QSC Results - Games 21 to date

[Darkness]

To answer Renata's call to start discussions : wouldn't it be useful to ask players to log their targeted victory condition at the start or end of their timeline, if they have one (a target, I mean) ?
Reason is that when going for conquest or

I see a small problem here. For some players (myself included) targeted victory conditions have the tendency to change following game events. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, just that it will probably not be 100% accurate.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

A good new thread would be a discussion on the best display method. I find a blow-by-blow timeline not as helpful as something that splits up by category: scout moves, city builds, research, other key events, etc.

 

[Civgeek]

Have you upgraded your firewall lately? There is a M$ security issue where jpegs can be used to run malicious code on your PC, and the firewall may be stopping them for this reason...

It is up-to-date; and since it doesn't block any other jpegs I'm not going to worry about it too much. I'll just have to remember to disable it when I want to look at these starting poistion graphics.

 

[AlanH]

I see a small problem here. For some players (myself included) targeted victory conditions have the tendency to change following game events. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, just that it will probably not be 100% accurate.

I think he's assuming the info would be in the timeline, not in the tables. If it's in the timeline then changes of mind about target victory condition can be noted there as they happen, maybe even with reasons.

 

[Ambiorix]

I think he's assuming the info would be in the timeline, not in the tables. If it's in the timeline then changes of mind about target victory condition can be noted there as they happen, maybe even with reasons.

Indeed. The tables could of course mention the eventual victory type.
It doesn't have to be a rule : it's a suggestion to people when writing their timeline; I 'd find it useful to know when reading one.

 

[solenoozerec]

Indeed. The tables could of course mention the eventual victory type.

Or just place these tables on the same pages with results.

 

[AlanH]

Your wish is my command, Oh Mighty Warriors :

I've added three columns to really upset all of you with small screens. GOTM results giving condition, Jason score and rank.

 

[solenoozerec]

Thank you, Alan.
Now I unerstand why you said that QSC is no a competition unless you want to stop the game at 1000BC.

 

[jeffelammar]

Meanwhile, let me join all others in congratulating AlanH and others for their fantastic work. This forum is more professionally run than some companies I know !

For that matter it's more professionally run than several of the companies that I've worked at.

 

[AlanH]

Well, I did run a company for a little while. We went bust! Go figure

 

[AlanH]

@Alan - Yes I have the 1000BC files as well. I should have stated that.

I've uploaded and imported your files. Please let me know if you see anything strange about them.

 

[DJMGator13]

Nothing strange. I can see the increased attention I started putting into the games a while back paying off by quicker and stronger finishes.

Just want to encourage our top players to continue (or start for some) to post their timelines.

 

[Civgeek]

I've added three columns to really upset all of you with small screens. GOTM results giving condition, Jason score and rank.

As with anything statistical, this type of analysis could go on for ever, but ..... would it be worth also adding a column with Final Jason Score/QSC Score? This would add a statistical measure of the strength of a particular players end game as well as early play. e.g. two players both with QSC scores of 5,000, but with very different ending Jason scores obvioulsy had divergent games after 1,000 BC. Some of that will be due to victory condition differences, but given the same VC it would be an interesting measure of the strength (or weakness) of play after 1,000 BC. Just a thought .....

 

[AlanH]

Well, I suspect we are diverting attention from analysis of the QSC itself. However, I've added your column as a trial. It's now down to you to tell us if it offers any new insights. If others agree with you I'll keep it. If not it drops into the bit bucket

 

[gozpel]

Is there any info on the breakdown of what pays for what in the QSC? Like, how much is 1 town worth and so on?

It looks like units and production is a bit "over-payed" compared to cities and territory.
But then, I've been wrong before. Many times.

 

[denyd]

I downloaded a spreadsheet quite a few months ago.

Some of the values:
Improvements:
All wonders = 100
Barracks = 20
Temple = 30
Library = 80
Marketplace = 100

Units:
Warrior = 10
Spearman = 20
Swordsman = 55
Horseman = 30
Worker = 30
Slave = 35
Settler = 70
and +5 each vet +10 each *elite +15 each elite
Leader = 100

Techs
All first level techs = 0
Mysticism = 90
Iron Working = 135
Writing = 255
Republic = 679

I'll attach the spreadsheet for you enjoyment

 

[gozpel]

Thanks denyd!

I think it's funny 20 gold is worth as much as one town. Or 30g if you have more than 7 towns. Certainly cities should be of more value than that? Or gold worth less, maybe 1/10.

But ah well, it's so much clearer now

 

[AlanH]

@gozpel: Did you read the discussion thread that was posted when Cracker announced this scoring system? It's also linked on the new results page.

 

[gozpel]

Obviously not

I'm usually partly blind before I got enough coffee in the mornings.

 

[Hannabir]

Is everthing worth the same number of points in every game?
Why is a wonder worth so much less after completion? In COTM4 I have Colossus, Mausoleum, and Forbidden Palace, for just 300 points total, while they cost double the shields to build. But the Pyramids which is not quite done is nearly 400 points.