Unofficial GLOBAL Ranking

[AlexAdam]

Hello civfanatics

I have taken the liberty to compile an unofficial global ranking based on the results of every single GOTM from GOTM1 to GOTM43 (except the missing GOTM4). The way the ranking is calculated is based on a formula that is obviously open to discussion, and here it is. For every victorious GOTM submission, a player is rewarded:

• 1 pt for the Victory (VIC)
• 2 pts if his name appears in the Top Half of the table (TH)
• 3 pts if his name appears in the Top Quarter of the table (TQ)
• 4 pts if he is 3rd
• 5 pts if he is 2nd
• 6 pts if he is 1st

Tie breaker: If 2 players are within 2 pts of each other, their order is calculated according to acquired medals only.

I have also calculated a Progress indicator (PRG) for every player, which compares the average score from his last 3 submissions to the average of all his earlier submissions (applicable to players who have more than 5 submissions).

Without further ado, I present you with the ranking table Please note that this ranking only includes players who a) have at least 3 submissions and b) have submitted in 2012. Also, take note that only victorious submissions are calculated (open to discussion, as already stated).


. . . . . . . . . . . . SCR.|.1st. 2nd. 3rd|.TQ. .TH. .VIC|.PRG
. . 1. DaveMcW. . . . . 258 |.14. . 5. . 4 |.22. .22. .23 |. 0
. . 2. Tabarnak. . . . .230 |. 4. . 6. . 5 |.24. .28. .28 |.+1
. . 3. tommynt. . . . . 199 |.12. . 5. . 0 |.17. .17. .17 |. 0
. . 4. Maxym. . . . . . 151 |. 1. . 1. . 3 |.17. .25. .27 |. 0
. . 5. Neuro. . . . . . 142 |. 5. . 5. . 0 |.14. .15. .15 |.+3
. . 6. Half Nelson. . . 110 |. 0. . 0. . 1 |.10. .23. .30 |.+1
. . 7. Mazer Rackham. . .96 |. 1. . 2. . 2 |.11. .13. .13 |. 0
. . 8. Attaturk. . . . . 90 |. 2. . 0. . 3 |.10. .12. .12 |.+2
. . 9. Derfel_82. . . . .85 |. 0. . 1. . 1 |.10. .14. .18 |.+4
. .10. ssjos. . . . . . .79 |. 0. . 1. . 5 |. 9. . 9. . 9 |.-3
. .11. Arnold_T. . . . . 70 |. 0. . 1. . 1 |. 7. .12. .16 |.+1
. .12. Minime. . . . . . 69 |. 1. . 0. . 0 |.10. .11. .11 |. 0
. .13. Greatsword. . . . 70 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 8. .15. .16 |. 0
. .14. nthexwn. . . . . .67 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 5. .16. .20 |. 0
. .15. TyfoonTurk. . . . 60 |. 0. . 0. . 2 |. 3. .12. .19 |. 0
. .16. pontias. . . . . .58 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 6. .12. .16 |.-1
. .17. Thresian. . . . . 54 |. 0. . 0. . 2 |. 4. .10. .14 |.-1
. .18. FireFree3. . . . .50 |. 0. . 1. . 0 |. 6. . 9. . 9 |.+2
. .19. zvovesny. . . . . 47 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 2. .11. .19 |.+1
. .20. FeiLing. . . . . .44 |. 0. . 1. . 0 |. 6. . 7. . 7 |.+3
. .21. Monthar. . . . . .42 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 2. . 8. .20 |.+1
. .22. AlexAdam. . . . . 41 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 2. .10. .15 |.+2
. .23. godotnut. . . . . 39 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 2. .11. .11 |.-1
. .24. xerex. . . . . . .36 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 9. .15 |.+2
. .25. Gamewizard. . . . 36 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 3. . 7. .13 |.+2
. .26. Halcyan2. . . . . 34 |. 0. . 0. . 1 |. 2. . 7. .10 |.+1
. .27. Arilian. . . . . .32 |. 0. . 1. . 0 |. 4. . 5. . 5 |. .
. .28. Limboldt. . . . . 32 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 8. .13 |.-1
. .29. gkreitz. . . . . .31 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 3. . 7. . 8 |. 0
. .30. CharonJr. . . . . 27 |. 0. . 1. . 1 |. 3. . 3. . 3 |. .
. .31. Osner. . . . . . .27 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 4. . 4. . 7 |.+4
. .32. JungleIII. . . . .26 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 4. .15 |. 0
. .33. Ultraviolent4. . .25 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 3. . 5. . 6 |.+2
. .34. Morcar. . . . . . 25 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 3. . 5. . 6 |.+2
. .35. Aaronius. . . . . 22 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 5. .12 |. 0
. .36. Quizman. . . . . .22 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 4. .11 |.-1
. .37. tincando. . . . . 20 |. 0. . 1. . 0 |. 2. . 3. . 3 |. .
. .38. Dreadnough. . . . 21 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 3. . 4. . 4 |. .
. .39. kcd_swede. . . . .19 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. .17 |. 0
. .40. MinutiaRules. . . 19 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 3. .13 |.+1
. .41. trueblue. . . . . 19 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 4. .11 |.-1
. .42. xiziz. . . . . . .17 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 2. .10 |.+2
. .43. quarterback. . . .17 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. .15 |. 0
. .44. metalmadt. . . . .16 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 2. . 3. . 4 |. .
. .45. Cromwell. . . . . 16 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 3. .10 |.-1
. .46. drakar8888. . . . 16 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 2. . 3. . 4 |. .
. .47. Dan4GS. . . . . . 16 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 4. . 5 |. .
. .48. Suntechnique. . . 16 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 2. . 3. . 4 |. .
. .49. Meister Maggi. . .15 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 4. . 4 |. .
. .50. Schalke 04. . . . 15 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 4. . 4 |. .
. .51. vixafox. . . . . .15 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 2. .11 |.+1
