The GOTM stays a monthly game.

[starlifter]

>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?

No, I never suggested that newbies have a score of 0 used as their historical score when new to the GR. The choices are not either 0 or the median, LOL...

The way to compute a newbie's first GR is either:

A. as Big Wheel suggests, or

B. require at least one historical game score in order to obtain the first GR.

Mathematically, Big Wheel's suggestion is the same as using the newbie's first GOTM score as both the current and the past GOTM. This is both an acceptable method and an easy method to implement.

I personally favor taking it one step more and saying that a player should have at least two GOTMs submitted (even a past GOTM, like #4) in order to have a statistically valid (well, semi-valid) sample on which to derive the GR.

In fact, I am currently playing GOTM #4, which I will submit for a score when I finsh in a few days... But GOTM 4 is a much larger map than GOTM 5 was, so it may take a few days!


>But I still disagree about the
>space-ship-loss-end. I will use a finishing
>date of 2020 AD.

LOL, no worries... how many people actually lose the space race anyway? Probably almost never happens... I know I've never personally heard of anyone losing the space race.

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

*** I disagree with inserting a 0 into the past score as much as using median score *** my reasons are the same as what Big Wheel outlined.

So my input is either use the current GOTM score as the past entry too, or require that a newbie also submit a second GOTM game to be used for the past entry.

 

[Matrix]

No, no. That won't work - I've discussed that before. That's because that first game will be far too important. In your example for instance, the older GOTM has a 70% influence on the GR score, against 30% of the new one. A month later it's: 49% - 21% - 30%. A month later: 35% - 15% - 21% - 30%. After five months the influence of te first GOTM will be less than that of the last GOTM. Does this make more sense than the median score? Or zero? I'd say even less. I mean, you must be an idiot to send in your first GOTM while having a normalized score of 5. That is, if you give a damn about the GR in the first place.

Furthermore, you may play the GOTM IV, but realize that the deadline submission has been closed for a reason. You may play it ofcourse, but just don't think that score might be used for anything yet. But besides that: have fun. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

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

[This message has been edited by Matrix (edited June 21, 2001).]

 

[BigWheel]

Originally posted by Matrix:
No, no. That won't work - I've discussed that before. That's because that first game will be far too important.

So how did you start the scoring for us players who have been playing since GOTM1? Didn't we get the same start where the first game got a 70% weighting in the second month?

The downside of the 70/30 formula that is in use is that you have to pick something to apply the 70% to. The only question is what. When a player starts you really have only one piece of personal data that works. Anything else is meaningless and shouldn't be considered.

 

[starlifter]

>No, no. That won't work - I've discussed
>that before. That's because that first game
>will be far too important. In your example
>for instance, the older GOTM has a 70%
>influence on the GR score, against 30% of
>the new one. A month later it's: 49% - 21% -
>30%. A month later: 35% - 15% - 21% - 30%.
>After five months the influence of te first
>GOTM will be less than that of the last
>GOTM. Does this make more sense than the
>median score? Or zero? I'd say even less. I
>mean, you must be an idiot to send in your
>first GOTM while having a normalized score
>of 5. That is, if you give a damn about the
>GR in the first place.

No need to get up tight... you asked for suggestions, and so I'll give some. If you don't want to use them, no worries... but I am going to explain using an example, because all this has already been solved many times over, out in the real world.

Let's assume the following HYPOTHETICAL data:

Apr GOTM Score 50
May GOTM Score 0 (did not finish, vacation!)
Jun GOTM Score 40
Jul GOTM Score 4 (played as OCC)
Aug GOTM Score 70 (current most recent score)

In my earliest post, I suggested the formula:

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


In this formula, here is the computation:

0.6 * ((50+40)/2) + 0.4 * 70 = 55 (final GR)

As you can see, in effect, a 30% weight is given to each of the 2 older games, and 40% to the newest. Also very important, judging from the posts of those that voiced a concern, is that it is not essential to submit a high-scoring GOTM every month in order to maintain a relatively steady GR. Missing a GOTM, or playing it with a low scoring strategy, or even getting whomped by the AI would not sink the GR.

