Scoring Cap!!!

[noughmaster]

By Starlifter:

Since we were playing a relatively easy level on a known map, and based on the posts that several very good players made (e.g., Kev, noughmaster, Smash, etc.), I was personally very surprised to see that my 11,000 was a top 3 score, much less the top score. If you go back and read the threads, I even stated what I computed to be the target score (IMHO)... about 14,000.

Yes, I posted at the start of GOTM7 asking if anyone was prepared to go for 16,000, which I think is the best possible score on the world map.
I just got bored, basically. I also ran out of time, so I settled for 8010 points. I wish I'd actually read old threads more closely; I didn't realise that game turns was not always used to calculate the GOTM score, hence the slow SS trick.
I could have landed by 1650 if I had known, giving me a bronze medal.

By Chofritz:

Some suggestions for awards:
Achievement of the month. This award goes to someone that does very well compared to earlier results.

Can I have this award for GOTM7?

My results:
GOTM5 -> 14
GOTM6 -> 20
GOTM7 -> 189

Although, GOTM5 was a little unfair since I didn't know the early finish bonus score wasn't used. I could have farmed and got > 100.

I think the top 3 will usually come from a small group of 6 or 7 people, but this is the same in most competitions and I don't see anything wrong with it. Less experienced / able players aim for different results: a gotm > 50 maybe, or a top 10 finish. One of my goals of playing GOTMs was to improve and I think I have (I don't think my GOTM6 score reflects my true ability). I know I'm not the best player on this site, but I do feel I'm in the top 10. I'll prove it after the next couple of GOTMs. I might even occasionally win a medal. For me, these are realistic goals and I am happy with them. Other players have their own goals, so I don't see the problem with the same players winning all the time: it's up to everyone else to get better.

It's good to have better players to compete against, even if you know you won't win, as long as they discuss their game play with everyone. Starlifter and Smash do. I try to post new things I've learnt. But Shadowdale, I've noticed that you don't very much. I'd like to discuss the theory of starting. As the player with the best starts, your contributions would be useful.
Maybe the good players can post details of their first 100 turns in GOTM9 at the end of October and we can all discuss them. This would go a long way toward the "friendly" forum originally intended.

It looks like we'll have a scoring cap in GOTM9 (if the poll is anything to go by). I wouldn't mind giving it a try. Yes, it will alter game play a bit, but not much if the caps are high. If you can found 100 cities, you'll conquer the world before then anyway, so I don't see any great difference. Just build 3 or 4 engineers per city, farm and launch the SS. Same thing as with 255 cities. If you can't launch a SS before you get to 4000 points, you're doing something wrong. Just plan the flight time right and you should be able to grow to 6000 before it lands.

People only get higher scores than 6000 because they delay the launch in some way. If you finish with 6000 points in 1750, it's always better than 6000 points in 1850. Any game (cap or not) is a race to 4000, 5000 or 6000 points anyway. There are slight variations in early / late growth, but generally speaking, if you get to a high score like 5000 or 6000 first, you should be able to win a non capped GOTM as well.

In summary: caps are a good thing if they are sufficiently high and people are required to finish the game.

 

[starlifter]

...
Any game (cap or not) is a race to 4000, 5000 or 6000 points anyway. There are slight variations in early / late growth,
...

Sorry, that's not accurate. While true in some games, and/or some playing strategies, it is certainly not even a general truism.

A cap race create a dual-rules GOTM. Those that will not reach the cap can play the game as it is designed and intended. Those that will cap out must conform to a new set of rules that the rest of the GOTM players will not play by. Several normal (and often quite effective) strategies are eliminated with making any arbitrary cap.

Further, the choice of cap value will further eliminate options and avenues of normal Civ II play. In essense, a cap forces playing styles to converge and eliminates diversity and free thinking.

Finally, both Star awards will be eliminated with a cap system, and the entire 50^PNP concept is down the tubes. See Chofritz' post and some of my prior posts.

