Scoring Cap!!!

[Matrix]

To bad you can't change your vote (or perhaps for the better). But I'd switch to wanting a scoring cap.

Starlifter, separate divisions are totally out of the question! Exactly for the reasons shadowdale has given.

As for the extra medals/stars: Concerning official medals, I'd stick to the ones we have now. But starlifter, if you can use FrontPage or some other HTML editor (Notepad ) you're free to make a page for these unofficial awards and I'll include them to the results. After all, the GOTM is for fun and these medals...are fun!

By the way, I'm going to let the poll and at 31-09-2001. Then I'll decide based on the result.

 

[starlifter]

Note: Before I write this post, I feel compelled to point out that I'll be blunt about some things, since I don't know any of you personally and I'm not in any "good old boys club".

BTW, this in no way means I've "got it in" for Shadowdale or anyone else. I am holding your metaphorical feet to the fire, and want some of you to crap or get off the metaphorical pot. Apologies in advance if some of you don't like plain talk and go crying into your beer, LOL .

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.

You may of course feel free to disagree all you want. Personally, I don't object to either the thread or the poll, or even actually using a cap or whatever. Just don't be hypocrits.

Shadowdale, you have used certain tones in some of your posts that I (as a relatively new GOTM player) don't understand the reference to, I will make another point about this.

Specifically:

"not a game of skills" - ??? Personally, I've pointed out since June (when I joined) that especially large maps are a matter more of time and procedure, not some sort of mystical artful skill. Experience probably is a more accurate term. But I think this is code talk for something else, and you are being decietful with your language here. As the most decorated GOTM player, you need to be forthcoming or watch your comments.

"the friendly competition" - Again, the reference is lost on me. I don't know want transpired in the January thru June time frame while the GOTM was developed. But you, and Smash, and others were. Your implication is that the GOTM is an "unfriendly" competition, which is also a lost reference.

"it was initially thought" - Most of us have no idea what was "originally thought", since were not there and not part of the "good old boys" group. The number of GOTM participants has increased many times over the original number, so perhaps you will fill us all in on what was "initially thought" and quit speaking in riddles.

At this point, all I frankly see is a bunch of hullabalooo over the top few scores of the GOTM.

Since you are the top scoring and easily the most decorated GOTM player, Shadowdale (having won all the early GOTMs by crushing the competition), maybe you might want to elaborate. IMHO, the top players should be helping everyone else improve and play more GOTMs.

While we are on the subject, I see almost no concern expressed for the GOTM as a whole.

As we all know, Civ II SP is by its nature a slow, turn based game... and if I were a new, aspiring Civ II player, I'd be laughing at the thought of those who have begun whining so loud about the length of time it takes to play the game. To top it off, the ones whining in these posts are almost all the ones who made the rules and have been pummeling each other for almost a year. You and others set up the GOTM, and created a special scoring system (the 50^PNP), and set the time limit (one month). The rest of us just join in and have at it. If you want to change the rules, no worries... but be forthcoming and honest.

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.

Frankly, you are such a hypocrite. And probably others, but I can't tell becaase they have not posted yet.

"not only will this be a lot more work" - What a load of crap, dude. What this implies is that you know something is worth doing, but doing the right thing is not worth it because (supposedly) it would take too much work. What a sad cop out.

"but the mere thought about elite players, good players and regular players gives me the creeps" – take a look at the words some of you players have used in your own posts, and you've already done it. Take a look at the results, when some players have a mere fractional score, LOL! Don't say "I hate to classify others into groups based on how good they are at a game" as if your own results are somehow on par with somone who struggles at Prince. As I have said many times in other posts, your own early games are the best of any I have seen in GOTMs, and usually by a factor of 4 to 8 times better than the next best player (I've done the math). So spare me.

"it’s a friendly competition for God sake" - Since when is the concept of Divisions an "UN-frendly" concept? Those in the middle and lower part of the results have no chance in hell against you, or me, or Smash, etc. as it now stands. So much for your mysterious reference to "friendly competiton"...

Ironically, the word "friendly" is not the untrue part of your phrase "friendly competition"... the contradiction is the word "competition". As I have been stating for 3 months, there is no competition (and no possible recognition) for the vast majority of folks -- and it is time some of the old-time GOTMers (especially you, as the most decorated GOTM player) started being rational with suggestions that will actually help everyone. You will help to cause the slow demise of the GOTM otherwise.

I really hope that the scoring Cap will become part of the GotM, because I think that is really something that we need

First, you stated what you wanted (a cap), and then gave the reason as the fact that you wanted it. However, it is fine to favor a scoring cap. But in looking at GOTM#2, I see scores such as:

1. Shadowdale - 10,818
2. Kev - 11,453
3. goodbye_mr_bond - 6,426
4. David Wilkinson - 8,326
5. MadMelkor - 5,759
6. stormerne - 4,860
7. BigWheel - 6,727

What was the discussion about capping the score after this game? Or the others? Please explain to me how you can score 8,000+ points without taking a lot of "real time" to do it.

If "score control" is what is desired, there are other alternatives that I have not heard discussed in this sudden rush to cap... Map size, terrain and world layout, amount of land, number of cities, victory conditions, etc. all have a huge impact on the scoring and the time spent playing the game. So why aren't any of these even discussed?

Like I have said before, and you will hear again, when you directly alter the rules with a "cap", it affects only a small percentage of GOTM players, and sets up a "special" world of competition for them. The rest of the players that are unaffected by the cap are excluded from true GOTM competition, and are not part of the GOTM under your cap system. Honesty should be paramount.

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.

No, it is up to you, Shadowdale, and others... use your brains and help think of ways to make it work. You've been mostly a naysayer, and only advocate a "protectionist" solution (the cap)...

You state that you "think" it would be a good idea to have "extra awards", but before you finish the sentence, you totally trash the idea! So much for sincerity. Try being constructive instead, if you are serious. Otherwise, don't presume to condescend.

And BTW, don't put it off on Matrix. He is the engine that makes the GOTM go, and has shown himself to be very open to public debate. You gave him absolutely no help with even a single suggestion to "decide".

by Smash:

To me..thats shows something. The game is not being played "fairly" for fun anymore.

On going back to look at other threads, I found this comment from you, Smash. This seems to be in the vein of some of Shadowdale's comments, and is another reference to "fair" and "fun".

If you are going to make such bizzarre and mysterious expressions about "fair" and "fun", then you had better explain it in more detail. It is irresponsible, as a respected CivFanatics leader, to drop little poison pills like that.

The pattern I seem to be noticing here is that references of "fair" and "fun" and "score cap" seem to be coming predominately from the long-time (original good old boys) GOTM players. That is not to say things should not be re-examined... but the closed-mindedness of the discussion is remarkable. And I have made almost 10,000 bytes of remarks now .


And need I point this out to the suddenly distressed "Cap Advocates"? There is a motivation in the very existing "star" awards for aiming at a big score (ergo, long game) -- it is called the Blue Star, given each month for the max raw Civ II score.


The irony to my being forced to make these posts of principle is that I do not mind whatever rules are agreed to, personally. I've made many many posts about all of the issues that have suddenly been brought up in this thread, going back to my first days at CFC in June.

What is so bizzarre is (after at least 6 months since GOTM 2) the sudden rush by some to make a specific, radical change -- when there are other more serious concerns that affect all the GOTM players, and not just the top few scorers!

Well, that's it... No offense, esp. to Shadowdale.

 

[Smash]

If you are going to make such bizzarre and mysterious expressions about "fair" and "fun", then you had better explain it in more detail. It is irresponsible, as a respected CivFanatics leader, to drop little poison pills like that.

says you.


If you don't understand why allready,I cannot hope to explain it.

This system has been evolving since GotM#1.I just beleive it has a little more to do.

 

[starlifter]

Originally posted by shadowdale

...
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.

Shadowdale, you were the primary beneficary and an advocate of keeping the GOTM scoring bug that rewards SS launches of any sort before 1850. You and others dismissed my concerns about this, which I explained in great detail within a few days of joining CFC. Now you hypocritically take a new stand on the issue in your reply to Chofritz.

