Accounts e-mail HP

GreatTurn League

It's 5am again and you are still sitting in front of your computer and chatting with some tv's while watching a bloody duel? Welcome friend :)

GreatTurn League

Postby Corbeau » Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:53 am

So this is the idea. Unlike Ladder Wars (which to me seems like a deathmatch gladiator game with scoring), I'd like to propose a more Civ-like Legue. Scoring would be extremely simple: you gain points depending by your rank at the end of the game, regardless of how and when the game ended. Meaning, if you came in first, you get 100 points. If you were 10th of 20 players, you get 50 points. If you were 15th of 20 players, you get 75 points and so on. (This should *not* include potential bots.)

The rank is to be determined, the simplest way, by the in-game score. Yes, there are complaints about the in-game score, but it's a consistent set of rules known to everybody (including me once I find out where to actually look). It's not perfect, but no scoring system ever was. Maybe it can even be tweaked a bit, but of not, it's still best available.

What should be determined is which games count, how do you get in the League, by playing just one game or you have to play more, do you keep a record of all games you ever played or only say, the last five count, or should it be the average score of the last five or ten games and so on.

Also, there can be quick variants: game ends at year 0. That's, what, 80 turns? So, at the end moment, scores are calculated, move on to the next game (or continue with this one, if you wish).

There should probably be a minimum of players starting the game, I'd say 10, but it can be debated.

Other technicalities to be determined.

So, what say you?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: GreatTurn League

Postby morphles » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:47 pm

Seems interesting and I mostly support it. Though best available is arguable :)

From what I know score calculation can penalize certain styles of play and conceivably one can come up with ways to distort in some special ways. For example population is quite important factor in score (IIRC score is basically total city sizes + tech levels, maybe there is some effect from number of cities), so you could conceivably stash build bunch of settlers and migrants, and couple of turns before game end build new cities in any silly places you can find and join city with all migrants allowing some silly explosion in population.

Still for starters it might work pretty decently.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: GreatTurn League

Postby Corbeau » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:30 pm

Is there a way to actually find out how the in-game score is calculated? Meaning, what part of the score is coming from what? Every commercial version of Civ has it, but I can't find it in FreeCiv.

As for the blitz-building near the end, I don't see it as a much of a problem. Those migrants that were kept aside had to come from somewhere! That, too, is population. And if they were kept outside of cities, this means that they didn't contribute to production and trade that they could have if they were actually inside, meaning that the nation had much less benefit from them. So I'd say it would be a neutralizing factor in this kind of "cheating" (although it isn't).
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: GreatTurn League

Postby morphles » Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:01 am

Actually no it's not that simple. If you have government with per nation unit support (not per city). You can dedicate one city, optimized at certain level (and civ2civ3 cities even get granary effect for free up to a certain size), and just build migrants as fast as city can grow and with certain planing end(ish) game tech you could grow quite quickly, and keep adding migrants to your stack every 5 turns or so (maybe even faster is possible, I'm not sure). And of course you are probably not loosing much from that. Of course if you were to build migrants from larger cities it might hurt your econ more. Still this is quite edge case of course.

As for how it is calculated, looking at the source it seems to be:
Total number of city levels + 2 x tech levels + 5 x wonders + some score from spaceship (if it arrived, its based based loosely on about how much people it should have brought with it, seems it can be rather large number) + unit score (which is units build / 10 + units killed / 3).

This is for version 2.4.2

There is also a comment that some time ago happiness (number of happy citizens) was factored in to score, but that it was way to easy to abuse on last turn. Presumably setting tax to max luxury on penultimate turn, I'd guess.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: GreatTurn League

Postby Corbeau » Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:38 am

morphles wrote:If you have government with per nation unit support (not per city).

I'm not sure what this means. If you mean that endless migrants could be produced and stored to be used for endgame, then why not fix it with them needing upkeep regardless of government? One food, or even two. It would be also logical.

Anyway, I'm not sure this would really work that way, but maybe we could test it? A quick game (ok, not *that* quick; maybe GT style, but press "End Turn" when you're done to speed it up) with 2-4 players, half of them with designated migrant cold storage, the other designated...ly avoiding it, see what happens?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: GreatTurn League

Postby morphles » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:12 am

You are taking my points a bit too seriously :), I'm not thinking that many people would try that significantly, and that it could possible, if "end game" conditions are not too dire. Besides now that I know how score is calculated, it would be rather hard to add that much to the score, meaning you would need at least 5 migrants to match one wonder.

On the other hand I now see other needed correction to your "point formula":
Meaning, if you came in first, you get 100 points. If you were 10th of 20 players, you get 50 points. If you were 15th of 20 players, you get 75 points and so on. (This should *not* include potential bots.)

