Hi All,

Has a score based (Firaxis score) HoF ever been considered? Some might say that G/WOTM cover that, but in reality they don't. There are only 2 games per month, and they have set parameters. Compare this to the event, goal driven idea behind HoF and I can't really see a comparison.

Also, the Firaxis score takes into account the finish date. From what I'm seeing, if the HoF were to continue, by mathematical reasoning, the top spots in the tables would all have almost the same dates. With the current HoF, everybody is gunning for a single victory point: 4000BC. As time progresses, everybody will gradually improve and migrate their HoF entires to this date, therefore the finish dates will start to get closer to each other, closer to 4000BC, and will start to duplicate.

Now if you look at a purely Firaxis score HoF, everybody is gunning for... infinity. (Yes, there is a theoretical maximum score for each game, but what's interesting is that maximum score changes each and every turn.) I think there are many more complex factors that go into a Firaxis score, versus trying to minimize your finish date. Having a Firaxis score HOF makes for a more (mathematically) interesting array of games.

For example, each entry in the current HoF table can theoretically be duplicated (although maybe not easy to do, it can be done with certainty). Whereas maximizing score will always result in a wide range of games, where the likelihood of a game being duplicated approaches zero.

To further discuss this point, if you take a game that has 200 turns, and have two players with duplicate maps play the exact same play each turn up until turn 150, the likelihood of the scores being different is extremely high. Granted at that point the scores would be close, but the likelihood of two or more players playing the exact same play on the exact same map for 150 turns is improbable (but still theoretically possible if you look at statistics).

Now compare this to two or more players gunning for the fastest conquest victory. Many players can get this done in a handful of turns. To demonstrate this point, look at the top 10 for Conquest Duel (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/index.php?show=diff&condition=Conquest&pubID=28&mapSize=Duel&speed=Any&submit=Go). (Notice the Firaxis scores are much more varied compared to the finish dates)

Anyway, long post, but I'd like to get some reactions.

(I wanted to add this as another post instead of editing to ensure I'm not editing the original post after thoughts are given :) )
My logic above may be completely wrong, which is why I'd like some thoughts.

I'm not proposing changing the current HoF because a score based HoF would result in longer games, and some people may not want to play for that long. I think it would be cool to see this as another HoF completely.

What would be even cooler is if Firaxis could hold some official HoF competition so that more players would participate. Maybe they could even award prizes or something (the whole idea being that this would help further promote their game and their company). The current HoF staff have the infrastructure in place to minimize cheats/hacks.

Interesting thoughts. And I see your point about aiming for 4000BC versus infinte score. Personally I like playing games where I maximize for score.

But score is already one of the 'victory conditions' in HoF, and people are free to compete in these tables as much as they like. I would be interested in hearing what you propose in addition to what is already implemented in HoF.

same thought as miraculix, there already is a score-based table.

But score is already one of the 'victory conditions' in HoF, and people are free to compete in these tables as much as they like. I would be interested in hearing what you propose in addition to what is already implemented in HoF.

That is true, but that is only one small portion of the entire HoF tables. What I would like to see is an entire HoF that is based solely on Firaxis score, instead of finish date (since finish date is already factored into the Firaxis score). For example, the score victory condition is a combination of all victory conditions (meaning you could have completed any of the victory conditions to get into the 'score' table). I would like to see who can get the highest Deity Conquest Huge score, the Deity Conquest Large score, the Deity Conquest Standard score, etc...

Instead of minimizing finish date, try to maximize score for all events/tables. It would be cool to be able to compete for a Quattromaster-type of title based on score, rather than finish date.

Not interested in score absolutely. We have several speed tables to fill on date now, adding whole new score table set is an overkill.

What would be even cooler is if Firaxis could hold some official HoF competition so that more players would participate. Maybe they could even award prizes or something (the whole idea being that this would help further promote their game and their company). The current HoF staff have the infrastructure in place to minimize cheats/hacks.
We're the Hall of Fame of the biggest Civ site on the planet. We don't need Firaxis to make us cooler. :D

:D
Ain'y they bankrupt anyway, or was it Take2?

