VVV boring (a bit)

[pholtz]

I like the recent scoring change, but it's still boring. I look at VVV and overall, Vexing is in the lead with 288.2. OK, let me check Inferno, Vexing with 288.2. Hmm, how about Machiavelli, Vexing with 288.2. Go the Distance? Vexing 288.2. Hopefully you get the point.

If I understand it, all golds are not the same, they have a point value. So..

Lets look at League of Nations.

Take the highest point gold medal for Alexander based on date. Add to it the highest point gold medal for Alexander based on score. THAT is the persons Alexander points.

Same idea for each category, just 2 games to look at for each column, one date, one score. (I guess they could be the same game, but thats ok, a game that beats all others with both date and score deserves to be counted twice)

Advantage? No inflating your points by turning in 20 Alexander games, only two are counted.

Disadvantage? Score would be more important than now, and I know how many of you don't like to go after score. If you want the max points then you'll have to, that's that.

Now this is just a suggestion. But there needs to be some way of differentiating between the different categories please.

If people really really really don't want score to be so important (although I think it would open it up to more people), then just count the highest point gold medal for score or date for Alexander. In other words just one game per leader.


Edit:

while we are at it, lets make an VVV elite. Games on Duel or Tiny maps don't count .

 

[vexing]

it's not clear what you mean. if you count a limited number of games, wouldn't everyone be tied?

i'll also reiterate that score games suck. you can get an amazingly high score and still lose, so why is score being used to gauge a game at all? furthermore, the way to a high score is always the same and always tedious: fill the map with cities and farm every plot you can. and on the final turn whether you fire the spaceship, build utopia, or win the un election makes no difference in your final score.

re no tiny/duel, i proposed a scoring change based on map size that would alleviate that problem some

 

[vexing]

a possible way to differentiate the categories would be to reward variety within each category.

a possible implementation of that would be to have each subcategory points equal at most the mean points across all subcategories, and the score be the sum of subcategories.
eg, for tempi trophy (game speed) here are what the results could look like for 3 different people who have all got gold in 20 games:

quick	stan.	epic	mara.	mean	score
20	0	0	0	5	5
10	5	5	0	5	15
5	5	5	5	5	20

every game still counts (as they increase the mean), but the person with the most variety is still heavily favored. if someone only plays quick speed, they'd need to get 4x as many points as someone who plays each type to tie.

 

[pholtz]

it's not clear what you mean. if you count a limited number of games, wouldn't everyone be tied?

i'll also reiterate that score games suck. you can get an amazingly high score and still lose, so why is score being used to gauge a game at all? furthermore, the way to a high score is always the same and always tedious: fill the map with cities and farm every plot you can. and on the final turn whether you fire the spaceship, build utopia, or win the un election makes no difference in your final score.

re no tiny/duel, i proposed a scoring change based on map size that would alleviate that problem some

Well, to get the maximum number of points you would need a Deity gold in all columns. I don't think too many people have that, so no, there would not be too many ties. If there are too many ties we could add some kind of tie breaker, but first let's see if it's needed.

I agree, max score games are tedious. But they are in the medal system now, and in the VVV. I'm just using what we already have.

 

[Denniz]

I admit that the VVV scoring is a bit boring. I did wanted to avoid the whole comparing the uncomparable debate we had in Civ4.

Vexings idea about using the average to promote variety sounds promising. It or something similar might get us closer to ranking by who has truely mastered Civ5. I will have to look at how I would implement that.

Note: While I don't particularly want to alter the HOF rules, improving the way we display and compare/rank the results in VVV and Gauntlets is an area where ideas are welcome. The more specific the better, though.

 

[TractorBoy]

i'll also reiterate that score games suck.

