View Full Version : HOF Cheese Annex (unofficial poll)


Denniz
May 27, 2007, 10:06 AM
I have been concerned with the directionally challenged QM Ranking goals of some players. Some of this is because of the number of cheesy wins a player can use to fill in their QM requirements. It leads to a certain devaluation of the pride/prestige of being a Quattromaster.

One goal of this forum is to for us to help each other become better players. That doesn't really work as well if half of us have given up and are now playing for the lowest QM Ranking.

I think the number one cheesy move is the Duel map with the Inca. I am sure there are a couple others but I can't think of them at this point.

So the point of this poll is to:

see if anyone else feels the same
consider a proposals to correct the situation (I've got mine ;) )
document all the cheese


I am not trying to single out, belittle, insult, embarrass, harass, or otherwise upset anyone. I hope nobody else will either. :nono:

This is about making the HOF more better.;)

In addition to selecting your poll option please post about what you think is cheese and if you are a QM, how many of your requirements are cheesy? (confession is good for the soul :jesus: )

EDIT: I am not suggesting we would take away anyone's QM title. I was more think on the order of creating an elite QM rank where we exclude the cheesy games.

WastinTime
May 27, 2007, 10:46 AM
Good timing, I've just been studying this competition earlier today and I'm starting to learn how it works and get some ideas. I think you're right about the prestige thing. It seems winning a G-major is the only challenge. Maybe getting one Diety win is also tough, but we all know there's cheesy games for that. I don't have a suggestion for fixing prestige yet.

However, from what I've seen so far, the competition is designed well to penalize these people when it comes to score. If they're proud of themselves for being on the bottom of the QM list, that's great for them. I don't think you should change the rules for that reason. It's not hurting the competition, but, as you pointed out, it destroys the pride value.

My suggestion for improvement of the scoring is about map sizes. I'm not sure why you get such a huge penalty for playing standard size. Some people can't hardly play huge maps anyway. One could argue that Huge maps can sometimes be easier because you have more space to settle before the Diety AI closes in on you.

I think Huge, Large, and Standard should all be 1.0 adjuster, small .9, tiny .8, duel .6. Or something similiar. Duel needs a big penalty, maybe Tiny should too. Or maybe Huge 1.0, Large .95, Standard .9, etc. but I like the first idea where they're all 1.0. Let people compete mostly on Standard size maps. Top players will still venture into the Large and Huge maps in order to get the fastest date since the steepest competition (most submissions) for score will be on standard size maps.

(oh, and fix the League of Nations so it doesn't penalize Vanilla)

playshogi
May 27, 2007, 11:18 AM
I voted to eliminate duel size and require ancient starts, but maybe all you have to eliminate are the conquest and domination victory types for duel and tiny maps. Eliminating these would cause many players including me to lose QM status, but what's the point of QM status if you can play cheesy and qualify in a week? I like Wastintime's idea of 1.0 for standard and larger maps, small .9, but tiny and duel should be .5 or lower. It's easy to say that the Future deity space starts can be beaten by a player submitting an ancient start game, but there are few players who can do this. I couldn't even beat a Future space result on Emperor level with an ancient start (1922 vs. my 1925).

Even if BTS makes the AI stronger, it will just mean that players use the older version of the game for their cheesy wins. Will have to wait and see, but if BTS is all they claim it won't be the same game as 1.61 or 2.08. You may as well let Civ3 compete on the same tables.

I still like the idea I had a while back of somehow requiring players to register a game by downloading a random start and keeping track of wins and losses. Players can choose map size and level, but nothing else. That would eliminate the cheese once and for all. No more abandoning games because you didn't get the right dice roll. (You could abandon it, but then you'd get a loss in the standings.) No more searching for starts with 2 gold and marble. That would demonstrate real skill to play a poor start to a victory. Of course, taking a beautiful start to a fast finish is skillful, too, but I guess I'm describing a different kind of competition.

Denniz
May 27, 2007, 11:43 AM
Eliminating these would cause many players including me to lose QM status, but what's the point of QM status if you can play cheesy and qualify in a week?I amended my OP to note that rather than have a player loose their QM status, we would have to create an elite level QM instead.

I still like the idea I had a while back of somehow requiring players to register a game by downloading a random start and keeping track of wins and losses. Players can choose map size and level, but nothing else. That would eliminate the cheese once and for all. No more abandoning games because you didn't get the right dice roll. (You could abandon it, but then you'd get a loss in the standings.) No more searching for starts with 2 gold and marble. That would demonstrate real skill to play a poor start to a victory. Of course, taking a beautiful start to a fast finish is skillful, too, but I guess I'm describing a different kind of competition.That's a little too much like xOTM. I don't think anyone is going to convince Superslug to do something so complicated when you can just play xOTM.

WastinTime
May 27, 2007, 11:43 AM
I realized that my first post was a bit off topic. I've put some thought into the real reason for this thread. Cheesy wins. Yesterday I would have told you that I thought Future space race wasn't fair. Now I've learned that eventually someone should come along an score a better date to devalue these. So that's great for the top competitors in QM. But this thread is not about that. Even though my initial reason to dislike Future space races is minimized, I'd say these still have to be considered "cheesy" wins. I don't think all Future starts need to be cut however. I think it would be a shame to force Ancient only starts ... especially for Time games. So that's why I didn't vote for No Duel/Ancient only.

Duel size obviously has to go. Maybe Tiny too. Again these are not an issue for players who care about their scores. Playshogi might have the right idea. Just stop the dom/conquest on Tiny. Duel probably has to go across the board. Just because the creators of Civ decided to add this map size, doesn't mean it is appropriate for QM.

I agree with Playshogi that BTS will be like Civ 5. New HoF needed.

WastinTime
May 27, 2007, 11:52 AM
I amended my OP to note that rather than have a player loose their QM status, we would have to create an elite level QM instead.

Elite huh. Interesting idea. Then you can make even more restrictions. You'd probably eliminate Noble and below difficulty (or something close to that).

Going back on topic. Excluding cheesy difficulty wins. Like I said before, just because the creators of Civ decided to put Settler difficulty in the game, it doesn't necessarily have a place in the QM. Settler is so a 6 year old can play and still get a good feeling and win. I would consider excluding at least the first 2 difficulty levels.

Miraculix
May 27, 2007, 12:22 PM
Let me try to define a cheesy game:

- It is significantly easier to win a cheesy game than to win other games on the same level.
- It is quite easy to finish within a few turns of the best game of the respective HOF table.

I also believe the cheesy games should be ranked according to two criteria:

1) How many points the cheesy game can generate.
2) How many QM slots one can fill using the cheesy game.

Here is my ranking of cheesy games:

1) Future Space Race games: 90-100 points, most QM slots.
It is relatively easy to build the space ship before the AI on all levels. With Deity/Huge/raging barbarians one can easily get between 90 and 100 points.

2) Duel Conquest games with Inca: 48-50 points, all Tempitrophy slots and most map quest slots
With a little bit of luck, the Quechuas can easiliy capture the enemy city in less than 10 turns on all levels. On Deity level with raging barbarians, one would typically get between 48 and 50 points.

3) Duel Conquest games, slow game speeds: 29-30 points, all LoN slots and most map quest slots
At Prince level and below, the AI city is undefended for several turns after the game starts. At Prince level and with raging barbarians, one would typically get between 28 and 30 points.

Regarding the need to take some action (e.g. elite QM), I am not worried about Dual games generating 50 points or less. If these games are the best one can do, one would not get far in the QM competition anyway. My only concern at the moment is the Future Space Race games. However, if someone can get one single ancient Space Race game at the top of each table, the score of all Future start games would probably drop by 50% or more overnight, and there would be no more cheesy games to worry about.

WastinTime
May 27, 2007, 12:34 PM
However, if someone can get one single ancient Space Race game at the top of each table, the score of all Future start games would probably drop by 50% or more overnight, and there would be no more cheesy games to worry about.

Right, This needs to be done for the faster speeds--that's the tough part. Since I haven't bought in to this QM thing yet (because of League of Nations), maybe I'll be the spoiler and play these space race games. We should convince AAA to do them.

Right now the competition part of the QM seems to be suffering, not enough players are going for high scores or knocking down others high scores. It might help if they take my suggestion about larger map sizes. Which was make Huge and Large the same score as standard. That might increase participation. Who wants to shoot for the #1 spot if you have to play dozens of Huge Diety games?

Miraculix
May 27, 2007, 12:44 PM
Elite huh. Interesting idea. Then you can make even more restrictions. You'd probably eliminate Noble and below difficulty (or something close to that).

Going back on topic. Excluding cheesy difficulty wins. Like I said before, just because the creators of Civ decided to put Settler difficulty in the game, it doesn't necessarily have a place in the QM. Settler is so a 6 year old can play and still get a good feeling and win. I would consider excluding at least the first 2 difficulty levels.
Why worry about lower difficuly levels? A person who can only win on settler level would never become a QM anyway. Even if one created an Elite QM based on Deity games alone, I believe the top 10 players of the general and the elite QM would be almost identical. This is because the top players of the general QM will have Deity games in most slots anyway.

I believe the real question is whether to do something with easy wins on higher difficulty levels. Also, do we want it to be more difficult to become a QM whatsoever, or do we just want it to be difficult to be close to the top of the QM ranking. If we want to make it more difficult to be on the list, we need to eliminate both Dual/Conquest/Deity games and Future Space Race games. If we just want it to be more difficult to approach the top of the list, we only need to be concerned about Future Space Race games.

Denniz
May 27, 2007, 01:08 PM
Let me try to define a cheesy game:
Great list! :goodjob: WastinTime has also mentioned a few "elite" criteria which is just the opposite of cheesy in my mind. Lets keep expanding on this. Regarding the need to take some action (e.g. elite QM), I am not worried about Dual games generating 50 points or less. If these games are the best one can do, one would not get far in the QM competition anyway. My only concern at the moment is the Future Space Race games. However, if someone can get one single ancient Space Race game at the top of each table, the score of all Future start games would probably drop by 50% or more overnight, and there would be no more cheesy games to worry about.It is a question quantity vs quality. Right now the QM is biased toward quantity. I think that adding filters for quality would work nicely in establishing the new level of challenge to the QM competition.

Right, This needs to be done for the faster speeds--that's the tough part. Since I haven't bought in to this QM thing yet (because of League of Nations), maybe I'll be the spoiler and play these space race games. We should convince AAA to do them.

Right now the competition part of the QM seems to be suffering, not enough players are going for high scores or knocking down others high scores. It might help if they take my suggestion about larger map sizes. Which was make Huge and Large the same score as standard. That might increase participation. Who wants to shoot for the #1 spot if you have to play dozens of Huge Diety games?Maybe we could consider creating divisions to group comparable map sizes, difficulty ranges, game speeds, etc.

It only takes one thing to facilitate a change: a clear, reasonable design with a broad consensus. Of course the design has to be feasible in the first place, but that is just a matter of checking the technical requirements from time to time.

Oh, I guess there is a second requirement. We would have to convince Superslug and Dianthus it is a good idea. ;)

Denniz
May 27, 2007, 01:13 PM
I believe the top 10 players of the general and the elite QM would be almost identical. Wouldn't it be better remove the player's name from the lower category standings when they graduate to a higher category? That way there is still something to strive for in the lower category.

Airny
May 27, 2007, 01:27 PM
Right, This needs to be done for the faster speeds--that's the tough part. Since I haven't bought in to this QM thing yet (because of League of Nations), maybe I'll be the spoiler and play these space race games. We should convince AAA to do them.

I would be great if you and some other pros can do it. If it is so important for the community, the mods could perhaps make an event.

Right now the competition part of the QM seems to be suffering, not enough players are going for high scores or knocking down others high scores

Mh, I think that's a normal behaviour for a large and quite young HoF.
I, for example, tooka close look at the HoF and then tried to get #1 positions in spots that were empty or easy to beat.
So naturally you will get the fewest competitors where the best results already are.

Xerol
May 27, 2007, 01:35 PM
How about dividing QMs into levels: Wood, Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum or something like that. Have minimum requirements on both average QScore (out of qualifying games) - 25 for Bronze, 40 for Silver, 55 for Gold, and 80 for Platinum, and an extra parameter to require certain levels of play: a Standard (or larger) Emperor win to get Bronze, a win on every condition at Emperor for Silver, Standard (or larger) win on Diety for Gold, and a win of every condition on Diety for Platinum.

The map size requirement keeps people from just doing small sizes for most wins if they want to get higher up, and the variety condition means you need to be able to play in a variety of strategies. Perhaps add another parameter for start dates, like needing a win in every condition on every level at Ancient to get Platinum. Still has somewhat of an emphasis on quantity, but it's a quantity of high-quality games, which is something lacking in the current requirement (the only high-quality game really required is a Diety win right now, which I managed by Future Duel Conquest as Toku vs. Liz).

Harbourboy
May 27, 2007, 03:51 PM
My 2 cents:

1) Maybe expand the Gauntlet requirements a bit more. That way, you can force people to win via certain non-cheesey setups, as a Gauntlet is never a Inca Duel. If you had to win 6 gauntlets, or if there were 3 levels of gauntlet, maybe this would enhance the difficulty of becoming Quattromaster.

2) Maybe introduce Leader as something you can get a ranking in. Therefore, there would be incentive for someone to try a Genghis Cultural victory because they could get #1 on the Genghis Cultural Huge Epic Emperor table, rather than just using boring old Elizabeth or Huayna.

3) I have to admit that it was a tad easy to become Quattromaster, as I proved during this update. All I needed was 3 Marathon Duel Quecha Rushes to get Emperor, Immortal, and Deity done, followed by 8 Quick Warlord Duels to cover off the remaining Leaders. Far and away the hardest thing was trying to complete the Gauntlets.

WastinTime
May 27, 2007, 05:09 PM
2) Maybe introduce Leader as something you can get a ranking in. Therefore, there would be incentive for someone to try a Genghis Cultural victory because they could get #1 on the Genghis Cultural Huge Epic Emperor table

This is the problem. People are doing a cheesy Future space race on a speed that no one has done yet (like quick). To defend against this, someone needs to do a real run at it and get a better finish date. If you add Leader to the problem, now you'd have to beat a whole new group of cheesy wins: "Genghis Future Space Race on X speed". Summary: don't do this idea.

Why worry about lower difficuly levels?

I'm not worried about them for the competition. Just like Future space races should not be a problem either once the competition matures. I mentioned this when I turned my focus to the problem of people getting easy wins and becoming QM with little effort. You outlined the problems with getting easy wins on higher levels as I see it too.

Maydrock
May 27, 2007, 05:59 PM
Hi all and I know I am new to these HOF discusions, but I would like to add my noob 2 cents. First off I would like to say I have just recently started reading about this whole QM thing.

The way things are set up right now probably 95% of the Civ population has been eliminated from ever achieving QM status, and I would have to say meating the conditions as set forth now, even if cheesy, is still quite an achievement for most of us. And thus even achieving these conditions show a certain level of knowledge of the game.

My understanding of this is that the smaller the map size, the fewer the rivals, the lower the difficulty, etc makes is very easy to achieve many of the milestones for QM status and I can see how these can devalue the title for the experienced player. But as soon as someone one ups someone else then they have risen the bar for the top rankings. It's kind of like the old belief that the 4 minute mile could never be achieved.

It seems to me the formula for calculating the score is what needs to be changed, so there is an incentive for every higher difficulty setting. Then set up a level of QM titles that is based on overall score with the highest QM titles only achievable by completing all milestones at the highest of the various difficulty level settings; diety, size of map, number of rivals, raging barbs, etc. All aspects should be given weight if possible.