So what is the elite scoring system going to be with a cap? Since everyone will have the same score (exactly like the reason the "Flat Score" is not used for an early finish, BTW!), the only variable is finishing year I presume? So we are having a flat-out race for completion year with the cap value? And yet the bulk of the GOTM participants are playing a "normal" Civ II game?

...
Yes, it will alter game play a bit, but not much if the caps are high. If you can found 100 cities, you'll conquer the world before then anyway, so I don't see any great difference.

While your intentions are probably good, do you realize how absurd it is to legislate the details of how to play a game of Civ II? If the intent is to limit the game to 100 cities, then propose a 100 city limit. If the object is to conquer the world, then make it bloodlust. If the object is to save some people a few hours of gameplay, then put an hour timelimit on it... or shorten the time frame to a week, or 1 day. Maybe call it the GOTW Game of the Week or GOTD (Game of the Day).

In short, don't throw a bunch of crap up in the air and hope some of it sticks on the walls. If there is an issue that needs addressing, address it. LOL, don't presume to speak for anyone else's style of play.

Just build 3 or 4 engineers per city, farm and launch the SS. Same thing as with 255 cities. If you can't launch a SS before you get to 4000 points, you're doing something wrong. Just plan the flight time right and you should be able to grow to 6000 before it lands.

So Civ II has become a game of timing one's playing to hit 6,000 as a SS lands? How utterly absurd! Not a game of conquest, not a game of strategys, not a game of growth, not a even a game that can be freely played... in short, that's not Civilization II -- by a long shot.

All the other fallacies aside, what I still don't see is a reason to pervert and pollute the game of Civilization II this way.

In summary: caps are a good thing if they are sufficiently high and people are required to finish the game.

Again... WHY?? Why on earth distort the game with any regulatory restrictions like this on it?

Maybe we simply need to have 2 GOTMs, one called "Capped and Trapped", and another called "Civilization II".

 

[Matrix]

Starlifter, as you seem to be unable to limit your post, you should read my PM (which I'll send in a minute).

Furthermore, there is one negative aspect of a score cap: the blue star award will disappear. There are a few people who like to try to get a high score. It would be a shame to deny them the advantage for the GOTM score for getting one.

There is ofcourse also the ability to make the GOTM formula even more complex to make the effect of a higher score less. The higher your score, the less effect it has per point.

For the mathematicians among us: this could lead to something where the GOTM score is not simply proportional to the normal score, but to the square root of the normal score. Or we can make a score limit (sort of cap) by using a formula like GOTM_score=score_limit*(1-1/(1+normal_score)).

The negative aspect of this however is that you will miss an overview of your GOTM while playing. The only thing you can do is use the GOTM score wizard in the Excel sheet. Therefore a cap would be more pleasing.


One more thing: I don't consider this poll very meaningful anymore since the discussion has begun after everyone has voted. The only conclusion I draw from the result is that people want a change. Next time we'll have a discussion first and then the poll.

 

[Kev]

I have become very torn while reading this thread. My initial reaction to the the idea of a scoring cap was very positive, but that was just from my own standpoint of becoming very bored with late game antics to squeeze out a score. This happened with the world map for me - I just couldn't take the tedium of having 200-300 engineers and pressing "o" and "i" all over the place. The same is holding true for me in the latest game.

I do not wish to tread on the sanctity of the game of Civ II, but at the same time I would not mind a way out of the late-game monotony while giving me a shot at a competitive finish. I thought the cap could provide this, and I guess it would to some degree. However, I see the points made by Starlifter as well as the GOTM now being a game of timing - a race to see who can tweak their score just the right amount so no wasted score is achieved. I could also see myself using the Fundy government at times since it may not be as important to grow the cities toward the end or have 100% luxuries - and that does go against my playing style.

I thought perhaps instead of a SCORING cap perhaps a DATE cap could be used. I see the pitfalls here as well. How to protect against the early ship launch bonus is one. Also, it would scrap the GOTM scoring formula for the most part as the date would always be the same. I also realize that styles would change in that now we are playing with an end date in mind the whole time.