. .52. ladia74. . . . . .14 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 3. . 5 |. .
. .53. JoZilla. . . . . .14 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 2. .10 |.+1
. .54. subber. . . . . . 13 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. .11 |. 0
. .55. numaru7. . . . . .13 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 2. . 9 |.+1
. .56. clint0601. . . . .13 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 3. . 7 |. 0
. .57. GreedysMaximus. . 13 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 3. . 4 |. .
. .58. Xger. . . . . . . 12 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 3. . 6 |. 0
. .59. golem. . . . . . .12 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 3. . 6 |. 0
. .60. Rhodro. . . . . . 12 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 3. . 3 |. .
. .61. caeru71. . . . . .11 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. .11 |. 0
. .62. Banman. . . . . . 11 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 9 |. 0
. .63. StrideColossus. . 10 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. .10 |. 0
. .64. RedRover57. . . . 10 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 3. . 4 |. .
. .65. mike678. . . . . .10 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 2. . 3 |. .
. .66. kamikazees. . . . 10 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 3. . 4 |. .
. .67. BuddhaBubba. . . . 9 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 9 |. 0
. .68. stannp. . . . . . .9 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 2. . 5 |. .
. .69. Foamfollower. . . .9 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 1. . 4 |. .
. .70. tomaalimosh. . . . 9 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 7 |.+1
. .71. Cowhead. . . . . . 9 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 1. . 4 |. .
. .72. aatu. . . . . . . .9 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 3. . 3 |. .
. .73. Falk. . . . . . . .8 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 6 |.+1
. .74. Beto_Java. . . . . 8 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 8 |. 0
. .75. carazycool. . . . .8 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 6 |.+1
. .76. chaptak. . . . . . 8 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 2. . 4 |. .
. .77. Rciv. . . . . . . .8 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 1. . 1. . 3 |. .
. .78. S.K. Ren. . . . . .7 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 2. . 3 |. .
. .79. Harbinger. . . . . 7 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 7 |. 0
. .80. VulturuL. . . . . .7 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 2. . 3 |. .
. .81. LTJG Perry. . . . .7 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 7 |. 0
. .82. sebtanic. . . . . .7 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 5 |. .
. .83. Hammer Rabbi. . . .6 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 4 |. .
. .84. elCreepo. . . . . .6 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 6 |. 0
. .85. Melofeign. . . . . 6 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 4 |. .
. .86. DrZ. . . . . . . . 6 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 4 |. .
. .87. csaapproved. . . . 6 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 4 |. .
. .88. Tycalt. . . . . . .5 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 5 |. .
. .89. Grifftavian. . . . 5 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 5 |. .
. .90. osi. . . . . . . . 5 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 5 |. .
. .91. YYZ. . . . . . . . 5 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 3 |. .
. .92. g_storrow. . . . . 5 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 3 |. .
. .93. Chochko. . . . . . 5 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 3 |. .
. .94. misterjoshua. . . .5 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 3 |. .
. .95. Halfdan Helgrim. . 5 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 3 |. .
. .96. Gerluando. . . . . 5 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 3 |. .
. .97. airneck. . . . . . 5 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 3 |. .
. .98. Haphaz. . . . . . .5 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 1. . 3 |. .
. .99. isopaha. . . . . . 4 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 4 |. .
. 100. Trystero. . . . . .4 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 4 |. .
. 101. shooter6947. . . . 4 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 4 |. .
. 102. dominox. . . . . . 4 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 4 |. .
. 103. juicegecko. . . . .3 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 3 |. .
. 104. yahzuk. . . . . . .3 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 3 |. .
. 105. BigChiefLizzy. . . 3 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 3 |. .
. 106. paceybaby. . . . . 3 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 3 |. .
. 107. Motina. . . . . . .3 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 3 |. .
. 108. CivDecimation. . . 3 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 3 |. .
. 109. jeremybeier. . . . 3 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 3 |. .
. 110. Shorty55. . . . . .3 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 3 |. .
. 111. maxp. . . . . . . .3 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 3 |. .
. 112. Hokiefan00. . . . .3 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 3 |. .
. 113. eyp. . . . . . . . 3 |. 0. . 0. . 0 |. 0. . 0. . 3 |. .