I am sure alot of you could already list off various game settings that you believe no one could win. These games would be the ones to give the top titles. And as the top average scores continue to increase, new titles could be added to the top so everyone would feel they are given his/her proper pedestal. The first to break the the top score of the range for the highest title could be given the privilege to name the next title just as glorious and triumphant leaders of history have done.

KMadCandy
May 27, 2007, 06:03 PM
for the cheese documentation records: deity/future/duel but not space race, domination via peaceful culture swarm. i used highlands map, built a couple workers, spammed settlers like crazy. ran an engineer in the capital from day 0, used the GE to build the eiffel tower, and dominated the world by culture. asoka lost so many tiles that he was only able to build 2 or 3 parts before i won, his cities were that worthless. it was easy, and for me it was much more fun than relying on luck the usual spam quecha way, altho overall it took me longer i'm sure. learned it from superslug who learned it from somebody else.

i may be using a different concept of cheese. miraculix is clearly going by numerical score; i'm going by ease of getting the box completed to achieve QM status. i think mine does not match his "- It is significantly easier to win a cheesy game than to win other games on the same level" but it might be the easiest way to get that victory condition at that level. anyway, it's something i hadn't seen mentioned.

Wouldn't it be better remove the player's name from the lower category standings when they graduate to a higher category? That way there is still something to strive for in the lower category.

i like your thinking there. that's definitely the way to go, so that the folks in the lower category do have something to aim for if they want to. (i realize i must be criminal #1 in inspiring this poll and i'll shut up about that. i'm sorry. made an edit where a post hadn't been replied to yet to try to help fix it maybe.)

How about dividing QMs into levels: Wood, Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum or something like that.

a Standard (or larger) Emperor win to get Bronze, a win on every condition at Emperor for Silver, Standard (or larger) win on Diety for Gold...

The map size requirement keeps people from just doing small sizes for most wins if they want to get higher up...

this made me think of the children's taunt "i'm rubber and you're glue ... " *giggle*. more seriously, the "map size requirement" is tricky. denniz/HoF will think of it i'm sure, but it's ultra-important to me so i will be a brat and explicitly request that it be "standard (or larger)" and that QM not ever require large or huge maps, because some people don't have computers that can handle them with any reliability. more options is always good, restrictions based on who has more money to invest in their civ hobby make me cringe. not-more-than-one-in-a-row gauntlets are okay IMO.

1) Maybe expand the Gauntlet requirements a bit more. That way, you can force people to win via certain non-cheesey setups, as a Gauntlet is never a Inca Duel. If you had to win 6 gauntlets, or if there were 3 levels of gauntlet, maybe this would enhance the difficulty of becoming Quattromaster.

the gauntlets are the most fun. but part of the reason they're hardest by far is that there are so few. there are 12 shots at a major per calendar year, max. if we need to win 3, but there are still only 12 a year to even try, i think a lot of people might run out of gumption well before they get there. and shortening majors to two weeks wouldn't make it any better IMO. i needed three weeks for the last one, due to my RL schedule, if it had been two weeks only i'd not have made it.

i think requiring more gauntlets would make elite-QM much harder to obtain. but not purely due to skill, partly based on how much tolerance the player has in waiting for the right gauntlet, luck that they're not on vacation and pc-less when it comes, things like that. i cannot tell whether that would be considered a good thing for the elite-QM or not.

Harbourboy
May 27, 2007, 06:44 PM
I actually have no problems with the current system. I used some so-called "cheese" (no future starts, though) to get to QM level but I'm languishing close to the bottom of the list. I can now see what I can do about going up the ladder.

Harbourboy
May 27, 2007, 08:32 PM
Actually, I take back what I said about my use of cheese. In my opinion, the number one cheesey tactic is using MapFinder to come up with perfect dream starting location. The number two cheesey tactic is choosing your opponents and the number three cheesiest tactic is turning off barbarians. Other than turning off barbarians for a few of the most difficult games, I managed to meet the Quattromaster requirements without raiding those particular cheese fridges at all.

But back to the original question, I think it would be OK to have additional Quattromaster titles like Gold and Platinum for people who manage to complete additional Gauntlet requirements (either by submitting more of the existing Gauntlets or by submitting a new type of Gauntlet, e.g. G-Mega 1 – Genghis Standard Quick Cultural Immortal Ancient Start Archipelago)

Denniz
May 27, 2007, 08:54 PM
(i realize i must be criminal #1 in inspiring this poll and i'll shut up about that. never assume. :nono: It was more a pattern I was thinking about than any one player. I am sorry if you felt singled out. That wasn't my intent. Also, I can't think of a single reason why you should shut up either. If you are having fun talking with other players about the last place QM position then that's what you should do. We're talking about how to add a new level to the QM competition. I really don't want to spoil anyone's fun with what we have and what they have accomplished.

Actually, I take back what I said about my use of cheese. In my opinion, the number one cheesey tactic is using MapFinder to come up with perfect dream starting location. The number two cheesey tactic is choosing your opponents and the number three cheesiest tactic is turning off barbarians. Other than turning off barbarians for a few of the most difficult games, I managed to meet the Quattromaster requirements without raiding those particular cheese fridges at all.I am afraid that boat already left the dock. Custom Game setup and Map Regeneration are part of Civ4. We can't police people using them. Map Finder is just there to level the playing field for people with less time for regenerating. As for Barbs, I believe that they are taken into account in the QM Scoring.

KMadCandy
May 27, 2007, 10:21 PM
I am sorry if you felt singled out. That wasn't my intent.
oops no, i didn't take it in a bad way personally. but looking at what i typed i can see it reads like i might have. you didn't make me feel bad, i promise :).

Also, I can't think of a single reason why you should shut up either.

i can think of many reasons why i should shut up! i just can't ever seem to manage to do it. if we did a poll about that one ... i'd be doomed :lol:

Harbourboy
May 27, 2007, 10:45 PM
Custom Game setup and Map Regeneration are part of Civ4. We can't police people using them.

I understand that. I am just highlighting that they are just as cheesy as any other tactic used in HoF. But I am having fun submitting HoF games and attempting the gauntlets so that's all that matters to me.

When something like HoF is free of charge, well, you can't really complain too much, can you?

Mutineer
May 27, 2007, 10:57 PM
I am not big fun of HOF but I will try to trow my 2 cents.

If I undestand purpouse of Quattromasters correctly.

As I see it ourpouse of Quattromasters is to intice people to play games that will never bring fastest victories.

Continents will allways slower then pangea type of maps. Incas will allway faster then other civs. Domination/conquest is fastest to achieve. So, to increase scoup of HOF bejon incas Quecha rush on pangea stile of maps orgonisers try to intice people to play games with different settings.

Purpouse of Q score is to more or less level play field for different starts.
Problem is, right now it is pretty mach arbitrary.
I migth claim that maps bigger then standart are actially easier them small one's, slower game speed are mach easier then faster on normal maps.

My sugestion would be: insted of assiging Q score coefficients arbitrary make them addaptable. Insted of having them fixed make them statistically calculated based on games allready in the database. Purpouse of it would be to have current( numbers just from my head) 50000 points conquest win by Roosevelt on continents 1800AD had the same score as 800BC win by incass on pangea. Actially it should have better score, as bonus if amount of entries for Roosevelt is lover then say 10.
This will give people good incencive to play different leaders, different maps with idea to stay on top.

What actially procedure should apply I have to think about, that is general idea.

Dracandross
May 27, 2007, 11:51 PM
First of all this poll is way too small (it shouldnt close or so) to get more answers.

I think making duel required for QM is kinda useless as you can always go for bigger map and its all the same but for conquest & domination if compared to work. For scorewise deity duel is 50pts with raging barbs and you can do almost same with tiny imm or small emp. Whats the point.

Requiring anc start is utterly crap too. If you claim that future starts are easy just go for culture or diplo win with handpicked opponents and there you are. After a while when someone gets better score with anc start than future on spacerace (on quick specially) it will be over (Im sure it can be done, its just too easy now). When it's done scores for future starts will be lowered. For added effect that would lead to all gauntlets starting at anc too. They are great when they start later.

If you want to make QM worth more you should:
1) Let only first score of each category to count for it fully and next ones get *.9 for each previous score etc. Now you can do nations with prince duel conq for 30p each. Same goes for some other possibilities like future spaceraces for lots of points. Then youd get mark but score wouldnt be too good and QM top 10 would mean something.

2) Make some modifier if your game is out of top 10, like *.9 if not in top ten to encourage competition even more.

3) Also as pointed out huge map is way too good scorewise as its very slow to play for older systems.

4) Barbs shouldnt give extra points for later starts where they dont even appear. Not sure which era that happens but at least future/modern maybe. That would be balancing enough for future starts already for starting.

After this change youd bw QM but score will be very low. QM is always going to be (if inca is allowed anywya) quite doable if you bother to learn quecha rush.

-Dracandross

WastinTime
May 28, 2007, 12:42 AM
Actually, I take back what I said about my use of cheese. In my opinion, the number one cheesey tactic is using MapFinder to come up with perfect dream starting location. The number two cheesey tactic is choosing your opponents and the number three cheesiest tactic is turning off barbarians.

Barbs are an important part of the game an I miss playing them. I understand your position on that. It's odd that more gauntlets don't require them. However, I can see why they might have allowed "no barbs". They want the HoF to contain the best finish dates. But as Denniz said, barbs are in the QM scoring at least.

Mapfinder doesn't get you a perfect start. It gets you a start that you "think" is good. Choosing one makes for good strategy. And, as mentioned, levels the luck factor and time factor. Everyone can get a reasonable start with minimal effort on the mapfinder setup.

Finally, choosing opponents. I have to agree with you completely here. I argued this a while ago and someone came back with the "time" argument again. In other words, people who have the time, will regenerate until they get a "good" set of opponents. I argued that by the time you figure out who is in the game, it's too late to regen. Whomever I was discussing this with agreed that I had a point there, but I think it was too late and the decision was made to allow opponent selection. Now that opponent selection is allowed, I find it another great strategic decision. Knowing which AI will go for Music when you want that free Artist, or which AI will go for the UN when you want Diplo victory is a skill test. However, I am tired of playing mostly the same opponents. I'd be happy with random, but choice is probably better for the competition for #1 spots.

Lexad
May 28, 2007, 01:07 AM
Denniz
Require Huge Ancient-start Deity win to qualify.

Dracandross
May 28, 2007, 01:30 AM
1) Future Space Race games: 90-100 points, most QM slots.
It is relatively easy to build the space ship before the AI on all levels. With Deity/Huge/raging barbarians one can easily get between 90 and 100 points.

2) Duel Conquest games with Inca: 48-50 points, all Tempitrophy slots and most map quest slots
With a little bit of luck, the Quechuas can easiliy capture the enemy city in less than 10 turns on all levels. On Deity level with raging barbarians, one would typically get between 48 and 50 points.

3) Duel Conquest games, slow game speeds: 29-30 points, all LoN slots and most map quest slots
At Prince level and below, the AI city is undefended for several turns after the game starts. At Prince level and with raging barbarians, one would typically get between 28 and 30 points.

Regarding the need to take some action (e.g. elite QM), I am not worried about Dual games generating 50 points or less. If these games are the best one can do, one would not get far in the QM competition anyway. My only concern at the moment is the Future Space Race games. However, if someone can get one single ancient Space Race game at the top of each table, the score of all Future start games would probably drop by 50% or more overnight, and there would be no more cheesy games to worry about.

1) It has been pointed out that Huge / space race is not 100 points but for few, not that It's still unbalancing. But Im very sure that you can outdo this with some skill and permanent alliances. After that its gone for cheesy 100 pts. Yes it still grants win on deity but giving up modern+ starts would mean losing time competition. It's now pain to play time even with later starts but with anc, eww....

2) I pointed out that its unfair that all inca 3830bc wins (did i rememb time right) well 10 turns anyway get 100% score. It should start to drop if someone outscored you too to balance this. Also same victory/speed/diff/size should give only top score to one of your games not all. That would eliminate cheesy I play 50 points for all maps with inca, at least would make it a lot harder.

3) 30 points is not much anyway for QM scoring, but too much compared to effort. This could be changed so that if many players share exact same time score starts to grow smaller depending on how many scores have same date as first one. There must be zillions of prince conq duel games now, it would drop to 50% of original due massive scores it would fix this and we could still compete on duel size. For example -1% after 5 games per same date on first score applied to all scores on the table. This could also fix some of the space race problem.

I agree that 50 points is not much if thats all one can do and doesn't need any special compariseon concerning QM. For me QM was also reason to play different diffs/wins/leaders/maps and therefore it SHOULD not be changed. Also before i upgraded memory it was pain to play even standard maps therefore duel maps are must.

Therefore easy way to get space race scores down is to force G major deity spacerace (normal/quick) standard size any map at anc to see if anyone can outdo those. If its done then theres no problem

Also if possible could those time/map/leader scores be affected somehow if lets say 50% or more are from same victory type like space race in this case.

Some of modifications could be too hard to do but at least some could be easy.

-Dracandross

Dracandross
May 28, 2007, 01:40 AM
1) Maybe expand the Gauntlet requirements a bit more. That way, you can force people to win via certain non-cheesey setups, as a Gauntlet is never a Inca Duel. If you had to win 6 gauntlets, or if there were 3 levels of gauntlet, maybe this would enhance the difficulty of becoming Quattromaster.

2) Maybe introduce Leader as something you can get a ranking in. Therefore, there would be incentive for someone to try a Genghis Cultural victory because they could get #1 on the Genghis Cultural Huge Epic Emperor table, rather than just using boring old Elizabeth or Huayna.

3) I have to admit that it was a tad easy to become Quattromaster, as I proved during this update. All I needed was 3 Marathon Duel Quecha Rushes to get Emperor, Immortal, and Deity done, followed by 8 Quick Warlord Duels to cover off the remaining Leaders. Far and away the hardest thing was trying to complete the Gauntlets.

1) There was inca/duel/quick Gminor, was fun! Didnt know of incas much back then and scored 110Ad or so conquest.

2) Thats great idea, would be a lot different to see how diff leaders do. But that would expand HoF alot. At least there could be way to sort it out from database

3) QM (-elite?) coulda require certain performance in gauntlets like finishing in top X or getting more that Y Qscore points. And more than just 1 gauntlet for each start.

But When you get to full QM list and you are somewhere round 30 there is that enouhg? It just gives you idea that you suck and forces to play more!!! Many shoot to QM list over the middle section anyway so being on the list is nothing but being top 5 there is something. How about a table that show your QM score. Each update period you are in top 10 you get points added?

-Dracandross

Dracandross
May 28, 2007, 02:04 AM
As we're up to talking about QM status theres few things I'd like to see too.

First it would be great if gauntlets had more impact on the score. After you get 4 good gauntlet scores its no use to play them anymore but to decrease others scores. Could gauntlet score give qscore to map/leader etc settings too if its better than date Qscore. If that sounds too cheesy could it give ½Gqscore instead of date ½qscore is better.

And could we get table for those precreated (edited: forgot right word, scenarios) maps that show on civ originally. Id love to see some competition on barbarian game.

-Dracandross

Denniz
May 28, 2007, 03:03 AM
Require Huge Ancient-start Deity win to qualify.:lol: Too many peoples computers would explode. Either that or their heads. Mine's starting to hurt just thinking about it. :mischief:

azzaman333
May 28, 2007, 03:13 AM
But back to the original question, I think it would be OK to have additional Quattromaster titles like Gold and Platinum for people who manage to complete additional Gauntlet requirements (either by submitting more of the existing Gauntlets or by submitting a new type of Gauntlet, e.g. G-Mega 1 – Genghis Standard Quick Cultural Immortal Ancient Start Archipelago)

You have inspired me.

