WOTM 07 Results & Congratulations

[ainwood]

Wow. There were some seriously impressive scores this month. You would think that getting a score of 150k+ would put you into medal contention. You would think that 200k+ should almost guarantee the gold. But not this month - this month, Cactus Pete scored 369,807! Obormot and Jove won with scores that are not to be sneezed at either - great effort, guys!


Summary of Medal Winners:

Cactus Pete: 1184 AD Domination Victory, 369,807 points.

Obormot: 10 BC Domination Victory, 266,932 points.

Jove: 1304 AD Domination Victory, 230,256 points.

 

[ainwood]

Other Award Winners:

Erkon: 1604 AD Diplomatic Victory, 75,686 points.

Lexad: 1625 AD Cultural Victory, 71,176 points.

ungy: 1764 AD Spaceship Victory, 64,599 points.

Gnejs: 1852 AD Spaceship Victory, 62,626 points.

Balbes: 830 AD Conquest Victory, 45,462 points.

 

[ainwood]

shyuhe: 1844 AD Diplomatic Victory, 48,664 points.

kkev: 1863 AD Spaceship Victory, 31,831 points.

Infantry#14: 1952 AD Domination Victory, 20,987 points.

Nakhimov: 1870 AD Spaceship Loss, 4,703 points.

spaceman: 385 BC Conquest Loss, 258 points.


>> See the full results here.
>> See the updated global rankings here.
>> See the latest Pantheon of Heroes here.
>> Award symbols are listed here.

 

[Harbourboy]

Woohoo! 31st! But seriously, well done to the winners - this game was VERY difficult (well, I thought it was, anyway).

 

[Aborigen]

Congratulations Obortmot with 10BC. Very Fast on Challenger!

 

[AgedOne]

I've nothing but admiration for the guys who took on a game at this difficulty level and went out and minced the opposition!

I really ought to say something about Balbes. The one and only Conquest victory! And in 830AD!! How can this kind of awesome achievement finish as low as 15th place?

From my own perspective, I found this a very memorable game - perhaps the amount of preparation that many of us seemed to be doing before taking it on had something to do with that. It was a fascinating map. Congrats to the organiser(s) for their achievement!

 

[Infantry#14]

Congrat to the winners. I really enjoyed this game. Thank you to ainwood for making such an awesome game.

 

[Mighty Dwaarf]

First of all I would like to congratulate all who managed to gain a victory in this game. I found it to be the toughest GOTM I have ever attempted, and my tiny enclave was conquered by the industrial AI monsters whilst I had but sticks and stones to defend.

My point I would like to make is that I think the scoring system used in Civ4 GOTM gives a biased score towards those who achieve victory by militaristic means. Im not suggesting that they weren't worthy of the medals gained, but were they really worthy of a score 3-4 times greater than the best/fastest scores gained by other victory types.
I know that a formula is used in Civ3 GOTM's to give a more balanced representation of final scores for all victory types, although it probably ranks alongside the Duckworth Lewis system for cricket in its complexity. Is it plausible for one to be introduced in Civ4 GOTM's. I think that if this is possible and implemented it would give a better representation of the standard of the player rather than the style, mood of the player in the global rankings. As some players, myself included prefer a style of play other than by the sword.

 

[Aborigen]

First of all I would like to congratulate all who managed to gain a victory in this game. I found it to be the toughest GOTM I have ever attempted, and my tiny enclave was conquered by the industrial AI monsters whilst I had but sticks and stones to defend.

My point I would like to make is that I think the scoring system used in Civ4 GOTM gives a biased score towards those who achieve victory by militaristic means. Im not suggesting that they weren't worthy of the medals gained, but were they really worthy of a score 3-4 times greater than the best/fastest scores gained by other victory types.
I know that a formula is used in Civ3 GOTM's to give a more balanced representation of final scores for all victory types, although it probably ranks alongside the Duckworth Lewis system for cricket in its complexity. Is it plausible for one to be introduced in Civ4 GOTM's. I think that if this is possible and implemented it would give a better representation of the standard of the player rather than the style, mood of the player in the global rankings. As some players, myself included prefer a style of play other than by the sword.

I think scores don't really matter. Actualy the finishing date is the only judge.

 

[spacemanmf]

My first time on the award list and it's nothing to be proud of! Oh well, I got nobbled by the AI very early in the game and there was not much I could do.

 

[AgedOne]

My first time on the award list and it's nothing to be proud of! Oh well, I got nobbled by the AI very early in the game and there was not much I could do.

I'm puzzled.
You're not the same person as spaceman, are you?
I can see spaceman in the results, but not you.

 

[spacemanmf]

I think it must have been because I signed up to the forum quite late, by which time "spaceman" wasn't available (and therefore I added "mf"), but I have been submitting Civ 4 GOTMs from the start and so it must have been available for those purposes. Or something.

 

[da_Vinci]

Congrats to the winners, with those impressive scores and times.

52nd out of 59 ... Relatively speaking, I did better in the diety game (GOTM 15) where I was 46 out of 83 ! This is my worst relative score ever.

Thankfully, the best of two scoring system means this one won't count ... so I manage to stay near 50th in score rank (53, right behind my pal Ronnie1 )

That top 25 is looking farther and farther away ...

Not to mention my atrocious speed ranking

Hopefully, this will be the last installment of my free-fall in the W/GOTM results ... at least until the difficulty climbs again.

Have to laugh ... Balbes wins by conquest at 830 AD while my head is being removed at 860 AD !

At least I had company in the basket of heads (thanks Thrallia! ) so I don't feel quite so bad!

I have some vengance to take on the AI ... in GOTM 17.

dV

 

[Mighty Dwaarf]

I think scores don't really matter. Actualy the finishing date is the only judge.

The medals are awarded for the highest score, which i believe is biased towards those who play for/win by domination. Also as far as I am aware, in the global rankings, you are given a percenatge score of your submitted game compared to the highest score for that game, therefore those who pursue domination victories have an inflated ranking compared to those players of a similar standard who pursue different strategies.

 

[Jove]

Nice job Obormot! That's a very impressive time.

 

[da_Vinci]

The medals are awarded for the highest score, which i believe is biased towards those who play for/win by domination. Also as far as I am aware, in the global rankings, you are given a percenatge score of your submitted game compared to the highest score for that game, therefore those who pursue domination victories have an inflated ranking compared to those players of a similar standard who pursue different strategies.

Maybe the answer is to have a score-base global ranking system that references a player's score to the top score for that victory condition? Losses would still reference to the top overall score. That would make those not pursuing domination every time more competitive in the rankings.

We could compare unstratified score, and stratified score rankings since the existing games could be ranked in stratified manner, and then we could decide which score method we prefer for global rankings going forward.

I think stratified score is more fair (although that would certainly drop me a good ways down in the rankings ).

dV

 

[Vynd]

Kudos to everybody who survived and submitted (which excludes me), and of course to the winners, and to the admins who make this all possible!

 

[Thrallia]

At least I had company in the basket of heads (thanks Thrallia! ) so I don't feel quite so bad!

dV

no problem You got more research done than I did before I lost(I was ranked 57 out of 59), likely because I forgot to research pottery until I had already taken over Greece and Rome...and by then my economy was so horrible that I had no chances...perhaps if I'd chosen the Zulus rather than the Arabs for my next(required for the cash) target, I would have survived longer

What's funny is I thought until about 500AD that I had a really good shot at a conquest/domination victory...two civs down, 4 to go...oh wait, why is it gonna take me 47 more turns to research Alpha? oh crap...

 

[Thalatta]

10 BC wow indeed...o_O

 

[urbis]

Respect to the victors!

I'll give myself my own little award for the best score amoungst the not-victorious (19th).

I tried replaying the game after reading all the spoilers, to see whether I could learn how its done, but ended with a similar result of beating most of my opponents but having one so far ahead at that point I was a goner.

Then tried the Cyrus TestA game provided by RobertTheBruce (thanks), and managed an excellent win for my highest ever score. The difference was that this time I didn't try to take any capitals until I had catapults. In the other 2 games I'd tried with Immortals and failed. So I think what I've learned is to use my early attackers to take/raze weak cities, kill wandering units, and pillage strong cities, but hold off trying a mass attack on a capital till later.

Any advice from anyone on alternate keys to victory at this level?