Improved Scoring System

[dojoboy]

I'm thinking along the lines of the "Jason Score Calculator." Anything that creates a balance in game-play styles among all the players. I'm a builder by heart and prefer the process of expanding my hegemony through said method w/ a peppering of aggression.

Things that might be incorporated:

(1) progress along the tech tree by victory date
(2) territory
(3) diplomatic relations
(4) wealth
(5) speed of victory
(6) map type re: landmass
(7) map size?
(8) aggression level
(9) difficulty level
(10) ???

Anything else?

 

[sysyphus]

I think culture would be a good addition to that list.

 

[ainwood]

The Jason system doesn't actually modify the scoring, just the end-game bonus for an early finish. I think that its a good demonstration of why (and how) the end-game bonus can be improved.

As for Civ 4? I think that the scoring system needs to be reasonably simple, or at least simple to understand. Perhaps something along the lines of (total shields / gold / food produced) - (shields lost)??

The Jason works well because it is an incentive to finish the game early rather than milk it forever. Yet, a well-milked game will still come out ahead (milking is a skill of its own) But the underlying principle is that the Jason bonus is based on the same principles as the turn-by-turn scoring: the population growth you could attain by milking to end-game.

In summary: whatever scoring method is chosen, the end-game bonus for an early finish should reflect it.

 

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by ainwood

The Jason works well because it is an incentive to finish the game early rather than milk it forever.

Personally, I feel finishing a game early ought to be an individual reward, not a bonus in scoring.

Background Information: I don't do early wins well. Because, its not an interesting approach to the game for me, so I don't work at it.

It only encourages war, in most cases, which isn't appealing to everyone. Like Civ3 advanced in victory options from Civ2, so should Civ4 reflect a more balanced scoring system to make victory options and victory dates....balanced.

IMHO, a 5CC win, by diplomacy or space race, on emperor and above should be scored as high, or higher, than a early conquest or domination win. Think of it as a "strength of schedule" component of the NCAA BCS rankings. Having large, threatening AIs at your doorstep is like having Notre Dame's football schedule.

Disclaimer: In no way do I believe I'm the same level of player as SirPleb and the rest of the upper echelon of players. I just feel that builders for the most part have been short-changed in the current scoring system.

 

[soren]

Originally posted by dojoboy
I'm thinking along the lines of the "Jason Score Calculator." Anything that creates a balance in game-play styles among all the players. I'm a builder by heart and prefer the process of expanding my hegemony through said method w/ a peppering of aggression.

Things that might be incorporated:

(1) progress along the tech tree by victory date
(2) territory
(3) diplomatic relations
(4) wealth
(5) speed of victory
(6) map type re: landmass
(7) map size?
(8) aggression level
(9) difficulty level
(10) ???

Anything else?

First, Territory is part of the scoring system. Secondly, speed of victory (I think) is in there too. In addition, difficultly level is already a factor.

I agree that the system needs to be imporved. Right now, it's basically only how much people and how happy they are, which is important, but not enough. Include gold, tech, power, culture, and so forth and so on.

 

[ybbor]

my ideas (in order of importance, stuffat the top scored higher, bottom scored lowest)

(1) territory
(2) culture
(3) progress along the tech tree
(4) wealth
(5) speed of victory
(6) military

multipliers:
(1)difficulty level
(2) aggression level

 

[soren]

Originally posted by ybbor


multipliers:
(1)difficulty level
(2) aggression level

1 - This is already a multiplier
2 - I wouldn't agree, since its affects aren't universal such as, for example, is for difficulty level

Plus, when you say "mulipliers," do you mean on a constant or linier basis, as in take the score and multiply it by a fixed x?

 

[ybbor]

Originally posted by soren
1 - This is already a multiplier

i know, byut hey, isn't half of the disscuion what we're keeping from civ3?

Originally posted by soren
2 - I wouldn't agree, since its affects aren't universal such as, for example, is for difficulty level

i wouldn't count it as high as difficulty level (hence the #2 ranking), but it still needs to be consider, althoigh not nearly as much as the difficulty level

Originally posted by soren
Plus, when you say "mulipliers," do you mean on a constant or linier basis, as in take the score and multiply it by a fixed x?

what? what's the difference, doesn't constant=linear?

 

[soren]

Originally posted by ybbor


what? what's the difference, doesn't constant=linear?

Yes, it does. I put it wrongly. When I wrote "or," it's supposed to by like a comma. For example, consider the sentance "he was a fat, chubby man." Of course, they are not the same thing, and if they were, it would be stupid of me repeating myself. THe reason why said mentioned both, though they are, in this context, the same, is because I didn't want to confuse anybody who didn't understand one but did the other.

 

[a space oddity]

Another thing what I would like to see reflected in the score is the development level of the AI. IMVHO it is much more difficult to win a game when your opponent is strong then it is when it is weak. The current scoring works the other way around. So why not add points for more avanced AI? (You'd almost wouldn't need a level bonus, since the AI will automatically be stronger in such a game.)

 

[Pounder]

Make future techs worth something. Or would that be giving scientific Civs to much of an advantage.

 

[Arathorn]

Good scoring is a fool's errand, IMO. Consider the following games (all with identical starting positions -- continents map, say).