All Gauntlets have a generic set-up, where you can choose most of the settings, plus a bonus set-up where you can get bonus points for winning that way.

EG, with the recent Large Cultural Monarch major, the settings we were given would've been the generic settings, but there would also be the bonus points settings where if you played as Bismark, against Shaka, Montezuma and Stalin on a Lakes map you would score an extra 50% on the gauntlet score?

EDIT; Duel/Inca/Conquest/Monarch-Emperor-Immortal is the cheesiest of cheesy IMO. Send your starting quecha to the capital of your enemy, attack. if you don't take the city with that quecha, just start a new map. At least Future/Space/Diety requires you to use some skill to actually build the spaceship in time.

KMadCandy
May 28, 2007, 04:17 AM
i'm not even close to as score-competitive as most of the posters in this thread, so you should probably apply to salt to most of what i say. but this point, i really truly think is a big issue. emphasis added in the quotes:

3) QM (-elite?) coulda require certain performance in gauntlets like finishing in top X or getting more that Y Qscore points. And more than just 1 gauntlet for each start.

First it would be great if gauntlets had more impact on the score. After you get 4 good gauntlet scores its no use to play them anymore but to decrease others scores. Could gauntlet score give qscore to map/leader etc settings too if its better than date Qscore. If that sounds too cheesy could it give ½Gqscore instead of date ½qscore is better.

whoa whoa whoa! think about those two things together very carefully. definitely if getting credit for a gauntlet requires being in the top X, IMO there has to be consideration for how much of that top is always occupied by the same people. there are some folks here that i respect and am deeply grateful to for the tips they've shared that helped me win gauntlets myself. i actively hope that they play the ones i play; i like to read their thoughts and see their end dates. but y'all do ruin the curve *giggle*. that doesn't bother me since i'm not competitive in the sense we're talking about here. i don't expect to be in the top X for a gauntlet. but if i needed to be in the top X to get my badge, well, i'd pout a little bit to hear that those guys are playing this one.

if we want your rank in the final gauntlet listing to have more weight in our "get out the cheese" effort, i'm not sure how we'd figure that balance out, but i am certain some folks would get frustrated if they submitted a good game that didn't make the required "top X" cutoff but someone who already had 15 times over did.

maybe requiring a certain QScore, rather than rank on the list of finishers, wouldn't cause the same issue. i don't understand QScore a single tiny bit and have given up trying to, so i can't say.

i also don't want those curve-wreckers to not have the fun of a place on the list, a separate list probably isn't as good. i don't think they're play simply to lower the scores of others on purpose either (i don't think you were implying that seriously). i don't want to limit their chance for the fun and comparison, or the chance for those who aren't at that level (yet). i really don't know how to balance it but i have to put those two together to be talked about, we can't talk about your second without remembering the first point.

All Gauntlets have a generic set-up, where you can choose most of the settings, plus a bonus set-up where you can get bonus points for winning that way.

interesting. like the challenger/adventure class thing in GOTM, but handled in a way that assets are still locked. i'd not want to pick the settings and the amount of bonus. good thing doubling the salary of HoF staff doesn't actually increase their salaries ;).

Xerol
May 28, 2007, 04:59 AM
I'll say this about Future starts: at least on the lower difficulties (up through Monarch) I've managed better Time scores with Ancient starts than Future starts, and for several reasons:
1) I can usually complete the tech tree sooner than 1800, yielding more future techs - up to 50 more in some cases.
2) I have more infrastructure and workers by that point, and
3) I have larger cities at that point, which combined with (2) lets me get more final population.

Obviously land isn't a consideration since if you're going for a Time victory you'll get to the domination limit as soon as you can, usually running SE from then on and buying your way through the tech tree until you're the most advanced, then running all scientists for the Future techs.

A couple more points about faster speeds:

1) You'll always get better dates on slower speeds. On Quick, I usually end up wasting many hammers and beakers because techs and units can be built in less than a turn.
2) Any military actions will always get better dates on slower speeds because of the movement differential, hence all the 3835BC conquests. On a faster speed it would still take the same number of turns to reach the AI capital, but the year would be much farther along.

But, for Ancient Time victories, I think you could achieve similar results on Epic and Marathon, probably slightly less efficiently on Standard, and Quick will probably give the worst scores overall, even if played on identical maps and identical moves.

Perhaps QScores should be based on number of turns rather than date, or some hybrid system where an Epic conquest in the same number of turns as a Marathon conquest only has a slightly lower date modifier. This "speed bonus" would be asymptotic as you approached 2050AD, giving larger bonuses to quicker speeds at earlier dates.

(It's at this point that I spent about an hour searching for a game speed chart to see what year the fastest Epic, Normal, and Quick conquests would be, but none exist!)

Since I don't have actual numbers here, I'll just have to fudge some up. These "speed bonuses" would generally still give best scores on Marathon, except towards the end of the game, where everything evens out a bit. There would be a table of victory conditions and speeds, and each would get a percentage value. This percentage would be the percentage of years remaining that would be added/subtracted to the actual date. So if Quick Conquest had a 4% modifier, and you won at 3000BC (with 5050 years remaining), you would subtract 202 years giving a QScore date of 3202BC. But, the same victory at 1000 AD (with 1050 years left) would only give a 42 year bonus, for a QScore date of 958AD. Normal speed could have a 2% modifier and Epic 1%. On the other hand, you get less benefit out of longer speeds on a Space victory, so the modifiers might only be 2%, 1%, and 0.5% for that.

The percentage numbers would obviously have to be adjusted so that you couldn't get a better calculated date on Quick than Marathon.


Alternately to all of that complicated math, you could just calculate Date QScores off of the best dates on that speed, so the fastest Marathon victory would score equally (at least by date) as the fastest Quick victory. But then you have the problem of the games not directly competing, which is where turn counts could come into play.

So perhaps a hybrid system would work best. Calculate 2 QScores, one based on date, one based on number of turns. At 4000BC, the Turn QScore would have 100% weight and the Date QScore would have no weight. By the midpoint of the game, they'd have equal weight, and towards the end the Date is all that matters. Once again the lack of a Date Chart is hurting my argument here, but I'm pretty sure the midpoint of each speed (in turns) is around the same date.

Xerol
May 28, 2007, 07:26 AM
I went and made my own chart, you can view it here:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pYyk-Rw6YPFNWpbWczGeaGg

First I calculated how many years each speed spent at each turn length, then interpolated the turn numbers onto the Quick years. Those are columns B through E. Then I adjusted those numbers based on total number of turns (so 320/1200 for marathon, etc.) to get the adjusted turn numbers.

It turns out Marathon is actually much MUCH slower, at 1900 AD it takes 280 "Quick Turns" to get there on Marathon, compared to 220 on Quick.

I made two charts:

http://h.xerol.org/i/civ_4_adjusted_turn_numbers.png (http://h.xerol.org/i.php?i=702)
These are the adjusted turn numbers. Keep in mind that everything's adjusted to Quick Turns. This leads to the second graph:

http://h.xerol.org/i/civ_4_turn_speed_differential.png (http://h.xerol.org/i.php?i=703)

The difference between adjusted Quick Turn and actual Quick Turn by year. Lower is better unless your victory is dependent on unit moves (i.e. the very early conquests/dominations). Because the production/research adjustments for speed are constant, but the turn/year ratio isn't, different speeds have advantages at different times. It seems Epic comes out on top for Pre-1000BC victories (most likely conquests on larger maps and domination on medium-sized ones). Since Quick is being used as the standard, if you ignore unit movement times, Quick gives you the best dates between 750BC and 300AD - low level Diplo games tend to end up in this period. Marathon then comes out ahead for a brief period, then it's chaotic until around 1200AD, where normal speed gives you the best dates until about 1900AD. After 1900, Quick gives the best dates again.

What this DOESN'T take into account is:
1) Time to move units.
2) Micromanagement and overflow.

The first only really helps you on Marathon for Quecha rushes. The second hurts you on Quick when you're overflowing your research by a ton every turn, and helps most on Marathon for time victories, since by the end you do still get an equivalent amount of production and such.

A few more analyses:
-If you're aiming for a 1200-1700 culture win, it doesn't really matter what speed you play on, as long as it's not Quick. If you're shooting for pre-1000AD, go on Marathon.
-Normal really takes off after around 1700AD, so for those larger maps you'll just be wasting time trying to get a ship off on Epic or Marathon.
-The surprising thing is Epic beats Marathon for a very long time during the BC years.

So take all this as you will, I'm going to go play some Epic games. I'm concluding that Marathon games only give the best results for early rushes, any other condition you're better off playing another speed.


EDIT: Now that I look at it deeper, the speeds really AREN'T equivalent in terms of production. On Quick you get 320 turns and everything costs a certain amount. On Marathon you get 1200 turns and everything costs 4 times as much - so you have $1200 to pay for $1280 of groceries. I adjusted the graphs based on this, and got even more surprising results:

http://h.xerol.org/i/civ_4_adjusted_turn_numbers_production.png (http://h.xerol.org/i.php?i=704)

These are "production turns", or how many turns of Quick Speed you could 'pay for' by that year on the respective speeds. We see Epic, then Quick, then Normal, then Marathon, in that order at 2050 - so you really get the most out of Epic for Time victories. I redid the other chart as well:

http://h.xerol.org/i/civ_4_turn_speed_differential_production.png (http://h.xerol.org/i.php?i=705)

Once again indexed against Quick Turns, but in this case, higher is better. What we see here:

1) Quick is never the best speed. Everything's equal up through 1000BC, but your units move relatively slower on Quick, so Marathon ends up being the best choice for anything ending before 1000BC.
2) At 1000BC, Epic takes off. Quick hangs on to second here, as Normal and Marathon lose ground, becoming poor choices for Diplo and Culture games.
3) Around 1600AD, Marathon shoots up. This is a result of going to shorter turns much sooner than any other speed; this catches up with it later, as during the last 50 turns or so every other speed eclipses it in terms of relative production.
4) Epic is best again at the very end, which is where you want your time victories.

So looking at it this way, there's some problems for HOF if they want to encourage other game speeds:
1) Marathon is best for early conquest/domination or late space race/diplo.
2) Epic is best for culture and time, as well as earlier space/diplo wins or later conquest/domination wins.
3) Quick is second at best, around 1000AD is the only time you'll get decent results with it.
4) Normal is never really good at all.

Epic comes out on top overall, and its production/research advantages (which is really what these last two graphs show) give it the edge for early space race and diplo victories, as well as time wins (more research turns = more future techs).

WastinTime
May 28, 2007, 09:30 AM
Thanks Xerol, I've been looking for a good speed comparison chart.
It'd be great if you blow up the 1000 AD - 2000AD section.

I don't follow your conclusions though. Looking at the first chart on turn 200 for example. Doesn't that show that Marathon is way better here because the finish date will be earlier?

Harbourboy
May 28, 2007, 11:24 AM
Holey Moley Xerol. If you spent less time on the graphs and more time playing, you'd have a better QM score! ;)

Miraculix
May 28, 2007, 12:37 PM
Xerol, your speed comparison is impressive indeed. I am wondering about the relevance for HOF though, since games with different speeds appear in different tables. A Quick speed game is never compared to a Marathon speed game anyway.

Miraculix
May 28, 2007, 02:00 PM
There is a lot of speculation on whether Ancient start Space Race games can do better than Future start games on Normal and Quick speeds. To settle this discussion once and for all, lets have a Gauntlet with the following settings:

Victory Type: Space Race
Difficulty: Deity
Starting Era: Any
Map Size: Huge (or Standard if we are worried about players with slow computers)
Map type: Should be easy enough to compete with the existing games in the corresponding table.
Speed: Quick
Civ: Gandhi

If someone manage to submit an Ancient start game that blows the Future start games off the chart, I believe it is just a matter of time before all Future start games becomes obsolete for contributing to a top QM ranking. On the other hand if not even a very competitive Gauntlet contest can produce a #1 Ancient start game, I believe it is safe to conclude that the cheesy Future start games are here to stay.

Thrallia
May 28, 2007, 02:24 PM
I'll weigh in on this even though I'm not a QM yet lol

I suppose my Deity win is a cheesy one, considering it was a future start domination, but since it only gave me .9 Qscore, I'm pretty sure no one will complain about it lol. Of the rest of my games, none of them give me anything over 20 Qscore except my Emperor diplo game, which gives me 42 points. I have played a couple duel/conquest games, although none of them were with Inca(used Inca for my G-Minor space race entry), not because I feel I can't win a normal game, but because I have no time to play 18 normal games. I could win on any difficulty level except Deity on a normal game, and could probably win a normal deity with a Quechua Rush(though nowhere near the top times, I'm sure), but since I don't have the time, I don't like the idea of not being able to be a QM if I am time-constrained. I will, of course, go back and replace every one of those games with better, full games when I have time...but for now, merely want to get my name on the table.

As far as the Gauntlets are concerned...I really don't find them that difficult. I beat both the Major and Minor gauntlets in my first full tries, they were fun and enjoyable, and I love playing a game that everyone can discuss and compare strategies in. Obviously, if Gauntlets had a higher difficulty level required, less people would win, and it would be more of a challenge to get them into your QM portfolio. I don't think that's a solution though...that would also lower the number of people participating in the Gauntlets.

I think there are two arguments being discussed here though, and for this discussion to actually go anywhere, which argument is the valid one needs to be decided:
1) Should it be harder to get into the QM, or
2) Should the cheesy wins be able to score highly

I personally think it is the second question that has more merit, and that it is where this thread was originally meant to go. As to that point, I would say that the barb options should be included more significantly in the score...and eliminated entirely(or given the no barb score reduction) on later game starts where the barbs pretty much do nothing anyway. I realize that barbs are included, but no barbs gives .9, normal gives 1., and raging gives 1.1...I think that no barbs should be lowered to .6 or .7, because having no barbs on an ancient start greatly influences the game in your favor, as the AI will continue to escort their settlers, despite you knowing there is no reason to do so. Raging barbs should perhaps be raised to 1.2, but since on any difficulty level other than Deity, and perhaps Immortal, they impact the AI as much as they do the player, it could be argued that 1.1 is plenty.

I think that's all my thoughts for now...if I have any others, don't worry, I'll list them here :)

Harbourboy
May 28, 2007, 02:51 PM
I like the idea of having several different ranks of Quattromaster that you can continually aspire to by submitting more higher quality games (actual definition outstanding at this point). At the risk of contradicting myself (again), Quattromaster can't be that easy to get if only about 30 people have ever managed to do it.

WastinTime
May 28, 2007, 04:17 PM
Civ: Gandhi


If you're trying to prove Ancient starts beat Future, why are you constraining us to Gandhi?

Otherwise, good idea.

@Thrallia, I think Denniz's poll and original post are about #1, Should it be harder to become QM. Most of the discussion seems to be on tweaking the QScore. I don't think cheesy tactics are getting many points (once Future Space is defeated), so I doubt they will consider the more complex suggestions to a scoring system that seems to be working pretty well.
I'm hoping they're open to a few tweaks though.

a) League of Nations penalty to Vanilla players (did I mention that yet?:mischief: )
b) Huge, Large, Std map size modifiers (i.e. Standard size = 1.0)
c) Barb modifiers (increasing their weight)
d) Dracandross mentioned games that tie should lose value (like the group of3835BC's)
e) There's a dirty little trick/loop hole that needs to be closed (I don't want to mention it/encourage it). I'll have to send a private mail to the staff.

