Sorry if I'm mental challenged in some way, but do we have to win on the same level for each sub-events for the Quattromasters challenge? Meaning, do I have to win all conquest type on Prince/Monarch to qualify for the Machiavelli? Or can it be any level as long as all conquest types are achieved?

I tried looking for it in the hall of fame page, but couldn't find the answer.

Thanks!!!

Sorry if I'm mental challenged in some way, but do we have to win on the same level for each sub-events for the Quattromasters challenge? Meaning, do I have to win all conquest type on Prince/Monarch to qualify for the Machiavelli? Or can it be any level as long as all conquest types are achieved?

I tried looking for it in the hall of fame page, but couldn't find the answer.

Thanks!!!

It is your choice what difficulty level you wish to play for the Machiavelli part of the competition. You could play each one at different levels, all of them on Settler, or all of them on Deity if you prefer, it is your choice. In order to complete the Machiavelli part, you merely have to submit a valid attempt for each victory condition.

Edit: Basically, the only two parts of the QM that require you to play on a specific difficulty level are the Inferno and the Gauntlet section. All other sections are per your choice.

Excellent!!! Thank you very much, mister Methos :goodjob:

QScore = BaseQScore * (DifficultyAdjustor + BarbAdjustor) * MapSizeAdjustor
I've been trying to work this out, looking at my games as well as other's games. I cannot see the value 'BaseQScore' but it appears that the QScore is sometimes based on the QDate score and sometimes based on the QScore score. What is the BaseQScore?

I'll thrown in my QM question here too....

If you play Vanilla, do you get a 0 score averaged into your total score for the other Warlords nations? That seems like an error in the scoring system. Overall score should probably be the average of your best 18 nations.

I'll thrown in my QM question here too....

If you play Vanilla, do you get a 0 score averaged into your total score for the other Warlords nations? That seems like an error in the scoring system. Overall score should probably be the average of your best 18 nations.

I've asked that before. It's not an error, it's designed that way. A problem for us Vanilla players.

I've asked that before. It's not an error, it's designed that way. A problem for us Vanilla players.

Good to know. I guess I won't bother completing or competing for QM. I was just planning how to fill in what I'm missing and get the top scores at the same time. It would be a lot of Huge, Diety, Raging Barbs games. Seems like the cheesiest way to pull that off is Future Space Races. I wasn't too excited about that anyway.

I guess I won't bother completing or competing for QM. I was just planning how to fill in what I'm missing and get the top scores at the same time. It would be a lot of Huge, Diety, Raging Barbs games. Seems like the cheesiest way to pull that off is Future Space Races. I wasn't too excited about that anyway.

I'm with you on this one. I don't see myself going for the cheesy Future Space Race anytime soon.

I'm with you on this one. I don't see myself going for the cheesy Future Space Race anytime soon.
Moonsinger and WastinTime; you guys are among the few who can win Deity games without using cheesy techniques. For Deity Space Race games, it seems like Future start games have no chance against Ancient start games. Why don't you submit a couple of Ancient Space Race Deity games, and blow all the Future Space Race games of the chart? It only takes one Ancient start game at the top of each table to reduce the Qscores of the Future start games to less than 50 points.

Moonsinger and WastinTime; you guys are among the few who can win Deity games without using cheesy techniques. For Deity Space Race games, it seems like Future start games have no chance against Ancient start games. Why don't you submit a couple of Ancient Space Race Deity games, and blow all the Future Space Race games of the chart? It only takes one Ancient start game at the top of each table to reduce the Qscores of the Future start games to less than 50 points.

Here's the problem with that. You need Raging Barbs to get the top score. Winning on Huge Diety with Raging barbs is very hard. Future starts make raging barbs easy. And the only way to win Future starts is space race. On Huge, you can't possibly conquer everyone before a ship is launched.

