Scoring Cap!!!

[shadowdale]

Well this has been talkeb about before and I think that we had a poll about it - now that we can make them...

The GotM seems to have become nothing more than a few "top" players trying to get as high a score as fast as possible and there has really come quite a gap between the top 3-4 and most of the other participants.

So my question is should we make a scoring cap for the GotM - say:

2000 on small maps
4000 on medium maps
6000 on large maps

These are only suggestions not final sollutions but I think that this will change the way some of us play the game and it will allow more players to be in the race for the metal!!!

I'll use the until my comes back

 

[Smash]

I am most definitely down with this.The games have become HoF type stuff now and that is not good.
As far as a speed race goes..well that is exactly what we have now.A race to to the boring,tedious part of building a high score.We don't need a 500 mile race when a 10 mile one will do.
I fear the current system will drive players away as medals may seem unreachable due to time constraints if nothing else.

Maybe I should also mention how slow spaceships exploit the system even further.If you can launch before turns reach 1 year increments you can get many "extra" turns.
ie:I launch a 50 year SS in 1000AD.Now I get 50 turns at 1 year a piece.Normally 50 turns at 1000ad would take me to 1500ad or whatever.With the slow SS,I'm only at 1050AD.

 

[Matrix]

Hmm... I see my power beginning to fade here...

No, to be honest I was always thinking such a poll system would be handy.

But to the subject: I voted "no". I think there is also a very big difference in skill between these best guys and the others and it's not bad when that's visible.

I think there is a tendency to undo everything that is significant. In this case: just because there is a significant difference between those best guys and others, doesn't mean automatically that something should be done to undo that.

 

[shadowdale]

Well MAtrix - the difference in skill will still be visible - but it won't be the score but how fast they accomplish it and that I think should be more the test of the GotM - because everybody can get the super high scores - all it takes is time and patience.

With a scoring cap we would still compete but we wouldn't need to make those huge build-up games but could concentrate on how fast we could readh a certain scoreing limit.

 

[Matrix]

We posted at the same time, Smash.

Originally posted by Smash
Maybe I should also mention how slow spaceships exploit the system even further.If you can launch before turns reach 1 year increments you can get many "extra" turns.
ie:I launch a 50 year SS in 1000AD.Now I get 50 turns at 1 year a piece.Normally 50 turns at 1000ad would take me to 1500ad or whatever.With the slow SS,I'm only at 1050AD.

No offence, but what has this to do with the discussion about the scoring cap?

 

[shadowdale]

I will give players a lot of extra time to perfect their Civ so that their score will become extra high and given the fact that they will still finish the game quickly (in terms of turns used) they will get a very high GotM score.

If there was a scoring Cap then they wouldn't launch that kind of slow SS because they wouldn't need the extra time to improve their Civ so much.

 

[Smash]

well..it is a technique for building a high GotM score that is impossible to overcome for a conquer game.And this is how many of these scores are being done.
To me..thats shows something.The game is not being played "fairly" for fun anymore.
as shadow said,the better the player,the sooner the caps will be reached.Earlier skillful finishes,by SS or conquest,will be considered better than a late game,1 city left "we love" fest.And with a reasonable cap,conquer games will have a shot without a bunch of artificial score building.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

A cap seems like a good idea to me.

 

[shadowdale]

I think that you should all take a look at the results from last months Game - the only players that exceeded the suggested scoring cap by more than a few hundreds, where the top four players - and I don't think that this is what we want nor had in mind when we first began the GotM.

I know that I am one of the worst players at doing this because that is how I usually play a game - but I think that a scoring cap would be a good idea - and it would put a limit to how high a GotM score you could get!!

 

[Kev]

I have to agree that a scoring limit could make the GOTM's a bit more interesting. I totally bailed out of the large, world map early because I just couldn't take the prospect of changing all of that territory to squeeze out a score. The same is holding true for the most recent warlord game.

I think that this could also help the possibility of having large maps. With a scoring limit, people would not feel so compelled to spend the hours tweaking their scores, and would lead to people being better able to finish these maps.

What could it hurt to give it a try during a month or two?

 

[noughmaster]

I agree with the scoring cap in principle, but how do we administer it?
Suppose the cap is 6000 and a player reaches 5950 in the year 1776, then in 1778 reaches 6030. Do we say that they have 6000 in 1778, retire them and calculate the GOTM score?
I think this is OK.

The scoring cap is better than a cap on the number of cities because it is more flexible: people can have some big cities or lots of smaller cities. Although, I think an occasional city cap game eg. 10 cities or 20 cities might be interesting.

