Retirement vs. Suicide

[DaveMcW]

For 20 months now, the GOTM has refused to accept incomplete games that end in retirement. But recently some players have discovered a way to get their incomplete games onto the scoreboard anyway. They simply gift away and abandon all their cities, changing the "histographic defeat" into a "conquest defeat".

This loophole seems rather silly. I personally think retired games should be allowed, but I would support banning suicides too if that's the only way to keep the rules consistent.

 

[a space oddity]

The issue here is with the time it requires to play the GOTM. I was lucky enough to finish all my games up to now but it is getting harder each month. It seems to me it is very sour if you invest all that time and not make it by a hair and having no way to get recognized for the effort that was made.
That said, it will make some of the awards meaningless (eg the lowest score awards) and will mess up the results big time. So I would certainly understand if the staff are not going to allow it, in which case the loophole you mention, Dave, should be banned, I agree.

 

[hotrod0823]

I think in progress games should be allowed to be retired. Why only wins and loses. Can't a retirement be handled exactly the same as a "Give away" loss? At whatever point in time you are on the last day you should be able to share your game with the rest of the players. There is no scoring considerations I could see that would benefit the retirement loss any more than the giving away all your cities move that Dave described.

 

[sourboy]

If someone is relatively weak, then the 2 most powerful Civs form an Alliance against them - while being neighbors at that - defeat is inevitable. Why make them suffer through the humiliation just so they can be acknowledged in GOTM ranks? Resigning is a forfeiture.

 

[Dianthus]

Originally posted by sourboy
If someone is relatively weak, then the 2 most powerful Civs form an Alliance against them - while being neighbors at that - defeat is inevitable. Why make them suffer through the humiliation ...

I can understand the point of view of those who have run out of time, and want the time they have spent to be recognised in some form. I don't, however, think people should be encouraged to give up when the going gets tough, just because defeat "looks" inevitable. Often the situation isn't as inevitable as it "looks". Never underestimate the incompetence of the AI! I've seen many games documented here that have been snatched from the jaws of defeat (including my own 1st win last month), and for these the win is all the more satifying.

 

[Yeti]

My guestion is, why was the rule against retiring made in the first place? I'm sure there was a good reason for it.

The only thing I can think of is that it has something to do with being able to get an artificially high score. Maybe retire at what you think is the peak of your empire if you feel you're going into decline? Or perhaps if you have great luck very early on - rush a settler ASAP, plus get lucky on a goodie hut, and retire at 2500BC with 3 cities and that would somehow give you a really good score?

But you don't get the bonus for finishing a game early if you retire, right? So that second scenario at least shouldn't work.

 

[sourboy]

I'm not encouraging quitting. Look at my GOTM21 Spoiler4 thread for proof. I'm just saying that if people choose to quit, they chose a loss, and a loss should count in their GOTM rankings.

Sure they gain a little bit of points that they otherwise wouldn't have had added to their score, but did they not still play the game? Is it not still experience? Did they not learn at least a little bit? I think it's justified.

 

[cracker]

For some players, (no one specific implied) their whole game looks like an attempt to commit suicide.

Sourboy,

Also, you may want to edit your signature and just use one of the software icons and include the version number that matches only the game version that you are currently playing if you look at the GOTM pages and all the info you will see that using both icons just confuses things a tad more than the base level.

At least that way we will know what version you committed suicide on or what vesion you won in.

Good luck in the next game.

 

[sourboy]

Cracker~

1) Just because a player looks like they are attempting suicide the entire game, doesn't mean that's their motive. Where do you draw the line between a 'suicidal' player and a 'bad' player?

At the halfway point of Spoiler1 in GOTM21, it looked like I was committing suicide - and still looked that way thru Spoiler3, but we both know how that one ended. The fact was, I made some (well, a lot) of mistakes and was therefore a 'bad' player - especially compared to the likes of the successful GOTM players in here who play a relatively unflawed game.

Another point is that what if I (though I wouldn't do it in the GOTM, but in my own games on the side) played games only thru the Ancient Age, then retired? Is that suicide? Do you think I care about my Firaxis score? The answer is 'no' - why? Cuz I want to learn how to quickly & effectively make a 'settler factory' so that I can have a more efficient start. I then want to learn to use that 'settler factory' in conjunction with 'RCP' for obvious reasons. :grad: Does that mean my retirement would be foolish? Is the start of the game not the most important part? I would be learning one of the most critical parts of the game, and therefore should be recognized for that. I mean, doesn't that make me better then someone who doesn't play at all?

