VVV scoring system suggestion - Updated

I guess to sum up my thought into one statement, I'd say let's get rid of curving completely. A fist place finish is a first place finish.

While it is easier for me to finish a Prince/Small/Pangaea game than it is a Immortal/Large/Continents game, finishing either of the games in a faster time and/or with a higher score than Vexing is not any easier for me. For the current medals, it may be interesting to curve difficulty, size, and or game speed since all game count as long as you earn a medal, developing a VVV scoring system should not require curving of any kind in my opinion.

League of Nations: 32 civilization
Map Quest: 20 (or more) map types
Tempi Trophy: 4 game speeds
Go the Distance: 6 map sizes
Machiavelli: 5 victory conditions
Inferno: 8 difficulties

Perhaps this breakdown would work:

League of Nations: 2 of each (64 games)
Map Quest: 2 of each (40+ games)
Tempi Trophy: 6 of each (24 games)
Go the Distance: 4 of each (24 games)
Machiavelli: 6 of each (30 games)
Inferno: 8 of each (64 games)

Again, 1 of each game type is enough to finish an event for VVV qualification. The score for each event would be scored as a percentage of each event as described in my above post. Curving is unnecessary to encourage playing higher difficulty or larger maps because getting a higher score will require a player to finish multiple games of each type. Duel domination wins will only increase your score for a finite number of games.
 
As a simple way to score individual tables, perhaps awarding 50 points for opening a table and adding 10 points per entry up to 6 (the same requirement for gold to be awarded to 1st place) would work.

Number of entries and the score for 1st place:

1.......50 points
2.......60 points
3.......70 points
4.......80 points
5.......90 points
6+.....100 points

Standard speed has 500 turns. Scoring could award points based on how close a game is to 1st place in relation to the 500 turn finish time.

Let's say that a table looks like this:

1st.....300 turns
2nd....320 turns
3rd.....330 turns
4th.....360 turns
5th.....365 turns
6th......400 turns

1st place would award 100 points

500 (max turns) - 300 (1st place) = 200 (difference)
This 200 turns would be the basis for the points scale.

One idea would be to simply award based on the fraction of remaining turns later a player finishes. In this case, the scores would be:

1 (300).....100 points
2 (320)......90 points (100 - ((20/200)*100)
3 (330)......87.5 points (100 - ((25/2200)*100)
4 (360)......70 points (100 - ((60/200)*100)
5 (365)......67.5 points (100 - ((65/200)*100)
6 (400)......50 points (100 - ((100/200)*100)

Perhaps keeping with the gold, silver, bronze mind set there could be a fixed score for the top 3 (maybe 100, 80, and 60) and 4th through last place could be some fraction of 3rd place calculated as above replacing 60 for 100 in the formula.

1 (300).....100 points
2 (320)......80 points
3 (330)......60 points
4 (360)......49.4 points (60 - ((30/170)*60)
5 (365)......47.6 points (60 - ((35/170)*60)
6 (400)......35.3 points (60 - ((70/170)*60)

These are just a couple of ideas for scoring individual tables up to 100 points for 1st place. Really, I'm open to almost any idea for breaking down scores for individual games. What I am an advocate of is having a fixed number of games counted for each event and having the total add up to 100% for simplicity.
 
vexing said:
please separate finish time games from score completely.
Click to expand...

Mine does. I'd make the default display be the fastest finish total, with the other options being score and overall.


@Mesix: That seems to be going back to the civ3 model, almost. The big problem I see is that it's very easy to play 68 low level/duel/dom games and get 68 fastest times. Pretty sure I could do it in a couple of days. Given there are 680 civ/map combinations per level & speed, that makes 2720 combinations per difficulty level, and 10,880 duel/dom tables at prince or lower. So everyone who wants to can have all #1s, very quickly. The only places that would need other games would be machiavelli (24 duel games with other VCs) and go the distance (20 settler games with various VCs) Combine those 2, and all you need are 24 games that aren't duel/dom to have #1 games across the board.

If you want to ignore games that are on otherwise empty tables to stop that happening, I think that adds a couple of other problems. For one thing, there aren't enough medals available to reach 100% even on Vanilla right now. There are only 2 available for a time VC. Only 3 available on a large or huge map. And I think the biggest reason for that is there is no reason to play an empty table, that treating all games as equal, provided they get a gold medal, leads to aiming for the quickest/easiest/most available golds, and the majority of those are duel and/or domination games.