This is bad, consider first player ends up with 500 points, second with 499 and third with say 200; now according to rule you stated, point difference would identical between 1st-2nd place and 2nd-3rd place. Which is quite unfair :). So instead probably share of total score earned (by all players) would determine points. Suppose game gets 100 x <number of players> ladder point pool. So three players -> 300 points to share. In my scenario player earned 1200 (rounded) points, places 1st and 2nd get 40% of point pool each, while 3rd place gets 20% equating to 120 points for 1st and 2nd and 60 points for 3rd. (ofc I rounded this considering how minuscule difference was between 1st and 2nd). This seems a bit more fair.

Another thing this might have (which might be viewed as good or bad, I'm leaning towards good) - it might promote end(ish) game aggression, as even if you can not gain more score damaging some else score will increase your share of total, netting you more ladder points.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: GreatTurn League

Postby Corbeau » Sat Sep 27, 2014 2:57 pm

I don't like - or think it would be good - to have Leage scoring directly tied to the in-game scoring. For several reasons.

The first one is - and this is where we come to the point where we start to discuss preferences and what kind of gameplay we wish to stimulate - that, indeed, this encourages carnage, not only at the end of the game, but the whole time. I think that people who like carnage-type of Civ games already have one "league" they can join, and that is Ladder Wars. I wouldn't like to have two systems that favour the same style and none that favour others.

You need to keep one thing in mind: favouring aggression realistically encourages agression and discourages peaceful playing. If you want to progress, you should attack. However, not favouring aggression, actually, does not necessarily encourage peaceful playing and does not discourage agression. Only doesn't give you additional bonuses for it! In other words, in systems that encourage aggression, you are punished for playing peacefully, while in systems where you do not encourage aggression, you are not punished for anything, you are free to play as you wish.

Ok, enough with theoretical and philosophical overkill, let's get to more practical matters.

The second reason for disliking your in-game-scoring based league scoring system is that it doesn't support "tiers".

Simply, if the league scoring is based solely on the rank, a player at, say, 15th place couldn't care less what will happen to the first five players or players ranked between 25 and 30. he will be more concentrated on catching up with whoever is 14th and will be on the lookout for the player who is 16th. Similar for people at 13th and 17th place. Looking at it from the other angle, the priority for the player who is among the first five will not be smashing the noob neighbour currently in the 20th position, because that will not give him much leverage against his top-ranked opponents. Instead, he may even draw the noopb into an alliance and use him to watch his rear while he is dealing with someone who is actually a larger threat.

As a result, this may encourage new people to join and stay, and even learn and communicate much more which is, I believe, something we are all interested in.

The third reason for not translating in-game scoring proportionally into league scoring is that I don't know of any sport that does that (ok, I know one and I'm participating in it, but it is very un-competetive and it's a local league; the European league of the same sport uses something similar to what I'm about to explain). In Formula 1 I think that competitors gain fixed amount of points depending on their rank; I'm sure that I got the numbers wrong, but you'll get the point: for example, 1st gets 50 points, second gets 45, 3rd gets 42, 4th gets 39 etc. Similar for many other sports with one thing in common: most have a much larger difference between 1st and 2nd place than between 10th and 11th. Not fair? definitely, but it sure encourages competition to be as good as possible ;) Hey, you were only 1% behind the 1st and you got 10% less points? Tough luck, try harder next time :)

---------------------------

And now on to something slightly different, although still on topic. I believe that, within the leagure, tech trading should be fully disabled. Simply, if it is allowed, an advanced player is able to gift a better rank to a medium-ranked player at absolutely no cost to himself, simply because he decided to do so. Encourages out-of-character rasoning, trans-game trades, friendship reasons and so on.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: GreatTurn League

Postby morphles » Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:57 pm

Some erroneous points seem to have creped up in your post.
Simply, if it is allowed, an advanced player is able to gift a better rank to a medium-ranked player at absolutely no cost to himself, simply because he decided to do so.

Even if I'm no a fan of tech trade, I think it is at least somewhat important to overall game. Also your statement is demonstrably untrue with my scoring, give free tech -> player gets more score -> gets larger share of total -> your share decreases disadvantage to you.

Scoring of leagues (at least public ones) has serious likelihood to be bullshit. For example crap like basketball soccer and any other stuff like that use stupid tournament structure to build up tension to one final match and sell lots of tickets. Elimination tournaments are seriously unfair, but all over the place due to monetary constrains. Possibly F1 (I don't follow it) is somewhat better, still I think it likely has simplified scoring for the "benefit of viewers" and not players or fairness. While board game competitions, like chess have a much better and fairer ranking system, most of the time everyone plays everyone and gains/loses rank from every encounter, and it totally does not depend on your place in tournament. If you are by far weakest player and end up lass, but still score couple of wins against high ranking players your rank might increase much more then any of players placed above you.

