The GOTM stays a monthly game.

[Matrix]

I've discussed with Thunderfall about having a GOTM which takes two months or the other alternatives, but he is strictly against any alternative. So it stays as it is.
<HR>
Now, the only (minor) problem that's left is the fact that the Global Ranking is too dependent of the number of GOTM's people have played or missed.

As Picard says it: Suggestions?

<FONT COLOR="red"><FONT size="4">1</FONT s>: Leave this as it is as well. There are alternatives to a good long game, like Smash's action of GOTM IV: just have one city. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0> Or try to end as soon as possible.
<FONT size="4">2</FONT s>: For the missed GOTM's, use the median score.
<FONT size="4">3</FONT s>: When missed a GOTM, don't reduce the GOTM score by 30% (like now) but e.g. 15%.</FONT c>

Actually, I'm against option 2. But it <u>is</u> a solution, so I mentioned it anyway.

I'm prefer option 3 slightly, but I don't really care if all of you don't want to change it.
The disadvantage of 2 and 3 is that there might be cases where it's more rewarding not to send in your GOTM. However, no one will do that, since the GOTM is mainly for the individual GOTM's anyway.

And I want this to be the last time we discuss it. Whatever we decide, this is definite! The GOTM is working fine now, except for this (in my opinion).
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/hammer.gif" border=0>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/tmp/MatrixBW.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by Matrix (edited June 16, 2001).]

 

[starlifter]

In my first message as a new forum member, I agree. I registered earlier today to make my input... just leave the GOTM as a GOTM. There are many ways to play a Civ game, including one city (which goes fast).

 

[BorderPatrol]

Well, it doesn't seem fair that those of us who didn't join the website until April of May are getting penalized. This month will be my first GOTM, but I may not bother submitting it if my GOTM score will be low because I havn't been in any others. Not going to tell you how to run your GOTM, but don't expect new people to be happy with a system that doesn't give them a chance.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0><FONT COLOR="green">If you cross the border, you better have your green card!</FONT c><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>

 

[starlifter]

I, too, am a new member to Civ Fanatics (this month). I just went back and read the rankings section you must be referring to, BorderPatrol:

NewScore = 0.7*OldScore+0.3*GOTMscore.

"When you play for the first time, the median score (score of the player in the middle, not the average score) will be used for the old score."

Hmmm... I agree somewhat that it is weird to use the score of some "median" player to calculate my Global ranking for the first time. With a 70% wieghting, it is almost guaranteed to give a considerably skewed result. So... I'm going to see if I can find the last GOTM (#4) and download it and play it to see what I would get, even though I know it is too late to actually compete for a medal in GOTM 4. But I'll submit my game and data when I'm done and see if it can be used to compute my first Global ranking (to be used as the "Old Score").

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

I hate to be the one to mess up your neat 3-option poll, Matrix

but how about:

4. Unfinished games can be submitted, but with some kind of early retirement penalty (say, halve the GOTM score mutiplier).

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

Originally posted by Matrix:
I've discussed with Thunderfall about having a GOTM which takes two months or the other alternatives, but he is strictly against any alternative.

I am merely curious. I am not campaigning for anything or trying to change any outcome. I am merely curious: Why?

I mean why so "strict" about "no alternatives"? Just curious. When such an absolute decision comes down, I think it helps to know what (that we obviously don't already know) factors in. Maybe knowing would aid understanding of what's important to the site and keeping it great. If it was an arbitrary decision for TF, that would be completely understandable too, but this doesn't sound arbitrary. Not that TF has to explain himself to us at all; I naturally & happily accept it either way. Did I remember to say I was just curious?

Spiff

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
I hate to be the one to mess up your neat 3-option poll, Matrix <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0> but how about:

4. Unfinished games can be submitted, but with some kind of early retirement penalty (say, halve the GOTM score mutiplier).

Excellent idea!!!!

But you will still need an option for players that forget/don't submit.

Although half of 0 is still 0.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CivFanatics Civ 2 Ladder
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

 

[neokruze]

I totally agree with Border Patrol. For those of us who signed up just recently, what are we supposed to do on this?

 

[Smash]

Perhaps the GR could be based on your 5 best results or something.Or 5 most recent.Kinda like seeding in tennis

 

[sekong]

I like smash's idea.

 

[starlifter]

The more I have thought about it the more I've realized it is crazy to include another person's performance into an individual score in any way.

If we think about it... why should a new player enter a GR with a bias better than all those who have actually earned their GR position? A player should have only their own performance counted in a GR.

So as a new Civ Fanatics member and GOTM player, I am completely opposed to using a "median" player 's score as part of the GR.

Perhaps the first GR could have a minimum 2 or 3 GOTM requirement. In pro tennis (to follow Smash's analogy), you cannot be ranked "globally" until you enter 3 pro tournaments. Check out Martina Hingis' performance before she was ranked. Imagine telling pro tennis players that new tour players would come into the rankins with a 70% bias to the median player on the tour.