It'd actually be just like it is now, except that there'd no longer be a difficulty modifier, and there'd be a cap on the number of golds that count.
 
sanabas said:
Mine does. I'd make the default display be the fastest finish total, with the other options being score and overall.


@Mesix: That seems to be going back to the civ3 model, almost. The big problem I see is that it's very easy to play 68 low level/duel/dom games and get 68 fastest times. Pretty sure I could do it in a couple of days. Given there are 680 civ/map combinations per level & speed, that makes 2720 combinations per difficulty level, and 10,880 duel/dom tables at prince or lower. So everyone who wants to can have all #1s, very quickly. The only places that would need other games would be machiavelli (24 duel games with other VCs) and go the distance (20 settler games with various VCs) Combine those 2, and all you need are 24 games that aren't duel/dom to have #1 games across the board.

If you want to ignore games that are on otherwise empty tables to stop that happening, I think that adds a couple of other problems. For one thing, there aren't enough medals available to reach 100% even on Vanilla right now. There are only 2 available for a time VC. Only 3 available on a large or huge map. And I think the biggest reason for that is there is no reason to play an empty table, that treating all games as equal, provided they get a gold medal, leads to aiming for the quickest/easiest/most available golds, and the majority of those are duel and/or domination games.

It'd actually be just like it is now, except that there'd no longer be a difficulty modifier, and there'd be a cap on the number of golds that count.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't get 100% until the table has some participation. You would get 50% for filling an empty table which would put a target on that submission for others to compete (getting 60%-100% if they can get a first place finish). Also, since more than one game of each setting would factor into the score, players would have an incentive to play non duel/domination games. In the Machiavelli, only 6 domination games (out of 30) would contribute to the score. Even with 6 top duel/domination wins (a difficult measure since there is a lot of competition), it would only net 20% for the event in the VVV. The player would have to win 24 games (6 each of the other victory conditions) to get the event score higher. Likewise, only 4 duel maps would count. Assuming a player completes the League of Nations with 32 duel/domination games, only 4 of these games would count towards the Go the Distance event. That would be a score of 16.7% for the event (again assuming 100% in all 4 games) and a player would be forced to complete in all map sizes to raise the score above 16.7% for that event.

Using your logic, the duel domination games (assuming a player plays 64 games and gets the very best possible time competing against at least 5 other players) strategy of filling out the tables for VVV would reward them with a score like this:

League of Nations: 100% (64 duel/domination games)
Map Quest: 75% (15/20 maps are land based, watery maps require different play)
Tempi Trophy: 100% (24 duel/domination games of various speeds)
Go the Distance: 16.7% (4 duel sized games, 20 must be of larger maps)
Machiavelli: 20% (6 domination games, 24 must be from other victory types)
Inferno: 100% (64 games, provided exactly 8 of each difficulty)

VVV score: 65.9%

...and that is assuming a player can beat at least 5 other players on all 64 map types. If they are empty tables (with the player's submission being the only one), the score would be half of that (50% for a single entry, increasing with participation as I outlined above).

VVV score: 32.9% (for cherry picking 64 available duel/domination tables)

Once a player has achieved this, they will be required to play other map sizes and victory conditions to increase the score. As people compete on the tables which were opened, the score will likely decrease eliminating the cheese factor of this method of play.
 
Mesix said:
League of Nations: 100% (64 duel/domination games)
Map Quest: 75% (15/20 maps are land based, watery maps require different play)
Tempi Trophy: 100% (24 duel/domination games of various speeds)
Go the Distance: 16.7% (4 duel sized games, 20 must be of larger maps)
Machiavelli: 20% (6 domination games, 24 must be from other victory types)
Inferno: 100% (64 games, provided exactly 8 of each difficulty)

VVV score: 65.9%
Click to expand...

411.7/6 = 68.6%, suspect you forgot to add go the distance in.

Watery maps may be different, but they are still very fast, very easy. I put in a duel/dom/settler/quick/watery map for this update, took me 33 turns and less than 30 minutes.

And those other 24 games can be played on settler, quickly & easily.

...and that is assuming a player can beat at least 5 other players on all 64 map types. If they are empty tables (with the player's submission being the only one), the score would be half of that (50% for a single entry, increasing with participation as I outlined above).
Click to expand...