Not that you care, but I'll tell you why I started playing score games.
1 - By the time I joined the HOF, most of what had been achieved was unbeatable due to patches.
2 - I want to play the type of game I enjoy even if it does take twenty hours.
3 - I refuse point blank to watch the teaching ramblings of so called experts.
4 - I refuse to get involved in the philosophy of how a GAME should be played (it takes something away from the personal satisfaction that can be gained).
5 - You are belittling a form of the game that takes alot of skill, (not just being able to find your way around in the fog much quicker than anyone else on the planet).

re no tiny/duel, i proposed a scoring change based on map size that would alleviate that problem some

You set the precident by holding all the major duel golds for a long time, way back in September I attacked the cleverness of such medals in response to you first demeaning the score games that some of us like to play. I have known for six months or more that I could take all your golds at a whim and I planned to do it when I got within a hundred poits of you, due to some unfortunate circumstances I had to do it before I was ready and these responses from you are just what I expected.

 

[pholtz]

The way things are now, some could have just +'s in standard, epic and marathon speeds. All their other games could be quick, and all the quick would be counted. He could theoretically have the best Tempi Trophy score. If you have a good VVV score in a category, then you should have mastered all of the columns of that category.

How about this for an idea:

You pick the best medal from each column for a person. Then go though the columns again and pick the next best medal. You continue doing this until the player failed to get a medal in a column. Total up the value of the medals and that's his score. Some examples (Vexing is the top player so I'll pick on him ):

Looking at inferno. The column where he has the least medals is "5" or King. He has nine there. So when you follow the above rule, you would go though each column 10 times. The 10th time he wouldn't have a medal in the "5" column so that would be the last time. Let's add it up.

8 - 7g,3s
7 - 6g,4s
6 - 5g,5s
5 - 5g,2s,2c
4 - 10g
3 - 6g,3s,1c
2 - 3g,4s,3c
1 - 10g

Inferno is easy because you know the value of each medal. In other tables, a silver on an Deity game would have a higher value than a gold on a Settler game. But in inferno, every medal in the same column is played at the same difficulty level.

Vexing has done very good here. He would probably still be the high scorer.

OK, lets took at Machiavelli:

Here Vexing, and to be truthful most people, don't do so well.

Vexing has no medals in the time column. So his score would be as follows (I am assuming a gold is worth more than a silver, but it may not be here). You would go though all the columns just once:

Culture - 1g
Diplomatic - 1g
Domination - 1g
Space - 1g
Time - nothing

And that would be Vexing's score for Machiavelli (after you add up the actual value of the medals):

A few of the other people would be able to go though the columns twice, because they have a medal in each column. Depending on the value of the medals, they MIGHT pass Vexing for score here.

This system supports players who play a wide variety of games in the table being looked at, and it's pretty simple.

People who wanted to score more in the Machiavelli category would have to play more Time games. There would be more Time games played overall, opening up more opportunities for a Time medal, for everyone. People that wanted high scores in Go the Distance would have to play more games on a Huge map, again opening up more opportunities for that type of game. Any time we have increased the variety of the games played for medals we have improved the system.

 

[vexing]

I have known for six months or more that I could take all your golds at a whim

good luck with that.

 

[Peets]

I have came up with another idea to have more VVV competition.

The first table VVV we leave that how it is now.
But why not separate all the others?

For example:

Tempi Trophy:

You devide it in four.
One table for who is the best Quick game player
Then one for Standard - Epic - Marathon.

So for League of Nations you would have in vanilla 19 different tabs.
You only show the top 10 or so to avoid being such a big list or with a drop down.

I'll take a example:

Askia:

Points:

1 ColinTH 80
2 Tractorboy 36
3 Khrak 33
4 vexing 21
5 Crafty1 18
6 Bram 12
6 Peets 12
8 numaru7 9
9 Bahaus 7
10 Ortro_16 6
10 morgg 6
10 Mallow 6

This way we'll have more VVV competitions. Except for the first spot...

 

[Peets]

good luck with that.

I think Tractorboy - ColinTH will be the first person who plays all 218880 different settings...
If you look at all his medals, I think he plays non stop...