So a requirement for GR should be:

0.6 * (AVG(MAX [2 of last 4])) + 0.4 * (Most recent)


NOTES:

1. The exact numbers could of course be tweaked, e.g., MAX[3 of last 5].

2. Other Medians or arbitrary scores are not used. A player would have to play another GOTM to use as the history before being ranked. Until then, the new player would not be ranked with a GR.

3. If a recent GOTM was missed, the GR score would not be impacted.

4. If a person played a GOTM with an alternate strategy, such as OCC (with the attendant low score), no worries.

5. As long as a person plays at least one "full" GOTM every couple months, the pressure would be off to play a long GOTM every month, and people could even pursue more non-traditional styles.

6. A "bad" GOTM (for a particular individual, that is) would not impact the GR.

7. A miss (or even a defeat) in the GOTM would not reduce the GR. It would take more than one defeat or miss to begin reducing the GR. This is particularly helpful if a person goes on vacation for a month.

 

[Alan_Nicoll]

I understand GOTM is supposed to be for fun. Then why this obsession over high scores? Why keep an official "who's best" list at all? Just post the current scores and let it go at that.

 

[Matrix]

First of all, let me point out the the Global Ranking is just an addition to the individual Game of the Month's. At first there were only the Game of the Month's and it was only the idea to look at each individual GOTM and forget about it the next month. You can still do that! I mean, you could make yourself a goal like getting a GOTM score higher than the average, for example.

Originally posted by SpacemanSpiff:
I am merely curious. I am not campaigning for anything or trying to change any outcome. I am merely curious: Why?

I mean why so "strict" about "no alternatives"? Just curious. When such an absolute decision comes down, I think it helps to know what (that we obviously don't already know) factors in. Maybe knowing would aid understanding of what's important to the site and keeping it great. If it was an arbitrary decision for TF, that would be completely understandable too, but this doesn't sound arbitrary. Not that TF has to explain himself to us at all; I naturally & happily accept it either way. Did I remember to say I was just curious? <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/confused.gif" border=0>

Thunderfall is the boss, because this is his site. And he's got far more experience than anyone else here concerning these kind of decisions. So if he says "no", then it is: no. And if you want reasons for his decision, PM or e-mail him. I don't mind a little pressure on that guy. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tongue.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
Well, it doesn't seem fair that those of us who didn't join the website until April of May are getting penalized. This month will be my first GOTM, but I may not bother submitting it if my GOTM score will be low because I havn't been in any others. Not going to tell you how to run your GOTM, but don't expect new people to be happy with a system that doesn't give them a chance.

When you're new to the GOTM, you'll start with the median score of the Global Ranking, so that's in the middle of everyone: no disadvantage.

The disadvantage we're talking about is for people who missed a GOTM <u>after</u> they've already played one before, because <u>then</u> you drop in the Global Ranking.

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
I hate to be the one to mess up your neat 3-option poll, Matrix <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0> but how about:
4. Unfinished games can be submitted, but with some kind of early retirement penalty (say, halve the GOTM score mutiplier).

But what if you haven't played at all?
And if we do that, I'll get twice as many GOTM submissions. Also, won't it just be better if there are only finished games in the results page? If you haven't finished, you can still compare your scores with them. Only other won't be able to see it.
By the way, this stands alone from the Global Ranking.

<HR>
And now for the idea of using only the best GOTM results for the GR:

I thought about this but came to the simply conclusion that you cannot, or actually may not pick the best of certain GOTM results, because you just can't compare separate GOTM's. Really, I'm a bit reluctant in disagreeing with experts like starlifter or stormerne, but picking the best GOTM's...does not seem correct in any way, to me.

This may sound arrogant - and I am happy with alternatives, like goodbye_mr_bond gave - but I've thought about it a lot before posting the first thread of this topic. I really think the only sort of valid way to prevent a dramatic loss in the GOTM score is by my option #3.

And starlifter, using the median score for people who are starting just, looks <u>exactly</u> the most reasonable thing to do. First of all, because it would be unfair to give starting people a disadvantage above others. But to fight your statement that it's crazy to include another person's performance into an individual score: you not using another person's performance, but the performance of <u>every player who ever played</u>, which is the exact way to insert someone into this "system", so to speak. What could be more neutral than the middle of the list?
Imagine a newly person starts with a score of zero. Isn't it more unfair if this new person has a disadvantage to the person who starts a month later where the differences in the GR might be bigger and the average GR score therefore lower, which makes it easier for the second newby to climb up in the GR than for the first newby?

<HR>
Again, this is all just talk about the Global Ranking. If you think it sucks, than keep your eyes focussed merely on the GOTM's themselves (like Thunderfall does <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>).

starlifter, I hope I haven't depressed you or let you down, because I've also disagreed with another of your proposal about people who lost the space race. I really want your opinion as a lot here is based on other people's ideas.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/tmp/MatrixBW.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by Matrix (edited June 18, 2001).]

 

[Thunderfall]

Originally posted by Alan_Nicoll:
I understand GOTM is supposed to be for fun. Then why this obsession over high scores? Why keep an official "who's best" list at all? Just post the current scores and let it go at that.

I also don't think GR is very meaningful, but matrix thought it would make people unhappy if GR is removed. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited June 18, 2001).]