Yet, perhaps it could offer an easier way to put people into leagues while still having everyone on the same map on the same difficulty (as per Starlifter's suggestion). Just have the 1000 ad group vs. the 1400 ad group vs. the 1600 ad group vs. the 2000 ad group, etc. Scoring is easy really - just based on the natural score at that date - no formula needed. One could compare scores within one's group or even as a whole with the later groups having an advantage of extra time. It could be a matter of pride in that someone wants to be a member of the 1000 ad group while others may want to play in that group due to time constraints or as a way to control tedium. This would not lend itself to OCC games, but they could perhaps be a different group with no time limit and compared only to other OCCers. With fewer people in that group, it could inspire those who have not tried an OCC game to do so, and ensure themselves a medal if they are only one of three who try it that month.

I know that we don't want to "separate" the players, but I think that leagues or divisions within the same game has merit. I would think people would be pretty fair about choosing their own level, and if someone is totally killing everyone at a lower level they would have to move up as it were. We could still post our strategies for others to see and learn from one another.

The DATE cap idea is just off the top of my head, and I am sure the more analytical among us can find further difficulties with it. I am more of an "idea man" and usually leave the details to people better equipped to debunk .

I hope we do find a way to improve the GOTM (thought it works pretty well in any case), but even if it were left as is I would still try to participate as best as I could. Perhaps differences in CIV III will give us an opportunity to do something different as well

Hope nobody gets upset with me for throwing more suggestions into the mix, but it seemed like the tread to do this.

I look forward to further discussion.

 

[Matrix]

Well Kev, consider all the people who need more time to finish their game...then you . Usually there are also people who retire. A date cap would mean people will simply have less time to finish their game. I'm afraid that will lead to an even more adaption of te game itself.

 

[starlifter]

Originally posted by Matrix
Starlifter, as you seem to be unable to limit your post, you should read my PM (which I'll send in a minute).

LOL! Are we now facing a Cap on post content? Looking forward to a PM, or feel free to discuss a post "cap" in this or another thread. This would probably be a good thread, since it is about caps.

Furthermore, there is one negative aspect of a score cap: the blue star award will disappear.

Your 50^PNP will also dissapper, as Chofritz and I have both pointed out.

Further, the Green Star might be a moot point, too. See Chofritz' post.

There are a few people who like to try to get a high score.

The objective in Civ II is to get a high score. Why don't we take a poll and find out how many people are trying and struggling to reduce their scores.

Be that as it may, if a handful of people (assuming about 13, from the poll) are truly upset about the way Sid Meier designed points into Civ II, I consider it far more preferable to simply take my "SUGGESTION #1" (see earlier post) and just eliminate scoring. Seriously. Presumably, the indirect references to "fun" would dissapper, too, since there would be no scoring or comparison of results. The emphasis will instead be on making a nice timeline to share with other players, and discuss techniques, etc.

PS, For those that are unfamiliar with timelines, see my posts in the last couple GOTMs, or see the "Stories and Tales" section, http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=24

There is ofcourse also the ability to make the GOTM formula even more complex to make the effect of a higher score less. The higher your score, the less effect it has per point.

For the mathematicians among us: this could lead to something where the GOTM score is not simply proportional to the normal score, but to the square root of the normal score. Or we can make a score limit (sort of cap) by using a formula like GOTM_score=score_limit*(1-1/(1+normal_score)).

Score limits, caps, rule changes in mid game, etc. are a plague on the Civ community. SUGGESTION #5 is far better, as it simply adjusts the starting conditions of the game. Since a few may not understand, I'll try giving an example this time. Make a map on a small world. Delete all landmass, except for 7 groups of 4 land squares. Put a player (6 AI, 1 human) on each little group of size 4 landmasses. Label it GOTM 9. I defy someone to show me a game that will exceed 3,000! But once the game starts, let the players play it freely... no caps, no distortions, no regulations, no BS.

