never fall, but just continue to rise - I know that some people would always be the leaders, but since you can see how many games each players has played that wouldn't really matter!!! <hr></blockquote>

Something that causes people only to rise seems conterproductive to the spirit of the GOTM. It is good to continue to wonder just how the results will turn out. And it would be a crock if new players (the ones who had not played the GOTMs since inception) knew they were, in essense, locked out of contention by "the system".

<br />

<br />...<br />I know that some people would always be the leaders<br />...<br /><hr></blockquote>

That's what I think should be avoided, unless of course the leaders continue to turn in good results. There are a lot of players that are improving rapidly, and they are entitled to have a legit crack at it, IMHO.

<br />but since you can see how many games each players has played that wouldn't really matter<br /><hr></blockquote>

That sounds nonsequitor to me. It's like saying Jack Nicklaus should be golf's #1 ranked player (his performance would earn it), but the newer guys who are doing well should "feel OK" because everyone can go look up how many (or few) tournaments they have played.

<br />

<br />Sniper I miss you......<br /> <hr></blockquote>

I don't see your Sniper Icon in the choices, and the majority of the icons are now gone. Bummer. I also don't see a way to upload an image into a post anymore!!! And the number of visits to each thread is no longer shown, either. Plus, the java script places the quotes a little differently. And when you post, it takes you back not to yor post page, but the first page of the thread. And now that I have this slow dial up connection, that is a crock because of limited bandwidth!

<br /> <br />

<br />by willemvanoranje:

I'm 15th! I thought I'd go down a few places 'cause more people would participate. <br /><hr></blockquote>

It seems like you're improving, dude!

 

[starlifter]

Note: This is in reference to Richard's GOTM 7 results that have two Russian settlers still alive in South America...

<br />By Smash:

posted September 09, 2001 04:54 PM

The game is finished.There is a bug or whatever.You can get different end results from the same save.<br /> <hr></blockquote>

Thanks, Smash. I've never encountered that before. BTW, a few minutes ago, I saw this type of issue discussed in the GOTM 8 "Spoiler" thread, which I did not visit until today since I had not begun GOTM 8 until last night.

Will this issue still arise if the person saves just before killing the last AI city or last AI unit? That is, will the Civ II program consistently decide the same answer to the question of whether or not to respawn an new civ? Or will the same exact game sometimes respawn a civ (after making the kill), and sometimes not?

<br />If the program is not consistent (e.g., pseudo random) when deciding whether or not to make yet another civ when the last one is killed (assuming the same exact game), then it seems the Early Conquest option is not really reliable under the GOTM system when the game is created with the "respawn" option on <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> .

EDIT: Typo

[ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: starlifter ]</p>