As proposed in another thread, I'll start a new one to this topic, that seems to be of interest for some people.
I quote the comments done so far:

Sorry about that!:(

Are you proposing an unofficial version filter? Or suggesting a divorce into a Vanilla HOF and Warlords HOF?

Well, my impression is, that some victory conditions are suffering more from Warlords then others. Frex it seems that rushes are a tad harder then in Vanilla (still stupidly easy). As it is now rushes are also some of the most played versions, thus it is very hard to compete in this area with established Vanilla scores.

Another reason might be that many of the good players are still preferring Vanilla. So mostly "sub average" players like me try to fill the scores with Warlords games.

But all together I agree with the OP: there is a distinct imbalance between Vanilla and Warlords scores.

Now how to solve it?

Three possibilities:

1) two completely different HOF
2) an unofficial version filter
3) a version multiplier (frex Vanilla rushes get only a 0.x multiplier, while Warlords gets 1.0)

Its also possible to combine those three ways: an official filter is used to make two different HOFs for now (DB side they are stored in the same tables, only the output is divided), though by comparing them the HOF team works out consistent multipliers so that over time we might come back to one HOF.

Why would that make sense? Well, lets face it, in the end all of us will probably play Civ4 with all its expansions. But it would be sad to declare the older results as not-comparable, or equally bad, let them rot in separate HOFs nobody is looking at anymore.

By separating them there would be more incentive for players to get Warlords results, and thereby get a database so that useful multipliers can be developed. And thus the "old" records don't loose actuality. They are just multiplied down (or even up) to reflect the comparable difficulty.

Yeah, I know, its quite some work. But lets just imagine the situation once a second or even third expansion hits the market.

My opinion:

If you think some leader will give you the best result, you pick him.
If you think some version will give you the best result, you pick that version.

IMO it's not that bad if "no-one" plays warlords, it's their own choice.

I'd suggest just a filter on the website atm.
It would be sufficient and could be set off default.

I would suggest no changes.

Having a filter, or even two separate tables, would lead to a tremendous amount of work for the already busy HoF staff, who are cooking up their nefarious schemes to make us pull our hair out at impossible winning dilemmas. :lol:

Not to mention, the version differences are balanced out in one way or another, via traits, UU, UB, and adjusting of their statistics.

For example, the change to Catherine's traits from Organized & Expansive to Imperialistic & Organized comes along with a change to the power of the Cossacks. Losing Expansive means a hit to health, while Imperialistic gains little behind cheap settlers and increased Great General appearances. With the Cossacks being nerfed in Warlords, and smaller cities/production, Catherine is not quite the powerhouse she would be in the Vanilla version. You can make the case that others have benefited from the version differences, but it balances out in the end, one way or another.

I really don't think anything would be accomplished by having such a filter or separate set of tables, even if it is off by default. It just means no work and really accomplishes nothing. I don't see such a filter for the Civ3 HoF, despite the changes both expansion packs brought. That tells me the players don't perceive any problems.

@DeafDolphin:
Did you try to beat AI on high level with warlords 2.08?
Did you ever try to make a slingshot to CS now?

I'm mainly concerned with the changes they made in warlords 2.08, there is not a thing that I'm aware of and that's easier now.

Like you always need a slingshot for a speed win. View it as a good opportunity to learn new strats.

@DeafDolphin:
Did you try to beat AI on high level with warlords 2.08?
Did you ever try to make a slingshot to CS now?


Yes. It's difficult, but doable, same as Vanilla. ;)

CS Slingshot: Done it numerous times on the lower levels. It's harder on the upper levels. Besides, if you miss the CS Slingshot, it's not the end of the world. :p :lol:

Lexad, I for example don't play Vanilla anymore at all, though I do know that I'd have a much easier time to score high with it.

The problem stays: warlords changed the game balance so much, that results from the same table ain't really comparable if one is 1.61 and the other is 2.08.

This is not true for all combinations, victory conditions and such, thats why I ain't proposing completely separate tables. Though its true enough for many conditions.

And while there surely are some things that are easier using Warlords (you experienced players know this probably much better then me), in general a warlord score is "harder fought for".