The GOTM isn't just for advanced players who are trying to get top scores, it's for everyone: to play, to learn, to enjoy. If people are abusing the retirement option to boost their score thru some loophole, handicap their score.

My suggestion: Let retirements count, however, dock them per age. If you retire in the Modern Age, your score is as is. If it happens in the Indust Age, you lose 25%, Middle = 50%, Ancient = 75%. I mean your phasing out the Firaxis score anyway, right? Modify the Jason score in some way to reflect retirements...

I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant, I'm not trying to be a pain. I'm not even one to retire and have this effect me in any way, but I feel that one should give credit where credit is due, win or lose, no matter how minimal it may be. Just my humble opinion.

2) oh and yeah, I've changed my signature 4 times this morning already

 

[Smirk]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
For 20 months now, the GOTM has refused to accept incomplete games that end in retirement. But recently some players have discovered a way to get their incomplete games onto the scoreboard anyway.

I don't know who else did this, but retiring would have been a better solution in my case.

And while many people pointed out that allowing retirement can cause some scoring problems (notably the low end), I doubt any of this will be an issue for the Jason score. But at the same time there are no contraints anyway on getting a low scoring loss. The lowest scoring win is another thing and this would not be affected since retiring is a loss, no matter your score. You do not get any age bonus, all you get is your points, same with all losses.


I'm all for allowing retiring and doubt it will raise any problems with scoring. Naturally someone could retire in 4000BC and lock up the lowest scoring loss, but you can do things just as easily now, and I don't know if people have. The ambulance isn't an coveted award maybe?

 

[MadScot]

Having failed to submit last month due to the Ai not holding UN votes (and not having any way to win in the RL time left) I would have loved to be able to at least mark myself as having participated in the game.

If there's a scoring issue that cannot be resolved, I'd be happy to have the game not count for score - but surely it could count as a "submitted game".

I'm close to the same issue this time round - if the cursed AI would only just stop starting wars and let me finish the game.....

And if you ban suicide, where do you stop? After all, it's easy to see that I suddenly wiped out every city on the last turn. (I did that in the Babylon game, I think, except for staging a last stand in Babylon against the Persian hordes). And I think I've done it before, too. What if I just give away a or two city a turn, and hit the space bar otherwise. It could just look like the AI rolled over me in a proper attack, on the replay.

 

[DaviddesJ]

As one of those who did the city giveaway, I'd definitely rather have a retirement option. Encouraging all of these games to be submitted is more important now that we have tools like the replay viewer, for comparing games. The only reason for the rule against retirement seems to be scoring issues, but these seem moot with the current incarnation of the Jason score.

 

[Phillip_martin]

Playing devil's advocate here I would like to take this discussion to the extreme and suggest that from now on as I am not having much luck in submitting a game in the time given I will download each game and retire on the first turn.

Silly I know but where do we draw the line between helping out a legimate attempt and a statistical anomoly.

Personally I think we should reward those who put the effort in and complete in the time allocated. The score given is secondary.

I am stating this with my own GOTM21 at around 400ad with a few days to go

 

[MadScot]

PM

The problem is that per the current rules it appears I cannot retire. But I could disband my settler before even making a city!

Either ban both, or neither. But if you ban suicide, how do you distinguish between suicide and "accidental death"?

edit: I don't think 'effort' comes into it. Having played nearly 100 hours in the current game and still perhaps 12 turns shy of a launch - which means another 6-12 hours at the current rate - I may not get a victory (or defeat) before the 31st, depending on RL pressures. There's a huge spread in the time of people's games, I don't think the ones with longer or shorter games are making more or less effort.
GOTM 20: 48 hours, could not submit because the AI built the UN first and would not hold a vote.

 

[AlanH]

I agree that there should be a way for a game to be credited if a lot of effort has gone into playing it and time runs out, and I think it would be better if it didn't require an artificial game-play at the end to force a defeat.

I was in this situation last month (and could be again this month if I don't get my finger out). I played the game for many, many hours, and then went for a quick diplo victory at the 11th hour and failed - UN vote stalemate. As it is Cracker took pity on me, I guess, and my game was accepted as a diplo defeat.

I realise now that I could have quickly played through the next 11 turns, then declared war on everyone and held the vote again. That would have given me a painless suicide in the circumstances. But it's an artificial way to end the game when all that had happened was that I had run out of time.