So, it'd take less than a month for anybody, almost regardless of skill level, to go from no entries to a 50% score. To go above 50%, you need to do the same thing as now, aim for what are currently medals, gold in particular. As you can see from looking at the vanilla tables, if you want gold medals, there is an extremely large bias towards duel and/or domination games. In many cases, there will be literally no games available for somebody to improve their score with.

Once a player has achieved this, they will be required to play other map sizes and victory conditions to increase the score. As people compete on the tables which were opened, the score will likely decrease eliminating the cheese factor of this method of play.
Click to expand...

I think it would be a little better than it currently is, with a little less reward for playing ever more cheesy games. I think it may help a little towards getting larger maps played more. But I don't think it does a lot to fix the issues with the current scoring, and I think it introduces even more. I think we'd see bigger maps become very biased towards lower levels. It'd see players reaching a point where they can no longer improve their score. It will likely be impossible to reach 100% for quite a long time. It will be possible to reach the top, or close to the top of the rankings, by playing the same type of game over & over. It offers no incentive to play more varied games, to fill empty tables, in particular bigger/harder games. If someone opens up a new table with a very good time, there's no incentive for anyone else to bother playing it, or if they attempt to beat it, no incentive to finish & submit if they realise they'll miss 1st place.
 
Right now players get nothing for opening a new table and the best possible is a Bronze if 1 other player is there. Under this system, everyone would get something, but the reward would decrease with the distance from the leader. If I play a 3-4 hour game and don't finish 1st, I would still submit under the new system because I will get something for my time. Later I might try a game with similar settings to improve, or perhaps slightly different settings to compete in a different table for the same event (i.e. a different small map game when trying to raise my score for Go the Distance). Under the current system, there is no incentive to submit if I'm not going to get a medal (or fill a requirement for VVV).

The biggest problem which isn't addressed is the plethora of available tables because every leader/map/difficulty/victory/size/speed combination is a different table. If the system is revamped to somehow limit the number of possible combinations, then it would also become much more competitive.
 
Another idea would be to force diversity in the settings for multiple games.

Here is what I mean by this:

1 game is submitted with these settings:

Augustus Caesar (Rome), Inland Sea, Marathon, Duel, Domination, Prince

This game would count 1 time for each event:

League of Nations: Augustus Caesar (Rome)
Map Quest: Inland Sea
Tempi Trophy: Marathon
Go the Distance: Duel
Machiavelli: Domination
Inferno: Prince

For a 2nd game as Rome to count for the League of Nations event of the VVV, it must have all the other variables different from the first game as Rome. The second submission as Rome would have to be a map other than Inland Sea, a speed other than Marathon, a size other than Duel, a victory condition other than Domination, and a difficulty other than Prince.

Likewise, a 2nd Domination game for the Machiavelli event of the VVV would have to be a nation other than Rome, a map other than Inland Sea, a speed other than Marathon, a size other than Duel, and a difficulty other than Prince.

Submitting another game with any of the settings the same would not count as another submission, but would be compared and the better of the 2 scores would count towards the VVV event.
 
Some of this is becoming so complex that deciding exactly which game to play would take longer than playing the actual game! I hardly even understand some of it, I would be really peeved if I spent upwards of four hours playing a game only to find out it is worthless!!

Good players are worried that bad players (like me) will saturate the score boards with duel, tiny, settler and score games. I appreciate where they are coming from and maybe the only way to get round this issue and keep the scoring more simple, is to have two divisions.

For example;

Division One - You have ticked the box to say this is where you want to play.

1 - Deity and Immortal only. If they wish.
2 - No score games. If they wish.
3 - No duel or Tiny games. If they wish.
4 - The scoring system could remain unaltered. If they wish.

Top players would not have to play the type of games that are beneath their intellect, and it seems, more than just a slightly annoying distraction to them.


Division Two: We have ticked the box to say we want to play here.

1 - No medals.

2 - First entry gets one point, any subsequent entry up to a max of ten adds to the point tally, so first place ten points second place nine points etc.

3 - All levels (we also get the opportunity to play Deity and Immortal but not against the Elite), map types, speeds, sizes etc; have the same scoring system thus promoting competition amongst us all. So what if someone plays a load of Settler duel games!! I couldn't care less and if no one else joins in they will soon get swallowed up by the pack.

This would be a division for the dedicated rather than elite, and I am sure we would have a lot of fun competing against each other with a scoring system that rewards most participants.