BTW, if people want to reduce size, the forbid any sort of irrigation (and Airfields). If you capture AI land, you must pillage you irrigation. That will cut both scores and tedium. It is only slightly less absurd than a cap.

Therefore a cap would be more pleasing.

If that is more pleasing, then letting the AI play your game for you should be even more pleasing. Plus, it would eliminate tedium and standardize the results. No need to bother with strategy or technique. We could have a "My AI did better than your AI" award, too.

One more thing: I don't consider this poll very meaningful anymore since the discussion has begun after everyone has voted. The only conclusion I draw from the result is that people want a change. Next time we'll have a discussion first and then the poll.

At least 8 people since May have provided solid input for improvements (change). But change must be rational. I will say this... people are not going to like the consequences of a cap. Kev has explained some of them. Another big consequence will be in the loss of reputation of CivFanatics and the GOTM.

Imagine the Olympics where performances were capped, and a new set of rules put in place for those that reach the "cappped" performance. A runner that makes a 9.79 second 100m is capped at 10 seconds... as his "10 Second World Record Time" is flashed around the world, along with 5 other runners that happened to "tie" (surprise surprise!) at the exact time of 10 seconds. Ugh.

Well, at least with a cap system, it we will be able to post the winning scores a couple months ahead of time. Be sure and let the rest of the Civ world know, too. More people might want to "play" if we pick their favorite number.

Next time we'll have a discussion first and then the poll.

The fallacy with the poll in this situation is that it makes a suggestion without having a foundation, provides absolutely no alternatives (Did you stop beating your wife? "Yes" or "No" or "I don't care"?).

Of course, this would not be such an issue or have a sense of urgency, if it were dismissed out of hand, like most other suggestions are.

 

[Matrix]

Originally posted by starlifter
The objective in Civ II is to get a high score. Why don't we take a poll and find out how many people are trying and struggling to reduce their scores.

So what you're saying is that we should just throw away the GOTM score and just use the normal score?

Originally posted by starlifter
We could have a "My AI did better than your AI" award, too.

Good idea!!

At least 8 people since May have provided solid input for improvements (change). But change must be rational. I will say this... people are not going to like the consequences of a cap. Kev has explained some of them. Another big consequence will be in the loss of reputation of CivFanatics and the GOTM.

Originally posted by starlifter
Bla bla bla... Ugh.

I don't think comparing the Olympics with the GOTM is fair (in this case!!!). Civilization II is far from a Olympic sport as shouldn't be treaded as such.

And I think you've made you point more then clear to us very well now, starlifter. Please give others the possibility to post their ideas. If I'd be a regular poster and I see all these posts I wouldn't dare to get in between, while I would have to right to do so.

 

[Chofritz]

This will be about Starlifters suggestions.

SUGGESTION 1

SO... let's just pitch the whole scoring HOF thing.

It can acctually be a good idea. The players can set up their own goals and compete with equally skilled players. You can set a cap if you like, a finish date, occ, any variation you like. All the rules (airbases allowed, reloading allowed, etc…) are set by players but it’s still the same game for everyone. Damn (ops!) this sounds fun. It would also give Matrix some free time,

Anyone up for a best score in 1000 ad. challenge next month?

SUGGESTION 2

Have Leagues, or teams. A new GOTM concept, which I can expound upon some other time, since I know this will be poo-pooed right off the bat by any long-time or high scoring players.

It could work. But I really don’t have any suggestions for it.

SUGGESTION 3

Divisions. This is the way the "real world" works when everyone is not on an approximately equal footing. It makes it realistic for more than the top 3 to have some sort of reward and recognition for their play. It is not human nature to like to get kicked in the face every month with no hope of recognition -- yet the current GOTM system does exactly that and most of the top players seem to want to keep it that way.

With Divisions (maybe 3 or 4... like "Newbie", Experienced", and "Expert"), the ONLY thing that will change is additional award categories and opportunities. Unlike the Cap suggestion, Divisions mean everyone still plays exactly the same game by exactly the same rules, and everyone submits their games exactly the same way, and everyone is scored and ranked exactly the same way.

