Milking your score

[Ribannah]

Does milking require skill and planning? Yes.
But so does playing Civ4 while standing on your head. To me, the second is slightly more appealing.

 

[whb]

The competition is not between players and the game, but between the players themselves. The GOTMs are set up so that most players will win, no matter the level.

Is that always true? I rather hoped we might get some higher level GOTMs too (monarch, emperor, etc) in which case I'd not be sure I'd win against the AI, and judging by GOTM1 I seem to be a fairly middle-ranking player here, and one that's not too fussed about competing for the highest milked score.

If you feel that there is merit in reporting and awarding quickest real time victories, why don't you accumulate those awards and report them? This is how the 'shield' awards were started (by PhilipMartin), and if they prove popular the staff may pick it up.

A good thought, but I'm hoping that the discussion here (and the interest already shown in one of the faster GOTM1 wins) will encourage the mods to put the line in the script already - if you're looking to find the speediest spaceship/diplo/etc wins, then appropriate icons on the results list are much more useful than a post from me buried somewhere in one of the pages of the results thread. And, let's face it, more accurate - my eyeballs may miss a few candidates whereas an extra line in the SQL won't.

 

[solenoozerec]

@whb - Read the quote your are using: "...most players will win, no matter the level."
I am sure we'll have higher levels. But it is likely that the game will be setup so, that on deity it will be easier than average deity and on noble it will be harder than average noble.

 

[civ_steve]

Exactly! The higher level games will be modded to have better access to resources and extra food - the lower level games usually find resources hard to find and extra food nonexistent. Players don't like to lose all the time at the higher levels, and there needs to be more difficulties to overcome at the lower levels to make the game interesting. CIV Gotm is just starting, but the appropriate amount of tweaking to make games challenging but winnable by the majority will be determined.

I've noted that my game time has dropped from 50-60 hours typically (real time) to about 12-18 hours. This is partly due to a faster computer and the rest due to refining my approaches and strategies to the game. I'm concerned that a competition just for fastest real time submittals would encourage mid-level players to just play for speed and not give them the time to learn the tactics to improve their overall game, an important side aspect (IMO) of running the GOTMs.

 

[Zhahz]

Anyone who knows the game well enough and has the skill to dominate the game to the point of being able to milk score as described would score high in any type of scoring system - just because they're excellent players.

I don't particularly like the concept of milking for score as it seems to go against the theme of the game but since the scoring system for Civ IV is beyond pathetic and has probably seen all of 15 minutes of design consideration it's not the fault of any player that milking exists.

The bottom line is that the scoring system in Civ IV is very poorly thought out and generally pathetic.

 

[jar2574]

The bottom line is that the scoring system in Civ IV is very poorly thought out and generally pathetic.

Agreed. And therein lies the root of our problems.

The enormous differences between the scores you can reach in space ship / cultural victories versus the other victories needs to be adjusted.

 

[solenoozerec]

...would score high in any type of scoring system - just because they're excellent players.

In other words, good players who pursue high score will adapt to a playing style that guarantees them a good score. This means that a scoring system determines (at least to some extent) the playing style of the best players.

We can influence this by changing a scoring system. But how to decide what playing style should be rewarded by a scoring system, when there is such a huge difference in opinions amongst players?

 

[Mmmm Butter]

This was my second GOTM, and I also submitted a few HOF games recently. I read every post in this thread. I can't understand the argument against a milking strategy to get a higher score. It's a strategy. That's why, if one might take a look at the HOF tables, there's a line for highest scores, and lines for quickest victories of each type. If people are going to complain about milking for high scores, then play your own randomly generated games for other victory types and try to, I dunno, launch a space ship in the ancient age.

It's weird to read these posts saying that milking your score is the wrong thing to do, or that it doesn't take any skill. The same people turn around and say they don't care about their score or recognition when submitting GOTM, well, why do care about the other players?

As far as the "skill" stuff goes, those comments sound like sour grapes to me. People saying it's not hard, and it's wrong, are probably the same people who can't seem to break the 100,000 point mark.