I think score could be used as a tiebreaker when tied for earliest date. That would make gunning for the quick conquest on a duel map less rewarding for Qscore.

I think score could be used as a tiebreaker when tied for earliest date..
It already is. ;)

It already is. ;)

How? All the games on, for example, prince, duel, conquest, marathon, finish at 3835BC and all get 30 q-points (if raging barbs were on). If score were used as a tiebreaker, only bostich's game with 21218 points would get the max q-points and all others would be lower.

It is only one place in the Table itself. E.g. currently jesusin got the same date for Deity Standard Culture, but better score, so watch him replace my result in this cell next update - if noone improves his by then ;)

I am sorry, OneBinary, but I completely disagree with your idea. I am not interested at all in score.

Why shouldn’t I finish a game this turn if I can? To maximize an artificial factor called ‘points’? IMHO Firaxis score is just meaningless. The same Duel Map you are using as an example, would be a pain to play if the goal is maximizing Firaxis score. I don’t think I will ever become a Quatromaster because I won’t ever purposely aim for a Time Victory. But that's just me.

I am sorry, OneBinary, but I completely disagree with your idea. I am not interested at all in score.

Why shouldn’t I finish a game this turn if I can? To maximize an artificial factor called ‘points’? IMHO Firaxis score is just meaningless. The same Duel Map you are using as an example, would be a pain to play if the goal is maximizing Firaxis score. I don’t think I will ever become a Quatromaster because I won’t ever purposely aim for a Time Victory. But that's just me.
Maximizing score is not the same as Time victory. If you look at the current HOF tables for score, most #1 games have a finish date before 500AD, maybe even before 1AD.
Some people have a preference for fast finishes, while others have a preference for maximizing scores. What about implementing a 'sort by' option on the HoF pages? Then people can choose to sort by score or sort by finish date? This doesn't solve the fact that Score is just one of many subevents in Quatromaster though.

This doesn't solve the fact that Score is just one of many subevents in Quatromaster though.
It would probably be a moderate amount of work to launch an additional Score-Quatromaster where the only the score Qscores are used for all events and subevents. Since every game has both a date Qscore and a score Qscore, people will automaticall qualify for both versions of the Quatromaster. With this approach, people can choose which version they want to emphasize in thir gameplay.

My total support to jesusin here. Milking is no fun.

It would probably be a moderate amount of work to launch an additional Score-Quatromaster where the only the score Qscores are used for all events and subevents. Since every game has both a date Qscore and a score Qscore, people will automaticall qualify for both versions of the Quatromaster. With this approach, people can choose which version they want to emphasize in thir gameplay.

I agree with the quoted post 100%, typos and all!! ;)

Has a score based (Firaxis score) HoF ever been considered?
Sort of. Not happening. The score subevent of Machiavelli is about all you'll get.

HOF-III used to be purely score, back when I started competing, and trust me when I say the current format including makes for a much more enjoyable and educational competitive environment.

Sort of. Not happening. The score subevent of Machiavelli is about all you'll get.

HOF-III used to be purely score, back when I started competing, and trust me when I say the current format including makes for a much more enjoyable and educational competitive environment.
Let me start by saying that I have a lot of respect for the amount of work the HOF administrators invest into making HOF an enjoyable competition. I would certainly not request or even suggest that they should commit to an additional substantial workload in administering HOF.

But workload is not the argument I am hearing in this case. The only argument against this proposal seems to be that 'optimizing for score (milking) is no fun'. In my view, this would have been a valid argument if the proposal was to replace the existing HOF. But that is not the case. The proposal is to create a score-based HOF in addition to the existing HOF. As I pointed out in an earlier post, this can be implemented easily by allowing people to sort the HOF tables either by finish date or by score. A similar approach can be used for the Quattromaster tables. As long as people are not 'forced' to play more milking games than before, what is wrong by giving people more choices? People who don't like milking can continue playing as before, and choose the 'sort-by-date' tab to see how their games are ranked. People who like milking can choose the 'sort-by-score' tab.

