Beyond the Pit [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [Organization Thread]

[The Capo]

The only thing that's solid are the votes.
Gained votes cannot be removed again but will add with all coming votes to a grand total. That total will be used to hand out the scores. (1-18 points per category)

CS this was either a typo or is stupid.

Which one is it?

[Pitboss Vikings]

makess sense to me



CS...

Remove those pts frpm those that didnt vote as you made it clear this was your intent from the start.

Yes post the votes recevied per person. Not the votes given.

Yes cut voting off as of August 14th for JULY actions

EVERYONE, please only vote for JULY activities.

Dont be lazy and base it on this two weeks stuff, nor jsut vote for any ally or potential ally.

[Robert]

@Capo: I'm not sure what the typo would be. May be my lack of the english language.

@Everyone:

I've created an example score-sheet for a 'finished game' with 10 civs over 4 months. It's just an example to show how it works.

Story Telling Votes
Civilization	Votes June	Votes July	Votes August	Votes Sept	Total Votes	Points
Canada		12		14		9		5		40		10
Swede		6		3		18		12		39		9
France		8		12		4		9		33		8
Turkey		15		14		0		1		30		7
Brazilia	10		5		2		8		25		6
China		0		9		11		3		23		5
Ireland		0		6		10		5		21		4
Denmark		3		0		0		14		17		3
Israel		5		7		2		3		17		3
Mexico		1		0		4		0		5		1



Diplomacy Votes
Civilization	Votes June	Votes July	Votes August	Votes Sept	Total Votes	Points
Canada		4		7		12		11		34		10
France		9		13		4		4		30		9
Denmark		8		8		3		9		28		8
Brazilia	5		7		12		5		27		7
Mexico		5		11		8		0		24		6
Swede		12		0		5		5		22		5
Turkey		4		0		8		10		22		5
Ireland		5		2		4		8		19		3
China		8		4		0		4		16		2	
Israel		0		8		4		4		16		2


Military Strategy Votes
Civilization	Votes June	Votes July	Votes August	Votes Sept	Total Votes	Points
Brazilia	12		9		10		9		40		10
Denmark		9		14		2		10		36		9
France		3		9		7		13		32		8
Swede		5		4		12		8		29		7
China		9		6		0		6		21		6
Ireland		10		3		5		2		20		5
Mexico		3		4		11		0		18		4
Turkey		1		5		5		7		18		4
Canada		7		3		0		5		15		2
Israel		1		3		8		0		12		1


In-game end score
Civilization	Score		Points
Israel		3449		10
China		2443		9
Denmark		2345		8
Ireland		2340		7
Mexico		1904		6
Canada		1885		5
France		1840		4
Turkey		1495		3
Brazilia	1450		2
Swede		1359		1


Total score
Civilization	Story telling points	Diplomacy points	Military points		Game score points	Total points
1. France	8			9			8			4			29
2. Denmark	3			8			9			8			28
3. Canada	10			10			2			5			27
4. Brazilia	6			7			10			2			25
5. Swede	9			5			7			1			22
6. China	5			2			6			9			22
7. Ireland	4			3			5			7			19
8. Turkey	7			5			4			3			19
9. Mexico	1			6			4			6			17
10. Israel	3			2			1			10			16

Winner: France

[The Capo]

I guess my criticism was kinda harsh, but here is what I meant...

From what I understand you would just tally up all of the votes cumulitively and then at the end assign a numeric point value (1-18). Did you mean you would tally up the VOTES and then assign this value or you would tally up the POINTS acquired (the 1-18) per month and then assign the (1-18) value?

Also I was under the impression that you were giving all of the game score points rather than assigning a 1-18 value to their ranks. I think its better if the players get all of their points from the game included because this is still civilization after all and they should get full credit. For example, say a civ (Russia) has 2000 game points, and the next civ (Rome) (this is only an example mind you) has 1000. The difference in points would only be ONE FULL POINT under this system. Which is kind of unfair.

If you include all of the civ score points (again using the scenario above) Russia has 2000 points and Rome has 1000 to start with. Now if Russia never posted and recieved a small amount of points the entire time he would still get a points total of 1, and then Rome was the best poster and then gets a points total of 18. This would make it 2001 to 1018, which again is unfair to the Romans.

I think if you tallied up the entire POINTS recieved and gave those points it would be better. If you regularly get a points value of 10 (this is just to make the math easier) for 24 months (which is the estimated duration of the game) you would get 240 points for each category, which would result in 720, which is a much better difference maker to a higher game score.

This may be confusing because I am just thinking aloud and didn't really think the argument through. But here are my main points.

a) There is no reason to assign a 1-18 rank to game score because it already tallies itself up and I think we should just use that score because the differences are more important in this regard. It isn't like you're getting rated by people, its a real value.

b) because of this, if you simply award a 1-18 to other categories civ score becomes the factor that decides the winner because 54 points is not going to catch you up on the game score.

c) SO if you just total up the points awarded and add everything up (Total Diplo Votes + Total Story Votes + Total Military Votes + Final Civ Score) you would get a better number to determine the winner.