Here are some links to my warnings in June that you understood, yet wanted to keep in place.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=71493&t=6567#post71493

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5089&highlight=*SS*

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5096&highlight=*SS*

So don't shove that drivel on Chofritz about and presume to call it an "SS Time Trick", when in fact it is a GOTM-designed defect in how you yourself and others chose to compute the GOTM scores from the outset. Myself and others have asked for a change, and were outvoted.

It is simple. The spreadsheet uses a game year to compute score when it should use the actual ending game turn. As you well know Shadowdale, you have been doing this for months in your scoring. Launching any SS before a date of 1850 gives an unfair advantage to those that use SS's.

This is what makes me wonder why, since it was designed, confirmed, and supported so many months ago by you and others... why you now say such things as "I truly believe that it will stop most players from using the SS time trick", as if it is a Civ II cheat or something.

Am I holding you accountable in these posts I'm making? You bet. That's because this system was designed and kept in place by ya'll .

Further, and what I suspect most people still don't fully know, is that the SS issue has even further implications on reducing everyone's normalized results. This effect happened in GOTM 4, 5, 6, and 7. I still feel it should be addressed.



This is from my first long post at CivFanatics, in June 2001, about the SS scoring error in the GOTM system (and how it reduces everyone else's normalized score):

By Starlifter, June 2001:

...
NOTE: Fixing this error will cost me points in GOTM 5 (my first GOTM), since I will otherwise get this undeserved bonus (I launched a SS in the 1700's).
...


BOTTOM LINE... Simply compute the true ending game turn number manually for game in which a SS is launched before 1850, since the spreadsheet does not do it correctly.

Also, since Shadowdale's GOTM 4 score was inflated, everyone else's normalized scores were lowered by about 4.9%.

The established GOTM players knew about the defect, and here is the final official reply:

by Matrix, June 2001:

...
And shadowdale is right too: it has been agreed upon. I will admit, because it's hard and takes a very long time to check at which turn someones spaceship arrives.
...
But also to my opinion, that's not so bad because it usually looks like a very early finish (like you're planning te do) doesn't result in a very good GOTM score.

I've resurrected some old threads to give anyone who is interested a chance to see some of the issues... and in part, why I've made a few posts that might seem tough on Shadowdale, Smash, and some others.

Another point is that part of your "rational" and "justification" for using a scoring cap is to "correct" the very error that all the old-timers seem to want to keep in the GOTM scoring (the Spaceship "Time Trick", as Shadowdale incorrectly called it).


In essense, you want to alter the fundamental nature of the way one plays Civilization II, in order to protect a deliberate error that is embedded into the GOTM scoring computation... and an error that has primarily benefitted Shadowdale (as the regualar winner of GOTMs). Yet even now, I have yet to see any of you that understand this error (that was designed by you all) call for the simple fix which will completely eliminate three problems in the GOTM scoring:

1. Any SS launched prior to 1850 gets a GOTM scoring boost.

2. The longer a SS takes, the bigger the boost.

3. All normalized results recieve an additional penalty when the scores are computed at the end of the month (See the details in my posted links).


So for all those that objected to fixing this error in June, which indeed you all said at the time you knew about and had agreed to long before, don't try put one over, at least on me... Well, actaully I don't mind that much... but you're going to get several long posts from me in response to set things straight.


In summary, let's fix the underlying problem, and work on things that affect everyone, not just a select few. A scoring cap De Facto creates an "elite" division, whether you call it that or not. Try and think of the best interests and growth of the GOTM. Too many are not playing already.

 

[aneeshm]

Instead of having a scoring cap , couldn't we just increase the bonus for turns not played ? This way , turns not played should be an important factor of scoring , rivalling or equalling or even surpasing the population bonuses .

 

[Sholto]

NO CAPS!

oops, pardon me - no caps please

I don’t favour imposing what I see as arbitrary limits on how a player should conduct their game.

For some the competition, ranking and recognition may be the main attraction, and they should go for it. For others simple participation may be enough. I enjoy the confrontation of having to play at levels I’ve never considered (Deity!), the contrasts in styles of play, the wide variation in results for the same game even amongst players of similar abilities. Above all I like to play to parameters someone else has set lest I become too comfortable, and I try to improve my own game.

I compete with those who have had similar scores to me in the past. I want to see the great mega scores, they either inspire, or remind me that some folk have just too much time on their hands!

I don’t need a medal to enjoy Civ2 mate!

 

[starlifter]

by Smash:

says you.

If you don't understand why allready,I cannot hope to explain it.

This system has been evolving since GotM#1.I just beleive it has a little more to do.

Yes, it would be nice if you explained if, since you raised it without elaboration. But you also don't have to if you don't want.

This whole cap this is fully understood by very few GOTM players, and I want those that have been around, and those that know how the math and game changes are affected, to simply think a bit before stampeding everyone to change the nature of the Civ II SP gameplay itself again.

For example, the pre-1850 SS launch advantage. You and others like Shadowdale that understand it want to keep in in place, instead of fixing it. Why not fix the problem? Why warp the game with arbitrary caps when it is not necessary?

How about this... let's play the GOTMs without any medals, placings, etc. No scores... just for fun. Only about 10 people really seem to have a shot for a medal each month anyway, so the GOTM medals and all this thread's discussion are essentially about 8 or 10 players anyway.

Or just make a several divisions so the newbies & average players are not creamed by the so-called experts. Tennis, Football, Soccer, car Racing, Sailing, etc. etc. all have such distinctions.

Imagine a football game where all football players played on the same field. A college or high school player going against an 8-year pro.

If there are problems with those suggestions, then help think of new solutions. For 3 months, I've been making posts about how to help improve things for everyone, and now suddenly we are wrapped around the axle with something that affects only a few players that can pummel the scores even at Deity.

But if you want to drop hints about "unfriendly" GOTMs in public, then I still think you should explain it.

I've documented some of the things that I think are hypocritical and unfair, as a relative newcomer to CFC (in June) compared to the Good Old Boys. All my points are right on target and substantial, even rather blunt in the last few posts today.

I do not favor a system that, in general, favors the established players and beats down those that wish to improve. This is supposed to be an "informal" game, and my interpretation is that the experienced folks should help out the others, encourage broader participation, etc.

But time and again, I get the feeling that several people, including the GOTM's most decorated player, Shadowdale, would rather keep a closed system... and a system that is designed from the ground up to give subtle and not-so-subtle advantages to the long time and highest scoring players.

For example, the old GR system was a clear reward for good old boys, and some long-time members still don't like it, based on posts. And that's OK not to like it, BTW.

Another example is this box of worms that Shadowdale and Smash opened with the red herring of a scoring cap, while at the same time advocating a know GOTM scoring system that rewards only the best Civ II scores, and actually penalizes (reduces) everyone else's normalized results on top of that. It is a deliberate and arbitrary error that was "agreed to" a long time ago, and is still supported by many of those that stand to benefit from it at the expense of the vast majority of GOTM players.

And the final slap is when this exact issue is twisted around (see Shadowdale's paragraph to Chofritz) by the very people that created and supported that unfair and arbitrary method that only benefits the best players.

So no, from where I sit as a relative newcomer, I strongly object, and have been objecting to, things that stagnate the GOTM and the development of players in the GOTM.

by Smash:

This system has been evolving since GotM#1.I just beleive it has a little more to do.

We agree on that, for sure. I just say that we should all discuss this stuff in public, and ask to keep in mind the best overall interests of the GOTM... not the interests of the few, at least until other things that affect everyone are addressed.



And another thing. Polls are nice, but they can be used in ways that give very distorted results. The Cap poll is an example. Since most people do not understand or are not aware of some of the underlying defects of the GOTM, they can't respond about it. Also, the cap poll neither states the issue, or even describes a real problem.

Try running a poll that asks "Should Shadowdale send $10 or $25 to every GOTM player this month". Choices: $10, $25, or no opinion. It is a valid poll, but it is both non-sequitor, and poses a faulty delimna... just as the Cap question does.

