1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Judging Quality of Victory

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by greenOak, Apr 20, 2019.

  1. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,267
    Gender:
    Male
    While I don't doubt the riskier build orders help, I feel the bigger degree of variance comes from getting lucky with CS's and huts. If you get Goddess of the Harvest, you're just going to be better.... at everything period by a large margin. When you hear people talking about "meeting 2 culture CS's" or "getting harvest", you know it's just the keep rolling and resetting kind.

    But OTOH either way; risky start or not, you can still get a ,much bigger empire with higher score with a riskier/luckier opener too. These things go hand and hand.
     
    ShakaKhan likes this.
  2. greenOak

    greenOak Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    37
    I definitely agree with this which is why I don't think score should be the only thing you look at either. I guess it ultimately boils down to is what your goals are to start the game, and a lot of people like going for the fastest possible victory (I mean I often do as well).
     
  3. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,267
    Gender:
    Male
    You just need to set some standards and have other people accept it. Not everyone accepts turn times either, and often times this is just used by others to flaunt which is never a good discussion.

    It's like in video game speedruns where they have any % and "100%". Now obviously you can't 100% a civ game, but you can define it as clearly as you can.
     
  4. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    10,842
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    To truly get competitive you would have to have more standards in place. Like a maximum of 12 cities. Obviously map size and speed should be standardized.

    Personally I don't go for absolute speed, with exception of my Scotland and Korea games where I was competing against myself. I don't compete against anyone here, and have no reason to justify myself to anyone. I personally like a combination of high score and relatively fast speed. Like my recent China game where my turns to victory was quite low, I was a bit disappointed. But overall it was still a satisfying game, and I had a really good jump at the beginning. It just faded away in the final part of the game. The way the HOF is set up it encourages higher score, so currently my Mali game where I had a domination victory on a huge map is the highest score on there. But I click on history and compare turn times as well. And I was a little disappointed China couldn't compete for science victory better. I thought they could.
     
  5. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,173
    This pretty much. There is no real way to compare even your own wins against each other. Speed and score are the only things we have and they don't really mean that much. Having a slow win after an epic early struggle against your neighbors that you pulled of by the skin of your teeth is often a much more enjoyable game than being in the lead from turn 1 and just cruising to victory in under 300 turns.
     
  6. Banazir864

    Banazir864 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    I mean, if there are no rules other than minimum turns, there are ways to win on turn 1 (by setting a turn limit of one turn and choosing a civ whose starting bonuses are worth points). So you're going to need at least some standards for the competition to be meaningful.
     
  7. kryat

    kryat Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2017
    Messages:
    395
    Gender:
    Male
    There’s really a few different ideas here. I think what’s missing in this discussion is that there are a few different ways to evaluate performance in a game, and it’s really a multi-variate problem:

    Speed: measure of efficiency in a game, and indirectly, an imperfect measure of tactical ability (more efficient wins means that fewer turns were wasted in drawn-out wars). Is strongly a function of difficulty, map size, pursued victory type, and selected civ. Fewer turns can be achieved by higher difficulty and smaller map size. Is also an imperfect measure of strategic quality. More focused strategy will yield faster victories, but that is not the same as having a “better” strategic mind.

    Tactical quality: can’t be measured in normal game mode. A better measure would be playing as generic civs (no leader, nor civ-specific bonuses) on a symmetric map and fought in well-characterized rule set against other players with identical sets of starting units. A higher K/D ratio would be a very good measure under these specific circumstances, but not especially meaningful with imbalanced start conditions.

    Generic skill: not an easy quality to measure, but generally is a function of allowed victory types, selected civ, and map. I would argue that players who have stronger generic skill can win despite handicaps, such as weak starting biases, less obvious uses of civ/leader abilities, and being able to pursue multiple victory types.

    Score: End-game score is only a measure of patience. Strongly a function of map size. More cities, wonders, and researched technologies/civics will increase this. A much more meaningful metric would be score/turn, but again, that would exclusively be a measure of how efficient a player is at doing those particular tasks, and would be a function of map size and selected civ.

    GPT/T: a measure of how invested a player is in maximizing gold output. Function of map size and selected civ.

    You’ll notice the common theme. More map size means more cities are allowed on there board, therefore more of everything is available. And we should just acknowledge that each civilization is geared toward specific win conditions, and therefore, pursuing certain objectives will be easier with some over others. Also, aggressive play is going to be the win-all condition under VI’s rule set because there is very little penalty to conquering, especially conquering quickly and completely.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2019
  8. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,267
    Gender:
    Male
    Well naturally any metric needs to be standardized. It is stupid to compare any kind of performance when players use different settings.

    It hasn't stopped people from trying anyways here though....
     
  9. BTSeven7

    BTSeven7 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    79
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with the OP that the game does lack a “quality” win factor. Score is too easy to exploit and the difficulty of shaving down turns is simply a greater challenge currently. Therefore it becomes to the de facto standard of ability.

    An improved scoring system would go a long way in giving us an alternative to work with, but that would require some serious work to create something “fair”. The variability in game set ups and map generation simply add to much randomness to the whole thing and all civs aren’t created equal. Think of how quickly this would get out of hand...You’d need a mod factor for start location. A mod factor for closeness of CS. A mod factor for starting with Gilgamesh and Aztecs within 12 tiles when playing as England on Diety and then a mod factor for accessible resources, etc.

    I still think the minds of this board could come up with a fun scoring algorithm that would change the way hardcore people play the game and add to replay ability but I doubt will ever agree on “quality”
     
  10. Leucarum

    Leucarum Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2018
    Messages:
    158
    Gender:
    Male
    It feels kind of odd when you get a really easy victory only to be told you scored as much as Ethelred the Unready.

    Apart from the gathering of game statistics involved it would be cool if they just highlighted some comparisons from your game. E.g. You won a culture victory as Pericles 15% faster than most players, or you lost 10% more millitary units as Alexander than most players.
     
  11. ShakaKhan

    ShakaKhan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    806
    I agree strongly with this statement. This is why every SP game I've played since Civ IV's first expansion has been with huts turned off. After my first twenty or so deity wins in civ4, I looked at my HoF, and noted that ALL of the top wins were games in which I popped Bronze Working from a hut, IMO, this is too impactful on the outcome of a game. I'd rather have my "better" wins be due to better decisions and strategy, not because of how lucky I got. Sure, there's always going to be some level of map-luck in a game - in this game, which types of CS's are near you and when you meet them, the quality of the land that you start in for sure, and so on.

    But I don't think I'm alone in the fact that I take a certain degree of pride in the games where I performed better, and this, while completely subjective, may be the best indicator of how well you did, at least in your own opinion. And your own opinion is really all that matters because, let's face it, no one else cares about your victories, but you do quite a bit.

    But back to the original post, I think there's two reasons why # of turns is a better means of evaluating a victory than score. First, and this admittedly is a weak reason in terms of competitiveness, this game, much like the entire series for the most part, starts out incredibly fun because of how open the options are, then becomes even more fun as you unlock and implement the key game mechanics that move you towards a victory, but then becomes incredibly tedious as you progress those advantages towards a victory condition. The late game is absolutely mind-numbing, so much so that I wish there was something like Empire at War's auto-resolve that was unlocked at a certain advantage in the game. I still maintain that due to the tediousness of the late game, someone could make a good living professionally finishing people's games for them. So the reason why turn-time is a better indicator than score is because you're spending a higher percentage of your turns playing the part of the game that is fun, and a lower percentage of the game in what feels like purgatory. As this is a game and the purpose of a game is to have fun, you're making the game behave as a better game by doing so.

    While that may be a weak reason as it doesn't really serve as a litmus test for how well you played (and my interpretation of the "quality of victory" you refer to is based on how well you played), consider this instead. If score is the standard that you're basing the quality of victory, then how would you increase your score? The answer is very simple: delay your victory. Stop building that last spaceship part with one turn left and switch to something else, or don't conquer that last capital but leave it at 0HP and your units surrounding it. Then as the turns progress, your score will increase as your population continues to rise, you build more irrelevant wonders (and districts? I don't know if that impacts score) gain more land through expansion, and so on. The more you delay a victory once it has been more-or-less locked in, the higher your score will be. Aside from the fact that it seems counter-intuitive to equate delaying victory with increasing the quality of that victory, you aren't challenging yourself in any ways by doing so (other than I guess patience.) On the other hand, if you're equating fewer number of turns with quality of victory, then how would you reduce the number of turns needed to achieve victory? The answer here is much harder; but basically it means you need to play better (or not necessarily better in some opinions but rather more efficiently) which is why turn-time is arguably objectively better at determining quality of victory.
     
    TheMeInTeam and Felnius like this.
  12. greenOak

    greenOak Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    37
    I think you guys are getting too hung up on score being score as how is currently in game now. I was thinking more so what got in Civ 4 score, where you'd get big bonuses to it for quick wins.
     
    Socrates99 likes this.
  13. Eliminator_Sr

    Eliminator_Sr Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2016
    Messages:
    566
    Gender:
    Male
    I think it's just for expediency. Players don't want to slog through a bunch of 500 turn games trying to maximize score till the time runs out when they can win easily before turn 150. Sure you can use that as measure of 'best play' but players will automatically steer away from those type of games. I would much rather play more games and win early.

    Also game turns is very easy metric to understand and very intuitive - faster wins mean better play case closed. Score is more complicated and subjective thing to evaluate. What does 'score' actually mean? It's just another arbitrary system defined by Firaxis that might have very little correlation to actual good play.
     
    Trav'ling Canuck likes this.
  14. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,561
    Not speculation at all as far as I am concerned. You take the risks to get a faster game
    It’s your post with quality in the title, you define it.

    I am glad there is no decent measurement, comparing yourself to others is a slippery slope anyway.
    To me a faster game is like playing golf, you are not really playing to beat someone else but you are playing to get a better understanding of how to win fast, that’s all.
    Quality to me is about enjoyment, some of the highest quality games I played I lost.
     
    acluewithout and Infixo like this.
  15. Mr. Shadows

    Mr. Shadows Nomad of the time streams

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Messages:
    536
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Incheon, R.O.K.
    If you want to be competitive without playing multi-player games you have to use finish times as the yard-stick. Wracking up a high score is more about having the patience to grind out a long game on a huge map than it is skill. Once you defeat the AI you can do as you please with the map. I guess you could try to maximize that but it won't be very entertaining.
     
  16. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,267
    Gender:
    Male
    Well true,but it's hard to say considering players that also boast about being able to win on any map or never losing or whatever. I think a lot of these big mouths are lying but I also believe some really skilled players are able to consistently win even when they take risks.

    But it does bring up the issue of the person that just keeps rerolling until they have a godly start and opens builder settler settler; are they really better because they always have good speeds on those maps? Like 2 people could have the exact same build on the same map but yield different results. Should we really say the riskier strategy is "better", say a t160 victory that wins 90% of the time or a 170 victory that wins 99%? Or a t150 that wins 20%?
     
    greenOak likes this.
  17. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,561
    I imagine for a single player playing at home “ better” would mean what ever is more enjoyable.
    Rerolls are important for very many people, if you are going to start on grassland you might as well start again, which is fair comment to a degree.
    Is making a riskier start along the same lines? I think so. If the start turns sour you may as well reroll, not a big issue.
    For others the pure act of always building a warrior first because it is safer makes the game better for them.
    To me it is not rerolling that is a criminal offence here it is making a judgement on the choice of how others choose to play.
    If someone wants to say they always win on deity and never lose a game, you are right, some will have made that grade and some not. I guess it is annoying when you suspect someone is exaggerating.
     
    MaryKB and ShakaKhan like this.
  18. ShakaKhan

    ShakaKhan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    806
    THANK YOU! I beat usually 3 out of 4 deity games I play (maybe it's more like half and selective memory is padding the stats) and I usually win between turn 150 and turn 200. But I must admit that I reroll. Not for a perfect start (I wouldn't disregard a start just because of a grassland start, but I would reroll if there weren't at least 2 tiles with F+P=3 in the first ring and at least 1 tile with F+P=3 in the second ring, or any other tile combination where F+P=9 cumulatively for 3 tiles.) If I didn't reroll, maybe my win % would go down a bit, but more likely it would just take longer to win. And that's the key for me: between working 50 hours a week, trying to be available for the girlfriend, trying (and failing) to have an active social life, keeping in touch with the rest of the family, jui-jitsu, and usually one or two night classes, my civ time is quite limited. Sometimes I can only play for 15 minutes in a day (which is why I could never post in the Civfanatics HoF-they think you cheat if you reload too often) and sometimes it's one day a week. A single game usually takes me at least two weeks, and I've had games go on for more than four months. So if I'm going to commit that much of my civ time to one single game, I want it to be a good game. And like you said, it's not that all good games have to be fast wins or wins at all, but when I a start with all flatland that's two tiles off the coast with no luxuries within 3 tiles, I don't want to commit my limited free time (civ time) to playing out what's inevitably going to be a very tedious game.
     
    MaryKB, WillowBrook and Victoria like this.
  19. MaryKB

    MaryKB Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    1,164
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    United States
    I feel I would judge "quality of victory" by how much fun you had while playing.

    I don't understand why your number of turns would matter at all, unless you're in some sort of tournament or something and that's how you're being ranked. Think of this: if you could win on Turn 1, would you? I've always felt a game like Civilization is where you want to play more turns, not fewer. For me at least, this game is enjoyable while I'm playing and having fun, I'm not looking to get it over with as quickly as I can.

    I don't even play with any victory conditions enabled, I just play until I feel I'm not having fun any more ... I got tired of "accidentally" winning too early, lol. My one regret is you don't get any insight really into how your opponents are doing, I really wish there at least was something like Civ 5's demographics screen where you can see if you're falling behind.
     
    Ondolindë likes this.
  20. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,561
    I would play the same game a few times to understand how different builds help in different situations... like when to build a monument before a settler*.
    This allows you to play at a higher level more effectively if thats what you enjoy.

    * for example when you start in jungle and cannot get the craftmanship eureka
     

Share This Page