Personally, I think it is a good idea to allow a person to have a bad or missed game, hence the reason for using a MAX(2 of 4) function.


Here is an example for a new player:

Aug GOTM Score 70 (Only GOTM played so far)


Option 1: No GR (GR not computed until at least 2 historical GOTMs are on file).


Option 2: Use Current GOTM for historical data (Big Wheel's suggestion):


0.6 * ((70+70)/2) + 0.4 * 70 = 70 (initial GOTM)


Option 3: Use 0 for historical data:

0.6 * ((0+0)/2) + 0.4 * 70 = 28

IMHO, this is a needless penalty for new players!


Option 4: Use Median for historical data (assume 20 is median):

0.6 * ((20+20)/2) + 0.4 * 70 = 40

Once again, not much reflection of reality for the new player, and arbitrarily assumes the player did historically better than half the players who have entered the GOTM.

So those are the basic options. Since the best solution is for a player to have at least one (or two) historical games that can be used in the GR computation I have outlined, the new player should either wait for at least 3 months (until they play several GOTMs), or else download, play, and submit a prior GOTM.

Naturally, if a player chose to play a recent prior GOTM for a basis in the GR computation, the player would not be eligible for any award or recognition for playing a prior month's GOTM, nor would their score used to adjust teh original standings... it would be simply used to establish the baseline historical data for a new player's GR.


>Furthermore, you may play the GOTM IV, but
>realize that the deadline submission has
>been closed for a reason. You may play it
>ofcourse, but just don't think that score
>might be used for anything yet. But besides
>that: have fun.

LOL, I know the deadline is past... I just got to a stopping point in the game a moment ago, and I'm in currently in 1808, with an empty size 1 Viking city and an empty size 2 Sioux city left (both starving). The entire war was fought under Democracy, so it dragged into 3 turns to wipe them out. It'll be about 1880 before I can land a SS in this one...

Anyway, that's my input... you can of course adopt any GR method you desire. At a minimum, however, I'd recommend to use something that:

(1) does not penalize established players who miss a game (or lose/have a low score) from time to time and

(2) neither penalizes nor rewards new players, esp. on an arbitrary basis.

The current system evidently hits a player hard for missing a month of GOTM, and using a Median score (or zero) for new players is quite arbitrary, esp. with a 70% weight.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Well, I can't say anything else than that I'm happy with what TF said.

------------------
I know it seem hard sometimes, but uh...
remember one thing:
through every dark night,
there's a bright day after that,
so no matter how hard it get, stick ya chest out
keep ya head up and handle it.

 

[Matrix]

Yeah, c'mon starlifter. It's fine now.
Happy Civing.

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

 

[Sukenis]

Please forgive me if this has already been said. I am taking a break at work and have not time to read indepth this entire forum. I have an idea that seems to me would work with little trouble. This is all based on the belief that a fairly basic spreadsheet is being used to figure the scores.

1. New players
instead of using the middle score (or median) why not do this;
score = first game score * 1.0
After that go on with the 70:30 thing. So no feelings are hurt when a new GOTM player has a GREAT opening game, place a mark by them showing that they are a player who not finished X games (X is whatever you wish)

2. Players missing a GOTM
I get the picture that people want a penalty imposed, but nothing to drastic. For this have a missed members score be the following;
past score * .90
This would give a small penalty, but nothing to kill your Civ pride.

Both of these could be incorporated into a basic spread sheet with few formulas that reoccur over and over. This would mean little time for the mod in tallying the score. as well.

 

[Matrix]

Sukenis, sorry on my turn, but I've gone through all that. Your new player theory makes the first GOTM someone plays far too important, unfairly. Your second suggestion has crossed my mind as well and I thought it to be a good idea, but then I realised a missed GOTM may not under any circumstance reward someone more than a bad played GOTM.

I believe the rules are quite complete now and the GOTM feature has reached it's adulthood.

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

[This message has been edited by Matrix (edited June 28, 2001).]

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

<sobs, wipes his tears on his sleeve>
Our little baby is all grown up...