Here's another problem. To do Ancient starts (on huge diety), you'd probably need Marathon speed or at least Epic. So no matter how earlier your finish date, you will not affect the perfect scores that the Future starts get when played on Quick or Normal speed.

Here's the problem with that. You need Raging Barbs to get the top score. Winning on Huge Diety with Raging barbs is very hard. Future starts make raging barbs easy. And the only way to win Future starts is space race. On Huge, you can't possibly conquer everyone before a ship is launched..
The top game in the Huge/Deity/Space Race/Marathon table is an ancient start game with raging barbs, so it is at least possible. Having said that, I would be the last person to claim it is easy, since I have problems winning non-cheesy games above Noble level :) Anyway, even if you submitted an ancient start game without barbs, you would still get 90 points and most importantly, make all future start games of that table 'obsolete'.

Here's another problem. To do Ancient starts (on huge diety), you'd probably need Marathon speed or at least Epic. So no matter how earlier your finish date, you will not affect the perfect scores that the Future starts get when played on Quick or Normal speed.
This statement supports my suspicion that Future start Space Race games at Quick or Normal speeds are unbeatable. If this is true, it will probably be possible to get between 90 and 100 points for all QM subevents excpect Machiavelli and Gaunlet using the cheesy Future start technique. Something to think about for the HOF staff?

I'll thrown in my QM question here too....

If you play Vanilla, do you get a 0 score averaged into your total score for the other Warlords nations? That seems like an error in the scoring system. Overall score should probably be the average of your best 18 nations.

I've asked that before. It's not an error, it's designed that way. A problem for us Vanilla players.

i'm completely confused about this one. i want to be the worst QM of course, so i looked at all the individual charts today to see how low i got. on the LoN table, i'm #33, my overall score is 10.2, it says (19/24). two of those games have a score of 0.0, one other is 0.8. i am great at playing really poorly :).

but the people that are marked (18/24) are all lower than us (19/24)s. #38 has an overall score of 68.2!!! he's top ranked of the 18/24s but listed below all of the 19/24s, and all the 19/24s are below the 20/24s, and so forth. i don't understand why his overall score shows that much higher but his ranking is lower.

i'm missing something here. it seems like the "overall" isn't really an average counting 0s for the ones you don't play. more that the rankings are separate ... you're locked into being only compared to those who played the same number of nations that you did. and then the next batch of "played X number of nations" starts, independently. so even if you beat my overall score by over 6 times as much, if you play 18 and i play 19 you rank lower. am i close?

Something to think about for the HOF staff?
If BTS doesn't provide a natural solution of some sort, perhaps. Those future starts annoy the heck out of me.

Then again, the Mongols annoy me too and I let games involving them into the HOF.

What is the BaseQScore?

BaseQScore is used to figure out where your submission falls in the average of all submissions for that table. It's based off of the graph at the bottom of the Quattromasters/Formulae tab (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/quattromasters.php?show=formulae&pubID=-1). The fastest date is the '100' and the average date is the '50'. Your submission is than compiled using the formula to calculate your BaseQScore based off the minimum and average dates.

I cannot see the value 'BaseQScore'

On your 'General' tab for your published submission, the BaseQScore can be found under the title of 'Raw Score'.

Edit: All games are based off of the BaseQScore, whether it's used to figure DateQScore, ScoreQScore, or GauntletQScore.

I'll thrown in my QM question here too....

If you play Vanilla, do you get a 0 score averaged into your total score for the other Warlords nations? That seems like an error in the scoring system. Overall score should probably be the average of your best 18 nations.

Correct. Without Warlords your score for the new Warlords leaders will be 0.

Good to know. I guess I won't bother completing or competing for QM.

I wouldn't say that so quickly. If you take a look at the Quattromaster's page (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/quattromasters.php) you'll notice that there are several high ranked players who do not have their LoN filled out. Both 6th and 10th place have 19/24 and 18/24 completed, yet they're still in the top ten.

It does hurt Vanilla only players, but you can still attain a fairly high standing rank if you chose too.