ParadigmShifter
May 28, 2007, 04:27 PM
Clearly league of nations needs to only count your best 18 civ's scores so as not to penalise vanilla over warlords.

Other than that, I don't have much of an opinion. I've only ticked about 6 boxes as it is (EDIT: actually, it's 9 or 10). I think QM is a great achievement anyway, as a prince player moving up to monarch and getting battered most of the time (well all the time, I've yet to win). I make it hard for myself by playing random leaders and with barbs on though. I just play for fun but like ticking boxes I guess.

Mutineer
May 28, 2007, 05:04 PM
Not, actually not.

I see reason why it should not. Purpose of it not to satisfy vanilla players, but to entice people to play all leaders. So, it is very logical it penalize people playing fewer leaders, what ever are there reasons. It actually penalize less then it should, by been satisfying with only 18 and not demanding all leaders.

Thrallia
May 28, 2007, 08:10 PM
Concerning whether or not it should be harder to become a QM, considering that at this point there's only 30-35 players that have achieved that status, and considering how many Civ4 players there are on these boards, I'm not sure it should be much harder than it is, other than perhaps only allowing a certain number of games of certain settings to count.

ie. you can only have x number of duel/conquest games counting toward your QM requirements; you can only have x number of future start/space ship games count toward your QM requirements.

Those games would be counted in order of submission...perhaps after they become a QM, the restrictions are lifted...although that'd be kinda pointless, since those games would no doubt score less than the other games they had to play to become a QM would have.

Beyond that, I would definitely see the merits of a multi-level QM ladder...although, I think this one should be more dynamic, to enhance the continuous competition aspect of the HOF. Perhaps 3 or 4 levels of QM would exist, and they would be based on where you ranked overall in the QM table. The top 10% would be in the top level, and each of the levels below it would be 30% of the remaining QMs, in order of current rank. As you raise your score and rank, you move up levels, while pushing down those you passed.

That would allow the QM tables to be slightly more dynamic than they already are, and give the QMs something to continuously strive for...whether it be staying at the level they are at, or trying to move up to the next one.

Harbourboy
May 28, 2007, 10:18 PM
I think you should go up the QM "ranks" by completing more onerous tasks, not by scoring higher. High scores and fast finishes are recognised in the various HoF tables.

The spirit of the QM title itself is in the completion of a wide range of different games, rather than being a competitive thing.

Examples of what you might need to complete in order to get to the next rank might be:
- 3 deity wins under 3 different leaders
- at least 2 different deity winning conditions
- at least 2 different deity map sizes

That sort of thing. It should be competency based, in that an unlimited number of people could theoretically reach each level, so long as they completed the requirements. Within each rank, though, you would still have a table based on Qscores as per normal.

Dracandross
May 28, 2007, 10:46 PM
i

whoa whoa whoa! think about those two things together very carefully. definitely if getting credit for a gauntlet requires being in the top X, IMO there has to be consideration for how much of that top is always occupied by the same people.



This was idea if you want different elite QM status to really make it worth some skill not just mindlessly leeching 1 win for each category. As now gauntlet is hardest to score well at least because theres more competition than on most of the lists yet.

And we can't modify it so much that it wouldnt be cheesy in some way. If we remove all aspects that make QM now easy we get some other aspects that are way too easy compared to other conditions. Like deity cultural game with picked opps is mostly easy anyway if compared to other types.

-Dracandross

Thrallia
May 28, 2007, 10:50 PM
@Harbourboy: that is true...at this point QM is awarded for completing a wide range of games...so I think I would agree that the way to move up to a different rank of QM is to complete some task(all winning conditions or speeds or something) at some given level, ie. Emperor/Immortal/Deity.
I would probably never pass the base level if it required wins in every area at Emperor or higher, but it would definitely keep in the spirit of the QM, while awarding those high quality players who can play at those levels and prosper.

Dracandross
May 28, 2007, 10:58 PM
once and for all, lets have a Gauntlet with the following settings:

Victory Type: Space Race
Difficulty: Deity
Starting Era: Any
Map Size: Huge (or Standard if we are worried about players with slow computers)
Map type: Should be easy enough to compete with the existing games in the corresponding table.
Speed: Quick
Civ: Gandhi


But why quick and gandhi as must? even on quick you could outdo score with que rush, just cant take more than 1 civ out with it but one is enough I think. And definitely map should be small (to standard) to get maximum amount of submitted games. As first few tries could be blown away. As even on small maps theres only future wins. If its doable on small its doable on bigger ones too. You can't wipe out them fast enough on small even I think.

But this should be beta G just in case none gets win on anc start as st/deity/future win would lead to insane gauntlet scores and would biase it. Or with a warning that unless anyone wins with anc comparable to futures its void or could lead to modifications of future game scoring.

-Dracandross

KMadCandy
May 28, 2007, 11:18 PM
This was idea if you want different elite QM status to really make it worth some skill not just mindlessly leeching 1 win for each category. As now gauntlet is hardest to score well at least because theres more competition than on most of the lists yet.

And we can't modify it so much that it wouldnt be cheesy in some way. If we remove all aspects that make QM now easy we get some other aspects that are way too easy compared to other conditions. Like deity cultural game with picked opps is mostly easy anyway if compared to other types.

right. but requiring some skill is an entirely different ball of wax than "requiring that i have more skill than at least half of the set players that had time and motivation to play this month's gauntlet" when last month maybe the best 4 were off vacationing so the top X percentile wasn't as hard to break into, and i only get 12 chances a year to try in the first place. the grading on the curve idea was the one that raised my eyebrows. score above X is one thing. score relative to whoever happens to be playing that particular time is another, because so much of that is random. and are you recommending what you said about how after you've won there's "no use to play them anymore but to decrease others scores"?

it just gets me nervous because the guantlets are so limited already, 12 chances a year. i don't think they should be easy. i'm not saying i want to give everyone a free one if they ask nicely. maybe i'm off base in thinking what we want there is for the player to show they have the skill to turn in a good non-cheesy gauntlet winning game, and not just the combination of good skill and better luck of RL timing to beat others in a particular month. i didn't think we were trying to set a goal that cut-throat for getting elite-QM in the first place; maybe we are and i was wrong.

competing for scores on a table, there's no deadline, that's different. that's good-natured and fun. but gauntlets, if you have to rank a certain place for something ... that could get ugly. maybe i'm a worrywart.

Dracandross
May 29, 2007, 12:08 AM
Someone was wondering numbers of QMs we have is around 30. But what is the playerbase of HoF with 1+ games and 20+ games and whats that number withing 1 month / 6 months / year. And whats whole sites readerbase?

Should there be some way to gather more players to play for HoF even for they own amusement if not for top 10? And how to get it?

I think that is one problem around whole conversation that we get 150 games per update and there is 4(speeds)*6(mapsizes)*7(victory types)*9(difficulties)*10 positions ~15000 slots on HoF. It will take ages to fill them all with this speed and as there are some slots that have massive amount of games. For 150 games per update it takes 100 updates or about four years to fill this. Its very long time for a computer game.

-Dracandross

Miraculix
May 29, 2007, 04:05 AM
If you're trying to prove Ancient starts beat Future, why are you constraining us to Gandhi?
Good point. There should be as few restrictions as possible, and certainly not Gandhi which would probably be in favour of Future starts. Let me modify my proposal as follows:

Civ: Any

But why quick and gandhi as must? even on quick you could outdo score with que rush, just cant take more than 1 civ out with it but one is enough I think. And definitely map should be small (to standard) to get maximum amount of submitted games. As first few tries could be blown away. As even on small maps theres only future wins. If its doable on small its doable on bigger ones too. You can't wipe out them fast enough on small even I think.

But this should be beta G just in case none gets win on anc start as st/deity/future win would lead to insane gauntlet scores and would biase it. Or with a warning that unless anyone wins with anc comparable to futures its void or could lead to modifications of future game scoring.

Regarding quick speed, the assumption is that fast speeds are in favour of Future starts. I believe the main reason is unit movements which is relatiely slower on fast speeds. Maybe Wastintime can think of another reason. Also, for Marathon speed, we already have proof that an Ancient start game can beat future start games (#1 game on Deity/Huge/Marathon/Space Race). To prove that Ancient starts can beat Future starts under all circumstances, we need to pick the settings that are most in favour of Future starts.

Regarding map size, my understanding is that Ancient start games at Deity level relies on fighting wars against some of your opponents, regardless of victory condition. If this is true, large maps are in favour of Future stars and the gaunlet should use as large map as possible. What is the point in proving that an Ancient start game can beat a Future start game on a small map if it can't be done on huge map? Anyway, this is a question for the experts. Is it more difficult to win an Ancient start Space Race game on large maps?

I am not sure I understand the last part of your post. Why are you concerned about score for this Gauntlet? If it is possible to score 100 points on this Gaunlet (Deity/Huge), why is that a problem? And why is it an additional problem if the #1 game is a Future start game?

jesusin
May 29, 2007, 04:15 AM
Hi. I am not interested in becoming Quattromaster today but this thread could change that, so I am very interested in this discussion.

As Thrallia said there are 2 subjects that are being mixed here.

1.- Perfecting the score system to correctly order the Quattromasters.
2.- What do you need to do to become Quattromaster and how to eliminate cheeseness here.

Regarding #1, I like Wastintime ideas: no Duel maps, Huge doesn’t score better than Std… and other’s ideas about barbs.

Regarding #2, I will talk about my feelings about becoming Quattromaster.
“Oh, nice, I want to be one of those. Let’s see, I have to win a duel deity with quechuas, a duel immortal with quechua… and then I have to play 10 or 20 settler games to have every map, every leader and every victory condition… oh, wait, they consider Time victory to be a victory. Ummm, sounds quite ridiculous, if you have been unable to win the game by 2050 then you don’t deserve a win, but anyway, I read something about future starts that would give me that win.”
So, to reach the glory and fame of being a Quattromaster all I have to do is play boring games without end. Not worth it. It’s so cheesy and boring that it is unattractive.

Ways to improve that? No duel or Huge maps required. No time victory required. Different tables for Vanilla and Warlords. No games below noble. Compulsory combinations required (not huge deity as Lexad suggested, but maybe one emperor-quick-std-barbs-conquest, one emperor-normal-std-barbs-culture, one emperor-epic-std-barbs-diplo… you get the idea; and of course no map or leader could be used twice in those compulsory games).

Denniz
May 29, 2007, 05:55 AM
A couple of points:


I in no way meant to diminish the accomplishment of becoming a QM regardless of the amount of cheese used to get there. Nothing is excluded under the rules. It is similar to running a Marathon. Simply finishing is an accomplishment regardless of your time.

I am asking the question of what's next. How to we honor the those that can run this marathon in a couple hours and encourage more people to better their "times".


There have been a lot of idea mention so far. Some technical involving Qscore that I would have to defer to someone more in tune with the way it works to evaluate.

Some involve classifying what I would call more "difficult" accomplishments. (I am trying to get away if my initial connotation of "cheesy" equal bad.)

At the same time anything we might propose has to meet some basic requirements:

It has to be fair to the existing QMs and people still attempting to complete their "Marathon".
It has to be something that allows us to stratify QM accomplishments by the real difficulty of their efforts.
(Talk about things like quality ancient starts "eventually" appearing to overcome the early dominance of the Future starts or similar activity on various tables to fix other unbalanced situations seem to rely on an unpredictable future that may never happen.)
It has to be something we can technically integrate into the website in a reasonable amount of time without excessive response time to build the web pages.


Filtering out specific Map Size, Speed, Difficulty, etc. seem overly complex to build and maintain (not to mention gain consensus on). Broad, simple filters are easier to do but, like my proposal of no dual map and only ancient starts, may be too restrictive.

My latest thought, inspired by posts so far, is maybe we need to create a "toughness" index or indexes. I.e. say there were 100 different QM check boxes, what's the average difficulty of the 100 games? What is the Average Map size? (We would probably want to bias toward Standard size somehow for fairness.) What is the average speed? (Does speed matter?) How about map types? Is there a way someway to quantify the relative difficulty of the different map types? And then there is Victory condition. It seems there ought to be a division there between warmongers and peaceful type approaches (Order of the Sword vs Order of the Pen) ranked separately.

So we have overall values for Difficulty, Percent of Std size maps and above, A map difficulty score, and possibly a speed difficulty score. With the first a base and the others as modifiers we could create an overall "toughness" rank.

(BTW, the Map & speed difficult score might be an averages taken from tables that match Map, Speed and Victory condition. Archipelago, Quick, Conquest for example could have a higher value than Pangaea, Marathon, conquest. Anyone what to take a stab at build the table? I would think it would have to be +/- ranges with the majority being neutral 0. Positive for more difficult combinations and negative for an easy combination.)

Sorry for the above rambling, I hope my think aloud makes some sense.

KMadCandy
May 29, 2007, 06:03 AM
jesusin i have to agree on the time requirement. i'd never thought about it until you mentioned it now. after my experience, i just cannot imagine a way that would be fun to aim for a high and not immensely frustrating (of course i don't speak for everybody). at first i did make an attempt to go for a high score, i was inspired by the minor gauntlet early this year (i never saw it until it was over). i had fun, and it was an interesting challenge to avoid winning in other ways, slow them down but not too much, a different way than i'd every played before. but, i spent more than 30 hours on my game (i was playing slowly and often distracted), and then the game crashed. in a way that made it not acceptable ... i emailed the staff before i continued since it was an odd case (i'd closed the game by hitting the windows red X button, so no "save on exit" file was made and it was in the middle of a very long turn during a war, i had no way to guarantee i could recreate my moves. i got a verdict "nope, don't finish it" altho they were of course sympathetic and i don't blame them, rules are rules. it sure was't a good feeling tho. so i came here for advice, and found a cheesy way since i was not willing to put myself through that again, having no way to guarantee i'd not end up in the same boat the next four attempts. true "try for great game play and high score" time victories take real time investment of hours as far as i can see.

requiring time isn't bad, the process shouldn't be a quick one. but for me at least, that one game felt like the purpose was to drag it out, and that was so different from the fun experience of all the other boxes.

the way i did end up doing my successful submittal was ridiculously fun, i had a blast. it was silly and amusing. but it was cheesy and did not reflect any skill on my part whatsoever. OCC to ensure that i'd not hit any other conditions, the times i didn't feel like actively fighting/harassing him i just parked units on every tile that he could work. that crippled him, since he didn't realize that he'd be playing OCC too. that one box than any other, even the deity box when i are far from a deity level player, was pure "i want to get this one out of the way cuz it isn't fun the real intended way".

again, i don't speak for everybody, and when i do speak i use too many words. i'm on allergy drugs again which makes it even worse! :crazyeye:

the concept of requiring all types of victories is a nifty concept tho. and already no particular map sizes are required, just one of each map type. which is the way it should stay and the way it will stay from all i've heard. the HoF guys knows that not all computers are up to huge, and not all people have the patience!

KMadCandy
May 29, 2007, 06:07 AM
for denniz who snuck a post in there while i was pondering what to type in response to jesusin:

"It has to be something we can technically integrate into the website in a reasonable amount of time without excessive response time to build the web pages."

100% with you there. even if we double the work and quadruple your salaries, that's still a lose for you guys.

oops still editing, hit reply too early:
I in no way meant to diminish the accomplishment of becoming a QM regardless of the amount of cheese used to get there. Nothing is excluded under the rules. It is similar to running a Marathon. Simply finishing is an accomplishment regardless of your time.