 

[Monthar]

Unfortunately, this ranking is only about those who finished fastest. Finishing faster doesn't necessarily mean they're a better player, just that you're better at exploiting the AI's weaknesses to accelerate your finish date. Such as taking all the cash you can from an AI in the early game then DoWing them just to break the deal with no intent to actually fight them, which many of us purposely avoid doing.

To be completely fair you really should do the same thing with the scores chart as you did for the finish dates chart. Then combine the results from both for an overall ranking.

 

[Tabarnak]

To be completely fair you really should do the same thing with the scores chart as you did for the finish dates chart. Then combine the results from both for an overall ranking.

It think it's less fair than the actual ranking settings. GOTMs are always focused on fastest finish times and there is actually nothing else that can measure skills excepted multiplayer games(which are a lot better and accurate).

Accusing best players to cheat is unacceptable. I and some other players have aleady made several videos demonstrating the opposite. When you play since 1995 you have to be experimented isn't it? Almost all top players from this list are long term players.

 

[Arilian]

I agree with Tabarnak.
Also:
If score would be the goal, belive me, the same people would be the first in score.
If score and early finish time would be both goals, the same people would be first.
If you would needed to be win exactly in 1990 with the most wonder build, the same people would be the first.

 

[AlexAdam]

Finishing faster doesn't necessarily mean they're a better player, just that you're better at exploiting the AI's weaknesses to accelerate your finish date.

In that respect, finishing with a higher score doesn't mean you're a better player either, since the same exploits will be available to you anyway. However, I do agree with you to the extent that, for instance, if I am 5 turns faster than you, but you have more than double my score, then your game is clearly better. I think it comes down to what the formula should be for comparing player performances, taking into account both turns played and final (or base?) score.

I don't like the fact that there are two tables in the results and one gets practically ignored. If we can agree on the formula, then it would be easy for me to recompile adding the data from the score tables.

P.S. A GOTM with Time as Victory condition would be interesting...

 

[pontias]

nice one alexadam.

the aim of the gotm has always been to finish as fast as possible so to take anything else into account is clearly wrong. if you beat someone by 1 turn and they have ten times your score, the quicker game is still the better game.

 

[AlexAdam]

nice one alexadam.

Thanks I fixed a tie breaker bug plus some other minor ones and recompiled.

 

[tommynt]

Thx for all this effort.

Also I have to agree 100% to Tabernak and Arillian.
Its allways the same people doing good no matter the game type and cyrcumstances.

If u d ask for a game to be played without workers - well still 2 people out of top 3 d be top 3 again and so on.

I come from multiplayer perspective - there is way less possibility to "trick" in fact "trick" is usually just good gameplay.
In fact its way easier, way less disscusion about what to be allowed and what not - a host sets up a game and once u start it u have accepted the "rules" the settings.
So I try to win the game by set game settings.