If BTS doesn't provide a natural solution of some sort, perhaps. Those future starts annoy the heck out of me.


I think over time, the future starts are going to disappear from the table and be replaced by ancient starts.

Moonsinger and WastinTime; you guys are among the few who can win Deity games without using cheesy techniques.

I would like to apologize for using the word "cheesy" in my previous post. The truth is ... I'm guilty of using cheesy techniques myself. Although I'm using a different type of cheese (Ancient "Inca" special blend), it's still cheese.:(

I think over time, the future starts are going to disappear from the table and be replaced by ancient starts.

everything old is new again ...

If BTS doesn't provide a natural solution of some sort, perhaps. Those future starts annoy the heck out of me.

Then again, the Mongols annoy me too and I let games involving them into the HOF.

I don't think BTS will offer a 'natural' solution for Future Start Space race games. It sounds like winning the space race will take longer, making BTS and Warlord/vanilla not even comparable for space race. Same thing for diplomatic-- it seems BTS will enable much earlier diplo wins.

The solution (suggested a long time ago) is to devalue future starts the same way duel maps are devalued. Ancient starts multiply score by 1, classical starts by .9 and so on down to future starts at .4 IIRC. That would really shake up the standings.

But then there are also the cheesy duel conquest games on prince level, great plains maps where you walk into the undefended capital in less than 10 turns. Good for 30 points, if your civ starts with a warrior.

But then there are also the cheesy duel conquest games on prince level, great plains maps where you walk into the undefended capital in less than 10 turns. Good for 30 points, if your civ starts with a warrior.

If your civ doesn't start with a warrior, it's still good for 29.5 points (and the game would end in less than 18 turns, instead of 10).;)

It doesn't hurt the QM competition much if people are getting easy Prince, Duel wins. It's the easy Huge, Raging, Diety games that kill it. I'm surprised the Diety AI can't build the spaceship faster than you can on Future starts. The AI in Civ IV is sometimes embarrassingly stupid. They should put more effort into that instead of making it prettier all the time.

The AI in Civ IV is sometimes embarrassingly stupid. They should put more effort into that instead of making it prettier all the time.
In the BTS previews they claim to have done just that. As a matter of fact, they go so far as to say the new AI is so good it doesn't need production bonuses in order to compete on various levels or some such statement.

Personally, I'll believe it when I see it, but to make a claim that ballsy, they must have some major change up their sleeve.

In the BTS previews they claim to have done just that. As a matter of fact, they go so far as to say the new AI is so good it doesn't need production bonuses in order to compete on various levels or some such statement.

Personally, I'll believe it when I see it, but to make a claim that ballsy, they must have some major change up their sleeve.

Sounds like you're gonna need a completly separate HoF for it. Like it was Civ5 or something. I'm happy to hear they made it smarter. Probably have to buy that one.

Why don't you submit a couple of Ancient Space Race Deity games, and blow all the Future Space Race games of the chart? It only takes one Ancient start game at the top of each table to reduce the Qscores of the Future start games to less than 50 points.

It took a while for this to sink in. I get it now! You are right on. Just submiting a Normal and a quick speed Ancient Space Race should mess up the cheesy scores. Even if you play no barbs and don't plan to use the score yourself as one of your top 2.

Now the only thing keeping me out of the competition is the League of Nations problem with Vanilla players. Well, that, and the fact that I want to stop playing this game some day.

New question:

Is this a bug in the QScore ?:

The #1 Large Epic Diety Space game I see is Dracandross 1841 AD, but his QScore is very low and there seems to be some mysterious 1830 AD game averaged in. I don't see that on the list. What am I missing here?

Ok, I found Bram's 1830 AD game, but why is that game not listed in the top 10 table?

Ok, I found Bram's 1830 AD game, but why is that game not listed in the top 10 table?

Only the best 2 games for each player are listed. Sort by game speed to find all relevant games.