I don't know how it's done, but someone should set up a poll asking the members what they would like!
 
I like how the CIV 4 EQM rankings were organized by difficulty level. This is similar to the idea of having different divisions to play in.
 
@Denniz.

I just wondered if there has been any progress with changing the scoring system as it has been almost two months since this discussion seems to have to stopped. Despite the recent gains I have with low level dom duel games I would be in favour of any of the weighted systems suggested here to give greater reward and credit to those who take on the harder or longer games.

I think it would help to encourage far greater participation and for me, when sometimes I have little time and brain power, I would happily work on filling in a gap or two on the table for others to conquer later on.

Currently there is no reason to do this once a player has fulfilled the initial requirements for the VVV.

I understand you are working on the new DLC but would be keen to know if you have any idea as to when the scoring could be trialled at least.

Thanks in advance.

Crafty1.
 
vexing said:
please separate finish time games from score completely.
Click to expand...

This sounds a bit like Phil Michelson claiming that parts of the greens were dead in the British Open golf 2013 played at Muifield, (one of the homes of golf). He later apologised for his out burst, and went on to win this Championship. How did he do it? Well basically because the guy is a class act in his field of professionalism, and a very nice family guy, with a never say die attitude. I do hope he goes on to get the Grand Slam of Majors, he just needs the US Open. Good luck Phil.

Maybe you could take a leaf or two out of Phil's book Mr very vexing!! Not every game that we play is the equivalent of the US Masters, sometimes we have to play in adverse conditions, as a result you may be humbled by a stupid old git like me. I am humble enough to know my place in the Civ World, and that is way down the pecking order. I just wish there had been a few other good players on the VANILLA HOF to take you on, if there had been, then I never would have got started on my Crusade to topple you!!
 
Just an idea which may help to keep everyone happy. Will it be possible to retain the current VVV and Hall of fame system but simply add another link on the left for the new scoring system?

This would then give a variety of goals for different people and hopefully everyone will be able to find something to aim for.

All submissions would be checked by the scoring systems, just wanted to clarify that I don't mean an entirely new set of entries would be needed for the new system.
 
Denniz said:
Something came up (BNW). :mischief: After that.
Click to expand...

With sanabas on your staff now and taking into account some of the ideas he has come out with, it would be handy to know which direction you may be taking in the future.

Since this thread started I have been working on other areas of the game just in case there is a change, I will continue to do so if I know where to concentrate my efforts.

Thanks for all your work.
 
sanabas said:
Once the staff know, I'm sure we'll let everyone else know. ;)
Click to expand...

You think you are such a clever boy, don't you!! I will be watching your responses in the future, maybe you will take some notice once you wipe the sleep from your eyes!!
OK BIG BOY. Ha ha !! WE WON THE ASHES.
 
Of course you did. We think Watson is a test cricketer.

I thought Joe Root's looked ok this series, too. Which part of South Africa is he from?
 
sanabas said:
Of course you did. We think Watson is a test cricketer.

I thought Joe Root's looked ok this series, too. Which part of South Africa is he from?
Click to expand...

It's about time Watson performed to his true potential, we will have to wait and see if he can keep it up in the next series! Joe Root had one good performance (like Watson), again, we will have to wait and see how he performs down under!
Very sporting of your Captain in the last test by making a last day game of it. I feel the umpires made the correct decision by taking the players off because of bad light. I suppose you could say that any other decision would not be playing cricket!

We have to scout for players from other countries due to the bad weather in our own country, as a consequence our youngsters don't get a chance to hone their skills. I take it Watson is of aboriginal descent!!

EDIT - By the way, our Captain went to the same school as my son, and you can't get any more localised than that!
 
Unfortunately, because Watson has finally done something in a dead rubber against ordinary bowling, we will have to see how he performs downunder, and in the next series, and the series after that. :(

Umpires may have made the correct decision, but it's still a terrible one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Custom properties on objects
Replies
2
Views
435
DeckerdJames
D
A
4UC Integration: Non-database implementation coordination thread (COMPLETE)
Replies
18
Views
7K
azum4roll
A
P
Deciphering the 'game-speeds.xml' file...
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Michael Wagner
M
T
AI League 2.0
Replies
8
Views
273
Thrasybulos
T
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Civ7 Modern Age Unit Lineups.
Replies
16
Views
2K
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Back
Top Bottom