But instead of the top 3 GOTM scores getting all the attention, the recognition would be spread to players of different experience levels. The change would be in needing to make addional HTML to record the winners and special awards (e.g., divisional Star Awards) of the other divisions (this is purely an Administrative issue).

I agree with Noughmaster. I don’t have a problem with the top 3 comming from a group of 6-7 players. But if you’re up for doing the work Starlifter then this is fine with me. BTW Starlifter when will you finish your game I look forward to see your log, . It helps me great sometimes.

Star Categories:
...
5. 1500 AD Retirement
...

Notes on #5:
- This is for those that cannot or do not choose to finish a GOTM.
- If someone submits a game in which they retired in 1500 AD (exact year, not approx), they are eligible for this one-point Star award.
- A 1500 AD retirement is not eligible to win any other category or medal.
- A player cannot submit a 1500 AD retirement plus some other game ending; it is one or the other.
- The purpose of this is to recognize, in some small way, the efforts of those that wish to play fast and furious, and get it done quickly.
- A 1500 AD retirement is not treated as a victory, and such a GOTM score is still officially computed using 2020 AD.

A very good star suggestion, the year depends on difficulty, mapsize, etc… However with suggestion 1 anyone could set up a game like this.

SUGGESTION 5

This is the most obvious, but because of various machinations, overlooked suggestion: Simply change the usual starting parameters!

These can be chosen and mixed/matched each month by Thunderfall. For instance, use a small land mass... or place a 10-city limit... or change the terrain conditions... or make it a bloodlust... or change the starting year... or change the number of civs, starting techs, starting location, etc. ... limit the Wonders or government types ... maybe even make it an OCC.

The starting conditions should be changed from time to time, as they are now. However limting governments, cities, making it OCC or anything like that could be done with suggestion 1 aswell.

As you can probably see when reading my post I point towards suggestion 1 right now. Removing the score would probably get more people talking in the forums as they has to set up challenges with other players. We could test this one month if there is noone playing let’s go back to the PNP^50-formula or whatever it’s called. For it to work everyone need to post their progress in the forums, right now the spoiler-thread is kinda dead,

I still think we need a thread with strategy questions. The good players need to speak out here, . Right now Starlifter and sometimes Smash are generally the only people I can learn something from when reading their posts. And BTW I don’t have a problem with Starlifters long posts if I learn something from them,

 

[Matrix]

About suggestion #1: you can always simply ignore all the scoring rules...

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by Matrix
Well Kev, consider all the people who need more time to finish their game...then you . Usually there are also people who retire. A date cap would mean people will simply have less time to finish their game. I'm afraid that will lead to an even more adaption of te game itself.

Well, in my suggestion, I was not saying that everyone had to FINISH their game. If they have not landed a ship by the date alotted or conquered the world, then we just take the score at that date. Also keep in mind that this idea would really only work if there are "leagues" based on finishing dates. It would be different from a SCORING cap in that everyone would still be trying to get the best score possible and would be free to play any style they'd like. The dates could be changed depending on difficulty level and map size. For example, those who wish to play in the "major" league would have to turn in their score from 1200 AD on a large emperor map while the AAA league would have until 1400. On a map like GOTM 8, the majors would have to turn in their games by 1 AD and AAA by 500 AD. And so forth (I guess it should be based on number of turns, but you get the idea I hope) I would also suggest turning in a single game so you wouldn't have 3 games from each person to deal with.

In fact, we could even allow play after the game is finished (by ship or conquest) if the alotted date hasn't been reached. I can see now that very early winners by conquest may have a boring time by playing in a world without an AI, but perhaps there can be ways to deal with this as well.

I think this is different from Starlifter's suggestion of changing the starting parameters for different people. With a date cap for different people, timelines would still be a value for everyone for the same map and same difficulty level would be used throughout.