I am not convinced about the relevance of comparing with HOF-III. In CIV III, maximizing your score implied playing until 2050AD. This is certainly not the case in CIV-IV. In many cases, maximum score is reached before 1 AD. Also, with a score-based HOF, people would be encouraged to maximize their score not only for any victory condition, but for every victory condition. This is why I believe a score-based HOF-IV would be much more fun than HOF-III.

As your impetus seems to come from desire to see score-Quattromastery, this technically can be done now as for each sybmission the score-q-score is calculated. No need for another HOF table. Personally I don't care about score, so neither support the idea nor oppose it.

As your impetus seems to come from desire to see score-Quattromastery, this technically can be done now as for each sybmission the score-q-score is calculated. No need for another HOF table. Personally I don't care about score, so neither support the idea nor oppose it.
First of all, I believe HOF tables have a value independent of Quattromaster. In fact, HOF-IV was launched several months before Quattromaster. I agree that we don't need new HOF tables. What I am proposing is to be able to sort each of the existing HOF tables both by date and by score. For exampe, who has the highest score in the Large/Conquest/Emperor/Epic table?

I agree that a score Quattromaster can be done by using the existing score-qscores. What is missing is tables where the averages for each event are based on score-qscore rather than date-qscore. For example, the average score for the Map Quest event would be the average of the two best score-qscores of each map.

First of all, I believe HOF tables have a value independent of Quattromaster. In fact, HOF-IV was launched several months before Quattromaster. I agree that we don't need new HOF tables. What I am proposing is to be able to sort each of the existing HOF tables both by date and by score. For exampe, who has the highest score in the Large/Conquest/Emperor/Epic table?

I agree that a score Quattromaster can be done by using the existing score-qscores. What is missing is tables where the averages for each event are based on score-qscore rather than date-qscore. For example, the average score for the Map Quest event would be the average of the two best score-qscores of each map.

Excellent idea. That would solve problems for those who want to kick scores.
With another table on QM that counts averages from score-qscores each invidual part will give some score based kick for that too. Specially you don't have to play any extra games unless you want to get highes time and score. Though I think that only 1 game per score-qscore is enough just to avoid a lot of milking. Date is different as you cant delay winning for better score 2 games sound better for that.

-Dracandross

I am sorry, OneBinary, but I completely disagree with your idea. I am not interested at all in score.

Why shouldn’t I finish a game this turn if I can? To maximize an artificial factor called ‘points’? IMHO Firaxis score is just meaningless. The same Duel Map you are using as an example, would be a pain to play if the goal is maximizing Firaxis score. I don’t think I will ever become a Quatromaster because I won’t ever purposely aim for a Time Victory. But that's just me.

i'm with you on not being interested in score. i don't like 'milking' for points, i just want to play to have fun, win, and turn it in. some folks like maximizing the firaxis score, they have a competitive drive to win. that doesn't bother me, it's not my style but i'm happy they have that option already on the tables. a happy surprise for me about this forum since is how generous some folks are. they give strategies about what they did, share from their experiences, even knowing that may help someone else place above them on the tables. that's nifty. i've seen folks say they'll avoid a certain map size for a while to let some other poster keep #1, and the other poster will say 'no no play what you want, won't bother me!' very kind folks, not all cut-throat competitive which i had sort of expected but wasn't going to let bother me since i'm using HoF for a reason other than topping the charts...see below.