A: Destroyed his neighbors early and then built-up and conquered the other continent.
B: Destroyed one neighbor early but the other was a monster. Fought terrible, long, hard wars and finally got the upper hand, in time to launch in space, because the other continent was all balanced.
C: Destroyed one neighbor early but the other was a monster. Fought terrible, long, hard wars and finally got the upper hand, in time to lose the space race, because one power on the other continent had grown out of control.
D: Destroyed one neighbor early but the other was a monster. Fought terrible,short, hard wars but didn't get the upper hand because he needed to stop the superpower on the other continent from launching. Won very late space race.
E: Tried an OCC and squeaked out a diplomatic win, getting the UN one turn before his opponents.
F: Did Always War and manged to conquer his continent but got overwhelmed by the advanced-tech people on the other continent.
G: Lived in peace and harmony. Was the most advanced civilization by far. Launched.
H: Lived in peace and harmony. Was the most advanced civilization by far. Advanced further than G. Cultural win.
I: Tried to live in peace and harmony but was constantly attacked and did no more than fend them off. Wasn't the most advanced. Won by space race, narrowly.

Who should get the best score? Even without considering potentially different difficulty levels, it's really hard to say. About the only one I can say for certain is that D played to win better than C. What's the difference between I and G? Which should get a better score?

It's all about fun to me, and "score" is so artificial as to be meaninglessness, no matter how it's computed. Instead of trying to make some generic "score" fit all, I'd rather they just ditch the concept and let any group that wants to run competitions determine their own values....

(e.g. GOTM could give prizes for quickest domination, quickest launch, best OCC, etc. etc. etc. -- maybe make each GOTM focus on a different goal -- something similar to Jasonpoints now (or whatever they are), but even more codified. Or see the RBCiv stuff -- it can be done and is often more fun than always chasing the same definition of score)

Arathorn

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Arathorn
(e.g. GOTM could give prizes for quickest domination, quickest launch, best OCC, etc. etc. etc. -- maybe make each GOTM focus on a different goal -- something similar to Jasonpoints now (or whatever they are), but even more codified. Or see the RBCiv stuff -- it can be done and is often more fun than always chasing the same definition of score)

Arathorn

Come and play Arathorn!

We use Jason score to compare results (to try and even out the end-game bonuses by estimating what the "best-date" for each victory conditions is), and we do give awards for fastest finish in each victory type.

I do agree that for an individual, score is largely meaningless for the reasons you outlined. My wish for a better scoring model is simply for competitions: If you are going to have many different ways of winning, then the scoring system MUST give a similar score for similar standards of play, regardless of the actual victory condition attained.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by a space oddity
Another thing what I would like to see reflected in the score is the development level of the AI. IMVHO it is much more difficult to win a game when your opponent is strong then it is when it is weak. The current scoring works the other way around. So why not add points for more avanced AI? (You'd almost wouldn't need a level bonus, since the AI will automatically be stronger in such a game.)

But what if one faces no strong AI because they whittled them down to nothing in the early game? You'd effectively be penalising a player for good early game tactics.

 

[a space oddity]

Why is making the the AI wittle down good tactics if you want to win the space race? There *is* no race in that case.... that is what I mean. The current scoring makes early dominance a good tactic, which is exactly what I mean. Why do you suppose people do things like 5CC and OCC?

 

[Mewtarthio]

Originally posted by a space oddity
Why is making the the AI wittle down good tactics if you want to win the space race? There *is* no race in that case.... that is what I mean. The current scoring makes early dominance a good tactic, which is exactly what I mean. Why do you suppose people do things like 5CC and OCC?

The entire point of the Space Race is to win the game. Smiting your enemies is a wonderful tactic for this, because if they're busy fighting you, they can't be building their spaceships in the same cities that build Mech Infantry. You, meanwhile, have more highly productive cities than them because they're gasping for breath under your iron fist. Sure, it's not exactly a "Race," but that's like saying it's not really a "War" to finish them off, since they're so much weaker. People don't necessarily care about winning a neck-and-neck race so long as they win. The system rewards early dominance because early dominance is a good strategy. People undertake such things as 5CC and OCC for the same reason RPG players attempt Low Level Games: because they want to add an extra challenge for themselves.

 

[a space oddity]

I still disagree. It is true that early dominance is a good strategy is your goal is ... dominance. The game might be even more interesting if there's another strategy required to get one of the other victories. It's the reason they are in the game at all IMHO.
And yeah, you are assuming right: I don't think it's a real war when your butchering a much weaker civ.

 

[EMan]

The Major Flaw in the Civ3 Firaxis Scoring System is the End-Of-Game Bonus which ainwood et al have adjusted superbly with GOTM!

2 Examples of the current faulty Firaxis scoring system:
1. If you win in 8 turns on Tiny map at say Chieftain level, your score cannot be beaten, PERIOD......this needs to be fixed!

2. If you "Milk" a game , the last 100-300 turns are pretty meaningless......just cleaning up pollution. Increasing the End-Of-Game Bonus will avoid this.
Firaxis have stated that they want to remove tedious tasks, like pollution cleanup............Well, milking out the last 100 turns to get a Higher score is Pretty Tedious!

 

[rysingsun]

Firaxis have stated that they want to remove tedious tasks, like pollution cleanup............Well, milking out the last 100 turns to get a Higher score is Pretty Tedious!

this is why they REALLY need to improve the early finish bonus. i was hoping with civ III that the milking phase would be removed since i remember well how many hours it took to milk civ II.

i dread the day someone suggests a contest to see who can milk the highest score ever. a huge map with closely spaced cities. (/shudder!) but that's not enough. 500 intimitely micromanaged cities

 

[EMan]

That day is HERE!

See CFC's Hall Of Fame (HOF) Huge Map scores.

Hopefully that will be changed in Civ 4.