Lets take a look (only deity difficulty, to make it easier):

huge: 28 vanilla, 1 warlord
large: 24 vanilla, 3 warlords
standard: 35 vanilla, 3 warlords
small: 29 vanilla, 2 warlords
tiny: 41 vanilla, 8 warlords
duel: 52 vanilla, 5 warlords

So out of all 231 submitted deity wins 209 use vanilla and 22 warlords. A meager 9.5%. It will probably look a bit better in the lower difficulties, though the picture is clear: vanilla is out since almost 18 months, warlords since 6 months. Shouldn't we see a bit more warlords submissions by now?

I think warlords is overall so much more difficult (again, not everywhere and at all times), that a direct comparison between vanilla and warlords scores isn't possible as is.

correlation does not equal causation. One of the recent combination gauntlets had people attempt the game with the same settings on warlords and vanilla, and the warlords finish times were significantly faster than the vanilla times (it was space race). It's not so clear that the "higher" difficulty of warlords will directly affect all scores as faster AI tech pace helps victory conditions like cultural, space, and diplomatic. I think they should leave the system as it is, or at most include a filter that allows a user to distinguish between warlords and vanilla games.

shyuhe, its interesting how you argument:

"Its just coincidence that many results in Vanilla are higher then in warlords, but the few results from the space race gauntlet are a sure sign that its easier in warlords."

As stated before: there are conditions which became easier with warlords. And there (IMO more) conditions that got harder with warlords.

Anyway: your own statement gives reason to doubt the validity of comparing at least space race results (and by you add on sentence also diplomatic and cultural results) from vanilla and warlords.

Lets follow this thought: you suggest that space race, diplomatic and cultural victories are easier in warlords due to higher tech pace of the AIs. Now you#d have to question if this is not counterproductive at higher difficulties, but well.

The correlation of the data suggests strongly that other victory conditions (or games at higher difficulty) have become more difficult using warlords.
And we can probably assume that some conditions and difficulties will have stayed the same.

As long as the "gap" between the scores for each table doesn't become to wide, I'd agree with you on keeping the combined scores.

And even if the gap between single tables would be significantly wide, but the overall effect would cancel it out, you'd could argument that only the quattromaster results are the important ones. While I would disagree (some people never manage a quattromaster, and care for single tables only), its a valid argument.

Though lets be honest: its both speculation. Nobody of us has enough data to decide this yet.

IMO there are several possibilities:

1.) there is no significant difference between the versions, and scores are completely comparable
2.) there are significant differences, though only limited to select tables, and only small differences. Overall it cancels out.
3.) there are significant differences, though only limited to select tables, but important differences for those. While it cancels out overall, those tables are clearly distorted, and even events are affected.
4.)the differences are so severe that not only single tables are affected, but even average scores like events or even quattromaster scores are distorted.

How would a good reaction for each outcome look like?

1.) no change needed.
2.) no change needed.
3.) a filter and maybe hints in the FAQ/rules which tables are affected.
4.) separate HOFs or if possible a difficulty multiplier for each table.

So which of the 4 possibilities is true, and as a result which way to choose?

Actually, we don't know. There are arguments for and against each possibility, and differing opinions. The only honest way to decide would be to hold more events like the parallel gauntlet, and compare them. Plus ask especially the high ranking players to give warlords a try so that we get a big enough database for a honest comparison.

Lotsa work for nothing right? Nope. This whole HOF and especially the comparison between versions are invaluable in evaluating the balance between civs and leaders. If Sid Meyer is smart (which he probably is), he has one of his statistics professionals regularly have a look at the HOF results. Anyone with some empirical background can quickly tell which civs/leaders clearly need an overall boost, and which are doing just fine, even if only for a certain function.

So by making a better HOF, we could indirectly support a better balanced Civ, where Huayana and Lizzy ain't making up 50% of all submissions.

So by making a better HOF, we could indirectly support a better balanced Civ, where Huayana and Lizzy ain't making up 50% of all submissions.

For the most recent HOF submissions update, Huayna and Isabella combined only made up 12.8% of all the submissions.

Working on it. ;) Just submitted two quechua rushes in the low 3xxx BC range.

Bah, somehow this rushing feels like cheating.

Working on it. ;) Just submitted two quechua rushes in the low 3xxx BC range.

Bah, somehow this rushing feels like cheating.
I've even wondered at times if I should ban that strategy, but it's too effective a way for newer players to get confidence they can actually hang at higher difficulties.

I voted for no changes, but I see the merit in suggesting that vanilla games be discounted in some way. I think that Civ4 will stand the test of time (until civ5) and so do we want players plugging away at vanilla years from now because of exploits that exist in it? I think that maybe the QM should be an annual competition with the tables wiped clean each year. Declare a champion at the end of the year and start over with only the most current version of the game in the new year.