And it is not in the best interests of the GOTM to approach things with a closed mind. It took 3 months of discussions and posts to improve the GR computation... and that was an obvious improvement that helps everyone.

So let's frame the exact issues, and then work toward a solution. Those that others look to for the lead should not just chunk out an "Answer".

That said, perhaps the best answer to whatever question (I'd like to hear the real questions clearly defined and discussed first, LOL) is a cap. And it is the height of arbitrayness (is that a word?!) to pluck a number out of the air and state that this is the CivFanatics GOTM limit, LOL.

But in general, I oppose arbitrary Civ II rule changes that affect the natural gameplay of Civ II, especially when that alteration is confined to a select "elite" of GOTM participants.

 

[starlifter]

By Matrix:

To bad you can't change your vote (or perhaps for the better). But I'd switch to wanting a scoring cap.

Starlifter, separate divisions are totally out of the question! Exactly for the reasons shadowdale has given.

As for the extra medals/stars: Concerning official medals, I'd stick to the ones we have now. But starlifter, if you can use FrontPage or some other HTML editor (Notepad ) you're free to make a page for these unofficial awards and I'll include them to the results. After all, the GOTM is for fun and these medals...are fun!

By the way, I'm going to let the poll and at 31-09-2001. Then I'll decide based on the result.

LOL, I knew what your opinion was going to be about division, Matrix. We already work you like a dog each month .

BTW, you probably voted "right" to begin with. At least, a vote is premature till we all get to make some input about the real issues and not a CivFanatics-declared edict on scoring limits.

In basketball, when scoring gets too high, they don't put a "cap" on what a team can score... they get at the real issue, like bad refs, disadvantaged defenders under the net, etc.

Similarly, scoring can easily be addressed by using small maps, limiting landmass size, changing starting locations, even taking ideas such as Noughmaster's and saying "Have at it, but you get only 10 cities" in a particular month. But to simple make an arbitrary edict for all future GOTMs that says "Thou Cannot Score More Than XXXXX Points" is an abomination to the very nature of the game.

As for the extra medals/stars: Concerning official medals, I'd stick to the ones we have now.

I do not advocate that you change them in any event until it is discussed. But to this point, such discussion has been quashed before it gets underway.

But starlifter, if you can use FrontPage or some other HTML editor (Notepad ) you're free to make a page for these unofficial awards and I'll include them to the results.

I'll do it, barring deployment in the next few weeks or months. And I'll be using Dreamweaver 4 Ultra Dev, if that's OK. Let me know how/where to upload the results, e.g., FTP, or whatever. I have all the necessary software.

After all, the GOTM is for fun and these medals...are fun!

Darned right! And most people respond well to postive things, like recognition. You obviously can't had out 37 Gold Medals each month just to make everyone have a nice warm touchey-feely, but there are lots of alternatives.

LOL, one of those alternatives is Divisions to keep the mashers off the backs of the newbies -- but I won't really get started on that subject in this thread. (I hear the sighs of relief from here!)

 

[shadowdale]

Well yea I probably am a hypocrite!!!
I’m fully aware of the fact that I have been the worst person to use countless days to perfect me GotM’s – and that I was the first to use the SS time trick – amid at that time I wasn’t even aware of it.

"Not a game of skills" - ??? Personally, I've pointed out since June (when I joined) that especially large maps are a matter more of time and procedure, not some sort of mystical artful skill. Experience probably is a more accurate term. But I think this is code talk for something else, and you are being deceitful with your language here. As the most decorated GOTM player, you need to be forthcoming or watch your comments.

I’m sorry but I have probably not been quite aware of this since your posts are so damn look that I tend to just skim them – but when you joined in June there had already been two or three changes in the scoring system and I think that most people were really fed up with any talk about changing it again – which was probably why I and others were so much against it. We had just found what looked to be a rather fair system, and we just wanted to get on and use it, not change it once again.

"The friendly competition" - Again, the reference is lost on me. I don't know want transpired in the January thru June time frame while the GOTM was developed. But you, and Smash, and others were. Your implication is that the GOTM is an "unfriendly" competition, which is also a lost reference.

No I’m not saying that they GotM is an UN-friendly competition, but I know that I have personally played a game one month (GotM#6) with the sole purpose to win, something I didn’t do the other months – and that I did this is not in the spirit of friendly competition. I know that I have a good deal of the blame when I talk about how the Game seems to be more cutthroat now.

"It was initially thought" - Most of us have no idea what was "originally thought", since were not there and not part of the "good old boys" group. The number of GOTM participants has increased many times over the original number, so perhaps you will fill us all in on what was "initially thought" and quit speaking in riddles.

Well you might not have been there when it all begun, but doesn’t it seem logical that we wanted a fun competition that we could all play and have fun while playing – and not the currently race for points.

Since you are the top scoring and easily the most decorated GOTM player, Shadowdale (having won all the early GOTMs by crushing the competition), maybe you might want to elaborate. IMHO, the top players should be helping everyone else improve and play more GOTMs.

Yes I must have been a really annoying guy to play!! The fun thing is that the way the first few GotM’s were played was just like I normally play a regular game – I have some compulsion for always trying to obtain the highest score possible, and it has been quite a change for me to even consider finishing before 2019AD. I think that the “spoiler” threads and some of the questions that have been asked during games is a good way for lots of players to get the information they need, but also in comparing their game and score to others. The simple fact that they have played the GotM and seen how they do and heard what others did different is what I think is the most important thing of the GotM.

As we all know, Civ II SP is by its nature a slow, turn based game... and if I were a new, aspiring Civ II player, I'd be laughing at the thought of those who have begun whining so loud about the length of time it takes to play the game. To top it off, the ones whining in these posts are almost all the ones who made the rules and have been pummeling each other for almost a year. You and others set up the GOTM, and created a special scoring system (the 50^PNP), and set the time limit (one month). The rest of us just join in and have at it. If you want to change the rules, no worries... but be forthcoming and honest.

Well not to object to the fact that I have probably had my say in the GotM, but I have never even thought about a scoring system for the GotM – I suck so much at math that I would never be able to come up with any kind of solution – we took the 50^PNP because that was what seemed the most fair at the time.
I was always against the changed that you and noughmaster suggested, but that was primarily because of my ignorance in Math – I couldn’t even begin to see where you suggested formulas would lead, and therefore I dismissed them! This wasn’t a very smart thing, but I did it, and it’s probably a human character flaw

Frankly, you are such a hypocrite. And probably others, but I can't tell because they have not posted yet.

Well I already agreed with you on that one – even if I find it more ironical that I’m doing this and not some other player

"Not only will this be a lot more work" - What a load of crap, dude. What this implies is that you know something is worth doing, but doing the right thing is not worth it because (supposedly) it would take too much work. What a sad cop out.

I totally agree that if something is worth doing then it should be done, and that is also a good philosophy but currently we have a GotM admin that doesn’t have all that much free time on his hands so he might not want to do it simply because of that.
As a Math whiz you know that the reality is often very different from the theory – I have offered Matrix my help and I’ll probably live to regret that but done is done and the step has been taken.
So now that I’m a co-worker or what ever it’s called on the GotM, that means we might have to time to do it – I don’t know and it’s not up to me to decide.

Linked because of to many characters

 

[shadowdale]

"But the mere thought about elite players, good players and regular players gives me the creeps" – take a look at the words some of you players have used in your own posts, and you've already done it. Take a look at the results, when some players have a mere fractional score, LOL! Don't say "I hate to classify others into groups based on how good they are at a game" as if your own results are somehow on par with someone who struggles at Prince. As I have said many times in other posts, your own early games are the best of any I have seen in GOTMs, and usually by a factor of 4 to 8 times better than the next best player (I've done the math). So spare me.

No in this we are of a very different mind – there is a very big difference between talking about elite players and actually dividing the GotM players into elite groups – of cause there is a difference on a newbie and players who have beaten the deity level with OCC, but that is just a fact and everybody knows it.
What I don’t want is for the GotM to tell players: “your only good enough for the medium league” and “you have to play the little league, because you just don’t have what it takes to play with us big boys”
There is and always will be an informal knowledge that some are good and some are not and most people think they know more or less how good they are, but others might not agree with them, so let’s not start classifying others on some criteria that we decide.