All the games I submitted to the HOF recently were diplomatic victories, and I'd like to think they're not too shabby. I think my monarch game was won in 1370, and emperor around 1400. But I've yet to break 100,000 points -- let alone 200,000 -- because I've yet to learn that strategy. Going for score is just like going for another victory type, and it takes the same planning as any of the rest.

I dunno, just seeing people say they aren't competitive about GOTM, yet criticizing the people who do well, doesn't make any sense on any level.

 

[Ribannah]

The same people turn around and say they don't care about their score or recognition when submitting GOTM, well, why do care about the other players?

I'm not so sure that these are the same people, but note what Spoony said:

Milking is one thing that will help me get better in this competition

So, what happens is that more and more players will milk, leaving the non-milkers with nothing to compare their game to.

 

[Obormot]

Going for score is just like going for another victory type, and it takes the same planning as any of the rest.

That's right, that's why i think we should officially rank FF and milking equally (in the GPR, on the news page, etc ).

 

[al_thor]

I just can't bring myself to do it. Concentrating my efforts towards a SINGLE goal in a game of civ. It's just not in my nature. My GOTM scores (always in the middle) reflect this.

My orientation is this: I can't stand losing IN ANY CATEGORY to the AI. I strive to be number one in EVERYTHING (Culture, population, tech, military, land area, cash, wonders, score, etc). There are (obviously) inherent "problems" with this, most notably the score as compared to others. Does it bother me? No. I get great satisfaction knowing that I am number 1 in every single aspect of the game - I have beat the AI at it's own game. For instance, it is EXTREMELY rare that the AI will EVER take one of my cities, even for one turn. It just doesn't happen.

So I don't do the "milking" and I don't do the quick domination/conquest. My play style doesn't lend itself to any sort of "quick" or early victory condition.

Unfortunately, my games almost always end with Space or Diplo victories It gets a bit boring, but I just can't seem to bring myself to change my playstyle. If only the game or even GOTM had some sort of other victory condition. Like maybe: If you lead in EVERY category (land area, population, culture, maybe some others) at a certain date (maybe like 1900AD or something), you could be presented with a choice: continue playing or accept "best well-rounded civ" victory condition.

Alas, I know that is wishful thinking, and so I must continue to play as it suits me, and that's fine, as like I mentioned, I enjoy the battle to become the World Leader in all aspects of the game.

 

[Smirk]

The problem seems to be that the scoring system mimics a useful system the gotm community created for Civ3, however the game was changed in fundamental ways so such a score system no longer seems to fit.

In Civ3 land and population and thus cities were all the real power there was to be had so every good game had lots of those things. This is true to a more limited degree in Civ4 so the differences are now becoming even more clear than they were in Civ3. Although this difference existed in Civ3 as well, no one cared enough to reexamine the fact that fast domination was the only important game strategy to get medals.

The score table in Civ4 is no different than Civ3, the fastest finishes were not medal winners, were often significantly lower scored and were basically a separate (barely acknowledged) event in of themselves.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I've noted that my game time has dropped from 50-60 hours typically (real time) to about 12-18 hours. This is partly due to a faster computer and the rest due to refining my approaches and strategies to the game. I'm concerned that a competition just for fastest real time submittals would encourage mid-level players to just play for speed and not give them the time to learn the tactics to improve their overall game, an important side aspect (IMO) of running the GOTMs.

I agree with your assesment for the real time games, though if there is a big enough following it should be done. I don't like it because computer speed can be the dominate factor. It is one I would never compete in. There is a reason I don't play the real time games - I have kids and get work related calls at all hours of the day, to include weekends. Even in Civ the game time I submit and the game time I played are never the same.

It is always a debate for me to go for a fastest finish or score. In Civ 3 I started by going for score and then played for a while going after fastest finishes. This time I'm trying the reverse.

 

[DaveMcW]

Realtime speed and reloading go hand in hand.

For legitimate players, it pays to save & quit as often as allowed so the clock doesn't tick while you consider strategy.

For cheaters, the short game and power of map knowledge makes replaying the start very beneficial. I don't think we should encourage them by giving out awards.

 

[AlanH]

GOTM has always encouraged a thoughtful approach to the game, which is not compatible with giving awards for fast play. If you finish your game in fewer turns than everyone else you will win a fastest victory award. Surely that's the real the mark of an efficiently played game.

