Judging Quality of Victory

greenOak

Warlord
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
197
Just throwing this one out there, but why is # of turns by far the most common metric to use when judging quality of victory. What about something like score? Just to clarify, I'm not saying using score is better than # of turns, but rather that they both seem equally valid to me.

Also, when discussing strength of civs, it seems like there would be some vastly different answers depending which measure you use. Namely civs with weak early games and strong late games would rate much better using score as opposed to # of turns.
 
Because epeen.

Well, to give a serious answer, it's because you can milk the score easy. If you can launch to space in the Renaissance Era, you're going to have massive score anyways over time.

Also the game is often decided long before it ends, so pretty much every late game bonus is meaningless even if it gets there.
 
I don't see how milking the score is any different than knocking turns off victory. There is a certain value at which point it will become very difficult to achieve a score greater than that, and there is a certain number of turns that becomes very difficult to break. Both involve a lot of luck. Moreover, there are certain things you can do to boost both that are really simple, and others that are quite convoluted.
 
Score can be milked by conquering lots of cities which is generally considered easier than closely managing a small to medium empire.
 
Score in 6 isn't weighted at all; it's pretty much about having the most land/playing larger maps.

If it was like 4 where it was weighted by difficulty level and speed, that would be different, but it really doesn't mean anything.
 
I agree the current score system sucks in Civ 6 and is mostly just who is closest to domination victory, but that doesn't mean something akin to it could work.

And the # of turns for most types of victory are dependent on map size. Culture, Religious, and Domination are clearly affected by map size. Science and Diplo probably are too in a less obvious way.
 
Score can be milked by conquering lots of cities which is generally considered easier than closely managing a small to medium empire.

Score can be milked by a lot things (even if conquering cities is the most efficient) and being able to conquer lots of cities, while keeping population high, producing tons of culture, all while being able to complete the space projects is a skill.
 
but why is # of turns by far the most common metric to use when judging quality of victory.
Is it? Neglecting „unnecessary game features”, exploiting various mechanisms either bugged or badly designed, missing totally on the half of the game - does it really feel like a „quality victory” to you?
 
Well, but all things equal, speed does matter more. Score has no value in victory besides score victory. (Eg, you can win with a low score, but you can never win if someone is faster than you to a victory)
 
Well, but all things equal, speed does matter more. Score has no value in victory besides score victory. (Eg, you can win with a low score, but you can never win if someone is faster than you to a victory)

Eh I'm still not buying it. Just because you can win with a lower score than someone, doesn't mean that that it's somehow a worse way to judge quality of victory.

Using my example in the first post, I would personally consider a 250 SV in which I was leading in culture and top three in every other victory category a better win than a 240 SV win in which I was last in culture and middling in everything else. It certainly feels more dominant, but that's just me.

Also while being faster is better, it is possible to be on a 240 SV pace and lose (usually to some religion bs), and in another game be on a 250 SV pace and crush.
 
Last edited:
Using my example in the first post, I would personally consider a 250 SV in which I was leading in culture and top three in every other victory category a better win than a 240 SV win in which I was last in culture and middling in everything else. It certainly feels more dominant, but that's just me.

The problem with that is that it's inherently subjective. Some could argue the excess culture was wasteful because it didn't contribute to victory and you "shouldn't" have done it, if it were about efficiency.

Also while being faster is better, it is possible to be on a 240 SV pace and lose (usually to some religion bs), and in another game be on a 250 SV pace and crush.

But across the board, a faster victory also has less chances of losing simply because there are less turns involved.
 
Is it? Neglecting „unnecessary game features”, exploiting various mechanisms either bugged or badly designed, missing totally on the half of the game - does it really feel like a „quality victory” to you?

Basically everything you do in Civ is exploiting the AI playing sub-optimally. It's pretty arbitrary as to what is considered bugged or badly designed. And for the record, I dislike pure power-gaming in Civ, but that is irrelevant.
 
Basically everything you do in Civ is exploiting the AI playing sub-optimally.

Which basically summarizes about what I think about the whole issue.

It's a contest.

A contest that nobody cares about or takes seriously, because it means absolutely nothing and certainly a joke compared to anything actually competitive.
 
dislike pure power-gaming in Civ, but that is irrelevant
Ok, I’ll make myself more clear. There is nothing of quality in winning a game in a sort of „speedrun” mode - it’s all about efficiency. In other words - number of turns simply doesn’t measure quality.
 
Which basically summarizes about what I think about the whole issue.

It's a contest.

A contest that nobody cares about or takes seriously, because it means absolutely nothing and certainly a joke compared to anything actually competitive.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

The problem with that is that it's inherently subjective. Some could argue the excess culture was wasteful because it didn't contribute to victory and you "shouldn't" have done it, if it were about efficiency.

Well score isn't subjective.

But across the board, a faster victory also has less chances of losing simply because there are less turns involved.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the absolute fastest victories use strategies that undoubtedly increase your chance of losing in the first ~30 turns or so. I could just as easily argue that these super fast wins aren't efficient because there are other strategies that would have guaranteed a higher win%. It would be the equivalent of putting yourself in a bad position in a game of chess hoping you get a super quick checkmate.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I’ll make myself more clear. There is nothing of quality in winning a game in a sort of „speedrun” mode - it’s all about efficiency. In other words - number of turns simply doesn’t measure quality.

I disagree. Trying to win as quickly as possible is a perfectly valid goal to have when you start the game - and number of turns measures how well you accomplished that goal. My argument is simply that there are other power-gaming goals that are just as valid, and require just as much skill.
 
This has nothing to do with what I said.

I mean, results basically just come down to exploiting the AI. Using it to measure skill or quality is a bit meaningless.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the absolute fastest victories use strategies that undoubtedly increase your chance of losing in the first ~30 turns or so. I could just as easily argue that these super fast wins aren't efficient because there are other strategies that guarantee a higher win%.

This gets touted a lot, but I am not sure if there's much substance behind it. It seems to me that players are regularly able to get speedy victories and while it is entirely possible they just hide their losses, it's also speculation.
 
I mean, results basically just come down to exploiting the AI. Using it to measure skill or quality is a bit meaningless.

I mean skill in any strategy game can always be boiled down to exploiting the AI or another human being. So to me results that show how good you are at exploiting your opponent seems like a perfectly good measure of skill.



This gets touted a lot, but I am not sure if there's much substance behind it. It seems to me that players are regularly able to get speedy victories and while it is entirely possible they just hide their losses, it's also speculation.

I think its definitely possible for the best players to get really fast wins without ever losing, but I still think the absolute fastest wins have significant loss% probability associated to them. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the fastest science/culture victories don't build military units in the first 3-4 builds, and I don't believe it is possible for the player to defend or prevent an early AI attack with such a strategy. I can't come close to the times some people get, but I know my fastest SV/CVs come when I get greedy pumping out early builders/settlers.
 
Trying to win as quickly as possible is a perfectly valid goal to have when you start the game
You change the topic with every answer. I am talking about quality.
You can set whatever arbitrary „goal” you want in your game. But that doesn’t make it a quality metrics.
 
You change the topic with every answer. I am talking about quality.
You can set whatever arbitrary „goal” you want in your game. But that doesn’t make it a quality metrics.

I honestly don't know what your talking about. Define quality.
 
Top Bottom