I am asking the question of what's next. How to we honor the those that can run this marathon in a couple hours and encourage more people to better their "times".

i like that concept and i think i understand it in a way, but since i'm hopelessly and forever in the dark about the actual QScore magic i'm going by my general sense. my posts have been from the perspective of someone who wanted the "i got QM" feeling -- but not elite yet, even if it existed at that time. i may want to improve in ranks later (methos would get to say "i told you so"). whether i do or not, i want the option to be there for those who do, and making that part of it more of a challenge, and thus more rewarding is a very good goal.

i've just been the token "don't forget about those of us who aren't yet at the level to reach the top yet." i haven't seen that perspective in this thread, and didn't want it completely glossed over since that would harm folks like me, i watch out for other noobs. maybe we don't need that perspective here at all, and then i'll pipe down being that voice to remind those who've forgotten what those days were like :). if the current process is staying exactly the same, we're okay. that's what you've been saying, but the posters seem to be implying otherwise. some of the posts about requiring 4 or more total gauntlets, particularly gauntlets that would have to be in the top X percentile to even count, if that was to get non-elite QM at all, those make me go :eek:. said it before and i'll say it again, 12 shots a year. that's not just a marathon, that's a limitation in opportunites the player has no control over regardless of ability and desire. and i wanted that perspective noted for sure.

that's a recipe for adding salt and/or adding ignore to my posts about this ;).

Airny
May 29, 2007, 09:06 AM
I think being a Quattromaster should indeed mean, that you have at least once played all victory conditions, map sizes, a couple of nations(not only Lizzy & Hyuana), different speed and both gauntlets.

Just being one of the Quattromasters is not a big deal atm, but there is also the ranking system, which I like very much.
I like to compete with the best in various categories.
I try to find easy-to-win points, which has a nice side-effect:
If many people search for those "loopholes", there will soon be none in the HoF-table, making it much more representative.

Miraculix
May 29, 2007, 01:36 PM
Here are my thoughts on an elite-QM:

Some people seem to be concerned about the low threshold to become a QM. I agree that the treshold is low. Except from the Gauntlets, what is needed is:
- Settler games for all events except Machiavelli
- Dual games for all Machiavelli subevents.
Personally, I don't worry about the low threshold to become a QM as long as there is sufficiently challenging to climb on the ranking. However, the following proposal should satisfy most concerns:

For an elite-QM the following additional requirements should apply:
1) All QM slots should be filled with at least standard size maps
2) All QM slots should be filled with Ancient start games
This should eliminate the various cheesy games discussed in this thread.

In addition the elite-QM could include divisions (levels) as follows:
1) Settler level: The lowest level of elite-QM
2) Chieftain level: The lowest difficulty level in any QM slot is Chieftain
3) Warlord level: The lowest difficulty level in any QM slot is Warlord
.
.
9) Deity level: The lowest difficulty level in any QM slot is Deity

This should distinguish between people that fill their QM slots with lower level games and people that submit mostly higher level games.

It would be interesting to hear from Denniz whether he believe these rules are sufficiently easy to implement.

WastinTime
May 29, 2007, 02:17 PM
... we already have proof that an Ancient start game can beat future start games (#1 game on Deity/Huge/Marathon/Space Race). To prove that Ancient starts can beat Future starts under all circumstances, we need to pick the settings that are most in favour of Future starts.

Regarding map size, my understanding is that Ancient start games at Deity level relies on fighting wars against some of your opponents, regardless of victory condition.

Right, On Marathon it's easy to conquer a few neighbors. So the question is: on Quick, can you either conquer a neighbor, or play 100% peacefully. It would probably be easier to be peaceful on Huge since you have some room to expand. The toughest might be standard size. If Space Race can be done on Quick-Ancient, then it can be done for Normal and Epic speeds too.

Wars are not required on Diety regardless of victory condition. I never go to war for Cultural or Diplomatic wins and Space Race can be peaceful too. Way back, I used to do Diety OCC Space Races on Standard size, Normal speed. That was back when I did barbs ON and random opponents. Those dates were probably late 1800's or 1900's, so they probably wouldn't beat the Future Space Races. Turning off OCC (and barbs, and selecting opponents) should produce an early launch date. (Those games where on Islands maps also -- which are not allowed.) Islands really slowed down the AI.

WastinTime
May 29, 2007, 02:25 PM
jesusin i have to agree on the time requirement....

i had fun, and it was an interesting challenge to avoid winning in other ways, slow them down but not too much, a different way than i'd every played before.....

Hmmm, First you agree Time Victories should be thrown out then go on and on about how fun, interesting, and challenging it was. I agree it can be quite fun and very challenging to get a high score. Sure it's boring on Settler difficulty. Try Diety...it looks like no one has ever been able to do it on Huge or Large. Moonsinger is the only one who can claim she could definitely have done it. Her Conquest games obviously could be converted to a Time win. People only need one Time win and it can be Future start, Quick speed, and on a Duel map if you want (unless they change the rules,) so don't cut this from QM.

Murky
May 29, 2007, 02:38 PM
It would be difficult if not impossible to win at the highest levels without using some cheesy tactics. HoF seems to reward those who put in the most time regenerating the map and playing a specific leader/civ most of the time.

You might try to have a level above quatromaster that incorporates the use of all the leaders/civs at the highest levels.

Denniz
May 29, 2007, 02:39 PM
It would be interesting to hear from Denniz whether he believe these rules are sufficiently easy to implement.I would judge it not too difficult since it consists of a filter and min value.

What it doesn't do is take into consideration all the existing QMs and the whole Qscore thing. We'll need that for ranking within the divisions. Also, don't forget we've been using the top two entries for Qscore.

I suppose we could keep the Settler level wide open to accommodate things as they are now. The other divisions could be as you say. The only real question would be Qscore.

Bram
May 29, 2007, 03:37 PM
The current system for becoming a QM seems fine. It should not be too difficult te become a QM.

That being said, the cheesy games should not have the top scores. Some suggestions for improving the scoring system:

- Modern and Future starts get no Barbarian bonus (I don't know about Renaissance and Industrial).
- Map sizes: Huge 1,0; Large 1,0; Standard 1,0; Small 0,8; Tiny 0,6 and Duel 0,4. I don't think a map larger than Standard is always more difficult and not everybody can run Huge maps.
- Increase the Barbarian bonus to 0,1 for regular and 0,2 for Raging Barbarians (This takes Settler down to 0 points without Barbarians. That shouldn't be a problem, as these games can still be counted towards QM.)
- The current scoring system doesn't work very well with only two entries. Even if the second game finished only a turn later, it will still be no more than 10 points.

Also, I believe there are currently too many games counting for QM. With less games, it would be more important to have some high-scoring games. That makes Duel map games less useful. Not counting the second game for each leader in the League of Nations competition (and only counting the best 18 leaders) and the second map for the Map Quest competition would also help equalize the number of games required for each sub-event.

WastinTime
May 29, 2007, 03:46 PM
Bram and I are on the same page. I second all of that. So, are we just spinning our wheels here? or will we see some (all) of these changes? Except for Denniz, the staff hasn't chimed in.

Denniz
May 29, 2007, 07:32 PM
Bram and I are on the same page. I second all of that. So, are we just spinning our wheels here? or will we see some (all) of these changes? Except for Denniz, the staff hasn't chimed in.Superslug and Dianthus probably won't chime in since they are the ultimate decision makers of what if any changes get made.

That said, I think we still have a lot of work to do before they have anything to decide. We have a lot of different proposals floating around. But do we have consensus? I think we have proposals in three area that need to be refined:

Changing the QScore formula.
Creating elite rankings/divisions above and beyond the existing QM.
Making the basic QM harder to obtain.


QScore
I can't intelligently discuss QScore but I can say that a concise list of changes needs to be created. Each change needs to have some analysis of the impact to the existing QMs and near QMs. I would suggest that one of you take ownership of the proposal and create a thread where those interested can help/debate the list. Your ultimate goal would be to create a poll so folks can vote on the final form. Who wants to do that?

Elite QM Rankings
Same kind of thing. Create a thread to work it out. Ultimately create a poll so folks can agree or disagree. Who wants to do this?

Tougher QM
I think I would discourage this in favor of elite levels. Kicking people out of QM is out of bounds right now.

A couple of notes on Value System we need to operate under:

Don't belittle others ideas. Think wise/unwise instead of good/bad.
Be practical about things. We aren't going to rewrite things from scratch. Think tweaks and add-ons. We'll try to inject some idea of what might be feasible as the discussions mature.
Anything that causes someone to loose their QM status will be a tough sell. A lot of those people would have to volunteer for that to happen.
Superslug and Dianthus have dictatorial powers over the final decision. Don't spend too much time calling their baby ugly. :mischief:

Methos
May 29, 2007, 07:39 PM
Except for Denniz, the staff hasn't chimed in.

First off, let me point out my comments in this post are not as a member of the HOF Staff, but as a fellow HOF player.

The current scoring system doesn't work very well with only two entries. Even if the second game finished only a turn later, it will still be no more than 10 points.

I agree and tend to stay away from such tables unless 1) the fastest date is one I'm confident I can beat, or 2) the two entries have dates that are not close together.

Tables that have very few entries tend to have a highly fluctuating curve that doesn't correspond the way it should. IMO it's flawed when only a few games are submitted. In regards to not having enough submissions and those submissions being extremely close together in dates, I'd suggest altering the formula for such tables like this:

MinTurnSpeed = .05 * GameSpeed
if ((FastestDateTurnNum - SlowestDateTurnNum) >= MinTurnSpeed) {
/* Use formula as normal*/}
else {
SlowestDateTurnNum = FastestDateTurnNum - MinTurnSpeed}

/*
MinTurnSpeed is the minimum # of turns allowed when compiling BaseQScore, equals 5% of total possible turns
FastestDateTurnNum is the fastest date submitted for that table
SlowestDateTurnNum is the slowest date submitted for that table
*/

This would help offset the tables with very few entries whose dates are extremely close to each other, such as my hypothetical dates mentioned in the FAQ thread. My making the slowest date at least five percent of the total turns from the fastest date would make it so that two entries separated by one turn would have BaseQScore's that reflected that closeness, otherwise no matter how close the slower date will have a BaseQScore of 10. The only problem I see with this is if we have multiple entries that all have dates that are within that five percent. To counter it, we could include the above in a nested if statement where the # of entries have to have less than x in order to use the five percent rule.

MinTurnSpeed = .05 * GameSpeed
if (((FastestDateTurnNum - SlowestDateTurnNum) >= MinTurnSpeed) || (NumEntries >= X)) {
/* Use formula as normal*/}
else {
SlowestDateTurnNum = FastestDateTurnNum - MinTurnSpeed}

/*
MinTurnSpeed is the minimum # of turns allowed when compiling BaseQScore, equals 5% of total possible turns
FastestDateTurnNum is the fastest date submitted for that table
SlowestDateTurnNum is the slowest date submitted for that table
X is the minimum # of entries allowed where the five percent rule is no longer used
*/

Edit: BTW, I tried to make the coding as simple as possible and easy to understand.

Methos
May 29, 2007, 08:01 PM
In regards to the prerequisites for QM I agree that they're too easy. I would also say that they consist of a lot of games that are in fact not true HOF games. For instance, if a player wanted to quickly fill any section other than Inferno and Gauntlet, they could easily do so on a settler duel map. IMO that isn't playing a HOF game. I believe it should be tougher, or at least consist of games that aren't simply time wasters.

That said, I also believe QM should not be changed in that it would exclude many of our current Quattromasters. The current system may be a bit too easy, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the work that has already been done. Instead I agree we should create additional ranks of QM with tougher requirements. Possible requirements could be:
must meet all conditions as required for normal QM, but cannot use any game at less than x difficulty level
must meet all conditions as required for normal QM, but cannot use any game at smaller than x map size


Example: In order to attain the status of a Bronze Quattromaster you must have completed all boxes required for Quattromaster with games that are at least of noble difficulty and no smaller than a standard mapsize.

Each ranking of QM would require tougher requirements and not just relating to the above. Maybe the next rank would require Prince or Monarch difficulty level and that all games must start in the Ancient era. I'd hate to get into the larger sizes, as I don't feel we should exclude players with lower end computers, so standard should probably be the max size requirement.

The-Hawk
May 29, 2007, 09:12 PM
My two cents:

- I agree the scoring could be better. For example, among the games on the HOF I am most proud of are two Deity ancient start culture wins on standard size maps (I think this was a gauntlet?). Very tough game to win, on the whole HOF, I think only 6 players have succeeded at deity ancient culture on standard or larger maps. I submitted twice, my QScores were 17.9 and 8.1. My problem is I am holding the bottom two positions against an elite group. I got higher QScores for many games that were much easier to win, including a Chieftan level time score. So, ideas aimed at factoring the toughness of conditions have merit. Under tough deity conditions, the lowest scoring game deserves a higher QScore than the best chieftan game.

- The problem with toughness rankings is who decides and to what level? For example, we reward deity domination wins on larger maps vs. smaller. What about map type? Domination on an islands map scores how much more than pangea? What about leader? Deity domination with Ghandi must be an order of magnitude harder than Huayna?

- As far as QM ranking and cheesy games, I think folks might be overreacting a little. Two reasons... First, I believe this will be self policing over time. The competition for future space times is already happening. Second, I think "cheesyness" is a continuum. If we eliminate what seems to be the "easiest" way to win, then something else will now be the easiest, and people will gravitate to it. Get rid of that one, they will find the next. Maybe we should disallow Huayna altogether?

- I think another problem is "specialization". It seems to me that the spirit of QM is breadth. Lots of leaders, lots of map conditions, lots of victory types. However, whether it is future space race, deity quechua rushes, or OCC strategies, I think people tend to find something they like (and that works), then specialize. In fact, I think the system allows/rewards specialization. It would be nice to find a way to truly encourage breadth (i.e. force people to do more than check the boxes to make QM, then focus on their specialty to grow score). The place for specialization is the HOF table itself (go for the fastest time in a cell).

So, my recommendations:

Rather than try to draw a line at an arbitrary point on the cheesyness continuum (declaring everything below that line "cheesy" and everything above it "OK"), I think we should allow all game types. No matter where you draw the line, there will always be a way to play that is relatively "easy" compared to the rest.

A better way to fix the QScore and ranking issue (maybe caused by cheesyness) is to modify the scoring itself. This means trying to better identify the real toughness factors (or more penalize the easy factors). It may be hard to do this until the HOF is more mature (there is more history to look at).

I am very intrigued by the ideas of elite QM's. Or the idea of Settler through Deity level QM. It could be very simple. You win all victory conditions at a given level, you get that title. Only caveats for the title are ancient starts and standard or larger maps.

Last word... I am currently top scoring QM, have been for maybe 6-7 months. This is a combination of "real" games and "cheesy" games, all done within the context of the competition as defined. However, I have no problem at all with a midcourse correction to the rules and/or the scoring system. I've invested lots of time in the existing rules, but I'm all for making the whole system better. An ancient deity standard culture win should score more than a future space win (or duel quechua win, etc.). If a new set of rules knocks me down in the rankings, I'll happily begin to work my way back up... After all, its all just an excuse to play more CIV, isn't it? ;)

Mutineer
May 29, 2007, 09:49 PM
Again, this coefficient, like barbarian coefficient is very arbitrary. I would claim that Ragin barbarians can speed up your victory or even let you achieve victory sooo mach earlier then you can get with out them.

Example. It is posible to achieve conquest victory in BC time on noble/rabig barbs/huge map/ maraphon/continents, but barbarians elliminate your opponenet, including one on other continent.

With out ragin barb you will need astronomy and move your units around huge map to achieve the same effect.

On higher dificulty if you use trow away city strat (Whipe cities to 0 happy and let barbarian recupture them) one can achive faster conquest victory with ragin barbs.