Or give scores a "half life time"? Lets say all scores have a decay of 0,2% a day. So a 10.000 score is worth only 9.980 the next day. And only 5.000 after 346,5 days, which would be the half life time. Close enough to a year to talk about a "1 year half life time".

What would be the result? Newer submissions would be more valuable then older ones. So sure, you could go on and submit one vanilla 3835 BC deity quechua rush every week. But honestly, is that fun?

To encourage the use of new expansions it could be even argumented, that different decays should be use for different HOF versions. Frex 0,4% for HOF 1.0, 0,2% for HOF 2.0, 0,192 for HOF 2.08 ...

Heck for simplicities sake you could even say: decay is 0,5 divided by HOF version used. So a 10 days old HOF 1.61010 submission would be worth 96,94% a 10 days old HOF 2.08003 submission would be worth 97,62%. Also an 18 month old HOF 1.00 submission would be worth ~6,7% while a 6 months old HOF 2.00 submission would be still worth 63,7%.

So newer submissions (using newer Civ patches!) would have automatically higher scores, and submissions using newer expansions (resulting in higher version numbers) would keep their value longer.

This would also be an elegant way to give an higher priority to games inside the scope of one expansion but with higher patches (thus hopefully with less exploition holes).

I don't see the point in such a penalty.
If someone wasn't beat in his record with his version, why penalizing him?
A Hall of Fame that doesn't value its records is worth a ****.

Maybe just set a filter to show only warlords/vanilla games? Doesnt affect the HoF, but people can compare their scores solely with x version if they want to.

I don't see the point in such a penalty.
If someone wasn't beat in his record with his version, why penalizing him?
A Hall of Fame that doesn't value its records is worth a ****.

The records remain, but the score QM depreciates over time. This has the effect of encouraging a player to submit more games instead of sitting on high scores. Also, it allows new players to surpass high scoring players that have quit playing. It's a worthwhile idea, really.

The records remain, but the score QM depreciates over time.

Is this correct? I've never heard this before. Are you talking about how the QScore changes due to the adjustment of the average from additional submissions? If that is the case, an old submission with the fastest time (raw score of 100) would never depreciate until someone beat his/her time.

No, the score doesn't depreciate, it was just an idea proposed in Bastian's post above this one. The score can only go down if someone submits a better game, but Bastian's idea was to automatically depreciate scores over time, although this still wouldn't prevent someone from playing a new game with the old exploits in 1.61.

True playshogi. But if you add in the version dependency, then it devaluates results with old exploits (lower version) quicker then results using new exploits (higher version).

Maybe just set a filter to show only warlords/vanilla games? Doesnt affect the HoF, but people can compare their scores solely with x version if they want to.
That would certainly be the easiest option for a lazy energy-efficient HOF staff.

The records remain, but the score QM depreciates over time. This has the effect of encouraging a player to submit more games instead of sitting on high scores. Also, it allows new players to surpass high scoring players that have quit playing. It's a worthwhile idea, really.
:wow: :dubious:

superslug, its a comment from playshogi on my suggestion. He isn't stating that this is like HOF is working now. Though it might sound that way (you haven't been the only one fooled, look at Methos post). ;)

And yes, playshogi got the intention of my suggestion right: it encourages players to continue submitting scores using newer versions of HOF/Civ4 as old are disallowed. And with the "decay dependent on HOF version" option it would even encourage to use expansions more heavily, as qscores from expansions (=higher version number) ain't decaying as fast.

That would certainly be the easiest option for a lazy energy-efficient HOF staff.

Lazy options are my specialty! :D :D

Though it might sound that way (you haven't been the only one fooled, look at Methos post). ;)


I believe what makes his post confusing and unclear is where he states that QScore depreciates, as technically it doesn't. It's retroactive based on future submissions. In my mind stating it depreciates is saying that the score drops on its own without any outside influence.

Methos, according to my suggestion it would do so. playshogi is NOT talking about how it is working now. He is talking about how it would work using my suggestions.

superslug, its a comment from playshogi on my suggestion. He isn't stating that this is like HOF is working now.
Yeah, I knew when I posted my smilies that it was a suggestion. I was just trying to indicate that the idea really grabbed my attention but in a manner that didn't indicate whether I like the idea. :D

correlation does not equal causation. One of the recent combination gauntlets had people attempt the game with the same settings on warlords and vanilla, and the warlords finish times were significantly faster than the vanilla times (it was space race). It's not so clear that the "higher" difficulty of warlords will directly affect all scores as faster AI tech pace helps victory conditions like cultural, space, and diplomatic. I think they should leave the system as it is, or at most include a filter that allows a user to distinguish between warlords and vanilla games.

