News: GOTM 08 - Results & Congratulations

[Mastiff_of_Ar]

Mastiff_of_Ar: 1990 AD Conquest Victory, 10,990 points.
.

Wow... For a moment, I thought I'd done something good.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Wow - I jumped from 601 to 360 in the global rankings. It's amazing what actually submitting the game does to your rankings!

LOL!

The trouble with the global rankings is that they (of necessity I guess) include anyone who submitted in any one of the last 9 GOTMs, even if it was 6 games ago, so the lower end of the rankings doesn't tell you much.

The important rankings are, of course, the top, ummm, 115 rankings I think

 

[Thrallia]

and do you just happen to rank in the top 115 rankings?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

and do you just happen to rank in the top 115 rankings?

*whistles innocently*

 

[Mad Professor]

LOL!

The trouble with the global rankings is that they (of necessity I guess) include anyone who submitted in any one of the last 9 GOTMs, even if it was 6 games ago, so the lower end of the rankings doesn't tell you much.

The important rankings are, of course, the top, ummm, 115 rankings I think

You rank at 115 of course. I just checked

Watch out - I'm moving up. I submitted GOTM9 as well!! I didn't win, but based on the leap I made for submitting GOTM8, I should finish up a lot higher than 360 after GOTM9 simply because I submitted it! (Isn't that the way it works?) I should be into the top ten after GOTM10 at that rate. (much sarcasm!)

 

[Mad Professor]

Wow... For a moment, I thought I'd done something good.

Well you scored more highly than I did, and you finished one year earlier. It's just that my victory was space race, and so wasn't the slowest of its kind. Seems to me like you didn't do too badly.

 

[Thrallia]

my global ranking is still in the lower 400s, but that's almost 300 spots above where I was before GOTM8 scores at this rate, after GOTM10, I'll be in the top ten with you, Professor

 

[Obormot]

By the way, I am curious about some things in your game :

- How important were the effects of the slavery bug in your result ? (I am personally reluctant to use it but I wonder how efficient it is ...)

Well, basicly it adds 2.25 hammers per turn to each city's production. That is a very good boost, though propably not gamebreaking. I think that slavery is very poerfull even without the bug, especially at monarch and above when you need more production. Without slavery production is limited by the number of hills which is not very much on archipelago even with rocky climate.

- What was your trading policy with AI ? For instance, did you refuse to trade any tech leading to Feudalism ? (This could explain they went late toward it)

Yes, I didn't trade away monarchy. Don't know how much that helped, the tech pace seemed relatively slow anyway.

- Would you play the same strategy if level was Emperor or higher ? (all other things being equal)

Yes, I think so. Though at emperor I would propably need a lot of catapults for bombardment & mass damage which would have slowed me down quite a bit. I planned to build catapults in this game too, but luckily I faced mainly archers, so they were not necessary.

 

[Ozbenno]

The important rankings are, of course, the top, ummm, 115 rankings I think

I'm sure you meant to say 187!

Anyway nice work to the winners , and thanks to the organisers. It was fun!!

 

[DaviddesJ]

Looks like the concerns that were expressed when the three classes were introduced, that people might feel pressured to play challenger, have definitely turned out not to be a problem: Almost noone played challenger (4 people if I counted right). The challenger class is almost looking redundant.

I played at Challenger but I didn't have time to finish. I definitely appreciated the option and preferred it to the regular game (but, certainly, it's not a huge difference).

 

[The-Hawk]

Btw, there's smth wrong with fastest space, it shoul be Grey Cardinal (1838), current owner's save dates 2029.

Glad you caught this... having gone for spaceship, I sure wouldn't want my speed ranking to be compared to a 250 AD launch! Compared to Grey Cardinal's outstanding time, I ended up 19th in the speed ranking. I sure don't want to think about how it would have compared to 250 AD.

Obormot, congrats on a great "double" win. Most of all, thanks for taking the time to write a final spoiler... very educational.

 

[Khalid]

Gongrats to all, who won the game and especially to Obormot for dominating the sees such quickly. Great game guys.

 

[malekithe]

I have a quick question about the global rankings page, specifically the speed ranking.

Currently, a player's speed ranking does not seem to be affected by whether he played adventurer or not. Is this intentional?

For instance, this month, Jovan Kukic won the fastest conquest, but only managed a 76.244, not the anticipated 100 (as did I, but that's beside the point... ). This is because khalid, who played adventurer, finished earlier than Jovan and scored the full 100. I would have expected khalid's speed score to have been modified in some way to reflect the easier game he played.

 

[AlanH]

Well, I just built it to DaveMW's specifications to save him having to do the hard work every month. I guess you may be right, but I'd prefer to hear from him before changing anything, as I'm no expert on scoring and ranking issues.

 

[DaveMcW]

I think a 85% multiplier for adventurer is enough to balance it out. The improved formula would be:


if (class == adventurer) {
player_turns += 0.0234456 * max_turns
}

fastest_turns = MIN(player_turns_array)

speed_score = 100*(2^(10*(fastest_turns-player_turns)/max_turns))

Spoiler where 0.0234456 comes from :

0.0234456 = log_2(0.85) / (-10)

log_2 cancels out 2^
/10 cancels out 10*
- cancels out -player_turns

*max_turns cancels out /max_turns

The result is a 0.85 multiplier to final score.