It would seem that people will always tweak their playing style no matter what the parameters if they are trying to achieve a good score. In the latest GOTMs, people going for scores tried like hell to get a spaceship launched early for the bonus. Even without that added bonus, it still behooves one to have an early launch as the GOTM score has a lot to do with finish date. With a scoring cap, speed to a certain score will dictate the winners. With a date cap, it's all about early scoring. etc. In order to have everyone play their "normal" game all the time, you'd have to just scrap the scoring all together.

It seems a difficlut mix to make in trying to make the game fun, interesting (being rid of end-game tedium), quick (to finish in a month for some), allows for all playing styles, and fair to score where everyone feels that they have a chance for something. I think these discussions will help, but Matrix I will abide by whatever choice you end up making

 

[Master of Ceremonies]

Let the great players be the great players. Frankly, I'm quite content to compare myself with the others who play. I want to know how Smash, Shadowdale, Cactus Pete and others score for comparison purposes. Why should I win if I can't beat them?

Leave the scoring system alone. We can all see how we rate as it is.

 

[starlifter]

by Kev:

I do not wish to tread on the sanctity of the game of Civ II, but at the same time I would not mind a way out of the late-game monotony while giving me a shot at a competitive finish. I thought the cap could provide this, and I guess it would to some degree. However, I see the points made by Starlifter as well

As Matrix asked, I made a clear list of suggestions. Others have suggested things too.

Here is a recap... all suggestions provide a "way out" for those who wish to avoid playing the normal game of Civ II:

SUGGESTION 1 Just eliminate the whole scoring & HOF thing. No more score comparisons! No more time pressures. No competition. No Worries. This option greatly simplifies Matrix' job, BTW.

SUGGESTION 2 Have Leagues, or teams. A new GOTM concept.

SUGGESTION 3 Divisions. This is the way the "real world" works when everyone is not on an approximately equal footing. More than the top 3 to have some sort of reward and recognition for their play.

SUGGESTION 4 EXPANDED STAR AWARDS. Many suggestions and ideas have been suggested, including two excellent ideas by Chofritz. Regardless of any other changes and discussion, this should be done. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5121&pagenumber=2

SUGGESTION 5 Simply change the starting parameters! We all do this. What dimwit does not know a 10,000 cell map takes much longer to play than a 2,000 cell map? Size of land Mass greatly controls both scoring and play time. These can be chosen and mixed/matched each month by Thunderfall. For instance, use a small land mass... or place a 10-city limit... or change the terrain conditions... or make it a bloodlust... or change the starting year... or change the number of civs, starting techs, starting location, etc. ... limit the Wonders or government types ... maybe even make it an OCC.

I personally don't favor heavily tweaking (beyone basics like Map Size, Land Mass, etc.) the starting contions, but it is a legitimate option that at least does not embarrass the name of CivFanatics as a whole.

SUGGESTION 6 Random Drawing. Simply collect all the entries, and select one at random for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. This will alleviate any worries about playing the game, time, "fun", and totally eliminate the need for divisions. Everyone will have a truly equal shot at a medal, and there is therefore no need for additional awards or medals or Star Awards. This is a serious option, and will greatly simplify Matrix' job.

I thought perhaps instead of a SCORING cap perhaps a DATE cap could be used. I see the pitfalls here as well.

For months, I've suggested that a Finish Date be chosen, and let this be an option for those that do not have the time to play a full game. I suggested 1500 AD originally, but this should be adjusted for games of lower difficulty and/or smaller maps.

If a person would like to retire at the specified date (e.g., 1500), then a their results would be compared to those who also retired on this date. The raw Civ II score determines the winner of this category. The GOTM score is computed using 2020 AD in the 50^PNP formula, and the player is ranked as usual among all the GOTM participants.

However, an optional Retirement Date should NOT be forced upon all the GOTM players. It must be the choice of the GOTM participant, not mandated for everyone to do.

Yet, perhaps it could offer an easier way to put people into leagues while still having everyone on the same map on the same difficulty (as per Starlifter's suggestion).