I agree with these observations, but not necessarily the conclusions. I think it comes down to whether the two games are comparable in a realistic sense. If you regard CivIV, including Warlords, as a complete entity, then the Warlords factors simply become another set of options in the game as a whole. On the other hand, if you see Warlords as a different game, then the two versions should probably be separated.

It seems to me that the changes in Warlords are so dramatic (and I'm not talking about Qin stealing another face :) ) that Vanilla and Warlords are almost different games. The changes in Warlords are so radical, particularly given the additional facilities, that it seems strange to think that the two games are comparable. I think trying to make a filter that somehow "evened up" the differences would be complex and subjective. So I would vote for separate tables on this basis.

On the subject of depreciating scores, I don't see the value of this to be honest. If someone plays a blinder of a game, that should stand as the one to beat. For all time. Until it is beaten. Otherwise, you're simply employing a system that values activity over skill.

I think it comes down to whether the two games are comparable in a realistic sense. If you regard CivIV, including Warlords, as a complete entity, then the Warlords factors simply become another set of options in the game as a whole. On the other hand, if you see Warlords as a different game, then the two versions should probably be separated.
I think you nailed the whole issue on the head with this.

Personally, I see Warlords as an extension of Civilization IV, not another entity. We treated III, PTW and C3C as the same in HOF-III, and eventually they came together as CivIII-Complete, so I really don't see a reason to differ in IV.

At the very least, though, I am considering an unofficial version filter.

Sounds good :) I suppose I've just got the impression that Warlords has a set of more powerful options (having played a whole three games, so it has to be said that this impression not exactly researched). I was influenced by the Vanilla vs Warlords gauntlet, when Warlords consistently came out much faster. And the fact that maybe not everyone wants/has Warlords and those players really suffer in the League of Nations table.

Still, I guess if you're into Civ, you have to have the expansion eventually, heh.

Still, I guess if you're into Civ, you have to have the expansion eventually, heh.
I usually assume if someone's a Quattromaster, or pursuing that within the HOF, then they're pretty likely somewhat hardcore about Civ. :lol:

And I will admit that maybe Warlords does offer tremendous advantages over Vanilla IV, but why adjust or correct that when future XP's (and their implications) are possibilities?

And I will admit that maybe Warlords does offer tremendous advantages over Vanilla IV, but why adjust or correct that when future XP's (and their implications) are possibilities?

I disagree with the "tremendous advantages" when it comes to competitive gaming. This was already shownby statistics.
In case of the two gauntlets: they consisted of spaceraces only, so most players ignored the military part of civ4.

"but why adjust or correct that when future XP's (and their implications) are possibilities?" <- I didn't get it, what do you mean?

Don't understand me wrong, I really like warlords 2.08. It has the best AI, balance and less abuses ever!

"but why adjust or correct that when future XP's (and their implications) are possibilities?" <- I didn't get it, what do you mean?

Right now we don't differentiate between the versions in the HOF, there's no attempt to balance between Vanilla and Warlords. That's largely why this thread was started, I think. What I'm saying is that a primary reason we don't differentiate is that an expansion pack in the future, it might prove to blow the Warlords games off the tables.

If I balance now, I'd have to juggle even further later...is that helping any?

True superslug, thats why I came up with my "decay" suggestion. While it might not be a perfect solution (yeah i dislike the idea of loosing well deserved positions as well), it would force the people to follow the patches, and not rest on "immortal scores". While it might not force them to use expansions (which isn't necessary anyway if the patches continue to repair exploits even in vanilla), it does encourage it with the version number option.

Maybe you have a much better idea, but as it is now, its not perfect either. Imagine it this way:

Some people cleverly use an exploit, and get a really impressive score. Firaxis closes the loophole, and once you switch to that patch version, nobody can use it anymore. If the exploit was severe enough, not even the real good players will be able to beat that score. That score remains #1 forever.

Or:

Firaxis continues to curb the balance, and makes the game harder overall. So newer scores can't reach the old scores at all. Same problem as above: static tables.

Add to this the imbalances between expansions, and you get a whole bunch of problems.