HoF has been great for me, i was a chronic reloader/worlderbuilderer. it kept making me lose interest since it got too easy, but i was scared to move up in difficulty (despite hubby's constant nagging that i was ready to). using the HoF mod, even though i know i won't win anything, has been a fantastic cure for that. learning from my mistakes and improving my tactics has made the game more fun, the challenges now (usually) make it more exciting rather than frustrating as all get out. and it makes me smile to see an entry accepted, to know i did it the real way. y'all are used to that but i'm sure not *giggle*.

i won't ever be a quatromaster since you have to go all the way to diety, and do gauntlets, and i doubt i'll ever be that good. but i am currently going for a time victory since i do want to have one of each on there *giggle*. i ain't crazy tho, i'm doing it on just a standard map, normal speed (which seems super fast, i'm used to epic), and being very careful about the domination limit. score schmore i just wanna have one of each victory condition someday. in fact, that relates to my first paragraph, i'm using strategies i read about in G-Minor 12 (which i didn't see in time to play and likely wouldn't have had the patience for). i'm not trying to max score like they did, but i'm using tips about how to avoid the domination limit and spread out wonders i do want, so that no 3 cities go legendary.

Candy, I know exactly what you are talking about (Worldbuilder, evil thoughts go away). But I disagree with you in one point: Quattromaster isn't difficult. Believe me, you are ready for it, if you are able to learn from your mistakes. I myself will hit quattro with the next update if I counted correctly, and I'm far away from being a good player.

The trick is: use the "easy wins" for the higher difficulties. Here my list for the difficulties above Prince:

Incas Conquest Pangea Deity
Persians Conquest Oasis Immortal
Romans Conquest Highlands Emperor
Aztecs Conquest Lakes Monarch

All 4 games have been rushes. All 4 of them where much easier then the following 2:

Celts Time Great Plains Chieftain Marathon Minor Gauntlet
Mongols Domination Fractal Prince Epic Major Gauntlet

The Gauntlets are the games where you show what you are able to do. And those are the games where you learn most (a big thanks to the HOF team).

Honestly, the Chieftain Minor Gauntlet was much harder for me then all 4 rushes together. And lets not even talk about that Prince gauntlet. While my skill is by now high enough to win a Prince game somehow, I usually prefer less difficult setups.

So quattro is doable if you can:

win 2 gauntlets by pure dedication (and many retries)
win 7 rushes with difficulties up to deity (quechua deity is laughable easy)
win 9 more games with 9 other civs
NOT mix up any start files, or conditions or such (which drove up my game count)

Thats it. Nothing more necessary to be able to boast "I'm a quattromaster".

I am still a bit skeptical about Hof. Seems lots of people are able to spam higher scores with less than honorable tactics. Do people really think Hof should be played like this. If so, does everyone enjoy Hof overall. I always get a bit confused when reading Hof and Gotm. Not really sure how they work.

what i do for the HoF stuff i do for fun. i don't worry about what other people do. i was trying for quattromaster (i'm taking a break from it now) just to have it for myself. i'm not trying to get on any of the HoF top-10 tables. those are competely different things.

GotM is different, they use the same mod but it's not related.

what i do for the HoF stuff i do for fun. i don't worry about what other people do. i was trying for quattromaster (i'm taking a break from it now) just to have it for myself. i'm not trying to get on any of the HoF top-10 tables. those are competely different things.



Well thats the point, you can either try to be QM number one. Which is only possible by playing deity/huge/quick/future/spacerace with every single nation twice hitting about same time giving about 90+ points each.

Therefore it would be very good idea to modify qscoring abit:
If you have more than 2 completed games on particular category you get less points for each successive game.
Example1: Now its easy to get 30points for all nations with prince/conquest
Example2: Mentioned before deity/future/spacerace/huge to get about 100 on all maps/nations
This would make repeating one strategy over and over again not too good. Not that deity/inca is that different anyway in the long run but at least its not that easy.

On a sidenote Id like to see that gautlet games would give 50%-75% of gautlet score as datescore if datescore is lower than that precentage of gautlet score. Now it's qscorewise stupid to play anything that don't offer way to improve qscore. Playwise gauntlets are of course whole different thing.

Or you can try to let HoF count your personal score and hell about others.
That will give you something to aim for and you know yourself that all those points were hard earned. At least it's more fun to compete when i have others I can try to outdo. As after 20 games or so CIV starts to repeat itself a bit unless you get deeper into it.