 

[BigWheel]

As one of the guys in the middle of the pack, everything is going just fine. I'm always curious about how I'm doing - I check my global ranking each month - but don't really care about it. My fun is how I do in the game and the scoring is secondary. If I happen to get a good score, so be it. But if I score poorly because I decided to play a cautious game, that's OK too.

That said, I do have an opinion about new players and the global ranking: let them earn their spot by playing for several months. If they have the skills, they'll rise to the top soon enough.

 

[starlifter]

Opening note: discussion of a topic does not equal obsession, Alan_Nicoll.

>And starlifter, using the median score for
>people who are starting just, looks exactly
>the most reasonable thing to do. First of
>all, because it would be unfair to give
>starting people a disadvantage above others.

The converse of that is that you are putting the newbie above all the players who are below Mr. Median. In essense, you're telling all those GOTM players below the median that Mr. Newbie is "better", without Mr. Newbie having to play a game to prove it.

>But to fight your statement that it's crazy
>to include another person's performance into
>an individual score: you not using another
>person's performance, but the performance of
>every player who ever played, which is the
>exact way to insert someone into this
>"system", so to speak.

That is not the only choice. What I've explained is that a player's score should only be based on the player's own performance. Since you are using a weighted average, based on present and past games played, it is my contention that the player's GR should be based solely on that player's own scores, not on the game score that a Mr. Median player achieved.

>What could be more neutral than the middle
>of the list?

Again, you thought logic poses a faulty dilemna. It is not a question of which score or what average of other players' games to use.

An alternative is to not compute a GR for a person until they have at least two games of their own, for example.

> Imagine a newly person starts with a score
>of zero. Isn't it more unfair if this new
>person has a disadvantage to the person
> who starts a month later where the
>differences in the GR might be bigger and
>the average GR score therefore lower, which
>makes it easier for the second newby to
>climb up in the GR than for the first newby?

Again, the newbie (including me) should be required to either play a GOTM for a couple months to get a GR, or else go back and play a previous GOTM so that score can be used.

In pro sports for example, one's ranking is solely determined by one's own performance, even when new to the pro tour.


About the GR in general... almost everyone's concerns can be addressed in one fell swoop if you use a max function, and take the top 2 score out of the last 4 games, to compute the historical part of the GR, for example.


> starlifter, I hope I haven't depressed you
>or let you down, because I've also disagreed
>with another of your proposal about
>people who lost the space race. I really
>want your opinion as a lot here is based on
>other people's ideas.

I'm not upset... you're just dead wrong, and all mixed up, Matrix ... LOL....

If a person loses the space race, then it follows they lost the game... and should naturally be awared a commensurate score with losing (0.0)...

Now I need to put down my Guiness, stop writing and throw some more darts at the Matrix target on my dartboard... (kidding about the darts, not the Guiness

)...

 

[Matrix]

Well, you could be right about the GR. A newbie might have to start with a score of 0 instead of the median score. But my original question remains: what about people missing a GOTM? Do we have to be so harsh and just calculate with a score of 0? Actually, I feel as much comforting with my proposal #3 as with #1 (listed above). Just say what you think is best.

But I still disagree about the space-ship-loss-end.

I will use a finishing date of 2020 AD.

Everyone,
do you agree letting newbies start from the bottom in the Global Ranking?

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/tmp/MatrixBW.gif" border=0>
Game of the Month administrator.

 

[BigWheel]

Originally posted by Matrix:
...newbies start from the bottom in the Global Ranking?

Agreed, but reluctantly. I am against using the median, but also see shortcomings with using a 0 for a newbie's history. Instead, why not just acknowledge that we have no history for that player and score accordingly.

For example, a (remarkably consistent) player who starts getting a normalized score of 10 every game will only have a global ranking of 8.8 after six months of playing. This happens because we have effectively said that the player scored 0 on his/her first game.

Instead for the very first game, why not say that that game's score is both GOTMscore and OldScore? That is:

NewScore = 0.7*if(OldScore=0,GOTMscore,OldScore)+0.3*GOTMscore.

Note that once a player has a history, the formula reverts to its current form. Our same consistent player will start at a 10 ranking and will stay there. How 'bout it?

 

[Lord Oden]

Bigwheel has a good point. I think that is the best way for "newbes" to get in to the ranking with out to much displacement from starting with a old score of "0" or "avg"

I also think the scoreing system should be "tweeked" using different values so everyone does not try to kill everyone but one city and try to pump up their scores untill the end of the game.

I would rather see a faster "smarter" player who is efficent, and realistic than one who gets to the end of his game and becomes a zombie just takeing care of his land and his cities for 300 years just to pump up his score.

 

[shadowdale]

Well Lord Oden - if you look at the older GotM's and some of the older thread that are in this forum you'll see that we have already changed to scoring system several times to give more points to faster players - and I must say that I think the current system is working very fine indeed!! We can't be sure though since the last GotM was on deity and that normally takes quite a while to complete but I'm pretty sure that we are going to see more of what the new system has to offer in the current GotM!!

------------------
We are species 8472 - assimilation attempts are futile - the weak shall perish

No wait we are species 5618 and we got beer...... don't harm us!!!!!!