Now it's of no use to repair those problems by producing (more) new ones. But maybe we as a community are able to come up with a solution that does repair more problems then it causes? Just an intuition from my side that it's still possible to significantly improve the fairness of HOF without causing your team too much more workload.

Some people cleverly use an exploit, and get a really impressive score. Firaxis closes the loophole, and once you switch to that patch version, nobody can use it anymore. If the exploit was severe enough, not even the real good players will be able to beat that score. That score remains #1 forever.
If that situation exists, I'm not seeing it yet. Also, it's better to deal with a specific patch than a whole version/XP.

Let's take a close look to future updates of the HoF.
I'm sure that'll give us a good foundation.

If that situation exists, I'm not seeing it yet. Also, it's better to deal with a specific patch than a whole version/XP.

Also, the HoF staff can retrospectively remove games from the HoF if they feel the game was exploited before they knew of the exploit.(?)

Also, the HoF staff can retrospectively remove games from the HoF if they feel the game was exploited before they knew of the exploit.(?)
The last time that was done on a massive scale was in Vanilla III, but you're right, the precedent exists. They reduced the maximum mapsizes with one patch, and the old scores didn't look like they could be topped, including Aeson's 60,000 point Deity milk run.

While it might not be a perfect solution (yeah i dislike the idea of loosing well deserved positions as well), it would force the people to follow the patches, and not rest on "immortal scores".

This is exactly the point why I do not like this idea. I think that those submitted excellent games should keep their record.

While it might not force them to use expansions (which isn't necessary anyway if the patches continue to repair exploits even in vanilla), it does encourage it with the version number option.

My question here is: Why should people be encouraged to play the expansion if they feel perfectly fine with vanilla?



I like simple solutions and to my opinion the simplest thing to do is using filters which distinguish between the different versions. This would imply minimal issues with possible future expansions, too.

While it might not be a perfect solution (yeah i dislike the idea of loosing well deserved positions as well), it would force the people to follow the patches, and not rest on "immortal scores".
Oh, sure. Dear Pele/Michael Jordan/Wayne Gretsky/whoever, we're discounting your points so if you stop submitting new results, you will be out of our Hall of Football/Basketball/Ice Hockey Fame. Especially you, Pele, you record was submitted so long ago that a substitute who played his first 10 mins for Smthhamptonshire Pwners last week moved you out of top 10 thousand. What a load of baloney.
Differences between various HOF mods were no less significant than differences between pathces or Vanilla and Warlords, fixing pop-rushing and Great people and other stuff. Should we also separate HoF for different Mod versions, or ban all save the latest?
We have 4 speeds * (6 victory + 1 score conditions) * 6 mapsizes * 9 difficulties = 1512 cells, and some tables brandish large gaps, e.g. Normal speed Deity Culture. I suggest the person proposing all these incredible reforms to HoF grabs at least one cell to back up his allegedly immense knowledge of the subject.
This might have been rude, but I totally meant every word here.

Lexad, as soon as you can point me to a place where I stated I would be an expert in Civ, I'll start trying to get one of those cells. ^^

Actually you are much more likely to find statements by me stating my lacking skills in playing Civ. What I will not deny is my ability to read statistics, and understand the underlying implications.

You don't need to be a top chess player to be able to understand statistics concerning chess tourneys.

And btw: if you ask one of those people that are already resting on established scores about his opinion. Do you really doubt that his opinion will be influenced by this fact? Necessary as well as unnecessary changes ain't initiated by those that benefit by the status quo. They are initiated by the hungry wolf pack of the follow ups. ;)

PS: Actually I'm trying to get one of those cells already. But I'm playing Civ for fun, so don't have time to churn out a dozen games a day. ^^

Actually you are much more likely to find statements by me stating my lacking skills in playing Civ.
Don't see how this makes you the right person to "improve" HoF. And I do not believe ability to read statistics, and understand the underlying implications is worth much without knowledge of the game.

Instead of trying to fix something that isn't broken and bring top results down, people should better work on improving their own results to reach some day the top ones. Although having 1500+ cells, it is Hall of Fame, not some call-girl that should be available to everyone.

Instead of trying to fix something that isn't broken and bring top results down, people should better work on improving their own results to reach some day the top ones. Although having 1500+ cells, it is Hall of Fame, not some call-girl that should be available to everyone.