Now about your scoring affecting behavior "better", well it sounds dubious at best. Leading player might see it better for him to ally weak player, to knock of close match which might threaten him in future, thus giving more boost him in a long run, then gaining few points now from taking out weaker player. Another thing about your system, scores might end up having insurmountable differences long before game end, and thus your final points and score might be clear long before the game end. While with proportional scoring you can always increase your position even if only a little (well to be fair there are possible situations where that might be rather hard, but still it is much more likely).

Lastly I think you are seriously overstating how much aggression would favored. You would be rather unlikely to go far while on rampage even if from mid game. Thus I don't see how it would affect early/mid game situation much, for rational players. Now end game is a bit different, there is no far future to look up to, so you should take what you have, or knock of what you can from your enemies (not that tier system completely abolishes that, but I admit end game probably has bigger likely hood to be more peaceful with tiers). Though even then building some wonder might be much better investment than going on attack, unless you can guarantee city capture. In short, I do not think your worry is warranted.

And as for LT, I find it quite distasteful even without having played there, and for sure I would not want to replicate it here. LT does not seem to favor aggression, it seems to favor - abuse any trick you can as much as possible, also have some submarine trans game alliances, from what I can gather; how you achieve your end goal does not matter, how much war or when.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: GreatTurn League

Postby Corbeau » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:18 am

morphles wrote:
Simply, if it is allowed, an advanced player is able to gift a better rank to a medium-ranked player at absolutely no cost to himself, simply because he decided to do so.

Even if I'm no a fan of tech trade, I think it is at least somewhat important to overall game. Also your statement is demonstrably untrue with my scoring, give free tech -> player gets more score -> gets larger share of total -> your share decreases disadvantage to you.

That way he may lose a few points and give his associate more. A favour gladly returned the next game, if need or opportunity arises. Suppose overall points are 1000, top player has 200 (20%), his friend has 60 (6%), if by giving tech the friend gets 25 more points, overall is 1025, top player now has 300/1025=19.5%, his friend now has 8%. So he gained four times more than the donor lost. A profitable exchange.

Scoring of leagues (at least public ones) has serious likelihood to be bullshit. For example crap like basketball soccer and any other stuff like that use stupid tournament structure to build up tension to one final match and sell lots of tickets. Elimination tournaments are seriously unfair, but all over the place due to monetary constrains.

Do you really don't understand the difference between leagues and elimination tournaments?

Possibly F1 (I don't follow it) is somewhat better, still I think it likely has simplified scoring for the "benefit of viewers" and not players or fairness. While board game competitions, like chess have a much better and fairer ranking system, most of the time everyone plays everyone and gains/loses rank from every encounter, and it totally does not depend on your place in tournament. If you are by far weakest player and end up lass, but still score couple of wins against high ranking players your rank might increase much more then any of players placed above you.

Fair point but has nothing to do with the system I'm proposing.

Now about your scoring affecting behavior "better", well it sounds dubious at best. Leading player might see it better for him to ally weak player, to knock of close match which might threaten him in future, thus giving more boost him in a long run, then gaining few points now from taking out weaker player.

This is exactly what I said. What's your point? That this is a bad thing? What is preventing the other side to do the same?

Another thing about your system, scores might end up having insurmountable differences long before game end, and thus your final points and score might be clear long before the game end.

Also, why is this a bad thing? if you've performed a miracle and secured your place at mid-game, why is that a problem? You think that in that case you would be frustrated and leave the game you've already won? No, I really don't get it.

Lastly I think you are seriously overstating how much aggression would favored. You would be rather unlikely to go far while on rampage even if from mid game. Thus I don't see how it would affect early/mid game situation much, for rational players.


I didn't (over)estimate anything. I simply said that this type of scoring stimulates aggression more than "my" type of scoring.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll be able to continue our bickering about the occasional details here and there, but before this turns into a trolling fest, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: GreatTurn League

Postby el_perdedor » Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:20 pm

my proposal(or how ever it is written):

so my idea of the GT-League was more of a duels league.
The games will take about 60 turns, i think.
We can start at the same time more games.
A map for, say about 6-8 cities per side.

To the points
i would do 2 for win and 1 for losing

Score of the game
the one u did in favour and of the opponent as minus points.

That of more players and the points will be distrubiet(or how ever it is written) depending the position each one got in the game. I like it, but more for a ranking in the usual GT games. And i would do the point starting from the last one. I.e. 8 players game, the one who ended last, 8th position, get 1 point. 7th position 2 points. 6th position 4 points. 5th position 8 points. And so on. That would it make more attractive to win bigger games. Perhaps, i have already some critic for this idea.

well i did my part of comenting, i hope others will do so.

Perhaps this thread(omg im using that word) as new topic in the GT area would have more visitors as it is more visible.

Yeah and sorry for my english but im really not doing my biggest effort, if somebody doesnt understand something, tell me, i will try to express myself better.

grettings,

me
"bla bla blabla bla blaaa blabla!"
-el perdedor!!! 12.04.2014
el_perdedor
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:50 pm

Next

Return to Community

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron