VVV scoring system suggestion - Updated
- Thread starter Xger
- Start date
Your cap will go up by the same amount either way.
Your overall score will go up faster if you play a game type that's not over the cap.
I have:
856.6 culture (over cap, so only counts 431.6)
244.9 diplo
332.2 dom
724.1 space (over cap, so only counts 431.6)
0 time.
Total: 1440.2
If I play a 100 point game, my cap will increase by 20 points. (100/5 = 20).
If that 100 point game is culture, it will now be:
956.6 culture (over cap, so only counts 451.6)
244.9 diplo
332.2 dom
724.1 space (over cap, so only counts 451.6)
0 time.
Total: 1480.2
But if that 100 point game is diplo, it will be:
856.6 culture (over cap, so only counts 451.6)
344.9 diplo
332.2 dom
724.1 space (over cap, so only counts 451.6)
0 time.
Total: 1580.2
Your overall score will go up faster if you play a game type that's not over the cap.
I have:
856.6 culture (over cap, so only counts 431.6)
244.9 diplo
332.2 dom
724.1 space (over cap, so only counts 431.6)
0 time.
Total: 1440.2
If I play a 100 point game, my cap will increase by 20 points. (100/5 = 20).
If that 100 point game is culture, it will now be:
956.6 culture (over cap, so only counts 451.6)
244.9 diplo
332.2 dom
724.1 space (over cap, so only counts 451.6)
0 time.
Total: 1480.2
But if that 100 point game is diplo, it will be:
856.6 culture (over cap, so only counts 451.6)
344.9 diplo
332.2 dom
724.1 space (over cap, so only counts 451.6)
0 time.
Total: 1580.2
Can I get a quick explanation of how the sub-category adjustments work, or perhaps a reference to some prior explanation?
Also, earlier in the thread I saw this: "For each VVV sub-category, your best x scores count. So for LoN, we'll take your best 3 for each civ (so potentially 129 games will count). For Mapquest, we'll take your best 6 for each maptype (so potentially 120). That'll give you a different total for each VVV category, and there'll be a maximum of ~120 games count towards each. We'll add those together to get your total VVV score."
Is that in effect now? If so, is there a complete list of how many will count for each sub-category?
I think I get the gist of the changes to the system and really like them, but I'm still working on trying to understand the details.
Thanks to everybody behind these changes for your hard work!
Also, earlier in the thread I saw this: "For each VVV sub-category, your best x scores count. So for LoN, we'll take your best 3 for each civ (so potentially 129 games will count). For Mapquest, we'll take your best 6 for each maptype (so potentially 120). That'll give you a different total for each VVV category, and there'll be a maximum of ~120 games count towards each. We'll add those together to get your total VVV score."
Is that in effect now? If so, is there a complete list of how many will count for each sub-category?
I think I get the gist of the changes to the system and really like them, but I'm still working on trying to understand the details.
Thanks to everybody behind these changes for your hard work!
BWS
Big Bradd Wolfe
That was game diversity option B. Denniz implemented option C instead.
Each category is made up of a number of sub-categories. For each sub-category, all Tscores will be summed to give a sub-category score, as follows:
Inferno: Sum of (tscore/difficulty modifier)
Machiavelli: Sum of tscore
Go the Distance: Sum of (tscore/size modifier)
Tempi Trophy: Sum of (tscore/speed modifier)
MapQuest: Sum of tscore
League of Nations: Sum of tscore
For each category, the sub-category scores will be averaged. e.g. for LoN, the average is (sum of all sub-category scores)/43. For Inferno, it is (sum of all sub-category scores)/8. For each sub-category, the lower of sub-category score and sub-category average is sub-category points, and will be credited towards the category score, as follows:
Inferno: Sum of (sub-category points x difficulty modifier)
Machiavelli: Sum of sub-category points
Go the Distance: Sum of (sub-category points x size modifier)
Tempi Trophy: Sum of (sub-category points x speed modifier)
MapQuest: Sum of sub-category points
League of Nations: Sum of sub-category points
Nope. All games count but if you play the same options a lot then your average goes up slowly.
If you have more question, don't hesitate to ask.
This is Denniz and Sanabas work
I only asked annoying questions
BWS
Big Bradd Wolfe
Thanks, I didn't realize that. Most of the numbers are left-aligned, so it wasn't obvious that they had a consistent three decimal places.
Denniz, could you adjust the tables so that numeric columns are consistently right-aligned? The VVV table is already like that, but the HOF tables and queries are not.
On a similar note, I would like it if the VVV tables were a consistent width. Currently, they vary considerably depending on the sizes of the player names and score columns.
Overall though, I am very happy with the new stuff! Thanks!
I think we are ready for primetime on the new scoring results.
Thanks to sanabas, Peets and those of you who helped out with the discussion that resulted in the new scoring method.
The explanation (with examples) is on the VVV formulas tab. sanabas will be happy to take any questions.
Thanks to sanabas, Peets and those of you who helped out with the discussion that resulted in the new scoring method.
The explanation (with examples) is on the VVV formulas tab. sanabas will be happy to take any questions.