IMHO, everyone must play the same map & same rules/difficulty, etc. Two-tier systems like Scoring Caps are silly.

I know that we don't want to "separate" the players, but I think that leagues or divisions within the same game has merit.

To make it clear, using Divisions to give more players awards based on how they do compared to players of similar experience is NOT separating the players. In fact, nothing changes except that more people are recognized. Players may compete for awards in whatever division they choose. Except that as one improves, one cannot drop to a lower division and kick everyone butt; that would not be "fun" nor "friendly", and not be allowed.

I hope we do find a way to improve the GOTM (thought it works pretty well in any case)

Almost everything in life can be improved, and so can the GOTM. At the very least, it seems we are finally going to eliminate the pre-1850 SS Launch advantage (after 3 months). That is going greatly improve the fairness of the GOTM. it is a great step forward!! I still wonder if the majority of GOTM players knew they were "pre-shafted" to start with.



Also, might as well get used to a new term. Cap Player. There will be two kinds of GOTM players... Cap Players and those who fail to achieve cap scores. There are unique Cap Player strategies, as Kev pointed out, and these non-Cap GOTM players are simply not invited to this party.

Right now, almost everyone gets their butt kicked by a few players (AKA Cap Players), yet I personally see a lot of good players at different levels of experience when I go back and look at people's save games.

It's beyond me why there is resistance to help and recognize more than the top 3 players in what is supposed to be a friendly, informal event. It may be that many people just don't want to post their thoughts. There have been over 100 GOTM participants, but only about 10 have given their input.

Oh well, if we really want a system where a few players kick everyone else around & ignore the vast number of participants... then so be it. The irony is that a cap is not going to change that; the playing field, strategy, and basic game have just been altered. Those in the middle and bottom are still going to get stomped; indeed, they won't even be playing by the same rules & strategies that the cap-players use.


Suggested topics for GOTM Threads:

"How I Use Fundamentalism To Time my Cap Score"

"A use for Anarchy: Slowing growth and eliminating Science output to meet the Cap"

"Fundamentalism Resurrected... Better than Democracy in a Cap game?"

"Newbies and the Cap: The art of Cap/Score timing"

"Irrigation and You -- Pillaging with Precision"

"Perfectionism... a Roadmap to Cap Defeats"

"Why 9,000 Points Is a Failure"

"ICS and the Cap: Finally, A perfect match?"

 

[shadowdale]

Well to stop this seemingly endless discussion - I vote for Starlifters suggestion numer one.

Let's just quite the GotM Hall of Fame and just put the players results up alphabetically, then people can compare their score with others and be happy.

 

[Matrix]

I'm in for a final decision. There are a few options, which I don't want to put into a poll yet. Perhaps later, if we can't decide collectively.


1: Leave it as it is.
2: Make a scoring cap.
3: Compromise: make an even higher score less effective (like using a square root)

I do not consider divisions a possibility: "We're in this together!" (sorry, I'm listening to Nine Inch Nails now ) If we have divisions it's not a game, but a competition and I refuse to administrate that. And Thunderfall will refuse to put that on his homepage!! The fun, friendlyness and casuality will vanish.


And one more thing: since I only want small statements about this choice (1, 2 or 3, plus a reason), I will delete any posts longer then two times "page down".

 

[donsig]

Since I have the dubious honor of having the single worst GOTM game in recorded history I figure that entitles me to put in my two cents on this issue.

First of all, I do find the GOTM fun. Second, it IS a competition. That's part of the fun - for me at least. I scored only 2 in my first GOTM but was quite proud of that acheivement since I played by the rules - i.e., no going back to an earlier save when things got rough. While I realize I am no where near the top ten I do have winning (getting the Gold) as my goal. I've learned alot from this site and GOTM 8 will show a vast improvement in my score. Though still far from being an expert I do see the problems with going for these high scores...

It gets tedious and boring. this does make me wonder whether a medal is worth it.

In GOTM 8 I have not yet maxxed my population so I'm playing on though I could at any time quickly build a SS or eliminate the AI. I'm not quite sure if this is helping or hurting my GOTM score.