A comment on Shadowdale's cap suggestions:
There are certain point scoring things people will do on any map: all the wonders, the SS, some future tech, peace. The number of cities on a large map shouldn't be 3 times that for a small map, so I think the caps need raising for the smaller maps. Remember that 3000 points is only about 40 good cities plus a few smaller ones. A lot of cities will come from conquest. I don't think there should ever be a need for anyone to go over 6000 points. About 100 cities will achieve this. If you can get 100 cities, then you can get 255 with extra time, but what for? I only did it in the last game because I wanted to get a medal (and I didn't even get one !cry!).

FWIW, here are my suggestions for the cap:

small map: 3000
medium map: 4500
large map: 6000

 

[Smash]

hmmmm...I think you could just use the finish date and score.If the score is over 6000(or whatever) then you are awarded 6000.
A game would have to be finished though.Not just a race to 6000 points.

A tie could be interesting to figure out,however unlikely.

 

[noughmaster]

I just looked at the scoring cap poll. Although only 10 people have voted, it seems from this and reading comments in other threads that most people will be for it.
Should we have a poll to choose between a couple of scoring caps eg. (2000,4000,6000) vs. (3000,4500,6000) and start in GOTM9?
I'm actually looking forward to the idea now. It will be a different game plan. A lot more perfectionist. Farming was starting to give me the shits.

BTW, where did my phalanx icon go? Does anybody know how I can get it back?

 

[Smash]

at the top you'll see a "user cp" button.I assume this means control panel.From there,it is in edit options,at the bottom "change avatar"

 

[noughmaster]

A game would have to be finished though. Not just a race to 6000 points.

This would be quite hard to judge. It makes it easier for the more mathematically minded players like Starlifter and I. I suppose that if somebody lands and gets 6400 points, we could still cut it back to 6000.
Suppose someone founds a lot of cities and starts using WLTPD. If they don't plan carefully around the cap, starting about 50 turns from the end, they could easily end up with > 7000 when their SS arrives. They'll still get 6000 points and I think this is fair. I suppose they could just go out of WLTPD when their score hits 5500.
Forcing people to finish might be a good thing: it will teach everybody more about the different stages of planning in a game and make us all better players.

I think a useful tactic here will be to grow the civ as fast as possible to about 5000 points, then use the big cities for fast production of science and the SS.

A consideration: what is the luxury rate for determining the score? Should we set a base rate eg. 30%, 100%?
I suppose it doesn't matter. If people develop a 6000 score at 20% lux before sending the SS, the extra score from raising lux to 100% won't count. Getting 6000 with lux 100% means you have a smaller population, so probably finished faster. I suppose we should leave this up to the player to work out.

 

[starlifter]

Wow, talk about an "instant thread!" This grew from zero to >poof< in one day!

It's good to see some thought into alternative ideas for the GOTM... I've been beating a drum about the score disparities in other threads from time to time. I'm personally not that concerned about how much time it takes for the top 5 or 10 players (though it would be nice to reduce it somewhat), but the impact on the newer and lower scoring people that may be somewhat discouraged or intimidated by it and opt out of the GOTM althgher, when it is really meant to be a fun promotional thing. That means, to me, that the more people that participate, the better. But I think that some people have a look and think something akin "Shoot, I can't win so why bother". And I think that hurts the GOTM overall.

I'm not sure what the exact answer should be, but as I've suggested in many very long posts, a good starting point is expanded "recognition" awards (the "star" awards), and perhaps different allowable styles of play. Maybe even requiring the top scorer or top 3 to play a different style in the following month. Or the scoring cap. Or perhaps even a "handicap" rating. Or a couple divisions... the Newcomers division (those with two or less games) and Regular Division and Masters Division. I can hear Matrix cringing already, poor guy, but these are just a wide range of suggestions, starting points, etc.

Maybe I should also mention how slow spaceships exploit the system even further. If you can launch before turns reach 1 year increments you can get many "extra" turns. ie:I launch a 50 year SS in 1000AD.Now I get 50 turns at 1 year a piece.Normally 50 turns at 1000ad would take me to 1500ad or whatever.With the slow SS,I'm only at 1050AD.

I made some very long and detailed and even mathematical posts about this, and exactly how to fix it, when I first joined last June. As I recall, the answer was that this had been considered way back when the GOTMs were set up, and that it was an equally applicable manifestation.

by Shadowdale:

I think that you should all take a look at the results from last months Game - the only players that exceeded the suggested scoring cap by more than a few hundreds, where the top four players - and I don't think that this is what we want nor had in mind when we first began the GotM.

??? I was not around back then, but I don't know what you mean by I don't think that this is what ... had in mind when we first began the GotM. It is my presumption that the objective was to obtain a high GOTM score, when I was reading the posts last June.

Be that as it may, the real problem, such as it is, is not so much the time issue. It is the overall good of the GOTM as I've been suggesting for several months. If any of us really sat down with extra time, we can crush even the scores that have been posted so far.... I've computed several realistic variations that could boost a score into the 700 range, for instance. Last month, a 14,000 score could have been attained by at least 10 players if they (presumably) had the time (or are aware of the mechanics of doing it).