Harshly said, but I agree to your point. And apparently the majority of voters here thinks so, too. :)

Arrogantly and insulting said (and apparently caused by an inability to understand relative sentences). Still if a majority can convince the HOF team that no change is necessary, there is no reason to change anything.

Lets all return to the good old times when towarisch Dschugaschwili demonstrated his high skills of derogatory rhetoric by ignoring suggestions, and "winning" discussions with the "insult domination" cossack rush method.

PS: yes, that was an example of this method, though I still have trouble to be as good in its most developed form as more experienced forum members.

I made a parallel with sports world in my previous note so that you could feel better the inappropriability of proposed measures. You admit the lack of game knowledge yourself, still insist on separating Warlords from Vanilla on the basis of great imbalance you perceive - but do you know that in the previous version of HoF-Mod you could win cultural game the same moment you got 3 Great Artists; get infinite cash from a single GM; build everything in a city with one GE? Or slavery bug, fixed in 1.61.005 and until then being perfectly legal? Can you compare these effects with Warlords/Vanilla changes? Should we erase all entries save the last mod version? How does statistics knowledge help here?

Lexad, exactly those questions are the reason why the OP started this thread. Not everyone of us has the knowledge that you earned by your hard work.

People like me can only suggest what to do against the perceived imbalances suing our non-Civ knowledge. You and other veterans can then point out the shortcomings of that suggestions, and maybe as a result we come to a conclusion what to change (including a 0-change option).

I just want to set something right.

Majority of the voters are for change, one way or other. At the moment 13 votes for no change, and 9+5+3 for change.

Poll should be about change or no change and not about change 1,change 2 ... and no change.

A majority of those wanting change want the change to be to add a filter on the HoF page so you can compare between X version only or Y version only.

IMO i still see choice 2 and choice 3 as almost the same

I rather see 1 and 2 as the same, changes being cosmetical.

Yeah, the idea of a filter supposes that we just take the current data as it is and let everyone use the HoF the way they want.
Also people who don't want a change still won't suffer from a filter. So logic tells me: if you complain abou people who vote for a filter, you are either someone who would have to do the work or you just want to argue.

I just want to set something right.

Majority of the voters are for change, one way or other. At the moment 13 votes for no change, and 9+5+3 for change.

Poll should be about change or no change and not about change 1,change 2 ... and no change.

IMO i still see choice 2 and choice 3 as almost the same
:confused: :eek:

If I'd seen 2 and 3 as the same (or believed that someone would interpret it as something like this) - I would have voted "no change". The HOF is fine as it is, but I would not mind to have a filter so that people can just compare Vanilla or Warlords games without seeing the other version if they want... Thus:

Yeah, the idea of a filter supposes that we just take the current data as it is and let everyone use the HoF the way they want.
Also people who don't want a change still won't suffer from a filter. So logic tells me: if you complain abou people who vote for a filter, you are either someone who would have to do the work or you just want to argue.

:agree:

The one vote for the last option was me, and I did that purely to spare myself from clicking view results every time I visit this thread. So we're talking about 25 voters, not 26. :D

That means a minimal majority have voted for #1 (among their multiple votes),
and as indicated by my posts in this thread, is the option I personally favor. This option "wins" for now. Whether it wins through democratic vote, or dictatorial preference....well, that remains a mystery. :scan:

The second largest block is #2, which possibly has overlap with #1, possibly not. Out of consideration to that option, at some point in the near future, we'll add an unofficial version filter to the HOF. It'll make it much easier to keep an eye on Warlords versus Vanilla. ;)

Option #3 is not something I'm at all keen on. It means doubling the HOF tables, and even as a moderator, I'm not in a position to be cavalier with Thunderfall's server space. :king:

The fourth option is always a distant possibility, but I'm more likely to sink a whole patch off the tables than come up with a multiplier. Such a multiplier would be by nature subjective, whereas a purge might be heartless but it's honest.

Honest decision. ^^

Although having 1500+ cells, it is Hall of Fame, not some call-girl that should be available to everyone.
Even when the tables fill up, the Quattromaster's Challenge will still be open to everyone since it's requisite games don't have to be on the HOF tables, just in the database. So yes, the HOF is available to everyone.

When I started in HOF-III, there were only 60 slots (cells). Just 60. Granted, there were really good games in those positions, but because the tables were so tight, very few of us tried to get in there. It made for a great musuem, but a boring playing environment.

The phrase "hall of fame" is somewhat misleading for here in some ways. Halls of Fame tend to be for those who made contributions to their fields two decades ago, athletes who are retired and in Civilization itself, record games that are over.