"It’s a friendly competition for God sake" - Since when is the concept of Divisions an "UN-friendly" concept? Those in the middle and lower part of the results have no chance in hell against you, or me, or Smash, etc. as it now stands. So much for your mysterious reference to "friendly competition"...

Well you did compare the divisions to the soccer leagues in Europe and I can tell you that they are nothing but unfriendly – I believe that such divisions will only make people compete more intensely – not only for the results but also to get into the better divisions. Luckily we are an internet based site, because I know of several people that beat others simply because they are on the wrong teams side – an unpleasant side effect of division based competition that we won’t have

First, you stated what you wanted (a cap), and then gave the reason as the fact that you wanted it. However, it is fine to favor a scoring cap. But in looking at GOTM#2, I see scores such as:

1. Shadowdale - 10,818
2. Kev - 11,453
3. goodbye_mr_bond - 6,426
4. David Wilkinson - 8,326
5. MadMelkor - 5,759
6. stormerne - 4,860
7. BigWheel - 6,727

Well it was actually of this game that Smash started talking to me about getting a scoring cap, because of the enormity of mine and Cactus Pete’s (Edited by Matrix: you mean Kev) score – at that time I could see the use for a scoring cap, but we couldn’t agree on what it should be – I “naturally” wanted a higher cap than Smash!!
Looking in the rearview mirror we should have had these discussions in the open forum and not over ICQ or MSN as we did

No, it is up to you, Shadowdale, and others... use your brains and help think of ways to make it work. You've been mostly a naysayer, and only advocate a "protectionist" solution (the cap)...

Well Starlifter, now that we have the poll function in the forums I think that you should make a poll about your earlier suggestions to a new scoring system – but to make it easier for me and others could you please take the results from last month and put them through your new algorithm so that we can SEE what effect they will have.
After that you make a poll saying something like:
Do you think the scoring system should be changed?
Yes?
No?
Yes and the suggested solution is good?

You state that you "think" it would be a good idea to have "extra awards", but before you finish the sentence, you totally trash the idea! So much for sincerity. Try being constructive instead, if you are serious. Otherwise, don't presume to condescend.

Well it was never my intention to trash the idea – it’s just that if we want more awards then I think they should be serious – I know that I’m not being very helpful since I don’t have any ideas of my own, but I don’t think that we should just make some new awards just to have more of them

If you are going to make such bizarre and mysterious expressions about "fair" and "fun", then you had better explain it in more detail. It is irresponsible, as a respected CivFanatics leader, to drop little poison pills like that.

From Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:
Fair: Free from bias; dishonesty; injustice. 17. In a fair manner: He doesn’t play fair . 22. Fair and square; honestly; justly; straightforward.
Fun: 1. That which provides mirth or amusement; enjoyments; Playfulness: A picnic would be fun. She’s full of fun.

What is so bizarre is (after at least 6 months since GOTM 2) the sudden rush by some to make a specific, radical change -- when there are other more serious concerns that affect all the GOTM players, and not just the top few scorers!

Well then it might be time for another big discussion of the rules – and hopefully we can all agree on something this time

Well, that's it... No offense, esp. to Shadowdale.

Oh none taken – it takes a lot more to penetrate my drunkenness and pierce the veil of alcohol that is always surrounding me!!!.



BTW This is the first time I have ever posted anything that was too long - you probably get this a lot Starlifter, but since I'm almost always half drunk I never seem to think straight enough to make lang post

 

[starlifter]

OK, those not in the crosshairs of my last couple posts need not cringe and go running for cover, as we're making progress .

BTW, I commend you, Shadowdale, on making your posts to begin with. It has served as a useful starting point for discussion. Others should feel free to express their thoughts, too -- even if they feel they can't kill a diplomat with a Veteran Nuclear Missile!

Seriously, I think you guys and gals that normally don't post much, but lurk or even play the GOTMs on occasion, should feel free to voice your ideas and suggestions. Volume of posts (e.g., some of my long ones) or 5,000 points games do not give any of us the final say (that's for Matrix ).

But ya'll feel free chip in with your own thoughts, even if you are just joining CFC or the GOTM! And don't worry about what others might agree/disagree with.


Shadowdale now holds CFC single post length record, as far as I know, LOL!!!

By Shadowdale:

...
BTW This is the first time I have ever posted anything that was too long - you probably get this a lot Starlifter, but since I'm almost always half drunk I never seem to think straight enough to make lang post

Actually, I always use the "Check Message Length" java script link, which counts the characters. It has not been until the last 24 hours that 3 of my posts exceeded 10,000 characters, so I edited them until the were below 10,000 (mercifully for every one ).

I didn't know they would carry over like yours did, but now I do... I had assumed they would be truncated.

No I'm not saying that they GotM is an UN-friendly competition, but I know that I have personally played a game one month (GotM#6) with the sole purpose to win, something I didn't do the other months - and that I did this is not in the spirit of friendly competition. I know that I have a good deal of the blame when I talk about how the Game seems to be more cutthroat now.

Maybe part of this is a slight difference in what how we view the GOTM. Personally, I don't consider your playing GOTM#6 "with the sole purpose to win" unfriendly or dishonorable in the least. I don't think you need to "tank" your game to be friendly, Shadowdale. If you play and win the next 10 GOTMs in a row, I will personally not find any unfriendliness in that. It means you're an exceptionally good player, and as many of you discussed in some of the links in my prior post, it means you've also got the time to play a "full" game.

There's no foul if you don't have the time to play the "normal" Civ II style game. In other threads, I've suggested an OCC if one is short on time. If I get deployed in coming months, something like that may be very likely in my case, too, because of time limits.

"...seems to be more cutthroat now..." ??? I'm still not seeing what you're referring to here, so since my score was tops in the last GOTM, I'll give my thoughts (which I've actaully already said, even going back to June). It is one of my personal hopes that the level of play of all GOTMers will continue to improve, as each GOTM progresses.

My own game is pretty much stagnent, though I do find tweaks here and there. Ideally, what I see is quite a few players doing better. To help them, I make long posts and even attach extra saved games and screenshots to show people my own methods. These can then help out others to play at higher levels, and get higher GOTM scores.

In fact, I typically post details about how my own game is going as I play it, and others can (including you & Smash, etc.) then use it as some sort of benchmark and exceed it... I don't mind. If if makes even your own game better, then great!

I will make another comment about something about GOTM 7. 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. BTW, the real irony is that lots of computer problems made me cut my planned game plan short in the 1500's, ... so most of my "normal" scoring and growing was never even completed! Had it been, the score would have exceeded 14,000...

My view of a friendly GOTM is the free discussion of the month's game. Since usually feel my results will be fairly good, I take it further and explain details of the game even before the end of the GOTM, in the hopes that others can benefit from my work before the GOTM deadline.

In fact, Thunderfall/Matrix have actually edited some stuff out of my posts because I was telling too much. My goal is to play well, and help others play as well or better... and BTW no one else comes even close to posting as many GOTM details, help, tips, and even intermediate saved games (like in GOTM 6). So I personally chafe at the suggestion that the GOTMs are not "fun" and "friendly", and find the thought insulting.

BTW, to me, a "cutthroat" competition would be (for instance) one in which everyone just sent in the final results, and perhaps posted false advice, incorrect facts, etc. with the intent of somehow lowering other scores in order to make it easier for them to get a higher relative score.



So to me, the GOTMs are a friendly thing, as far as I have seen... except for the remarks I've seen dropped by you and Smash at times. And since until GOTM 7, you and Smash have won all the GOTMs, yet you are both now making similar statements, that's why I've held your feet to the fire and asked "Why?".

And so to repeat an earilier sentence, I personally chafe at the suggestion that the GOTMs are not "fun" and "friendly", and find the thought insulting.