What I have come to realize is that I 'won' this particular game many turns ago - though I can't pinpoint exactly when I won it. I also realize that it's not that much fun anymore.

While I see that a change is needed I do not think a scoring cap is the answer. I think option 3 - a compromise - is the best. The idea behind the GOTM scoring formula (given equal civ scores from the same GOTM, the one with the earlier finish is the better game) is a good one. Perhaps the best solution is to put even more emphasis on finishing faster.

 

[Smash]

on page 4 of the manual it says:
"To win Civilization 2,you must follow one of two broad strategies to a final goal:either win the space race or conquer the world"

It goes on..you can see in your manual.There is a section on page 131 "winning the game" where it goes into more detail.
Page 136 "Scoring" begins with:
Completing a game can take many hours<blah blah>.There are several ways to get a general idea of how you're doing along the way.
On page 137 it states:
"if you're the type that prefers the concreteness of numbers,choose the Civilization Score option from the World menu for a numeric representation of your progress


So,imo,we have gotten away from the object of the game under the current system.

 

[donsig]

Please clarify Smash. Is the object of the game to win or get a high numeric score?

If the object is merely to win then on what basis would GOTM medals be awarded? I can only speak for myself but part of the allure of the GOTM is chasing an award. Very few GOTMs have resulted in defeats (3 killed and a handful of AI SS victories). With most everyone winning I think there is still a desire to be able to compare results. The heart of the GOTM is a friendly competition amongst ourselves.

You do raise a good point. There are two ways to win Civ - and a high numerical score is not really needed to win.

It is obvious that the raw score is not enough for comparing GOTM results but the current formula also leaves something to be desired. Whether it needs to be merely tweaked or rebuilt from scratch is beyond me. I don't think any of us can answer that unless we first decide what makes one win 'better' than another!

 

[Smash]

It says the score is used to determine your progress.Not to decide the outcome.In the same sub section it has the throne room,demographics and civ score.It describes these as ways to measure progress.
It goes on to say a winning game with a 1000 point score is impressive.

maybe we should go by the final throne room?
or final demograhics?

 

[donsig]

I haven't figured out how to insert quotes yet so I'll just reply to Smash's last post.

GOTM 7 had 36 out of 46 'impressive wins'. Do they all get a star? I think most players who play a few GOTMs will quickly reach 1000 points easily by picking up advice from these forums. Us 'civfanatics' are not run of the mill civvers and I think we all have a competitive streak. A big part of the fun of the GOTMs is comparing our skills. What we need is a refined definition of an impressive win and we need a consensus as to what that is. Until that is reached talk of changing the scoring system is pointless.

The suggestion to use the throne room or demographics doesn't seem much different than the current system. The strategy of pounding the AI down to one city while growing your population as fast as possible would still be best.

I think you are suggesting that more emphasis be placed on actually winning - and that is not a bad idea. What we have to figure out is how to do this and still have a practical system.

Looking at GOTM 7 I see that alain won by conquest in 80 AD but since that game had a low raw score the game placed 28th. Williamvanaranje conquered the world in 1500 AD but placed 17th because of a larger raw score. Which is really the more impressive game?

I can't answer that becasue I couldn't even survive the darned Celtic chariot!

 

[Smash]

I think you are suggesting that more emphasis be placed on actually winning

Thats exactly what I am suggesting
Your example is a good one.I could also use my gotm #2iirc..the one TF gave a head start(of sorts)..I landed that one in 1225 ad but got a mediocre score.I thought it was a decent game.I could have spent many years building..but I didn't see much point.The game was won.

Maybe each game should have a common objective.ie..this game we go for fast conquest...this for fast SS..this game for high score...this game open..etc.Might make comparing more accurate.Results would seem more accurate when all were trying to acheive the same goal..yes? no?


I think you hit the quote button from the post you want to quote..or for just a part of it..copy..and encase in

[/quote...with a ]