-Dracandross

I am still a bit skeptical about Hof. Seems lots of people are able to spam higher scores with less than honorable tactics. Do people really think Hof should be played like this. If so, does everyone enjoy Hof overall. I always get a bit confused when reading Hof and Gotm. Not really sure how they work.
Exactly which 'less than honorable tactics' are you referring to?

Well thats the point, you can either try to be QM number one. Which is only possible by playing deity/huge/quick/future/spacerace with every single nation twice hitting about same time giving about 90+ points each.

I agree that deity future space races are quite easy compared to other tactics. However, I don't believe it is quite as easy as you claims, since the Deity/Space tables are getting quite competitive. I currently hold the 2nd place in the Deity/Space/Huge/Quick table, only one turn worse than the 1st place. But my Qscore is only 76.8. Also, I am not convinced that every nation/leader will be competitive in these tables. I prefer Gandhi myself to eliminate extra turns in anarchy and to move workers faster for chopping etc. I would be very surprised if one can get within 2 turns of the 1st place with every nation/leader. On the other hand, using this tactic for various map types to improve your map quest scores should work. ;)

Anyway, the problem might only be temporary. If you look at the Deity/Space/Huge/Marathon table, there current 1st place is held by an Ancient start game which is significantly better than all the Future start games. As a result, the Qscore of the best Future start game is only 33.4. If someone bothered to submit an Ancient start game for the other speeds, the Qscores of all the Future start games might drop by 50 points or more overnight.


Therefore it would be very good idea to modify qscoring abit:
If you have more than 2 completed games on particular category you get less points for each successive game.

I agree with the general principle. If certain HOF tables turn out to be significantly easier than others, it might be a good idea to normalize the score somehow. If not, the majority of QM tables will be filled with games from these easy HOF tables.

i think introducing a scale for such easy games would change nothing. If you introduce a scale then other games will be considered as easy and those will be used to fill the QM table.

anyway i don't see the problem, if you use these cheap games to fill your QM table you will manage to get a fair score eventually but so will all others and if you want to be competative you will have to search for new strategies.

furthermore, as you have already pointed out most of these cheap games which give high QM scores may loose their worth overnight. the only exception are conquest games on duel maps in 3835 BC. Without spending years on such games, one will only manage to do monarch and above with the incas and prince and below with civs starting with a warrior. moreover, these games will only give a score which can be considered as a fair basis but is still poor compared to the top scores which are achieved with different settings.

i think introducing a scale for such easy games would change nothing. If you introduce a scale then other games will be considered as easy and those will be used to fill the QM table.
In general, the purpose of normalization is to make things more equal by applying normalization as appropriate. If normalization does nothing but shifting the advantage from one game type to another game type, the normalization mechanism is not good enough.

anyway i don't see the problem, if you use these cheap games to fill your QM table you will manage to get a fair score eventually but so will all others and if you want to be competative you will have to search for new strategies.
This statment assumes that such new strategies can be found. My argument was for the case where such new strategies seems impossible to find. Also, if these easy games give a QScore greater than 99 with small effort, it is not much to gain from inventing these new strategies you are talking about.

furthermore, as you have already pointed out most of these cheap games which give high QM scores may loose their worth overnight. the only exception are conquest games on duel maps in 3835 BC. Without spending years on such games, one will only manage to do monarch and above with the incas and prince and below with civs starting with a warrior. moreover, these games will only give a score which can be considered as a fair basis but is still poor compared to the top scores which are achieved with different settings.
I am not suggesting to introduce normalization at the moment because I don't see any justification for it. In my previous post, I was just saying that one can imagine situations (in the future) where normalization might be justificable, or at least should be considered:

Imagine if someone invents a strategy where a certain victory condition is significantly easier than others. Assume that this strategy is trivial on Huge/Deity games and works equally well for all map types, levels, speeds, and leaders. In that case, all QM events, except Machiavelly, will be dominated by these games, and all the top players would have 99+ QScore points for most of their QM games. As far as QM is concerned, inventing new strategies would be almost pointless, because there is only a negligible room for improving the QScore. I believe we all can agree that such a situation would make QM less enjoyable. (In fact, the potential problem with convergence towards a minimum winning date was the original topic of this thread.)