Not to hit this point too hard, but one could reasonably conclude (from the context and timing of your posts) that the GOTMs are "fun" and "friendly" as long as you or Smash wins them.

by Starlifter:
"It was initially thought" - Most of us have no idea what was "originally thought", since were not there and not part of the "good old boys" group. The number of GOTM participants has increased many times over the original number, so perhaps you will fill us all in on what was "initially thought" and quit speaking in riddles.

Reply by Shadowdale:

Well you might not have been there when it all begun, but doesn't it seem logical that we wanted a fun competition that we could all play and have fun while playing - and not the currently race for points.

LOL, Spare me, Shadowdale... your whole GOTM is set up on points, and every month you rank everyone by points... the most points win, and then you all proclaim a Gold, Silver, and Bronze "medal", and post it "forever" in a "Hall of Fame".

So be honest... I've now read the posts that you guys were making six months ago. I don't see any about getting rid of your "race for points". And I certainly don't see any discussion about eliminating a "race for points". In fact, the word you used in post after post was "competition", and you've been the best at it, dude.

So how is it suddenly not "fun" to play the game? You are free to play the game any way you choose each month... any style you want. But the system and game of Civ II is a system of points, period.

So let's stop being so hypocritical and inconsistent, and simply list your specific concerns -- that way, all GOTM players can look at your view of the underlying problems and contribute.

Every time I've suggested ideas to remove the emphasis on winning and the top few scorers, the "good old boys" either ignore the detailed suggestion, or publicly poo-poo them.

So if you or Smash (or any one of similar though that is not posting right now) is in any way disgruntled, then it is not only your own system, but your own tenacious hold to a "top 3 and nothing else" mentality.

So I'm not misquoted, I certainly do not favor passing out medals or whatnot to everyone, but I do think that others that play the GOTM warrant recognition. Failing to look after the GOTM as a whole has already started a decline, as many have noted in their posts in the past 4 months... from Leowind to noughmaster.

Another possibility that both noughmaster and I have raised on several separate occasions is the periodic voluntary agreement of the "top players" to play a style like OCC, or "Ten City", or something. This would open the possibilities up for others to make it into the top ten, and most importantly, expand participation in the GOTM.

Too many have gone to the sidelines, and many others simply don't play. It's time the top scorers quit whining, and start solving.

PS, This message is 9,066 characters long!

 

[starlifter]

Here is what I've seen, as rationalization for altering the game & gameplay of Civilization II with a radical new modification of the raw Civ II scores (e.g., the "cap"):


1. Time. "Oh woe is me... I cannot play the full game of Civilization the way I want to because I just don't have enough time". And (to quote you) "we wanted a fun competition that we could all play and have fun while playing - and not the currently race for points. "

This is the height of hypocracy. What you mean is: You want to be able to WIN, but you don't want to have to play Sid Meier's game to do it! Further, you want to win, yet convince people you don't want to win.

I have now gone back and read your posts from months ago, like the one trying to tell poor Cactus Pete that he really did all right... after you rung his bell that month. And the next month. And every month after that in which you both played. Need I drag it in and quote it? Then you try and cloud the issue with double talk about "fun" and "friendly".

If you were consistent, and really meant that you were just playing for fun, you'd play a different style that gives you fun (remember, you said playing a normal game is no longer fun!), fits your own time frame, and likely causes you to finish #47 that month (like OCC, ten cities, etc.).

So simply be honest in your comments -- Reason #1 ("lack of time" to play a "fun" game) is just code talk for "I want to win, but don't want to take the normal time to do it". If that were not the case, you would simply play a stlye that was fun for you personally, and fit your time frame, that month.

One more comment about this. It is OK for you to want to win. And it is even great when you do win! I mean that! Your amazing pre-1AD starts in particular have made me do much study to help my own early game. And I'm still working on it, with rather limited success, LOL. But you've opened up this whole can of worms by publically serving us spoonfuls of contradictory gobbledygook (I would say bucketfuls, but don't want to be harse, LOL).

So Relax, dude... it is OK for you to win, and not unfriendly of you to want to win!!


2. Your pre-1850 Spaceship Scoring Advantage. I seem to understand that maybe some of those that have opposed removing this unfair GOTM advantage may be re-thinking it now. That's great, and a positive step for everyone. Except for each month's GOTM winner, all GOTM participants have been penalized for this, since it only helps the best players in the first place. Plus, everyone's normalized results (except for the winner's) are reduced. In GOTM 4, as I've stated as far back as June, the reduction of others' results was 4.9%, due to your SS, Shadowdale.

So great! Maybe this can be fixed at last. Simply use the actual end-turn, don't calculate a "fake" end-turn after the game is done (like is now done).


3. Segregation without Divisions. It is silly to create a "special group" within the GOTM, and come up with some arbitrary method to select one of this elite group as the GOTM winner. If you support the cap, be completely honest and realize you have created a Division of elite players (only those that can reach the cap are contenders). it is better just to have something like a "First Timer", "Intermediate", and "Expert" division. We'd still all play the same exact game, but we'd all play it the same way, but the end of month awards would recognize people more on their relative results that month, rather than how badly they got pummeled by Deity-level players in a King or Warlord level game!

By using this cloak and dagger "cap" method, those that can't reach the cap would not even be conducting their game strategy the same as the "cap" players are! We would need a strategy thread for the "cap" players, and another for all the GOTM players that are playing the game the way Sid Meier designed it.

4. "Fun" and "Friendly" GOTMs. This is a red herring and a poison pill, plain and simple. If GOTMs are not "fun" and "friendly" (and I have always thought they were… and still feel they are!), then exactly how will a "cap" force the GOTMs to be "fun" and "friendly"? Moreover, those that continue to raise this need to explain how the "fun" and "friendly" aspect is lacking. The vast majority of us are not privy to back-channel communications. In particular, since I am making these detailed posts and not letting these comments fade into oblivion unexplained, I would appreciate an explanation if this in any way refers to me.

If necessary, we'll make a new rule mandating "fun" and "friendliness", LOL!! But a "cap" is not such a rule.

5. Anything else? If so, delineate it. Then let's talk about ways to improve and fix the problems. Perhaps the best way will turn out to be a cap. Perhaps not. But that discussion, especially for such a radical alteration of Civ II, has been short-circuited and not taken place yet…. much like asking a Jury to vote at a trial before hearing and cross-examining the evidence.

 

[starlifter]

Well not to object to the fact that I have probably had my say in the GotM, but I have never even thought about a scoring system for the GotM - I suck so much at math that I would never be able to come up with any kind of solution - we took the 50^PNP because that was what seemed the most fair at the time. I was always against the changed that you and noughmaster suggested, but that was primarily because of my ignorance in Math - I couldn't even begin to see where you suggested formulas would lead, and therefore I dismissed them!

This is all nice for you to say now. I will not presume to say that I am personally right about all the suggestions I make, but if nothing else, remember your thoughts in your paragraph when you start to dismiss people's suggestions. It is better to try and improve on them, and if it is not a one line wacky post, someone just might have put some though into it, even if you personally don't see why at the time, or even honestly oppose it.

BTW, the 50^PNP thing that Matrix, you, or whoever came up with is a singularly excellent idea. Otherwise all these games would last until 2020 AD. We both know how many weeks it takes to finish a 2020 AD game for high score, as Thunderfall's HOF plainly shows.

by Starlifter:
Frankly, you are such a hypocrite. And probably others, but I can't tell because they have not posted yet.


Reply by Shadowdale:
Well I already agreed with you on that one - even if I find it more ironical that I'm doing this and not some other player

As I said before, it is very admirable that you at least stuck your neck out and made both a post of your position, as well as a good candid reply.

by Starlifter:
"Not only will this be a lot more work" - What a load of crap, dude. What this implies is that you know something is worth doing, but doing the right thing is not worth it because (supposedly) it would take too much work. What a sad cop out.

by Shadowdale:
I totally agree that if something is worth doing then it should be done, and that is also a good philosophy but currently we have a GotM admin that doesn't have all that much free time on his hands so he might not want to do it simply because of that. As a Math whiz you know that the reality is often very different from the theory

LOL, I'm not a true wiz, but I do work hard at it.