Now, at the risk of eating my own words, I hope that makes sense...

[Robert]

No, it makes no sence.
There's no ballance between the 4 categories if you do it like that.

Firstly because the game-score is a totally different number then the vote-scores.

Secondly because in such a system a player can totally ignore 3 categories and dominate in a very big way in the 4th category, and win because of that.

If we're looking for ballance between the 4 categories then the system we're using right now is the best.

I'm sure that we all can come with 10 other ways of score-counting. And I'm sure that every counting-system we can come up with has pro's and cons.
But we can keep on debating score systems and rule-systems into eternity.

Let's just go ahead with this game instead of trying to change everything every week.


Btw. if you want an example of an unballance score-system: the civilization IV score system is totally unballanced. That's because it adds different kinds of score-systems to each other.

I think that about everyone in the civ4 community agrees that the civ4 score-system sucks. It's doing exactly what you say. Add tech-points to land-points to wonder-points.

[Pitboss Vikings]

Well it may be a normal cov game to you Capo but it aint to me.

I liked the idea of a score system which favoured the non ingame scrore system to try and encourage players to play differently as this is a DIPLO game.

If you going to keep the total in game score then it will simply encourage people to continue to paly they way they do every other game. that is maximise in game score.

by using the system that CS put up at start of game. then all palyers are potentially in with a chance of doing well as far as DIPLO game playing goes.

Under your system the Great Civ players will always bve the winners of DIPLO games too.

Yes i wil lbe called a whinger and people wil lsay i only want this cause i suck at civ. well that is why i ONLY play DIPLO games. I know i suck at civ.

[MMC]

Actually Capo's idea does make sense, it just won't work as is...
But, if you take the game score, then multiply it by (not adding to) the total of the other 3. Then you get a slightly better system. Although you might want to lower the multipliers slighty (say by a factor of a hundred, so something like 1.01 through to 1.18). That way you do get some kind of effort-based score, but a decent Diplo player can overtake by getting all the votes.

This is just a suggestion, but I'm sure Capo would find the concept interesting.

[Pitboss Japan]

Originally posted by Pitboss Vikings


Yes i wil lbe called a whinger and people wil lsay i only want this cause i suck at civ. well that is why i ONLY play DIPLO games. I know i suck at civ.

at least your honest.

[The Capo]

Well, I think the system I suggested would be better, but majority rules.

[Pitboss Vikings]

well long live CSs scroe system.

[Pitboss Japan]

Long live Japan

[Pitboss Vikings]

Originally posted by Pitboss Japan


at least your honest.

im stil lsurprised my points are just below the middle group of players.. must be doing something half right..

if i knew what gained points and lost them i would probabyl be much better off.

[Robert]

@Rome: please end your turn after you've finished your turn
Today you logged in, did your moves and logged out without finishing your turn.

Fortunately you're not the last one (Russia and Metalheads) but if you would've been the last one then you would've delayed us.

[Pitboss Persia]

I think the general idea of CS's score system is fine.

But there is something really wrong.

Let's say China lead the game score from the beginning of the game, but Switzerland manages to become first in the last month. China will be worse than Switzerland in the final score, and that sucks badly.

I would suggest to use your current system with the 18 points for the first, 1 point for the last, but to sum them up, so that in the end the maximal score is 18 x number of votes for each category.

As for the civs who didn't manage to get any votes at all. I think they shouldn't be awarded 12 points for that performance. This is not motivating enough to do better afterwards. So if you get no votes, you are 18th (maybe not the only one) and have earned 1 point, not more. (If we don't do that this way, a civ that has been at peace all the game long would be able to get a decent military score, which makes no sense).

I agree with Vikings on the "no votes no points" rule. You didn't vote ? You get no points at all.

I know your score system is designed to balance out over several votes, but i think there is not enough rewarding for maintaining a constant effort in all four categories. Espacially if civs at peace don't cast any military votes at all, thereby helping them to be only in 10th position rather then in the 18th with your score system.

I don't know if we can get the game score at the end of june now, but I have a big problem with the previously mentionned drawbacks of your system.

[Robert]

@Persia: I don't think that after 12+ months of playing there will be any civ left over with 0 votes in any category.

I'm fine with giving 0 points to all civs that in the end never got any vote in a certain category. But if I would've done that for now then the 5 civs that got military votes b/c they had a war would top the final-list.

I think such a tmp-score wouldn't give a good overview.
The current list is only an overview.

Regarding your in-game score: I think that only the end-score matters. As in a sport-match. The end-score matters, not the half-time score or something.

I don't understand your solution either. If we multiply the vote-score with the end-game score then you only award the end-game-score winner even more.... or maybe I misunderstand you.