DaveMcW is also correct. Submissions that are played for minimum elapsed time will have to be examined carefully by the staff because they will bear a lot of the hallmarks of an excessively reloaded game.

 

[The-Hawk]

No scorn or derision here either, Shillen's no-nonsense breakdowns have been a huge aid to my play, and inspired me to begin HoF submissions.

I agree 100%. I really appreciate when "A" players take the time to share their tricks of the trade. Even if I never try to win a GOTM by milking, I learned a lot from Shillen's posts . Just like I've learned a lot from posts of people who can get a domination win 200 years before me.

Personally, I like to be challenged with new ideas, strategies, and things to try. Just like Moonsinger's strategy article on rapid deity wins inspired me to get out of my comfort zone and try aggressive warmongering, the milking discussion provides something else to try. Who knows, maybe milking won't be my cup of tea, but then again, maybe someday I'll take a crack at a GOTM score win too.

This game provides tons of options, that's it source of appeal. I'm pretty sure what floats one person's boat will not float everyone else's boat... no reason for folks to get worked up over it.

 

[JerichoHill]

I'm glad this sparked conversation, but I also want to second the last post.

Shillen, and others, Harroken, for one, have helped me drastically improve my game. For that, I am very thankful. I asked about milking because, while I might do it, I wanted to learn what it is, how to do, and how I might learn something from it.

 

[Orca]

I find it very odd that you have to play worse than you can in GOTMs to get a higher score and a better rating. To talk of skill in this context looks weird from my point of view, where is the skill if you have to delay your victory ? I think everybody can do this - huh. It comes down to who can abuse the scoring system best - have I already said that i find that silly ...
I would favour earliest finish dates to be declared the victors.

 

[whb]

If you finish your game in fewer turns than everyone else you will win a fastest victory award. Surely that's the real the mark of an efficiently played game.

Not if those turns each involve a hideous amount of micromanagement - of which manually controlling each worker is the most common example in Civ4. It's something I, and a bunch of others here it seems, flat out refuse to do because the game no longer becomes fun - it is slow, dull, and is the laborious application of a known low-level tactic for an incremental advantage. Which is a pest in a strategy game. It's also at odds with the idea of running an empire - an emperor/president should not be personally instructing every roadworker or personally initiating every farm project.

I take the point that difficulties with reloading (and particularly with taking your thinking time off-line) mean that a simple hours-on-the-clock measure won't be practicable if it gets competitive, but I'm not convinced we cannot come up with a suitable measure of the least-manual-effort (rather than least-thought) win.

At a first instance, we can limit eligibility for the award to games with fewer than X sessions. A cheap-and-cheerful interim measure. Say X=10 should do the trick for most games.

To do a least-effort-win award properly however, it seems it would require a specific mod or patch. What would be needed is a measure of the "command count". (# Changes in production, # manual troop orders, # manual changes in city-worked-tiles, # governor setting changes, # diplomatic proposals made, etc). This would be immune to reloading because you still have to make the commands. Similarly there would be no penalty on thought, or on non-command interactions (opening the F4 screen). Pre-knowledge of the map could still be a problem, but it is a problem in any of the competitive awards. It would be comparative within the victory types, but not between them (Culture-wins would have fewer command entries than dominations).

By it's nature it is likely to solely recognise high-level strategy (go for quick libraries, for lots of GPs to get ahead in the science race) rather than low level tactics (time your forest chops to X formula). It would also be the only award to recognise sensible and thoughtful use of automation in your strategies. It's very much a management skill (managing subordinate decision-makers) rather than a micromanagement skill (doing everything yourself no matter how tiny), and would be a novel and interesting additioon to the GOTM.

 

[Shillen]

I contend that the majority of people enjoy controlling their workers, at least until the advent of railroads and there being nothing left to improve. I know I don't control my workers merely for the better performance. I think it's a huge aspect of the strategy of the game. I don't consider it micromanagement any more than picking which unit to attack with first in a stack. Although I would assume that you just highlight all your units and use the stack attack option, since controlling each unit is too much effort and not fun.