One must decide how something can be improved, then determine how to implement it. To do otherwise is putting the cart ahead of the horse.

I have offered Matrix my help and I'll probably live to regret that but done is done and the step has been taken.

Let's not start the spinning, LOL.

BTW, as far as I'm concerned, your helping with the GOTM does not preclude your playing in the GOTMs (I'm sure this has crossed yours or other's minds). E.g., if you want to play, then do it. And if you win, that's great too. But win, lose, or draw... play the game the way you like and don't whine about time (ya'll did tons of that thru last June, already)... we all have time limitations, and that often makes the difference in how well our games develop .

What I don't want is for the GotM to tell players: "your only good enough for the medium league" and "you have to play the little league, because you just don't have what it takes to play with us big boys" There is and always will be an informal knowledge that some are good and some are not and most people think they know more or less how good they are, but others might not agree with them, so let's not start classifying others on some criteria that we decide.

LOL, for starters, no one suggested that the GOTM tell any player about being "good enough".

A main point of the GOTM is to help player get better, in my view. The overall scoring still places everyone in a numerical order, but allowing players of roughly equal experience to be in Divisions (well, technically Sub-Divisions, since the GOTM itself is a Division).

For Instance:

Newbies - Those that are new to the GOTM, and who generally don't win at Prince or higher. A win in this division automatically moves a player up to the Intermediate division.

Intermediate - Those who struggle at Deity. A win in this division automatically moves a player up to the Expert division.

Expert - Those feel good at Emperor/Deity, and don't mind playing the full Monte.

3 medal awards would be given in each division. A player would decide where they would best like to enter. The only "forced" moves are for GOTM division gold medal winners... those must move up at least one division.

This is all trivial to implement in the spreadsheet, BTW. The administrative time would be slightly expanded, and the GOTM HOF web page would me modified accordingly.

So before someone begins knee-jerk nay-saying this suggestion, think about Thunderfall's HOF... it is not a single HOF, but divided into lots more categories (from Chieftain to Deity). And I do believe I see some players listed in more than one division over there, too, LOL.



There are other suggestions here, for example:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5121&pagenumber=2

Cornmaster made one on July 7th:

Topic: Hall of Fame Question. CornMaster Moderator

posted July 07, 2001 12:35 PM
I got a question about how you do the scoring for the Hall of Fame???

In my opinion Cactus Pete should be higher than Smash (Nothing against you Smash). Even though Smash has a Gold, Pete has 2 silvers, and star too..... so I would think he should be higher.

I would do scoring something like this:
Gold = 3 pts
Sliver = 2 pts
Bronze = 1 pts
Stars = .5 pts
Who ever has the most points would come 1st, then 2nd, etc....

Among others, here was part of another post:

By Starlifter, July 2001:

SUMMARY:

Points awarded for computing the HOF standings:

1 - Star
2 - Bronze (two Stars equals a Bronze effort)
5 - Silver (it takes three Bronze surpasses a silver effort)
11 - Gold (need three silvers to surpass a gold effort)

Star Categories:

1. Fastest finish.
2. Highest score.
3. Fastest OCC finish (New!).
4. Survivor Award (New!).
5. 1500 AD Retirement (New!).
6. Lo-Boy (New!).

Notes on #3:
- Since the purpose of OCC is to finish in the earliest possible year, an additional category fo high scoring OCC award is not neessary

Notes on #4:
- This is for the best "Survivor" (highest non-victory score) in a given month.
- Players must survive until 2020!
- If the AI eliminates a player, they are not eligible for this award.
- This will primarily be a consolation award for those who cannot win via a Spaceship or Conquest by 2020.

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.

Notes on #6:
- This is for the lowest-scoring player who still achieved a standard victory with more than one city (landed SS or conquered world) in a given month.
- Players must achieve a Civ II Victory!
- If the AI wins, the player is not eligible for this award.
- If the AI lands a SS first, the player is not eligible for this award.
- The player must have more than one city; this is not an OCC strategy award.
- This will primarily be a consolation award for those who can struggle to a win, but do it with a LOW score!.

Here was the official reply:

by Matrix, July 2001:

Thanks for the summary, starlifter. I don't feel like reading all this stuff if you don't mind. Even if I'm the moderator here.

First of all, I must say I'm really into shadowdale's ideas.

Secondly, I am however, quite conservative. And with reason: we can't keep changing the rules
...

Now I know Matrix won't ever be reading this part of my post , because it is long and it is in his forum (so it is quite safe from being read, LOL!). But you see the kind of "Inertia" against anything that presumably is not suggested by a "good old boy".

Perhaps all of part of the many suggestion I've made and others have made really are bad (not likely, though). But the underlying problem of participation and even fair reward for alternate play styles has not been addressed. And the decline of the GOTM participation continues, which is a shame.


And now, irony of ironies, a few old-time players seem to have discussed things amongst themselves (which is OK), and decided it is indeed time to change things... yet without a plausible reason that I can see, in the "cap" case.


So ya'll that are creative, think of ideas, borrow some, mix some, whatever... But get at the underlying issues and quit covering things in fluff.

BTW, Matrix is right: as far as rule changes that completely alter the game itself... we should consider rule changes very carefully. The easy part, however, is the post-game computations, awards, rewards, and recognition.

 

[Juize]

*looks shadowdales replies*
Wow, those are impressive.

[EDIT Oh ¤¤¤¤, I interrupted important talk. Oooops...]

 

[Chofritz]

Okidokie... Here we go...

I think scoring cap's are good but IMO they should be set up before every game and should not be based on mapsize, difficulty etc. Of course the scoring cap should not be set to 10000 points on a small map. Some months we could play with a high scoring cap and other months we could even set it to about 1000.

IMO the games should not have to be finished. All you should do is obtain a certain amount of score. Because what happens when someone lands on AC with 3999 points when the scoring cap is 4000. Since players are not allowed to replay the game what should we do, disqualify that player?

I think GOTM will always be a race for medals, honor etc. No matter what you do. People will always compare and see who did best.

Starlifters idea about having a few more rewards, not only these medals and the green and blue stars, is good. So people please post some suggestions. And BTW scoring cap's will remove both the blue and the green star awards.

Blue star because with a scoring cap at 4000 you wont need 10000 points and obtaining this would remove you from the fight for the gold medal. Of course we could keep this one but I see no point. Well we could count "ahha he has 4021 points, he has 4101 points but he has 4103, we have a winner!".

Green star would be of no use since the one to reach the scoring cap first would both take the gold and have the fastest finish. Of course we could keep this one too but if you don't reach the scoring cap, what happens?

I'm not for splitting up people in different divisions because IMO everyone should play together. I'm for helping new players with their game so that they can compete with the big guys after some training. I suggest having a thread listing all these usefull tricks in civ 2, like airbases, the hut pattern (I need to learn this one better myself, ), incremental rushbuying etc. I think all these should be listed. There should also be a statement if they're banned or if you're free to use them in your GOTMs. There should also be a a thread where players can ask questions and learn new stuff.

And about the spaceship trick. We could have a standard SS that everyone has to use. This would make it fair and it won't give Matrix (you're still in the lead right?) any extra work. You say it will because now you have to check so that everyone has buildt the right SS. Well I don't think you have to check that just get their finishdate and post the savegames and if a someone don't trust the other players just let him donwload the files and check them trough for invalid SS's. If we find out someone used the "wrong" SS the he should be disqualified. Well looking at my post now I can see that having a preset SS would still make SS launchers have an adventage over counquerors. But this might be evened out because of the fact that a conqueror can capture the last city exactly when he reaches the scoring cap.

I suggest using a fast SS scince the SS trick would have a smaller effect.

Damn (SORRY!) reading through my post no I realize that SS discussion wont be needed if you don't need to end your games. Of course you can change this from game to game. For example:

This game MUST BE FINISHED and the scoring cap is 4500.

Or

This game doesn't have to be finished and the scoring cap is 1000.