I believe Future age Space race games have the potential to become such easy games, at least for the faster game speeds. For example, if you look at the Huge/Deity/Space Race/Normal HOF table, the 4 top games all have a winning date of 1884AD. This is an indication of convergence towards a minimum date where it is trivial to get a QScore close to 100. And it still remains to be seen whether an Ancient age game can beat these Future age games.

i see the point, but i don't think that it is that drastic. first of all i don't think that it is that easy to achieve space race victory in 1884 AD at least i am far from finishing that early and i think i am not the only one who would state so. second, even if one manages to come close to this critical date one wouldn't get 99+ date QS as the average finishing date is 1890.

i agree that if a major part of the participants manages to pull such a victory and they get all date QS scores close to 100 it might be neccessary to intervene. maybe there score would be good alternative by switching the second of the QM columns from date QS to score QS or adding columns with score QS.

I'm currently number 2 on the quattromasters table in this early phase.

I had a few 100 scores prior to this last update, but they've almost all been trashed by new results. There's competition out there and those games don't take too much time ;)

There are quite a few people who've achieved 3835 on Duel/Deity/Conquest but I'm not one of them :cry: :blush: :lol: I'm *way* off.

The way that I approach this, I'm just doing a few fast games to get scores in the slots (*24* different civs for goodness sake!) ... after that, I know I have to do more serious games. I'm looking forward to it :) I'm not sure how you balance this out, but if there is some kind of intervention by the nice chaps who run this, so be it. Describing the games as "less than honourable" is a bit rich though, in my opinion. Go do it, and then talk!

In the end, the long (ie ancient times) games will win out. We all know that. This is just a settling down phase. If I'm in the top ten when it all pans out, I'll be *well* chuffed. It's seriously optimistic, but that's my long-term goal. In the meantime, I think the quattromaster challenge is a good one and actually, some of those short games on the higher levels are instructive.

but if there is some kind of intervention by the nice chaps who run this, so be it.

If that was the case, I wouldn't be 19th on the list. :blush:

Great job btw Misotu! :clap:

@Methos

Thank you :curtsey: but you know it's about how many games and the time a player is prepared to spend at the moment :shrug: Early days. 19th is nothing to blush for, considering the time you spend doing the admin :nono: . Right now, I'm just basking in the sunlit uplands of temporary glory heh heh. Take a case in point - Moonsinger can't be *bothered* to do the maps she doesn't like right now - how long can it be ??? :D

Anyhow, the serious point remains, as you know. I think Jean d'Eath is right - no matter how much you tweak the scores to try to "normalize", people will always find an easy route initially. In the long run, the scores that count (well, maybe excepting duel conquest) will be the hard core, long games from ancient times. It will just take a while to settle down.

In the long run, the scores that count (well, maybe excepting duel conquest) will be the hard core, long games from ancient times. It will just take a while to settle down.
Maybe you are right, that remains to be seen. However, if you are talking about Ancient vs. Future starts for Huge/Deity/Space Race games, I believe fast game speeds are in favour of Future start games. This is because Ancient games seem to require fighting a war against several of your opponents. Wars imply troop movements, and troop movements are releatively slower on fast speeds. (1-2 tiles per turn independent of game speed.) For Future start games, however, most factors that determine the finish date scale well with the game speed. The only exception is worker movements, which I don't believe are that crucial anyway.

Let's take a look at the current Huge/Deity/Space Race tables:

Marathon speed:
Best Ancient start finish: turn 729 (1579AD)
Future starts: turn 720 (1570AD)
Best Future start finish: turn 812 (1662AD)

Quick Speed:
Future starts: turn 192 (1760AD)
Best Future start finish: turn 219 (1895AD)

For quick speeds, assuming that Ancient start games depend on fighting wars against 4-8 opponents, it seems quite difficult to accomplish this before turn 219 , simply because the troop movements take too long.

I see what you're saying and it's a good point. My gut feel says that it should still work out in favour of the ancient start over the long term, but I could be wrong.