Here on the other hand, the HOF is a current active playing environment. Yes, great games on the tables are a fundamental element of it, but more important to me is seeing a bunch of players constantly striving to higher levels of success. That's the greatness I see in the HOF: the struggles, the competition, the learning and most of all the fun.

This isn't just a place for great players, this is a place for any rules-abiding player who wants to come and be among greatness. In the process, some become great themselves. The rest of us just get to hang out (myself included).

Cuz we kinda do not expect CivIV last 100+ years as a popular sport ;)

The second largest block is #2, which possibly has overlap with #1, possibly not. Out of consideration to that option, at some point in the near future, we'll add an unofficial version filter to the HOF. It'll make it much easier to keep an eye on Warlords versus Vanilla. ;)

i voted #2 with the thinking that if it's too much work for the HoF staff, then it'll turn into #1. so yup my vote at least is overlap, and definitely wasn't trying to create more work.

Cuz we kinda do not expect CivIV last 100+ years as a popular sport ;)

well time's up in 2050 ain't it?

Simple question:

would it be much more work to design this unofficial filter in a way that you couldn't just only select by expansion, but also by major patch? Something like Vanilla 1.0 vs. Vanilla 1.1 ? With no differentiation between patches as default, but the choice for those interested as possibility?

Yeah, the idea of a filter supposes that we just take the current data as it is and let everyone use the HoF the way they want.
Also people who don't want a change still won't suffer from a filter. So logic tells me: if you complain abou people who vote for a filter, you are either someone who would have to do the work or you just want to argue.
I totally agree. Why vote for #1 if #2 just adds more possibilities and doesn't hurt anyone? :confused: (I am assuming #2 will be implemented as a Warlord/Vanilla/Any choice.)

Recently, there has been several proposals to modify HoF according to a 'see-what-you-like principle' both in this thread and in other threads. I really don't understand why people oppose to suggestions along these lines, since there is always an option to continue using/viewing HoF/Quattromasters as it appears today.

The second largest block is #2, which possibly has overlap with #1, possibly not. Out of consideration to that option, at some point in the near future, we'll add an unofficial version filter to the HOF. It'll make it much easier to keep an eye on Warlords versus Vanilla. ;)

I am very happy to hear that. I am not sure why the filter needs to be unofficial, but I really don't care, since I assume viewing pure Vanilla tables or pure Warlords tables are just as easy whether the filter is unofficial or not. :)

I like the tables the way they are; and out of the 22 Diety wins on Warlords I have 4 of them :lol:

I don't like the fact that most of the wins on Diety are with Hyuana doing a quecha rush at the start of the game - but that's how I got my first Diety victory.

Take a closer look at my 4 Diety wins and Hyuana doesn't show up (Mao, Saladin, Alexanda and Cyrus).
So Diety can be won with others.

Bottom line - I think a Quecha rush is cheesy and shouldn't be in the HOF. BUT, all my victories were with a 'Modern' start which other people find cheesy - so where do you draw the line of what goes into the HOF and what doesn't? You simply can't, you need to make one rule and stick to it.

My vote - no change.

If quechuarush shouldn't be in HoF, then with all honesty so shouldn't be there Praets, Cossacks, and just imagine the advantage fast worker gives you troughout the game of fast speeds! ;) IMO if it is in the game and supposed to be there, let it be.

would it be much more work to design this unofficial filter in a way that you couldn't just only select by expansion, but also by major patch?
Probably not.

Would you include that option? This way you don't even need to delete a whole patch from the HOF table if need arises. Its enough to flag it "inappropriate", so that it doesn't show up in the major selections, but can be seen when you select the correct patch range.

Plus this way you'd get a great way to compare different patches, enabling you to stomp "improvement suggestions" with hard data instead of dictatorial powers. ;) Its always better to stomp someone being able to say: "You are wrong" instead of saying "Because I say so".

Its always better to stomp someone being able to say: "You are wrong" instead of saying "Because I say so".
But what if you're wrong because I say so? :D

Then you still stomped me. But its a quechua rush on settler duell only, and not a deity huge time victory. :D

IMO if it is in the game and supposed to be there, let it be.

That's my point; where do you draw the line? IF Quecha rush was banned then I would bet that Pretorians would become the most powerful UU in Diety, so then everyone would be using that.
You can't draw a line and not annoy someone so you might as well not draw any lines and let the game be.