Having scoring cap's would be very simple. As it is now I bet that not even half of the players understand how the scoring formula works (I'm one of them).

Some suggestions for awards:

Newcomer of the month. This award goes to the best of the players that plays their first GOTM.

Acievement of the month. This award goes to someone that does very good compared to erlier results. I think the players should vote about this one.

Ok I'm out of ideas so help me by posting your own.

Hopefully you'll get something good out of this... Hopefully,

A very long post for being me, And I haven't used a single quote,

 

[starlifter]

by Starlifter:

it is fine to favor a scoring cap. But in looking at GOTM#2, I see scores such as:

1. Shadowdale - 10,818
2. Kev - 11,453
3. goodbye_mr_bond - 6,426
4. David Wilkinson - 8,326
5. MadMelkor - 5,759
6. stormerne - 4,860
7. BigWheel - 6,727
------------------------------------------

by Shadowdale:

Well it was actually of this game that Smash started talking to me about getting a scoring cap, because of the enormity of mine and Cactus Pete’s score – at that time I could see the use for a scoring cap, but we couldn’t agree on what it should be – I “naturally” wanted a higher cap than Smash!! Looking in the rearview mirror we should have had these discussions in the open forum and not over ICQ or MSN as we did

Your difference in preferred cap value illustrated the arbitrary nature if changing the raw scoring of Civ II itself.

Changing the GOTM formulas is one thing (the GOTM is by definition a new, non Civ II method of scoring). But declaring by decree some mandated maximum scoring for a given map and starting conditions is quite another... and a double load of crap, since it creates two different sets of playing rules within the same GOTM... those that play the original Civ II game unencumbered and as it is intended, and the minority at the top end who have their own elite rules under the cap.

Well Starlifter, now that we have the poll function in the forums I think that you should make a poll about your earlier suggestions to a new scoring system – but to make it easier for me and others could you please take the results from last month and put them through your new algorithm so that we can SEE what effect they will have.
After that you make a poll saying something like:
Do you think the scoring system should be changed?
Yes?
No?

I don't think I have a suggestion in the offing for a new scoring system. Matrix's 50^PNP solution seems quite good, and I have no objection to it personally.

The NGR (normalized Global Ranking) was already changed by Matrix last month to the best 3 of 5 method, if that's waht you mean.

The only other thing I can think of is the SS landing year. I've explained that in very great detail, complete with examples, going back to last June.

The sudden discussion by you and others shows that people know about it. And everyone has kept saying that it was designed that way, the original GOTM founders knew and still know about it, and since anyone can do it, there is no reason to change it.

Personally, I still think the pre-1850 SS launch advantage should be fixed (simply use the true game turn and the whole issue is moot).

by Starlifter (about Smash's quote):

If you (Smash) are going to make such bizarre and mysterious expressions about "fair" and "fun", then you had better explain it in more detail. It is irresponsible, as a respected CivFanatics leader, to drop little poison pills like that.

by Shadowdale:

From Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language: Fair: Free from bias; dishonesty; injustice. 17. In a fair manner: He doesn’t play fair . 22. Fair and square; honestly; justly; straightforward.
Fun: 1. That which provides mirth or amusement; enjoyments; Playfulness: A picnic would be fun. She’s full of fun.

LOL , OK OK, I asked for an explanation, and you explained what the definition of "fun" and "fair" was... hehe, I guess that is one interpretation of what I was asking about.

Now that I understand in great detail what the definitions of "Fair" and "Fun" are, exactly whay are these elements lacking in the GOTM? And what changed to make you and Smash start dropping these terms?

As I've explained before, the GOTM is still fun to me. I have a great time, even when I "lose"... However, as I said waaaay back in June, it is definitely not fair. You all designed it that way and have not been inclined to make it fair. And now instead of fixing the underlying issues that make the GOTM unfair, the "cap" suggestion has been dropped like a bombshell in order to add yet another element of unfainess to an already knowingly flawed system.

Ironically, many of those that are affected the most by issues such as pre-1850 SS launches, and normalized scoring, etc.... they just don't seem to know it. And that's OK, but it's not right for those of you who know you're shafting the masses to do it, even if the masses don't realize it.

That said, I'll personally play no matter what the rule changes are. But I will continue to make posts pointing out the fundamental unfairness and absurdity as I see it.

 

[Matrix]

Wow. I haven't looked at this thread over the last two days or so, and - my my - it's big!! And heavy, considering starlifter vs. shadowdale.

Anyway: there is only one good solution to the SS trick/cheat: It will cease to exist!! Starting from the next GOTM (october) I will look at the turn and not the date. I can do that using the cheat menu option: Set Game Year. There I can see the current turn.

Now, to starlifter: summarize!! Shadowdale is right with the fact that you make your posts too long. I've read until the end of page two of this thread, but when I saw this third page I thought "Never mind, I'll just post."
(Talking about too much time on your hands...)

Furthermore, divisions are still out of the question. Again shadowdale has said it all. I simply do not want to divide the players.

Now, there has also been a discussion about what is "fun" and that sort of things... Let me explain. The Game of the Month is - you guessed it already - a game . And where there is a game, people compete. Otherwise it isn't a game. (You follow me, right?) The real problem is: how do you make it fun (There's the word!) to compete? Ofcourse there are players who won't do their best and, like the Olympics, just want to participate. But people should also have a fun goal to pursue. Therefore I came with the suggestion of the first GOTM scoring system (back then discussing with Stormerne via email) to make it fun to try to get the highest ranking, because before that, the goal was simply to get the highest score. Now it seems that getting the highest GOTM score still means playing very long games. So actually the goal hasn't been reached yet. Therefore this scoring cap could be a good idea. It's rough (that's why I was against it at first), but it's still a suggestion. If this won't do, than I'm happy to hear more suggestions.

And there is also indeed the problem that we don't want to keep changing the rules. But if the rules are flawed - and it appears they are - they have to change. But only when it is absolutely nescessary!! Otherwise the rules will loose their value, and the GOTM in a whole as well.

So: alternative suggestions? Or will we use a scoring cap?

 

[starlifter]

So: alternative suggestions? Or will we use a scoring cap?

Not to dog you, dude, but there are lots of suggestions that have been made over the last 3 months since I've been here. Almost all have been ignored or dismissed, and that's OK, but they have been made and described in detail.

Your question, while well-intention, is loaded (a faulty dilemma) and states no fundamental issues for so radically altering the Civ II gameplay.

I would like someone to clearly explain how an abrupt and arbitrary change in Civ II gameplay (the "cap") will help the GOTM at all. Make no mistake, this greatly changes the way Civ II is played... and it solves nothing, LOL.

Since no one else has provided a clear roadmap of possible reasons for a cap, I will help you out and summarize the four that I can objectively see.


SUMMARY:

1. Time. "Oh woe is me... I cannot play the normal game of Civilization the way I want to because I just don't have enough time".

If someone does not have enough time in one month to play a game of Civ II, the they should simply play a different style that gives them fun, fits their own time frame, and likely causes them to have a fairly low score that month (like OCC, ten cities, etc.). It is absurd to alter the game of everyone else to account for one's own schedule. This subject was debated months ago.

So let's put this Trojan Horse to rest -- "lack of time" to play a "fun" game is just code talk for "I want to do well, but don't want to play a normal game of Civ II to do it, so let's chop everyone's scores and invent an arbitrary way to play the Sid Meier's game".

Nobody else in the World (that I am aware of) cuts off the scoring in Civ II... Scoring flows as a consequence of the starting conditions, ground rules, and playing technique. It is not legislated.

And no one legislates that kind of thing in the real world, like sports, either. If people run a sub-10 second 100 meters, they don't decided to cut it off at 10 seconds and then create a new set of rules to figure out who "really" wins, LOL. So get real.


2. pre-1850 Spaceship Scoring Advantage. Evidently, after months of allowing this unfair GOTM scoring method, I understand this may be removed (finally). That's great, and a positive step for everyone. It also eliminates the only remotely rational reason for a score "cap".