 

[mad-bax]

I have long held the view that retirements whould be allowed. The demands of GOTM are great, and probably worse for the "average" player than those at the extremes of the ability spectrum. Committing suicide is artificial, and some people could make a career out of it. However, IMHO it would not be difficult to make retirement unnattractive, whilst still allowing it as an end game condition. I feel for people that cannot complete a game due to RL restrictions, and this is probably the single greatest barrier to participation left in GOTM.

I am sure the staff have put a lot of thought into how to help those that cannot find 40hours a month to play, but am surprised that some mechanism has not been put in place to help these people.

In short I believe that retirements and sucides should either both be allowed, or both be disallowed. If the latter, then incomplete games should be accepted and the scoring system adapted to account for this. It simply is not fair for someone to devote 40 hours of their life in this endeavour only to get nothing out of it due to RL commitments.

I don't believe it is beyond the ability and imagination of the GOTM staff to accomodate people in this way, and just wish they would get on with it.

[Dismount high horse - exit stage left]

 

[ControlFreak]

I have in the past disbanded all cities and declared war on a nieghbor. (Actually, I may have started this loophole by posting how I did it in spoilers a while back.)

Since then I've manage to complete a few GOTM, but the last two were back to the same old RL time crunch. I submitted nothing for GOTM20 and decided not to bother continuing after the QSC for this GOTM. If there had been a retirement option, I would have put in a considerable effort and been closer to some kind of victory. As it is, I feel that I will probably not be able to complete another GOTM and just plan to do the QSC for each. (Watch my ranking plummet from 29->bottom.)

If retirement becomes an option then I will return to the GOTM competition.

I believe the original reasoning for no retirements is because retirements were considered a win if the histograph was in your favor. Players that had a hundred MA for each civ surrounding their empire could just retire before they lost 90% of their territory. The implied exploit here is you can out expand your neighbors by building only settlers and no military. Once you've taken as much land as there is, retire before their normal armies capture all your undefended towns. Your score would be hugh because you would have lots of territory and population and gold (no maintenance or unit upkeep) but you would have very little "power". That would not change the Jason score. Would you get a bonus for an early finish from the Jason score?

There are several ways to commit suicide and I think some are very difficult to ban. For example, if you do build the UN, as someone said, you can declare war on all and then vote. Conquest losses are also easy to execute by gifting all cities and declaring war with an empty capital. But would be harder to detect if you sent all of your army into the enemy territory but left your cities empty and just pressed enter repeatedly.

I don't think suicides can be banned.

I do think retirements should be allowed to compesate for the discrepancy. I think that there are a few exploits that look to take advantage of the benefits of retirement but they should be minimized with a penalty. I like the 25% vested per age rule but that means a player focused on conquest would have to play longer than a player focused on a fast SS because ages are determined by tech. Any penalty would have some biases and some exploit.

I think the GOTM has already set their precedents for a form of honor system. Perhaps they could create an unfinished catagory for victory conditions and just accept saves that are submitted in any state the day of submission. Any game checked as "Unfinished" would count towards the rankings the same as any game with some modified Jason score, probably penalized for the lack of completion.

END RAMBLING

 

[Hergrom]

Actually, retiremetns would be very easy to score using the Jason scoring system. Simply plug your Firaxis score into the caluculator and set the date for 2050AD, thus emulating a milked victory. In the milked victory, you do not get any bonuses for finish date, so you are only going for the calculated "max score" of the map. In this way, you would get credit for competing in that month's GOTM, and you waould also get some points towards your global ranking, albeit a small amount (as it should be).

Hergrom

 

[ControlFreak]

Originally posted by Hergrom
Actually, retiremetns would be very easy to score using the Jason scoring system. Simply plug your Firaxis score into the caluculator and set the date for 2050AD, thus emulating a milked victory. In the milked victory, you do not get any bonuses for finish date, so you are only going for the calculated "max score" of the map. In this way, you would get credit for competing in that month's GOTM, and you waould also get some points towards your global ranking, albeit a small amount (as it should be).

Hergrom

That definitely sound like the way to go. It would also yield more "milkers" to Karasu's pie charts.

 

[sourboy]

You shouldn't have both. Retirements can be scored if they take the time to allocate a system to retirement games. As far as suicide goes - that's a substitute method of game ending in place of retirement. It's not a question of accept/deny both, it's a question of 'should retirement count?'