If 10^x = y, then log y = x
So log 100 = 2, because 100 = 10^2, log 1000 = 3, log 10 = 1, log 1 = 0.
So being first on a table with 9 games will give double the points of a table with 3, because log 9 = 2 * log 3. Table with 16 games will give double the points of a table with 4.
I was looking at the very helpful example given in the formula tab and think there might be a mistake: The Warlord sub-cat is given as 264.068 / 1.4, which would be around 189. But the sub-total is 269.4.
If that is indeed a mistake, it's probably just a typo in the example, but I thought I'd point it out just in case.
If that is indeed a mistake, it's probably just a typo in the example, but I thought I'd point it out just in case.
Your right. I was fixing a problem with the original example and I missed that value. Corrected now. Thanks.
I took a long break from HOF games, and seem to have missed this entire discussion (more than a year old, I realize…do I get the thread necromancer star of the day?). There are two weaknesses to the new scoring system and HOF tables for BNW that I see.
1. Earlier versions of Civ (see Civ4 HOF for example) had tables with leaders mixed in rather than separate tables for each leader. This was a better system IMHO because there were fewer tables to compete in with more entries in each table. With the multitude of settings available (43 leaders, 20 maps, 8 difficulties, 6 sizes, 5 victories, 4 speeds) there are 825,600 distinct tables which could be populated. There is no way that all these tables will be filled. Eliminating the leaders and allowing any leader to be used for a table will result is 19,200 possibilities which should still provide enough variety. Perhaps the accepted map types might be limited to something less than 20 as well. With too many tables, we end up with fewer entries per table and only a few poplar settings having any real amount of competition.
note: You can have a League of Nations category in VVV which requires a game with each of 43 civs without having separate tables for each civ.
2. There is only one way to play any given table. Under the system of medals from Vanilla and G&K HOF, you could play for fastest finish or highest score for any table to achieve a medal. This rewarded both tall and wide strategies and also minimalist and maximized types of play. The method of accepting scores only for Time victories (all others are only compared by finish date) creates a more defined way of achieving a high rank on a table which limits play style.
I realize that I am coming a bit late to the party to complain about the scoring system. I feel it is important to provide some feedback about my observations in hope that the next HOF (when is Civ6 slated for release?) might provide for more interesting competition.
1. Earlier versions of Civ (see Civ4 HOF for example) had tables with leaders mixed in rather than separate tables for each leader. This was a better system IMHO because there were fewer tables to compete in with more entries in each table. With the multitude of settings available (43 leaders, 20 maps, 8 difficulties, 6 sizes, 5 victories, 4 speeds) there are 825,600 distinct tables which could be populated. There is no way that all these tables will be filled. Eliminating the leaders and allowing any leader to be used for a table will result is 19,200 possibilities which should still provide enough variety. Perhaps the accepted map types might be limited to something less than 20 as well. With too many tables, we end up with fewer entries per table and only a few poplar settings having any real amount of competition.
note: You can have a League of Nations category in VVV which requires a game with each of 43 civs without having separate tables for each civ.
2. There is only one way to play any given table. Under the system of medals from Vanilla and G&K HOF, you could play for fastest finish or highest score for any table to achieve a medal. This rewarded both tall and wide strategies and also minimalist and maximized types of play. The method of accepting scores only for Time victories (all others are only compared by finish date) creates a more defined way of achieving a high rank on a table which limits play style.
I realize that I am coming a bit late to the party to complain about the scoring system. I feel it is important to provide some feedback about my observations in hope that the next HOF (when is Civ6 slated for release?) might provide for more interesting competition.
Bleidraner
King
- Joined
- May 23, 2014
- Messages
- 640
Mesix makes an incredibly valid point. The huge dispersion of entries means poor tables. On the other hand, it does allow a lot of players that otherwise would have no chance to appear in the Hall of Fame to be there. So...
Cromagnus
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
The HOF rankings can be sorted by both score and fastest finish, but yes, the VVV only takes finish time into account. But then, I'm glad there aren't 2* as many tables... one set for score, one set for finish time!
Well, I think this is not a good idea, mainly because then there will only be 5-6 civs out of the 43 being played and submitted by anyone trying to be competitive. I really do not want to have to play Poland or Spain (or the 1-2 specialist civs in each victory category) every single time I want to medal a table. Every civ has cool aspects about them. It is nice to be able to play and have fun with all of them while still being "competitive" if you want to. Also, 19,200 table entries are never going to be filled either
.The nice thing about the current system is that people can submit games that score or medal without being uberplayers and while playing only game situations they like.
NiceOneEmlyn
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 87
Spot on zenmaster.
Compared to the Vanilla VVV which was based on gold silver and bronze which rewarded only the very best of competitors, this BNW VVV is a huge step forward. My knowledge of the game is very limited and yet the scoring system allows me to feel involved. I can fiddle around with the type of games that I enjoy whilst racking up points to my hearts content.
By the way zenmaster, as per our private discussion, I managed to get two BC finishes playing as Polynesia, one of them OCC and the other normal! I probably could have been a heck of a lot quicker if I had known that we can steal workers from more than one City State! Playing the old Vanilla version this was not possible and I have only just this minute found out!
Similar threads
- Locked