Same here - challenge is to be fast - so i try to finish fast.

Calling some playstyles being exploitive is same pointless as complaining in mp about getting killed by a "rusher" when building no units.

 

[Ribannah]

That would be a valid complaint if the participants had agreed that rushing goes against the intentions of their MP environment.

I have played (and won) Earth:2025 tournaments where attacking the same player twice was considered dishonorable, even though it was not forbidden by the rules. Players who did this anyway got punished heavily. Everyone would hit them and if they didn't change their ways, they were no longer allowed to participate.

 

[kamikazees]

Well, I am just amazed I am ranked 66th. Almost the top 1/2 baby, yeah!

 

[Maxym]

Thanks for the compilation. I am very surprised to come 4 th since there are much better players out there and I don't mean just those who chose not to submit. I guess Persistence as well as being out of medals consistently pays off. I did miss early GOTMs and occasionally I still miss one when I am off working in South Pacific w/o any Internet connection.

Well done and congrats to the winners

 

[Schalke 04]

Since it's open for discussion / suggestions:

I would like to see an index which shows the ratio of points / submitted games. This index needs a minimum of 10 submissions and counts as the new sorting factor.

The reason for that is, that it values performance higher than constant participation. However, a minimum of participation / submissions is required to qualify for that index (ie 10 submissions or 1/5 of all TSGs).

Any player with less than 10 submissions could be ranked by the existing order, after all players with that index are listed.

One problem: once you got a very good ratio in this index, it may be beneficial not to submit a bad game as it would reduce your personal index/ratio. But I actually don't think that someone would do this...


What do you think of it?


EDIT: PS. Thank you very much AlaxAdam for your effort. I really like your idea. It actually motivates me to participate in more TSGs.

 

[tommynt]

I would like to see an index which shows the ratio of points / submitted games. This index needs a minimum of 10 submissions and counts as the new sorting factor.

when lookin at the list u ll see that it d not change very much - in fact easy to calculate yourself if u copy the list into excel and put a formula in

 

[Half Nelson]

If I am reading the table correctly, it seems I have submitted more TGS than anyone else??!! I find that (a) surprising and (b) scary:- I do have a life, honestly!

Many thanks for setting this up, although I think your system does to some extent favour dogged footsoldiers (e.g. me) over more talented players who I suspect do not play games of lower difficulty.

 

[Monthar]

I didn't upload a lot of mine because either I lost, screwed up too bad to be competitive or just got very frustrated with the warmonger AI dog-piling on one of the so-called peaceful VCs.

 

[Maxym]

I on the other hand played through all my games even the ones I know were hopeless and tried to recover from mistakes and major screwups. I find it interesting to see how a major setback like losing a 2nd city can be overcome even if not having a competitive finish. Looking forward to getting crushed again in a deity game. I think i replayed the Nappy deity one so many times and got smoked every time.

 

[Monthar]

Losing a 2nd city is recoverable, losing your capital is pretty much game over.

 

[QuizMan]

I am on the list twice. Once with my forum name with an Upper case Q and one with a lower case Q. I guess that is just my sloppiness when I enter my name when submitting games.

For this to be a true reflection, I suppose we should all make some sort of undertaking to submit all GOTM completions, whether they are good, bad or ugly. I will admit to being selective in that respect.

 

[TyfoonTurk]

Nice one, Alex! I was already wondering about a global ranking and this list pretty much correlates with my thoughts about the players.

I agree with the other players that only the finish date should influence the ranking. That is what the competition is about. So all other stats are only stats.

The point-system is quite trivial. Why is a first place 6 times more worth then getting the vic? Maybe it`s an idea to have a relative score instead of an absolute one. Kind of like golf. The number one sets the par, and the extra turns you need more is your handicap. This handicap has to be normalized to take the game speed into extent.

handicap = (turns - turns of #1)/game speed

An average of this handicap can then be taken for the ranking. This is more intuitive as this handicap is the average turns you take more then the number one.

I'm very curious about this handicap, actually. I'm also willing to set this up, if you can give me the data AlexAdam.

 

[AlexAdam]

I am on the list twice.

You *were* indeed. Seems like some people are not very accurate when entering their names. Fixed that. I see there are some changes in the top 10, Derfel just went up to number 9.