So, where does it live as with increasing penalty for no barbs?

Dracandross
May 29, 2007, 11:02 PM
To prove that Ancient starts can beat Future starts under all circumstances, we need to pick the settings that are most in favour of Future starts.

Is it more difficult to win an Ancient start Space Race game on large maps?

I am not sure I understand the last part of your post. Why are you concerned about score for this Gauntlet? If it is possible to score 100 points on this Gaunlet (Deity/Huge), why is that a problem? And why is it an additional problem if the #1 game is a Future start game?

Well, if future can be beaten with any one civ (inca) its good enough to allow it without question.

And now we dont have non future wins on smaller maps even, we'll get more submitted games on smaller maps. It might take more than few games to pull it out. And if map is too large there are not enough submitted tries.

And scoring is problem if we have huge/deity/spacerace/future games scoring over 80pts for gauntlet its very hard for new players that didn't have chance to take part in this (if it proves cheesy) to take advantage of easy 80+ points for gauntlets. Check QM gauntlet part to see how much most players have on gauntlet scores. Specially as gauntlet score can't be reduced later.

But whole point of future being cheesy is kinda weird. If future is too cheesy I'd rule out Inca anyday because they are too cheesy compared to any other civ if playing monarch+

-Dracandross

Dracandross
May 30, 2007, 01:43 AM
condition… oh, wait, they consider Time victory to be a victory. Ummm, sounds quite ridiculous, if you have been unable to win the game by 2050 then you don’t deserve a win, but anyway, I read something about future starts that would give me that win.”


Time victory is different kind of go. It's either skill to eliminate all opposition so that they can't launch space ship or test of milking. Try to play larger maps on higher difficulties where AI launches 1700-1900 AD. It is a bit harder to prevent them to do that, specially on quick. And of course you have to watch out for domination but still get enough score to be 1st. That gauntlet few updates ago on highlands/large/time was pain I heard, sucks to lose on 2040.

Of course for QM settler time win is ok, but thats not worth points.

-Dracandross

Dracandross
May 30, 2007, 01:59 AM
Another QScore thing is that now Id say it's harder to score well on settler because huts make game vary so much. No use to aim for top 10 without lots of settlers & workers. For QM part its plainly stupid to play settler without raging barbs. I have one diplo game that on settler was 1000 AD for me and leading score is around 500. I have about 12pts and first one has 10. And I like it should be this way too, but it wont work on higher anymore.

Settler game is worth 10-20pts with raging compared to chieftains 2030. Is there really that big difference, 50% to 100%. As pointed out higher diffs are way more harder than lower ones, could QS rise first a bit slower and then faster on the end? On lower diffs barbs add more difficulty than going 1 level up. For barbs .05 or .1 is not enough on higher diffs and on lower ones its either too much or just great so that theres some point playing settler even.

-Dracandross

Ozbenno
May 30, 2007, 03:27 AM
Wow, don't check the boards for a few days and what happens :lol:

My 2 cents worth:

I don't think you can change the rules mid-stream so Duel and Future starts probably have to stay. I'll put up my hand and say that I used a few to check some boxes in order to qualify in the first place and to boost my ranking once I did but now only play ancient starts on bigger than standard maps (also means I only get time for 1-2 an update :mad:).

Having elevated QM levels would be a great idea as it gives everyone a higher level to aim for once you get there. As it is now, my only goal is to try to stay in the top 10 rankings (which is looking less likely with each update :lol:).

One thing that hasn't been mentioned (unless I missed it :blush:) is to include things like Always War and One City Challenges in higher QM rankings.

Anyway, really intersting seeing other peoples thoughts so keep up the discussion :goodjob:

KMadCandy
May 30, 2007, 04:22 AM
Hmmm, First you agree Time Victories should be thrown out then go on and on about how fun, interesting, and challenging it was. I agree it can be quite fun and very challenging to get a high score. Sure it's boring on Settler difficulty. Try Diety...it looks like no one has ever been able to do it on Huge or Large. Moonsinger is the only one who can claim she could definitely have done it. Her Conquest games obviously could be converted to a Time win. People only need one Time win and it can be Future start, Quick speed, and on a Duel map if you want (unless they change the rules,) so don't cut this from QM.
:) not really a contradiction in the context of this thread.

what you quoted from mine: i had fun, and it was an interesting challenge to avoid winning in other ways, slow them down but not too much, a different way than i'd every played before.....

what you didn't:

[i] found a cheesy way ... it was silly and amusing. but it was cheesy and did not reflect any skill on my part whatsoever. ... that one box than any other, even the deity box when i am far from a deity level player, was pure "i want to get this one out of the way cuz it isn't fun the real intended way".

i wasn't aiming for elite by any means, and for the "non-elite" QM if cheesy options are still there i wouldn't oppose a time victory. my thoughts were more for "if we want non-elite QM to be harder to get and a better reflection of skill, that's a requirement that in my opinion is an odd one in that sense, maybe not proof of a good player, it's frustrating as all get out if you do need to aim for non-cheese." but yes i did learn from it, even doing it with double-extra-cheese. i don't regret doing it, i'm glad i did it in fact. i do regret my first attempt at the "skilled, non-cheesy way" that ended up 30 hours gone due to a crash.

i never did try future/quick/duel and there may be non-frustrating non-cheese ways to do that, if so, spiffy :).

KMadCandy
May 30, 2007, 04:49 AM
I think being a Quattromaster should indeed mean, that you have at least once played all victory conditions, map sizes

i assume from your "I think being a Quattromaster" that you are talking about non-elite QM. i think an all map size requirement is a really bad idea. player A has the financial means to invest in a computer that can handle huge maps, player B does not. we can't tell which of them is a better, more skilled player, or even which one is more willing to invest the time and effort into becoming a non-elite QM (or elite QM but my main "don't forget this please!!" focus for this issue is on non-elite). time/effort spent on a hobby or game is not tied to financial circumstances in the outside world, and money doesn't relate to skill or ability at the game. but i've said that before and am sure you read it so i'll make this my last mention of that i hope.

in the sidenote to The-Hawk category:
My two cents:

- I agree the scoring could be better. For example, among the games on the HOF I am most proud of are two Deity ancient start culture wins on standard size maps (I think this was a gauntlet?) ... I got higher QScores for many games that were much easier to win, including a Chieftan level time score. So, ideas aimed at factoring the toughness of conditions have merit. Under tough deity conditions, the lowest scoring game deserves a higher QScore than the best chieftan game.

QScore doesn't, shouldn't, and cannot reflect the impact a game has had on other people. however, one of the goals of the entire HoF concept is to help each other learn to be better players. your chieftan level time win did that! it taught me several things that i've applied to much higher level games. even that low level game has made me a better player on higher level games. i know for certain that it helped others too, i saw that in your strategy/tip forum thread. that's a good thing. thank you :)

Airny
May 30, 2007, 06:23 AM
As for the the discussion of ancient against later starts, I want to point out that not the HoF system is flawed, but the setting of starting eras.
For example, modern age on marathon starts in 1450AD, which is too early in my opinion.

We could reevaluate this quite easily by adding for example 50 turns on every modern age morathon game finish date.

To future space races:
I have no problem with these as long as there is no other faster way to win deity space races.

Airny
May 30, 2007, 06:39 AM
i assume from your "I think being a Quattromaster" that you are talking about non-elite QM.

I talk about the actual Quattromaster-system.

i think an all map size requirement is a really bad idea. player A has the financial means to invest in a computer that can handle huge maps, player B does not. we can't tell which of them is a better, more skilled player, or even which one is more willing to invest the time and effort into becoming a non-elite QM (or elite QM but my main "don't forget this please!!" focus for this issue is on non-elite). time/effort spent on a hobby or game is not tied to financial circumstances in the outside world, and money doesn't relate to skill or ability at the game. but i've said that before and am sure you read it so i'll make this my last mention of that i hope.


Mh, I don't want to exclude owners of slow computers, but I also don't like the idea of people having a title (Quattromaster or elite-QM, we'll see) in civ4, that can't share the experience of playing with more then 6 AIs on standard maps.

The title should not only stand for skill but also experience on a variety of settings.

superslug
May 30, 2007, 08:51 AM
Except for Denniz, the staff hasn't chimed in.
NonCFC matters are keeping Dianthus away from us a lot of the time these days. Personally, I've been traveling a lot the last two weeks. Of course there's Denniz's point as well: since I'm the final decision maker, it's better for me to stand a bit back from this thread. Should I make a post where I imply (consciously or otherwise) disagreement with any posters opinion, they might not be as vocal in other opinions. That would hinder what's turning out to be quite an interesting thread.

On the other hand, I do have a few behind-the-scenes insights I could share on certain posts that might prove fruitful for the conversation. I'll reread the thread and do so later. :D

Harbourboy
May 30, 2007, 10:12 AM
I think more weighting should be given to gauntlets. At the moment, someone who did 20 gauntlets might have the same outcome as someone who did 4 because 16 of them might not count for much. For me, gauntlets are far more challenging and interesting. And given that it's impossible to cheese your way through one, they are potentially a good indication of general Civ 4 mightiness.

So I say either:
- more gauntlets = better QM title; or
- each gauntlet counts for more QM points.

playshogi
May 30, 2007, 11:13 AM
I agree with Harbourboy going so far as to say the gauntlets could even define the whole competition. For example, the staff comes up with 24 gauntlets and to qualify for HOF, your game must meet 1 of those 24 game types. The gauntlets should be designed in such a way that a player can fill all the other blocks of the table and it would not be required to complete all 24 gauntlets to be QM. However, your overall score would be multiplied by the # of different gauntlets you completed and your success on each gauntlet table. (1st place would be worth 10 points, so if you're 1st on all 24 your overall score is multiplied by 240!). New gauntlets would be added to increase the total and variety of available play challenges. This should eliminate unworthy HOF game submissions. I'd also vote for an annual competition with scores starting over annually.

DaveMcW
May 30, 2007, 12:03 PM
Just ban all Marathon/Duel games from the HoF. :D

Harbourboy
May 30, 2007, 03:05 PM
Gauntlets could definitely be used as a way of rewarding cheeseless behaviour. It can take me two weeks to complete a gauntlet, but only 1 hour to fill an empty QM slot.

I like the marathon analogy mentioned earlier. Recognition should be given to everyone who finishes a marathon, from the athletic Kenyan who does it in 2 hours to the arthritic pensioner who walks it in 7 hours. The Kenyan gets the gold medal and the world record, but they both get a certificate, and they are both recognised as being one up on the couch potato who stayed home and played computer games all day).

Same for Hall of Fame and Quattromasterdom. They need recognise both skill (high scores) and perseverance (number of completed games). I think someone who manages to submit every Gauntlet in a year deserves just as much credit as the person who submitted that one brilliant top scoring one.

Miraculix
May 30, 2007, 03:59 PM
As far as QM ranking and cheesy games, I think folks might be overreacting a little. Two reasons... First, I believe this will be self policing over time. The competition for future space times is already happening. Second, I think "cheesyness" is a continuum. If we eliminate what seems to be the "easiest" way to win, then something else will now be the easiest, and people will gravitate to it. Get rid of that one, they will find the next. Maybe we should disallow Huayna altogether?

I have a different opinion on Future start Space Race games.

We don't know yet whether it is possible to outperform Future Space Race games at fast speeds. I believe it makes sense to discuss what to do in case people get convinced that these games are 'unbeatable'.

I agree that we should not try to continuously disallow strategies that seem to be marginally easier than other strategies at any given time. However, Future Space Race is not a marginal strategy but rather extreme. Let me explain why.

With an Ancient start I would have problems winning a Space Race game above Noble level. And even at Noble level, I would probably have problems scoring above average in the respective table. This means that with a Huge map and raging barbarians, the best Qscore I could hope for would be (0.4+0.1)*1.0*50% = 25 points. On the other hand, with a Future start game I am able to:
1) Win easily on Deity level
2) Perform within a few turns of the #1 game in all Deity/Huge tables except Marathon. This is because the #1 game in these tables seems to converge rapidly towards a 'theoretically minimum' date as people continue to improve their strategy.

So although my 'nominal' civilization skills are worth about a 25 Qscore points, Future Space Race games allow me to fill most of my QM slots with games having a Qscore between 90 and 100. By submitting 16 Future Space Race games, I have been able to increase my QM score from about 67 to 92 in a few weeks. Some people compare Future start Space Race games with playing Inca. I don't believe playing Inca is even close to having a similar impact on the QScores.

I would say that a single strategy that allows a person to score 4x his nominal score and fill most of his QM slots with these games is quite extreme and should be dealt with.

In the meantime, I am going to continue submitting Future Space Race games to fill as many QM slots as possible. (Unless Wastintime achieves #1 position with an Ancient start game. :) )

Harbourboy
May 30, 2007, 04:30 PM
Nice analysis, Miraculix. I never intend to play future starts as I find the ancient era more interesting. I would only ever play a future start if it came up in a gauntlet.

Actually, I think I will probably only ever play gauntlets from now on (plus GOTM, which is not HoF), because gauntlets are fun and I like devoting a decent chunk of time to working through how to complete them. This leaves no spare time for non-gauntlet HoF submissions. The only time I can think that I would do a non-gauntlet game for HoF would be if I completed a HoF-compatible test game for GOTM (e.g. a Ramesses II Terra Standard Prince game while getting ready for WOTM9).

superslug
May 30, 2007, 06:18 PM
As promised, some various thoughts:

Pentathlon

As HOF-III players know, their Quartermaster's Challenge had an event known as Pentathlon, which required a submission of every mapsize. This event was deliberately dropped for Quattromaster's because Huge maps in Civ4 are nothing short of atrocious on computer resources. Instead League of Nations was devised as a replacement.

Interestingly enough though, we do assign the most points to Huge maps and scale down from there. It's possible a bell curve would be more appropriate, peaking on standard, with Huge and Large matching Small and Standard, and Duel getting the least amount of love at all, if any.


League of Nations

When designed, it was known that it penalized Vanilla users. Even if it chose the best 18, there would still be a selection advantage for Warlords players. It was decided not to worry about it based largely on our experience in HOF-III, where after the XP's started rolling out, Vanilla submissions became practically extinct. That hasn't happened in IV, as Vanilla remains quite strong, possibly due to the Gauntlets.

Of course there's going to be more of a problem with this once BTS is released. Then again, I have to wonder how someone can be such a Civaholic that they compete in CFC's Hall of Fame and not own an expansion pack a year old? :mischief:


Gauntlets

The Gauntlets have taken hold more so than expected. I do believe they are the heart and soul of the Hall of Fame.


Inca

If they need fixed, it's up to Firaxis to do it.


Duel-sized maps

They weren't really intended for single play. If we add new levels to the Challenge, Duel may not make it.


Future starts

There is always the possibility of a point scale on era starts, penalizing later age beginnings, but with the proposed BTS feature of buying advanced starts, this issue looks more and more problematic.


Cheese

I look at submissions all the time and think "that's a quality game" or "that's a crap submission (filler material, etc)". However, I'm not going to publically state which games are which. First and foremost, that's because I'm here to judge the legality of the games, not the games themselves. Secondly, one person's cheese is another person's brainfood. Some of my own submissions are Future Duels, and a few of them I had didn't just play to fill a slot, I actually had a ton of fun, which is the ultimate point.

Then again, I too believe the HOF can be "more better" (as Denniz put it). There's two things I'd like to see happen most of all. First, I'd like to see the Quattromaster Challenge heightened in stature. We're the preeminent competitive environment of the largest Civilization community in the world, the Hall of Fame is the top of the food chain. The things that were done in Hall of Fame III directly impacted the very development of Civilization IV, and what we've done here has influenced patches and expansion packs both. We make the game as much as we break it, the two go hand in hand.

