Thread redone-Multiple voting allowed in poll this time.

Now that we've had some time to explore the game, it's time for some discussion as to what mapsizes should be included in the permanent Hall of Fame. I've included all the mapsizes in the poll, although I suspect the only real issue may be Duel sized maps. Given how heavily geared that particular one is towards MP, does it really have a place in the HOF?

I think we should restrict game speed & map size combinations.

Huge/Quick is too peaceful; Duel/Marathon is too war-ful.

I picked Large, Standard, Small. But could also support Huge, Standard, Tiny for the same reasons. I want some variety but how much different is a huge game from a large game, and likewise with small and tiny.

While this has more to do with difficulty I particularily disliked the battle for fastest conquest that took place on the low diff small maps of Civ3. There is something fundamentally wrong when you have many different players with perfectly matched wins. Which goes on for many months and then when a new idea surfaces you end up seeing 10-20 new entries, slightly different but then slowly people end up tied again (or leave in disgust).

Voted for All:
Even though Duel may be geared towards multiplayer more, I don't really see a reason to exclude it, purely based on map size.

Is there a data restriction (concern about space on the site?) that makes you concerned about the dual sized maps?

The reason I ask is it seems to get alot of play in the beta - I find the dual maps challenging and its cool to be able to compare my meager scores to the people that are really skilled at the game.

Is there a data restriction (concern about space on the site?) that makes you concerned about the dual sized maps?
Not really a data constriction, more like concern over how many thousands of slots we'll have...

Not really a data constriction, more like concern over how many thousands of slots we'll have...

slots of what? would they be significantly less by eliminating one map size?

I was also wondering if perhaps it might not make sense to limit uploads that do not exceed the owners previous best scores or fastest finishes (ie - if I already have a chieftain culture victory score, my newly submitted score must exceed it or must have finished sooner.

slots of what? would they be significantly less by eliminating one map size?

By slots he means row in a table. There are 10 rows per table, and lots of tables, currently:

Difficulties (9) x Conditions (7) x MapSizes (6) = 378 tables

That's 3780 slots!




I was also wondering if perhaps it might not make sense to limit uploads that do not exceed the owners previous best scores or fastest finishes (ie - if I already have a chieftain culture victory score, my newly submitted score must exceed it or must have finished sooner.
In Civ3 we've removed a bunch of save files that don't make it on to a table. We've got a bit more space now, but if we start running out we might do the same for Civ4.

Keeping the number of slots down isn't just about space on the site though, when the are too many slots compared to the number of players it makes it too easy for players to find uncontested tables. Not much of a competition when all you have to do is submit any old game!

I voted for "All", but I can see the point of restricting map sizes to Large, Standard and Small. Perhaps, if HOF went that way we could then add map type, archipelago (tiny islands), continents, pangea. Duel size IS too easy, just use Inca, build quechua, and attack until you get "lucky" with a fast win. OTOH, duel size offers a quick way to build up the submission count!!

no duel, you have about a 50% chance of winning, which is not fair

no duel, you have about a 50% chance of winning, which is not fair

50% chance of winning against whom? (comparing against the computer or other HoF players?). Base on your same logic, there should be no settler, and no chieftain level because you would have 100% chance of winning.;) May as well ban Warlord, Prince, and Noble too because you would have at least 50% chance of winning.;)

no duel, you have about a 50% chance of winning, which is not fair


The HOF isn't about winning or losing. It is about how fast you can win on a particular world setting or how high a score you can get. It is assumed you will win. Since ever player is able to play with the same settings it tests your skill (and luck) against other players using the same settings.

By slots he means row in a table. There are 10 rows per table, and lots of tables, currently:

Difficulties (9) x Conditions (7) x MapSizes (6) = 378 tables

That's 3780 slots!


If you really want to reduce the slot count, cut out the lower difficulty levels. Does a chieftain win deserve to be on HoF? I say keep the map sizes, but require Prince or Emperor or higher difficulty.

Does a chieftain win deserve to be on HoF?
If it's one of the top ten games of it's class of all time, sure.

As the bottom level in III, Chieftain saw a lot of activity. Incoming players just wanted to get on the tables, so they'd start there and then climb.

Even if the difficulty of a game is low, there's honor to be had by being in the HOF. This environment is elitist by structure, but I do my best to make sure it's still welcoming.

Actually, for many tables, the chieftain games were way harder to beat then other difficulties...

Don't forget in hoF you're playing against other games, not versus the AIs.

This is even more true in Civ4, but the difficulty creates an entirely different game.
This is actually an unfortunate sideaffect of a poor generic AI because you can't start at Settler and gain skills and eventually get good enough for Diety, the strategies you use have to be thrown out every couple steps. This was true for Civ3 as well.