AU scoring system

[V3nom]

ok I thought I'd help out by starting a thread about the scoring system. Really atm this is just to get the input of everyone on what they want from it and after that if its wanted I'll put together some hard and fast rules based on community decision.

this is the original rough system proposed that is probably a bit of a decent base to go off.

For playing an AU game ("course"): 3 points
For achieving a victory condition: 2 points
For playing the game more than once: 2 points

For posting a report: 1-3 points
For actively/constructively posting in other peoples' reports: 1-3 points

For completing a course on Chieftain difficulty: 0 points
Warlord: 1 point
Prince: 2 points
Monarch: 3 points
...
Deity: 6 points

For playing 3 consecutive AU games: 2 points
For playing 5/6 consecutive AU games: 4 points
For playing 8/10 consecutive AU games: 6 points

For winning the "most interesting report" award: 3 points
For winning the "most entertaining report" award: 3 points
For winning the "most helpful" award: 3 points
For winning the "most innovative" award: 3 points
For winning the "most impressive overall" award: 5 points

so what do you guys think? what should be added to this list? what should be taken away.

One thought I've had already is perhaps some bonus points to encourage a player to go through each game once WITH the AU mod and once WITHOUT it (when its up of course), by doing this it'd give everyone a much better idea of how the changes are influencing games, wether they're moving in the right direction and what else might be changed.

[Fried-Psitalon]

.... :: mutters about scoring systems in education being unwise and contrary to the goal of learning:: ...

[Arrian]

I'm with Fried. If people simply must have scoring, though, something like that is probably best because it rewards involvement and discussion over in-game results.

Still, I'd prefer no scoring.

-Arrian

[polarnomad]

That scoring system seems rather complex and difficult to implement. ie: Who is to say whether one person's report was more helpful than another's, since it might be helpful to someone but not to someone else?

It also seems a little intimidating to someone who doesn't consider himself to be the best player either. I personally am less interested in competing with other AUers than actually learning to play better. Isn't there a HoF for competition?

Wouldn't it be possible to simply keep track of who has completed which courses, and use feedback to convey the merits of a participant's accomplishments in individual course sections?

Giving points for posting reports and providing constructive feedback might have some merit though.

[nbarclay]

The thought occurs to me that one of the main reasons Apolyton University was created was to provide a place where the focus would be on learning and having fun rather than on competition. Creating a scoring system would be directly contrary to that goal. I'm extremely skeptical of the value of a heavily participation-based scoring system for attracting competitive personalities, and such a scoring system could prove discouraging for people with competitive personalities whose participation grade would suffer because they arrived late or because they lack the time or interest to play particular games. (Note that at least last I checked, the CivFanatics Game of the Month's overall ranking system was based on people's three best games in the past year or something like that, meaning that people could get a good ranking without having to have been around a long time or to have played every game.)

My fear is that this kind of scoring system might give us the worst of both worlds, making Apolyton University less fun for people who don't really enjoy doing what it takes to get the best scores without making it significantly more attractive to people who enjoy competing. I certainly don't feel like such a system would make AU more fun for me, and if there's a theme I don't want to play (which has happened from time to time in the past), I'll find it downright annoying if I'm forced to either play a game I don't want to or see my score suffer.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Competitive personalities will still show up here for the glory of people going "wow." The problem with any pre-defined points-goal system like the one proposed is that people will invariably tweak their play to that goal and getting the most points for it. If we were in a single-goal system playing CIV, that would be fine; but since one of the biggest parts of AU (as I understand it) is investigating multiple possible lines of strategy, encouraging players to the "best most obvious" path rather than trying strange alternatives is very counter-educational.

Do we really want to remind players who have a lot to learn just how much their play sucks compared to X "CivGod" by slapping them with a low score against someone else's huge one? We're trying to reward new players with lots of feedback here, right? "Here's feedback, and by the way, your score says you suck" isn't the way to go about it.

Respectfully, gents, as a teacher: There is a time and a place for scoring in education; it's when motivation and team-building is important. There is already a sense of community here at Apolyton, and people will be motivated to post here already for a variety of reasons.

Let score stay in competitions, not in educational ventures.

[clarkcd]

As a new member to AU (but a longtime lurker) I can say that the scoring system is a bit intimidating. There are so many great players here and I just plink around on Chieftan/Warlord just for fun that I would have almost no hope of scoring well. It would get discouraging and eventually I would stop taking the courses.

The biggest reason I didn't do any of the Civ III courses was because by the time I got here I think they were in the 400s. Not much you can do about that really but the same intimidation prinicple applies to the scoring system (at least for me) but it starts immediately instead of later.

[ZargonX]

Well, not to Mr. Repeater, but I do agree that the AU is more for education than competition. The addition of a scoring system, while it may provide an intangible reward for some, may very well turn off many of the people the AU is trying to reach.

[ducki]

The addition of a scoring system, while it may provide an intangible reward for some, may very well turn off many of the people the AU is trying to reach.

Yeah, I know people like earning points, and I do too, but that's not why I came to AU in the first place, and it's not an addition I'm excited about, but if enough folks want it, that's cool, I can pretend it's not there and not rain on any parades.

[Stuie]

Like ducki - I would ignore any scoring system were one to be implemented.

[nbarclay]

Thus far, I don't thiink I've seen anyone show any real enthusiasm for a scoring system as something that would actually make AU more interesting to them. Unless I've missed something, the only support for the idea seems to be based on a belief that some as-yet-unknown other people might be interested.

[UglyElmo]

Rather than a point system, you may want to continue to treat AU as a real university by creating courses for Incoming Freshmen, Sophmores, Juniors, Seniors, Master's Level and P.H.D. level players.

All levels will be available for each person to study, whether the person's skill level is high enough or not. After taking the set of courses for each Level, a test scenario could be created which incorporates what was learned during the course study. Freshmen would take the Final and be elevated to Sophmore level, etc.

You could even provide a small icon to designate what "grade" each person has obtained.

I believe by focusing on a set of skills and testing at each level, you would avoid the overcompetitive types of personalities as well as create a less intimidating starting point for those who buy the game months from
now.

At the end of a person's senior level, you could issue a Bachelor of Science in "CIVics" to those who past the final test (Scenario).

At the higher level: Master, you could initiate unusual challenges, or make writing a certain number of DARs for each underclassmen level mandatory before the person is allowed to obtain the title of the next level of P.H.D..

Those at P.H.D. level, might then be given the honor of being classified as "Professional" after writing a certain number of articles discussing special tactics, topics, and "How-to" guides for all the lower grades. Teaching 1 on 1 in online matches could also be a requisite of being honored by the title "Professional".

I believe the above idea would eliminate the problem with competition, and allow players to jump in at a specific and much tested starting point and advance up through the levels at their own pace.

Feel free to discuss and/or use any of the ideas presented above as you please.

[DrSpike]

As I said in the other thread I don't think we want to go down the scoring route for either results or attendance.

[monkspider]

I would just like to echo the sentiments of Fried, Arrian, et al on the issue of a scoring system.

[sabrewolf]

well, looking at the points which are distributed, you can hardly call this competitive. there is no such thing as fastest victory, highest points, etc.

these points are mainly gained by playing games, writing reports and participating. the people who do so anyhow won't be affected, but this might draw in a few more people...

i really see no downside of this scoring system as long as we do not start competitive stuff...

let's just not call it "scoring system" but more something like "hall of honour"... like in a real university where all professors have their heads in marble or names along a wall.