On the flip side, I think there's room for improvement in our submissions though. There's this general attitude out there that in order to play for the Hall of Fame you have to be seriously anal about milking for points and spending hours plotting tricks to save a turn or two. It drives me absolutely bonkers that people see that as a prerequisite for HOF competition. We welcome all submissions played within the rules, the tables sort themselves out as far as who is great, who is good, etc, etc. I have no idea how to expand on this one at this time though...

As far the as the overall Challenge goes, some kind of multilevel split seems to make sense. I almost wonder if an easier lower level shouldn't be added where Gauntlets aren't required, and then a higher level added where career Gauntlet submissions would be cumulative, a global rankings of sorts. That *might* make it more accessible and yet more elite simultaneously, but at this point in the evening, I'm in strong need of dinner and could very much be talking out my rear.

Harbourboy
May 30, 2007, 07:19 PM
We're the preeminent competitive environment of the largest Civilization community in the world, the Hall of Fame is the top of the food chain.

Wow, and I'm in the Top 40 of that esteemed group. I now feel honoured instead of incompetent. Although...

"that's a crap submission (filler material, etc)". However, I'm not going to publically state which games are which.

I will publicly state that my last 5 submissions before making QM were definite crap filler material (Quick Duel Warlords Domination with different leaders - I did 5 in two days).

The Gauntlets have taken hold more so than expected. I do believe they are the heart and soul of the Hall of Fame.

They have quickly become the heart and soul of my playing. Much more so than GOTM because GOTM is a one-shot pistol, whereas you can have as many attempts at a gauntlet as you have time for.

where career Gauntlet submissions would be cumulative,

That is what I would most like to see, out of all the suggestions made in this thread.

Mutineer
May 30, 2007, 07:23 PM
It seems I need to explain and expand my basic idea.

HOF right now is practically dead. Fastest games are Incas Vanilla rushes and always will be. Hof attempt to compare games by criteria that made games in compatible.

I would propose follow system:

Fastest win in any combination of Major Game version/victory condition/map type/map size/speed/ leader gives 100 Base points.

Best Turn befor (BTB)= Number of turns from 4000BC to fastest win.
Best Turns after(BTA) = Number of turns form fastest win to 2050AD.
Game Turns befor (GTB) = Number of turns from 4000BC for this game
Games turns after (GTA) = Number of turns for this game to 2050AD.
Total turns = number of turns from 4000BC to 2050AD in that game speed.

Number of turns always assumed from 4000, no matter what actual starting date is.

Slower wins give:

Base Points= 100* GTA/BTA*BTB/GTB

So, you never get 0 base point, but amount of point you get fall reasonable fast.

I would ignore minor factors, like barbarian on/off, sea level low/high, climate until there enough statistic for this entry (Probably never).

So, that make culture win on settler on due map quick speed= deity conquest of normal speed normal map.

Well we can easy correct that by applying reasonable difficulty/map size/speed modifiers.

Difficulty seems logical to use
1-7 for settler immortal diapason, 10 for deity.

Map size. Duel 0.2, small 0.5, normal and bigger 1
Speed. Fast/normal 1, epic 0.8, marathon 0.5

Slower speed always benefit human player, when fast speed is better for some winning conditions then normal.

What will it do?
It will entice people to play different leaders and all wining conditions for the same point and place in table. It make winning in different setting with different winning conditions compare.
Frankly, right now Hof itself is dead, as nothing beat quecha rush.

Dracandross
Jun 08, 2007, 11:18 PM
I just submitted quick deity spacerace of 1810 with ancient start :king: , so I think this debate is pointless. Yes I know its was on tiny map, but if it's doable on tiny its doable on bigger maps too, just takes more tries. And even if its not doable on large/huge quick its just 2 games that are out of equation and thats hardly gamebreaking considering Qscores.

I think that it will be lot easier to do it on normal, as speed is significantly slower. In my opinion only fix we need for QM is elite-QM and point decreasing factor if there are very many games that have same finish date. That would prevent easy 30points from prince (not that its much anyway) and in case future spacerace is too easy on huge/quick after enough tries there will be many identical finish dates as theres less variability.

For now Id say Inca is alot cheesier than future starts. There should be discount of points if playing easy civ compared to hard one. Like +x% if you conquest on nonaggro non early uu civ and so on for other types too...

Denniz
Jun 09, 2007, 08:21 AM
I just submitted quick deity spacerace of 1810 with ancient start :king: , so I think this debate is pointless. Yes I know its was on tiny map, but if it's doable on tiny its doable on bigger maps too, just takes more tries. And even if its not doable on large/huge quick its just 2 games that are out of equation and thats hardly gamebreaking considering Qscores.

I think that it will be lot easier to do it on normal, as speed is significantly slower. In my opinion only fix we need for QM is elite-QM and point decreasing factor if there are very many games that have same finish date. That would prevent easy 30points from prince (not that its much anyway) and in case future spacerace is too easy on huge/quick after enough tries there will be many identical finish dates as theres less variability.

For now Id say Inca is alot cheesier than future starts. There should be discount of points if playing easy civ compared to hard one. Like +x% if you conquest on nonaggro non early uu civ and so on for other types too...I am sure it is possible for ancient starts to beat out the future starts. The question is will anyone ever bother to submit those games. Eliminating future starts from the elite level wouldn't alter anything if that did happen. But if it doesn't we're covered. It might even encourge people to try those ancient starts. ;)

Dracandross
Jun 10, 2007, 04:42 AM
The question is will anyone ever bother to submit those games. Eliminating future starts from the elite level wouldn't alter anything if that did happen. But if it doesn't we're covered. It might even encourge people to try those ancient starts. ;)

Surely, when they are easiest way to number one position. Now theres so many free and easy points most will run for them

Dracandross
Jun 10, 2007, 06:23 AM
I thought a bit of current Qscoring and I think it could be done more rewarding for harder games. As this thread was about getting easy points from some games there could be good way to diminish that without altering games you can go for it.

I think that monarch level is breakpoint that games start to really grow harder and standard+ size gives alot more work to do, too.

Obvious reason for monarch+ getting harder is that AI has starting defensive unit. Mapsizes small+ have enough opponents to make game a bit more messy.

My idea is that instead of Qs rising 10% for each dif and mapsize it could rise faster in the end. Heres some possible numbers:

Settler .10 Duel .4
Chief .15 Tiny .55
Warlord .20 Small .7
Noble .25 Standard .90
Prince .30 Large .95
Monarch .40 Huge 1.0
Emperor .50
Immortal .65
Deity .80

And barbs should give points depending on mapsize / difficulty as barbs are lot easier on small map and easy diff

up to Prince Monarch+
Duel-Small/Norm-Huge Duel-Small/Norm-Huge
Normal Barbs .03 .06 .1 .15
Raging Barbs .06 .09 .15 .2

I prefer not to have drop for later starts as they will fall soon as theres enough ancient starts.

Scoring might show a bit messy but at least it will encourage playing larger maps more but not punishing hard if your comp cant handle large/huge maps. It will also encourage using barbarians and give credit for using them at higher levels alot more.

On a sidenote elite QM could instead of putting certain difficulty level to finish game have score based cutter. For example all submitted games must have 50%+ (or some other %) of the maximum possible qscore for that slot. I mean if it finishes as top game. You dont have to get 50% qs to qualify game just must have settings to allow that amount. Example

Settler slot has maximum Qs now .2 (diff+barbs) *1 = 20 points. To qualify for elite QM submitted settlergame must have maximum points of 10+ ie if no barbs it has to be huge (10pts) or with raging barbs it could be duel (also 10pts). Final score what you get from game shouldn't affect it. With my proposed way of counting scores elite QM would also be more of a challence as lower games would need barbs and/or bigger map to qualify.

Shoot the Moon
Jun 14, 2007, 10:22 PM
On a sidenote elite QM could instead of putting certain difficulty level to finish game have score based cutter. For example all submitted games must have 50%+ (or some other %) of the maximum possible qscore for that slot. I mean if it finishes as top game. You dont have to get 50% qs to qualify game just must have settings to allow that amount. Example

Settler slot has maximum Qs now .2 (diff+barbs) *1 = 20 points. To qualify for elite QM submitted settlergame must have maximum points of 10+ ie if no barbs it has to be huge (10pts) or with raging barbs it could be duel (also 10pts). Final score what you get from game shouldn't affect it. With my proposed way of counting scores elite QM would also be more of a challence as lower games would need barbs and/or bigger map to qualify.

My two cents: What about instead of basing it off of QScore, base it off of the place it has in the HoF table. For example, to qualify for "elite", a game must have a top 5 slot in something. Obviously, this means someone can be kicked off of the elite list if one of their games is bumped. I would therefore propose a "probationary" period. (I may not have thought this through fully, so if there is something stupid or pointless about my idea, feel free to tell me)

Dracandross
Jun 15, 2007, 12:04 AM
My two cents: What about instead of basing it off of QScore, base it off of the place it has in the HoF table. For example, to qualify for "elite", a game must have a top 5 slot in something. Obviously, this means someone can be kicked off of the elite list if one of their games is bumped. I would therefore propose a "probationary" period. (I may not have thought this through fully, so if there is something stupid or pointless about my idea, feel free to tell me)

Well, if you count that you need to have lots of games in top range that has no real meaning. I see it's a way to show who does well. If only top 5 can stay there it's nothing for ones outside top 5. And even now table can sort out that. I thought it was idea to make QM worth something not just mindlessly submitting duel conquests with each diff and each nation at prince level+few future starts. Therefore way to make slightly bigger maps or smaller ones with barbs would be nice.

-Dracandross

azzaman333
Jun 15, 2007, 01:34 AM
My two cents: What about instead of basing it off of QScore, base it off of the place it has in the HoF table. For example, to qualify for "elite", a game must have a top 5 slot in something. Obviously, this means someone can be kicked off of the elite list if one of their games is bumped. I would therefore propose a "probationary" period. (I may not have thought this through fully, so if there is something stupid or pointless about my idea, feel free to tell me)

It sounds like a good idea, but if up to me, I'd require that you must have a top 10 game for each category in the QM (Map Quest, Gauntlet, League of Nations, etc) to be an elite QM.

Also, the Inca are too good for just about any game on Monarch+, but I have no idea what to do about that...

killercane
Jun 15, 2007, 01:50 AM
It sounds like a good idea, but if up to me, I'd require that you must have a top 10 game for each category in the QM (Map Quest, Gauntlet, League of Nations, etc) to be an elite QM.

Also, the Inca are too good for just about any game on Monarch+, but I have no idea what to do about that...
Kind of like the Iro in Civ 3? There will always be a "best" civ to play for HOF games. I agree you need a top ten game in each category though, even though I dont know what an elite QM even is!

azzaman333
Jun 15, 2007, 01:57 AM
Kind of like the Iro in Civ 3? There will always be a "best" civ to play for HOF games. I agree you need a top ten game in each category though, even though I dont know what an elite QM even is!

However, the C3C Iro weren't inherently the best at everything. OTOH, the Inca (as far as I can tell) are.

Misotu
Jun 15, 2007, 06:49 AM
Just back from holiday and browsing through this thread. There are a lot of good ideas here. I agree with a lot of what The-Hawk said earlier in this thread, but the following is an abridged version of one of his comments with which I am very strongly in agreement:

:
I think we should allow all game types. No matter where you draw the line, there will always be a way to play that is relatively "easy" compared to the rest .... A better way to fix the QScore and ranking issue (maybe caused by cheesyness) is to modify the scoring itself. This means trying to better identify the real toughness factors (or more penalize the easy factors).


Like The-Hawk, I would have absolutely no objection to changes to the Q-score formula to try to reflect the true difficulty of a particular combination of settings. As more data is available from more games, this might need to be done from time to time for quite a long period as it seems optimistic to think that the first correction would be perfect. It's probably an iterative process and, yes, there'd be an adverse effect on some existing scores but it wouldn't bother me if I dropped down the table like a stone all of a sudden :) After all, that will happen (& is already happening!) anyway as much better games than mine are submitted (Congrats Bram :goodjob: ). I don't really see the difference to be honest. I'd rather be part of a competition that developed and improved over time - more games is good and more variety is even better.

I also like the suggestion that the Gauntlets should score more highly. I think this would encourage even higher levels of participation and would also encourage people to play a wider range of settings than they are otherwise likely to choose. The current set-up definitely means that I tend to favour particular leaders, victories, opponents, settings and so on, because they are much more rewarding score-wise. It would be great to have a real incentive to play the leaders and victories I find more difficult!

I noticed a suggestion that QM might be run as an annual competition, which I thought was interesting. I remember there was some discussion a while ago about whether the HoF entries should "devalue", score-wise, over time. I think the HoF is a different matter - a permanent record of the best games ever - but with QM, this might be an opportunity to reflect current, rather than historic, activity? It might be a bit dramatic to clear the board completely annually (and actually, if people are playing really good quality games rather than the "cheesy" shortcuts, it's an awful lot of games to play in a year!) but it would certainly keep QM current and lively. Alternatively, perhaps games could simply cease to count after a certain period of time, so that older games were dropping out on a rolling basis each update?

Harbourboy
Jun 15, 2007, 07:28 PM
I also like the suggestion that the Gauntlets should score more highly.

Yes, because that gives everyone a chance to stay motivated in the HoF. Without gauntlets, there isn't much to aim for once you have reached QM, but aren't one of the real experts who can submit top ranking games in everything. Completing Gauntlets represents a major challenge for me, and it would be nice to see that recognised in my score / ranking / title / something.

At the moment, completing every Gauntlet does virtually nothing for my HoF scores or QM rankings, even though I do find them to be a lot of fun.

Ozbenno
Jun 15, 2007, 07:32 PM
At the moment, completing every Gauntlet does virtually nothing for my HoF scores or QM rankings, even though I do find them to be a lot of fun.

I know I'm not a good enough player to actually win a gauntlet so I use the gauntlets as a chance to play civs that I haven't submitted games as before (or now that I have played all 24, civs that I have only submitted 1 game for), that way it will increase my league of nations score, hence my QM score. If I get time I may try the gauntlet again as a more suitable civ.

Methos
Jun 15, 2007, 08:00 PM
Without gauntlets, there isn't much to aim for once you have reached QM,

Personally, I disagree. I enjoy working my way up the rankings. Having said that, this past update I dropped by two. :sad:

Dracandross
Jun 15, 2007, 10:41 PM
It sounds like a good idea, but if up to me, I'd require that you must have a top 10 game for each category in the QM (Map Quest, Gauntlet, League of Nations, etc) to be an elite QM.

Also, the Inca are too good for just about any game on Monarch+, but I have no idea what to do about that...


Which leads to major problem. If there is to be more than one elite QMs how in hell you can score in top ten within all of those different styles. Everyone goes with Inca to get within top 10 and after that it's impossible to score within top 10 with any other civ. Therefore it can't be based on top games. This might take time though because there aren't so many HoF players but still...

Only way to avoid playing only Inca is to give some civs bonuses for QS and some penalties. I'm not familiar what are bad civs but for conquest oriented games any non aggro will at least fill that. Easy to find who is on low priority is to check which nations have bad scores on league score table.

A lot played leaders are most likely eliz, gandhi (warlords), saladin (vanilla), mansa.

Harbourboy
Jun 16, 2007, 02:29 PM
I enjoy working my way up the rankings.

