Just see here how you did. (GOTM 6)

Matrix

CFC Dinosaur
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 28, 2000
Messages
5,521
Location
Tampere, Finland
<FONT size="4">The results of the GOTM VI are now done!</FONT s>

To the smart guys among us: I've changed the Global Ranking . A new player starts with zero and not the median score. This is changed for past results as well!! And I saw some people discussing my capability as administrator of the GOTM. Well, I made this because I just liked to do it, but take a look at the charts I've made in the Excel file and try to understand the corr1 chart <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>. I hope I've proven myself, if that was required anyway...

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

[This message has been edited by Matrix (edited August 03, 2001).]
 
I don't think anybody doubted you as administrator for the GOTM, (If they did, they should be
Instagib.gif
) just that they had different ideas on how to score things.

Just remember, you can't please everyone all the time. And I think your doing a great job of administrating the GOTM.
biggrin.gif
 
Thanks, Duke! ("Duke" used to my nickname
wink.gif
)

By the way, nice entree.
goodwork.gif


------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/tmp/MatrixBW.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics staff member: Game of the Month administrator & moderator.
 
Can the savegames be downloaded anywhere?

------------------
Chofritz

[ICQ]89176624[/ICQ]
 
To the smart guys among us: I've changed the Global Ranking . A new player starts with zero and not the median score. This is changed for past results as well!!
The whole point of the discussions was to change the formula because it DOESN'T REPRESENT A TRUE RANKING. The formula itself is flawed.
Based on:

(1) Mathematical advice from people who do know what they are talking about

(2) Most people in the threads saying they favoured a best 3 of last 5 or best 4 of last 6 GR system

(3) Philosophical arguments that the site is for everyone and the scoring system should reflect what the participants want,

is there some reason why you didn't change the GR system to the much better 3 of last 5 or best 4 of last 6 GR system? I'll do the number crunching for you if you don't have the time.

And I saw some people discussing my capability as administrator of the GOTM. Well, I made this because I just liked to do it, but take a look at the charts I've made in the Excel file and try to understand the corr1 chart . I hope I've proven myself, if that was required anyway...
The site is a lot more than just the Global Ranking page and you handle the rest of it very well. However, it doesn't follow that flaws in the site shouldn't be fixed because the rest of it is good.
Part of being a capable administrator is being able to take good advice. The advice of Starlifter and myself in relation to the GR system is good, so please take it and improve this section of the site.

Hopefully we'll see an increase in submissions next month. Doesn't the decrease concern you?
 
<FONT size="5"><FONT COLOR="orange">I AM 16th!!!</FONT s></FONT c>

That's a pretty good jump, though it's because a lot of people are on a holiday. Let's try to get even higher next GotM.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/img2/flags-4/europe/NET.GIF" border=0>CFC Official Reviewer<IMG SRC="http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/img2/flags-4/europe/GER.GIF" border=0>
 
Well and I'm 11th!

That's not bad thinking that I still haven't fully understood the Scoring thing and can't take advantages from it.
I played the game as a regular game and this was my mistake. That score can kill a good game very easilly...

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/img1/flags-4/europe/fra.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://jeansebaste.multimania.com/fonttwister/Azz.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/img1/flags-4/europe/gre.gif" border=0>
 
Az,

All I did to get an idea of whether I should finish my game the earliest I could or keep going was use Matrix's excel spreadsheet. It works perfectly to let you check where you're at and what score you might be able to get.

I looked at my GOTM score at 1776, which is when I could have finished the game by conquest and was around a 40. In 100 years I figured I could add 400 points for the spaceship, double my population, finish off the last 6 wonders, add 100 points for peace and my GOTM score would have been around 77. So based on that, I kept going. Otherwise I think I would have stopped in 1776 if I hadn't known.

Hopefully your system allows you to use it.
smile.gif
 
Az, Duke, the whole idea of the GOTM scoring is that you would be able to play a normal game and not play onn till 2019 to increase your score. The part of calculating what turn is best to finish is only for perfectionists and the best guys. You may do that, but I won't since I don't like that.

noughmaster, I took starlifter's advice not to use the median score for people who played for the first time. The fact that I don't use your scoring way is that I just disagree. I don't want GOTM's to be ignored. Also, it's becoming far too ccomplex then. Sure, I can do it with Excel, but it'll go a whole lot slower, the file will increase dramatically in size and it'll take far more time for me to insert new results. And it's fine now!!

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

noughmaster, I took starlifter's advice not to use the median score for people who played for the first time.
It was several other people's advice as well (including mine).
The fact that I don't use your scoring way is that I just disagree.
You have never produced a coherent argument as to why you disagree. I don't mind a robust discussion as long as the people disagreeing with me understand what they are talking about.
I don't want GOTM's to be ignored.
Less people seem to be submitting. It could be a statistical aberration except that several people have commented in threads that they were unhappy and losing interest. I don't believe this is what any of us wants.
Also, it's becoming far too ccomplex then.
No it isn't. The GR system Starlifter and I proposed is far simpler than your current one.
Sure, I can do it with Excel, but it'll go a whole lot slower, the file will increase dramatically in size and it'll take far more time for me to insert new results.
How could it increase much in size? It's the same data with a formula which doesn't even use all of it. If anything, it will be faster. I don't know why you just try throwaway arguments like this. Surely you realise I might know something about programming.
And it's fine now!!
No, it isn't. It's fundamentally flawed. That's what we've been trying to explain to you.
[/quote]
 
Noughmaster - if Matrix need to compare scores from several old GotMs and use them all to calculate the GR, then the file will increase because of the increase in data and it will take him much longer to calculate the GR!!!!!!

And most people agree with Matrix that it works fine as it is, it's you and Starlifter are against, others have agreed partial with you on some part of it but nobody seems to think all that much of it, and certainly not enough to start a major discussion!!!!

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!!!!!!
 
Shadowdale is right. I like the scoring system as it is, and I don't care about the other things. Why make so much trouble for that?

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/img2/flags-4/europe/NET.GIF" border=0> CFC Official Reviewer <IMG SRC="http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/img2/flags-4/europe/GER.GIF" border=0>
 
Noughmaster - if Matrix need to compare scores from several old GotMs and use them all to calculate the GR, then the file will increase because of the increase in data and it will take him much longer to calculate the GR!!!!!!
The current GR formula is a function of the ENTIRE player history, so will therefore require a much bigger file than the proposed alternative.
It is possible to calculate it with just 2 columns, but that would mean deleting information each month and this would make scores difficult to check if somebody thought theirs was wrong.
It can't take anylonger than now to calculate any formula, because the spreadsheet can be set up to do it automatically.
Other people have volunteered to provide a template.
And most people agree with Matrix that it works fine as it is, it's you and Starlifter are against, others have agreed partial with you on some part of it but nobody seems to think all that much of it, and certainly not enough to start a major discussion!!!!
bullfeathers. Most people in the threads agree with us. It is obviously enough to start a major discussion because it has already occurred.
The original discussion began to make a better, fairer scoring system so that everybody would enjoy participating in the GOTM better. If you noticed in other threads, I can readily admit to being wrong when I am, but I'm certainly never going to say I'm wrong if I'm not.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me as long as their disagreements are coherent and well founded, not reactionary "I don't care" or "I don't want to".

"I WON'T do a poo! I WON'T do a poo! I WON'T do a poo!"

 
Starlifter,
Are you around? Care to add comments?
I was starting to think you might have RSI from the cornucopia of recent posts.
 
One thing that might be feasible is a scoring cap.Not a population cap but scoring cap.ie-3000 for small map-5000 for medium-7000 for large.
That might make the artificial score increasing measures that are needed to score well in GotM less vital.


and/or
The finish date modifiers could be tweaked a little.Perhaps more drastic reductions in line with game turn length changes.ie when turns go from 20 years to 10 the multiplier would change more drastically than when 500ad became 520ad for example.
 
Those are great ideas, smash, and they'll hopefully get implemented.... but noughmaster and starlifter's concerns, rightfully, were with the global ranking, as that seems to be the most.... skewed....

Any change for the better would be excellent, though!

Everyone who wants to know more about this should go to the thread "GOTM scoring formula" for some interesting points.
 
One thing that might be feasible is a scoring cap.Not a population cap but scoring cap.ie-3000 for small map-5000 for medium-7000 for large.
That might make the artificial score increasing measures that are needed to score well in GotM less vital.
Now this is exactly the kind of constructive input Starlifter and I were suggesting.

I suppose the scores here are large enough so that the world would be conquered before they were reached if that is what the player wanted.
A problem here is that fast starters will be advantaged over conquerers then world builders because the score will depend much more heavily on the finish date.
and/or
The finish date modifiers could be tweaked a little.Perhaps more drastic reductions in line with game turn length changes.ie when turns go from 20 years to 10 the multiplier would change more drastically than when 500ad became 520ad for example.
You're really talking about the 50^pnp formula here. Alternatives give different weights to early finishers.

There's no reason why some of us can't have these conversations to explore an alternative formula, GR system, then post alternative results.


 
Back
Top Bottom