3. Two sets of playing rules within each GOTM. It is silly to create a "special group" of "elite" players within the GOTM that will be subject to new rules... and rules that are different than everyone else in the GOTM who do not reach the cap.

This is no less than coming up an arbitrary method which selects one of this "elite group" as the GOTM winner. So be honest and realize the cap creates a Division of elite players, and only the few people that can reach the cap that month can play by the special cap rules. The vast majority of GOTM players are segregated and excluded... in a real sense, cast out from playing on the same field.

IMHO, it is better just to have something like a "First Timer", "Intermediate", and "Expert" division. We'd still all play the same exact game under the same rules as everyone else, but the end of month awards could recognize people more on their relative results that month, rather than how badly they got pummeled by Deity-level players in a King or Warlord level game!

By using this cloak and dagger "cap" method, players that can't reach the cap (which will be most GOTM players) will not be conducting their game strategy like the "cap" players will! Make no mistake, this create two sets of rules within each GOTM, depending on if you are "good" enough to reach the cap to begin with.

BTW, we would need a strategy thread for the elite "cap" players, and another separate thread for all the regular GOTM players that are playing the month's game the way Sid Meier designed it. Otherwise, the strategies and progresses will be jumbled and confuse many people.

4. "Fun" and "Friendly" GOTMs. This thought is a clearly red herring and a poison pill, plain and simple. If GOTMs are somehow suddenly declared not "fun" and "friendly" (and I have always thought they were fun and friendly... and still feel they are!), then exactly how will a "cap" force the GOTMs to be "fun" and "friendly"?

And just who is in charge of declaring that the GOTMs are somehow not "fun" and "friendly" on my behalf anyway? Well, I declare that they are fun! And Friendly! So spare me.




So these are the 4 reasons that have been put forth for using a cap. Moreover, no one has clearly stated what the problem, or underlying impetus is, for even considering a cap. One should have a problem before attempting to solve it.

My input to Matrix (who is the one that will make the final decision anyway) is to simply take a close look at the fundamental reasons for even considering a cap. Then get a full and complete discussion about it in the light of day, and state the clear logic before signing on to any change that alters the fundamental way the game is played.

Step back, dude. It took you 3 months to even acknowledge the pre-1850 spaceship issue as a significant one, so the last thing we need is a one-week flash decision on "caps". I guarantee many people are not going to like how that is going to darken the GOTMs. And CivFanatics will look pretty silly for capping the Civ II scores in the GOTMs, yet posting and promoting Normal Civ II games in Thunderfall's HOF.

Capping the Civ II score in the hallmark competition in the CivFanatics community and substituting an arbitrary victory condition creates an entirely new game, splits the GOTM players into two distinct styles of play within each GOTM, and frankly, makes the entire event seem childish and immature.

At the very least, Thunderfall's prominent links to the GOTM should be removed from the CivFanatics homepage, and the CivFanatics BBS emphasis returned to Thunderfall's HOF -- which does not throttle the normal Civ II gameplay with arbitrary limits.

Jeeze, imagine when someone asks "What was the winning GOTM score last month?" and the someone tried to proudly answer: "Oh, that is pre-ordained by the CivFanatics GOTM silly... the winning score was determined to be 6,000 points months before the game even started! Since a few players don't like completing a normal game, by edict 12 people scored exactly 6,000!!"

 

[starlifter]

Furthermore, divisions are still out of the question. Again shadowdale has said it all. I simply do not want to divide the players.

A cap not only DIVIDES the players, it is a sneaky and underhanded way to do it, since there is only one set of awards, but everyone that cannot reach the cap limit is automatically disqualified. At least I presume that some mysterious method will be divined that will choose the winning order from those that all have identical scores.

BTW, the 50^PNP scoring method is also ditched when a cap is implemented.

Also, the Blue and Green stars are eliminated.


Finally, realize that the really divisive thing is to create two sets of playing rules for GOTM participants, yet mislead everyone into believing that everyone is playing on a level field by the same rules. In fact, the rules (by definition) change depending on what your score is with a cap.

Again shadowdale has said it all.

Wrong-o, dude. Myself and many others have said many other things since before I even joined CFC. What you mean to say is Shadowdale has said all you're ready to hear at this time. And in principle, I don't have a problem with that, since I support the fact that you are the decision maker for the GOTMs, even if you or anyone else happens to disagree with my personal inputs. But I just want to set the record straight: Shadowdale did not "say it all".

Now, to starlifter: summarize!! Shadowdale is right with the fact that you make your posts too long. I've read until the end of page two of this thread, but when I saw this third page I thought "Never mind, I'll just post."

Give me a break. When I post something short, the excuse is a rather curt dismissal on some arbitrary basis at times, then a later claim to not understand the details.

Most of what I seem to have to laboriously explain is common sense to most people I know in real life, but since readers come from many difering backgrounds and experience levels, and I often see people asking for more detail and examples (clear back to when I first joined in June), I take the time to spoon feed it to you and anyone else that would care to read it.

Most of the whining about CFC posts is about those silly spammers that spew one-liners of non-sequitor thoughts, presumabley to up their post counts, LOL.

BTW, almost every one of my posts has a main body and summarization and/or main point at the end of it.


Hey, this post is short!

 

[starlifter]

Now, there has also been a discussion about what is "fun" and that sort of things... Let me explain. The Game of the Month is - you guessed it already - a game . And where there is a game, people compete. Otherwise it isn't a game. (You follow me, right?) The real problem is: how do you make it fun (There's the word!) to compete?

First off, do not delude yourself. The GOTM and every variant I've seen suggested relies on scoring. So far, I'm the only one that has (among other suggestions) mentioned that if scoring is offensive to some people... let's just get rid of scores altogether and make the GOTM an experience of simply everyone playing the same game and talking about it. No gold medals. No Star Awards. No emphasis on high scores. Just discusions of technique from a common game that changes each month.

That would be jake with me personally, since I seem to be in the minority of people that think the more experienced players have a sort of responsibility to help the newer players improve, and one day hopefully even "outdo" the current crop of high-scorers. Personally, I bust my butt each month to try and provide details and help not so much for the best players, but for those who want to improve.

SUGGESTION 1

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

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.

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).

SUGGESTION 4

EXPANDED STAR AWARDS. It in monumentally ridiculous not to do this, regardless of any other changes and discussion.

Here is what someone once said to those that were complaining about the time "issue":

by Smash, 06-13-2001 01:22 PM:

Since this is a vote, I say leave it as is.

If you can't finish in a month then thats fine. Its just a fun thing. No one will be shot for not finishing.
If the global ranking is important to you,then you had better make time.
Fortune and glory is not without sacrifice.

One simple Star Award that I suggested months ago would single-handedly solve even the limp "Oh my, I can't find the time to play Civ II" issue.

By Starlifter, originally posted in July 2001:

...
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.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5121&pagenumber=2

Note that the year can be changed, depending on the difficulty level... or multiple years can even be recognized, like a 1AD, 1000AD and 1500AD retirements. But I'm sure some people might not be able to find two hours to play this far, either, LOL .


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.

I personally don't favor heavy starting contions tweaking, but it is a legitimate option that at least does not alter the gameplay of Civ II and embarrass the name of CivFanatics as a whole. Once the game has begun, it is absurd to implement arbitrary game-changing rules, like cap... this is just plain absurd and an abomination to the nature of Civ II. LOL, people should go play checkers if they want a different game than Civ II.


So there are some suggestions that will allow us to retain the name of CivFanatics. But like Smash used to say, "Fortune and glory is not without sacrifice."


BTW, if we implement any form of "cap", someone better let TF know that he's giving inaccurate info...

by Thunderfall, in Civ II Discussion Forum, 09-07-2001 07:28 PM:
...
Our Game of the Month section pretty much serve the same purpose as the HOF AND offer a more meaningful comparison of skill at the same time.

Here's a bonus suggestion: if we rush to such absurdities as caps of gameplay, then we should either disassociate the GOTM event away from CivFanatics to its own independent website to save the good name of CivFanatics, or maybe someone should suggest to Thunderfall that we rename this site to CivWoosies.