POLL: Point systems

[CaptainLost]

I need an answer to this question from the expert civ4 players here at civfanatics. I've often seen/made/used point systems, and some people like them, some hate them, and I want to see the general opinion. Also post your opinion below if you want. Be nice though

 

[JoeyB98]

Play the map. You can't really judge that.

For example. If you get a map with no hills, the dun is flat-out useless. However, if the map is ALL hills, it's amazing.

That's a generalization, of course, but think on it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Play the map. You can't really judge that.

For example. If you get a map with no hills, the dun is flat-out useless. However, if the map is ALL hills, it's amazing.

That's a generalization, of course, but think on it.

You can make a point system that takes situation into account through some kind of Present Value (PV) calculation that evaluates , and outputs and weights them based on the need to balance the 3. For example, you'd get no returns at all for the dun while it costs . That makes it a bad deal compared to, say, another worker which gives you some returns, or building which also does. On the flip side, if it can save a city from being captured and losing a ton of buildings, the returns on it are both immediate and likely strong enough to overpower alternatives.

Making one that could guide effective decision making in high-level civ IV would be a major undertaking, but it's silly to think it's impossible. Decision models are valid in civ IV, but people fail when they design them poorly. Well, I suppose that's true of such models in the general sense .

 

[AW Arcaeca]

Your point system was the only one I ever saw but it just seemed like too much math just to calculate the value of a building the value thereof could differ, depending on your city locations.
Plus, I think we also already know the UBs' values for the most part.

Now, that doesn't mean there can't be any useful point systems out there somewhere. But I would think most point systems wouldn't do much good, so I voted "usually".

 

[CaptainLost]

Thanks for your feedback, guys!

 

[Olson]

You wanted votes from "expert civ players" so you can disregard my "usually" vote as I'm so far from "expert". However, I've been involved in game design (back in the late '70s-early '80s) that saw publication to better than average reviews (not great/not horrible) so I know a thing or two 'bout games and gaming conventions (standards, rules, etc....not the event) not reliant on software.

And, in most cases, scoring is subjective. All scoring is subjective no matter whether its IQ tests, personality tests, ratings, whatever. It depends on the situation. Rank the desirability of: a butter knife, a spoon, and a fork...not possible. I give you a bowl of soup; now rank the desirability of a butter knife, a spoon, and a fork.

As I said in the other thread, ranking is a good mental exercise and a way to become familiar with the game. Depending on your preferred playing style, civ, leader, etc. I'm sure you can come up with an accurate ranking system that fits a fairly narrow set of parameters (ie. standard settings, industrious leader, on a pangea map). But for all possibilities? Not so much. IMHO.

Edit: BTW, sorry about the D2K. ;-o

 

[CaptainLost]

@Olson: why sorry? I think it's cool.
@Whoever voted "What's Civ 4": that's really funny, I didn't expect anyone to vote that...
@Everyone: thanks all for your opinions. It helps a lot. It looks like the general consensus is that point systems are much too general to be used very efficiently. I think I'm going to trash my point system for now, and maybe pick it up later when I might have more time to figure out every variation of trait, map size, speed, difficulty, etc.