But once again, all the adieu of this thread really should also be addressed to the overall good of the GOTM members as a whole, and not just the top scorers.

The way I see it, you can close the gap logarithmically (mathematically), or with parallel games at different difficulty levels (deity for top scorers), or by making a cap, or by having some people sit out or play different styles.

Increased participation and keeping interest of people is important, too. This can most readily be addressed by expanding awards and/or recognition. Three medals and two stars that only about 10 people have a shot at is not too encouraging for the bulk of the 40 to 90 players.

Categories, or divisions, is another way of creating opportunity for more players. Maybe a newbie division, regular division, and expert division... or something along those lines. For you Europeans, you know how football (soccer) is played... and how the divisions work and teams move up and down. Maybe that can somehow be adapted into the GOTM.

Well, there is a bunch of ideas. I'm more of an analytical type, but maybe some others can give a some left-side of the brain input. Maybe these will all work, maybe none will... but the best overall interest of the masses of the GOTM players, and those that lurk and still hesitate to play, should be considered as paramount.

 

[Chofritz]

Would scoring caps prevent people from using the slow SS trick?

BTW I voted for scoring caps....

 

[starlifter]

This will be a short post (right!)... and separate from my prior long one for emphasis.

The real issue which more people are beginning to recognize is that there is an underlying, or at least objection, to the current GOTM system. While the scoring cap suggestion is an idea, it is technically a faulty delimna, because it pretty much the only solution presented to a problem incompletely described.

While I personally don't mind playing any variation of Civ II, it is my general feeling that legislating rules such as flat caps will pretty much alter the fundamental play of the game for anyone that wishes to attempt a medal. But the real issue is not the top few. It is generating and keeping interest and participation in the GOTM as a whole... most are not scoring 6,000 as it is anyway.

Just as the game itself has more than one path to "victory" built in, there should be more than one path to "victory" in the GOTM... or at least to some sort of recognition for more people.

For example, for some people, scoring their first 1000% game is a big victory. That can be a an important milestone. For others, just surviving to the end of a Deity game is a big accomplishment. Yet in the current system, a GOTM score of 1.2 points almost insults it. So maybe a GOTM Deity Survivor Award for all those who survive their first game at that level.

Yes, this stuff all takes a little thought, and also some more end of month work... but when you consider that what this thread's topic about is essentially creating a new Civ II game for the "Elite Club" of the "top" few players, then you have defacto created a new division anyway.... and the new division and rules start where the cap takes effect.

So since the "top" few players are playing according to a new set of rules (everyone else is playing by the "regular" rules) for any major changes like a cap, we might as well consider options like scraping those players off, and then moving the "regular rules" players to their own division, complete with medals!

One more point, FWIW. If I were a new Civ II player (maybe struggling at Prince or King), reading this thread and deciding whether or not to play for a possible reward of 3 medals, I would think not much consideration is being given to the majority of GOTM participants. I'm not suggesting that 17 Gold Medals need be passed out every month, but somehow there should be some sort of strata that could make it at least concieveable for almost anyone to have a shot at some kind of award every month.

The truth is the Caps idea is a major game change that is fine to contemplate, but it is limited in scope and does not address or help the vast majority of not only current GOTM participants, but those who are considering particpating and those who may not play again after one or two games of getting pummeled primarily by players who normally only play Deity anyway.

OK, I'll keep this post shorter, as promised ...

 

[willemvanoranje]

We need a CAP for sure.

 

[shadowdale]

Well I disagree with you Starlifter - the reason why I made this thread and poll is because the GotM has developed into a competition on who has the most time to play the game and not a game of skills and the friendly competition as it was initially thought.

I don’t think that dividing the players into divisions will be a very good idea – not only will this be a lot more work, but the mere thought about elite players, good players and regular players gives me the creeps – I hate to classify others into groups based on how good they are at a game – it’s a friendly competition for God sake……

With a scoring cap - which I think is a very good solution; there won't be any reason to spend endless hours playing a game, just to win a medal. Since the players that are currently winning will probably keep winning they will just not get as high a GotM score and it will more be a test of how fast the can get the score and not now much time they want to use micromanaging their Civ!!

I really hope that the scoring Cap will become part of the GotM, because I think that is really something that we need - and I know that I have talked with several others about this problem before and it has been mentioned in other threads. But now that we have this new poll thing we can finally see just how the players feel.

I think that it would be good to have some extra awards but I can’t see any suggestions to what those awards should be – well not any that I would consider serious anyway, but that is up to Matrix to decide.

Chofrtiz: Yes I truly believe that it will stop most players from using the SS time trick - at least not in the extend that it can be used under the current rules, as they will most likely have no need to use it because they will probably reach the scoring cap within the span of the normal game turns.