For me, a gauntlet is miles harder than a cheesy Incan duel rush. Because they are so hard, my games are always near the bottom of the list, so don't end up counting for much and don't have any impact on my overall ranking. At the moment, I get more credit for finding some little played part of the HoF table and playing a cheesy filler, than I do for slogging it out on a Major Gauntlet for a week.

Only way to avoid playing only Inca is to give some civs bonuses for QS and some penalties.

But that's too subjective. I think the best way to avoid people playing Inca all the time is to make gauntlets worth more points and then just thinking up gauntelt scenarios that don't involve Incans. Like a Montezuma Monarch Culture win or something. That is more straightforward because you make up what ever rules you feel like for each Gauntlet. Too many Duel maps submitted? Make the next gauntlet a Standard Map. Too many Future Space win? Make the next gauntlet an Ancient Diplomatic Archipelago.

Denniz
Jun 16, 2007, 03:38 PM
I am beginning to think that my two options (duel maps and future starts) are not enough.

I just did my cheezy best to get on to the QM list. I learned enough in the two latest guantlets to master the inca two-step for Emperor, Immortal and Deity wins.

My thinking is that for elite level excluding the Inca might be the way to go. I still think duel maps and future starts need to be excluded. Some of the Qscore ideas might work, but I was asleep during all the qscore design discussions, so I really can't judge.

I had a kind of radical thought. With Difficulty, Victory Condition, Map Size, and Speed making up the "Official" tables, there are so many slots that even if we did like Civ3 Quatermasters and limit Elite QM to games on "Offical" tables, it will be a while before those are all competitive. Plus we have the ability to start in 6-7 different ages.

So my radical thought was to pick a standard speed, map size, and age to limit eligibility for elite QM. To me, an Ancient start using Epic speed on Standard Map is the most traditional combination.

Also it seems that have elite divisions of Monarch thru Deity based on some or all of the victories being at that level. Or maybe they lowest level victory condition out of all the eligible games. We would probably have to add Elite guantlets where players can pick their difficulty.

It kind of eliminates the Inferno and Tempi Trophy but we can always make being a "Basic" QM a requirement for the elite levels as well.

Other things like requiring Barbarians could add an interesting twist. Rank within the levels would still have to be based upon qscore but there might be some tweaks there that make sense for elite level eligibility.

So the QM table would be broken up into 5 sections: Deity QMs, Immortal QMs, Emperor QM's, Monarch QM's and Basic QM's (the current list).

It is still pretty rough and maybe too radical but there it is. ;)

Airny
Jun 16, 2007, 05:40 PM
Your idea looks interesting, but we would still have 95% inca games.
If we can fix this issue too, perhaps by having Elite Gauntlet, this looks interesting.
Something like a really challenging Elite Gauntlet should require specific settings and you would need at least a number (perhaps 3) of them at a minimum level to get the fitting rank. Monarch QM if you have 3 such gauntlets submitted at monarch difficulty or higher.

We could make gauntlets in such way, that the difficulty level is custom and the other parameters are set. I don't know if it should still be called a gauntlet, but it's a challenge to become Elite QM (Deity QM if you win 3 such games on deity).

An example:
Victory Condition: Diplomatic (though all victory conditions must be enabled)
Difficulty: Any
Starting Era: Ancient
Map Size: Standard
Map Type: Lakes
Speed: Epic
Barbarians: raging
Civ: Alexander
Opponents: Catherine, Ramses, Genghis Khan, Bismarck, Isabella, Tokugawa
Version: 1.61.012 or 2.08.005
Date: 66th May to 66th June 2222

Denniz
Jun 16, 2007, 06:14 PM
Your idea looks interesting, but we would still have 95% inca games.I am afraid that Inca games would have to ineligible for elite since they are so overpowered.

Something like a really challenging Elite Gauntlet should require specific settings and you would need at least a number (perhaps 3) of them at a minimum level to get the fitting rank. Monarch QM if you have 3 such gauntlets submitted at monarch difficulty or higher.

We could make gauntlets in such way, that the difficulty level is custom and the other parameters are set. I don't know if it should still be called a gauntlet, but it's a challenge to become Elite QM (Deity QM if you win 3 such games on deity).I am not sure guantlets should have such a major portion of the elite eligibility requirements. They take too much time calendar-wise. I like the idea of increasing their weight in the qscore calculation better.

Dracandross
Jun 25, 2007, 04:00 AM
I am afraid that Inca games would have to ineligible for elite since they are so overpowered.

Thats true to some extent anyway. Just finished deity/st/quick/space 1610Ad with Eliz. Got PA turn before winning! Just messed up with upload and submitted wrong file, gotta redo it later (at work now) so it won't get into this update. I doubt that inca can significantly better. Not that my game couldnt be improved.

Plan: Go for deity/huge next but that has alot more luck factor in it than standard. Also Im planning to go for deity/mara/modern-future conquest to get those tables open for others gamers.

Denniz
Jun 25, 2007, 04:30 AM
Thats true to some extent anyway. Just finished deity/st/quick/space 1610Ad with Eliz. Got PA turn before winning! Just messed up with upload and submitted wrong file, gotta redo it later (at work now) so it won't get into this update. I doubt that inca can significantly better. Not that my game couldnt be improved.

Plan: Go for deity/huge next but that has alot more luck factor in it than standard. Also Im planning to go for deity/mara/modern-future conquest to get those tables open for others gamers.Good for you! :goodjob: I think I would have trouble getting that date at most difficulty levels.

BTW, I looked at that table, all the other submissions are Future starts. :crazyeye:

Karl_t_great
Jun 26, 2007, 02:45 PM
Personally, I disagree. I enjoy working my way up the rankings. Having said that, this past update I dropped by two. :sad:

Looking back at HOF-III, working the ranks was the thing that kept us civ-a-holics milking thru endless hours. I admit taking somewhat cheesy route at first back then, filling some empty slots to get QM, but got motivated to improve my rank and gameplay -- isn't that what the hof is all about?

IMHO, the QM should not be too hard to enter, make the scoring steeper or build a ladder, avoid going the xOTM -direction, and please do not add any more "categories" like The league of nations or map quest. Does one really have to play each nation/leader to show that she/he excels the game?

My commet are not ment offending -- I've had very little CIV-time lately and the very many slots in league of nations are discuoraging my QM attemps. That long march may also make some others take the cheesy route.

Thrallia
Jun 27, 2007, 02:54 AM
The QM is not hard to enter, nor is it meant to show that a person excels at the game...it is meant to show that a person has essentially 'experienced' all of the various ways that C-IV can be played.

In other words, they've played all(or in the case of Warlords, nearly all) the civs, all the map types, all the difficulties, all the game speeds, all the victory types, and that they are good enough to win at least one Major and Minor game.

Misotu
Jul 01, 2007, 01:37 PM
Take a look at Dracandross' thread on Space strategy. It's a very good, creative strategy ... but it just demonstrates that, no matter what you exclude, there's always going to be an easy way to fill up those slots. Actually, I don't particularly have an objection to the so-called "cheesy" wins, because if the strategy is known, there is still competition. But for me it's becoming more and more clear that the way to go is to really oomph up the Gauntlet scores - and then set parameters where people just have to play straight and compete.

No offence to Dracandross intended, because I thought the strategy incredibly resourceful. But in the end ... people will always figure out an "easy" way to achieve what looks like a hard victory. Harder to do in a gauntlet where the parameters are set.

Misotu
Jul 01, 2007, 01:38 PM
PS And I say this as someone who has never made the top three in a gauntlet. Actually, I don't think I've even got close to the top three to date :( But I really like trying :)

The-Hawk
Jul 01, 2007, 09:14 PM
but it just demonstrates that, no matter what you exclude, there's always going to be an easy way to fill up those slots.

Yep, that was my point before. Declare the easiest technique cheese, exclude it from competition, then some other technique becomes the easiest. The problem with emphasizing gauntlets is that it will feel more like GOTM.

Honestly, the whole conversation of cheesiness has turned me off to the quattromaster competition. Seems like there is no point in pursuing high QM ranking given the implication it is cheesy. Maybe I'll re-engage when the rules and scoring settle out.

Dracandross
Jul 01, 2007, 10:58 PM
No offence to Dracandross intended, because I thought the strategy incredibly resourceful. But in the end ... people will always figure out an "easy" way to achieve what looks like a hard victory. Harder to do in a gauntlet where the parameters are set.

None taken, why I would even? Although I'd say also cultural / Diplowins are mostly easy too. Just pick rigth opponents and build your way through. Of course time will vary but if winning is the thing they could be considered cheesy too. I've got mostly problems with domination as you have to go for war and still be able to expand.

-Dracandross

Misotu
Jul 09, 2007, 08:25 AM
Honestly, the whole conversation of cheesiness has turned me off to the quattromaster competition. Seems like there is no point in pursuing high QM ranking given the implication it is cheesy. Maybe I'll re-engage when the rules and scoring settle out.

That's a shame. I don't think that it's actually that easy to get a good result even on the so-called "cheesy" stuff - it's just if the technique isn't known, there's no competition. (For example, my Inca conquest rushes on deity are just *pathetic* :lol:)

I understand what you're saying about emphasising gauntlets & game of the month. But it's not really like that, I don't think. It doesn't mean that the gauntlets have to dominate, just that they're worth a bit more. And they *should* be worth a bit more, because it's much more effort and skill to do really well in a gauntlet at Monarch or Prince, but right now the resulting scores just don't reflect that. I am pretty much only playing the Gauntlets at the moment, and I have to try really hard but I don't think I have a single Gauntlet score that is anywhere near that of my Future Space games. Just seems wrong, somehow :(

If Gauntlets counted for a bit more, then QM would reflect playing skills across all levels and in very competitive environments, which can only be good surely?

@Dracandross: I'm glad you weren't offended. You know how people can sometimes get the wrong impression from a post - somehow the written word can come across differently from what was intended. I'm still intending to give the strategy a whirl, when I can get away from the Gauntlets, heh.

Harbourboy
Jul 09, 2007, 07:51 PM
because it's much more effort and skill to do really well in a gauntlet at Monarch or Prince, but right now the resulting scores just don't reflect that.

My thoughts exactly. I am in my 20th attempt at G Major 13 and still no closer to completing it. I didn't have more than three attempts at any of my Quattromaster slots (other than the ones that were Gauntlets).

superslug
Jul 10, 2007, 04:37 PM
Random thought here: If the Inca are the cheesiest civ, who are the other "easy" ones?

Dracandross
Jul 10, 2007, 10:46 PM
Random thought here: If the Inca are the cheesiest civ, who are the other "easy" ones?

Well depends what you aim for but definitely all other FIN civs work quite high on that useful list with Mansa and Liz on the top of those. Vicy is also very good for OCC specially. Gandhi on warlords is very nice too.

But I'd say next cheesiest option is not your own civ but all opponent civs made peaceful.

-Dracandross

azzaman333
Jul 11, 2007, 02:43 AM
Random thought here: If the Inca are the cheesiest civ, who are the other "easy" ones?

Augustus is pretty easy withthe killer praets.

Misotu
Jul 11, 2007, 03:47 AM
I don't think there are any others in the same category as the Incans.

Airny
Jul 11, 2007, 06:16 AM
I agree with Dracandross about the next worse cheese being all AIs peaceful.
After that we have the mighty Caesars and then mostly financial civs, but thats not really cheesy.

Jean d´Eath
Jul 13, 2007, 03:02 AM
my opinion is that if you exclude certain types of games, there will be other games which you can consider to be cheesy as they are easier to win as others...

my way of giving qattromaster ranking a serious meaning is giving score more influence...
we have two columns for each civ, temp, map, difficulty and victory condition but all but time and score are based on finishing date...
why not add two more columns which are based on highest score...

btw i filled lots of slots with cheesy wins myself and so can anyone...
cheesy wins will get you on the QM list but you will never compete with the top 5....
i like QM like it is, simply because it doesn't take a lifetime to get on the list...


nothing to do with cheesy wins, but cold we get a few more statistic screens like those of civ3 hof?
e.g. victory condition percentage, leader percentage, map percentage, mapsize percentage, difficulty percentage? maybe for the complete hof and for the personal record?

superslug
Jul 13, 2007, 06:57 AM
nothing to do with cheesy wins, but cold we get a few more statistic screens like those of civ3 hof?
e.g. victory condition percentage, leader percentage, map percentage, mapsize percentage, difficulty percentage? maybe for the complete hof and for the personal record?
That's up to Dianthus, but I agree they were cool to have.

Misotu
Jul 13, 2007, 01:25 PM
At the risk of being a nauseating bore, I *still* think the Gauntlets should have more weighting.

(slinks into corner, muttering to herself :) )

Moonsinger
Jul 13, 2007, 08:05 PM
At the risk of being a nauseating bore, I *still* think the Gauntlets should have more weighting.

(slinks into corner, muttering to herself :) )

I think the Gauntlets are already overweighted. For example, at the moment, you could score more with a Gauntlet on the Settler level (which takes less than 1 hour to play) than the average Deity game (which takes forever to win one). For example, this is one of the greatest game (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?entryID=2823) ever played and it scored only 10 points. I think the top 10 slots on G-Minor 23 (settler game) would easily score more than 10 points.

superslug
Jul 13, 2007, 08:34 PM
At the risk of being a nauseating bore, I *still* think the Gauntlets should have more weighting.
They will. We're having some staff side conversation on exactly how to do this. I certainly feel there should be some recognition of regular Gauntlet contributors...

Thrallia
Jul 14, 2007, 12:45 AM
I think the Gauntlets are already overweighted. For example, at the moment, you could score more with a Gauntlet on the Settler level (which takes less than 1 hour to play) than the average Deity game (which takes forever to win one). For example, this is one of the greatest game (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?entryID=2823) ever played and it scored only 10 points. I think the top 10 slots on G-Minor 23 (settler game) would easily score more than 10 points.

I think that the reason it only got 10 points is because there's only two players who've submitted games in that table...once someone else submits one, he'll likely gain a ton of Qscore points.

Misotu
Jul 14, 2007, 09:54 AM
Probably true Thrallia. In fact, if there were a gauntlet with those settings, Ironhead would probably get the points he deserves for it!

But to be honest, it's just another quecha rush. Not knocking quecha rushes or anything, but there is more to this game than just picking an over-powered faction and running everything over :) Most of the gauntlets nowadays seem to be attracting quite a lot of entries, which makes the setting very competitive, and the people who do well should get the points for it.

@superslug: Thanks for the response and looking forward to the results of your deliberations!

Moonsinger
Jul 14, 2007, 12:45 PM
But to be honest, it's just another quecha rush. Not knocking quecha rushes or anything, but there is more to this game than just picking an over-powered faction and running everything over :)

Quecha rush is very difficult on Deity huge map. All it takes for one AI to hook up horse or copper and we are ancient history. If anyone think it's easy and cheesy, they should try it to see what happen.;)

Denniz
Jul 15, 2007, 04:01 AM
Quecha rush is very difficult on Deity huge map. All it takes for one AI to hook up horse or copper and we are ancient history. If anyone think it's easy and cheesy, they should try it to see what happen.;)Considering the amount of time it took me to master (ha!) the Quecha rush on Monarch standard map, I would agree that it is very, very difficult. :hatsoff: Although, I don't think it is even possible get that kind of early victory with another civ. (At least for us mere mortals. :mischief: )

It is very tough to seperate the cheese from the truly difficult, sometimes. But where do you draw the line? Nobody is talking about banning them from the HOF Tables. This is all about recognizing players that have mastered all aspects of the game (i.e. Quattromaster). Or I should say "ranking" them. :deadhorse:

Misotu
Jul 15, 2007, 08:10 AM
Yeah, what he said. :)

I'm sorry if you thought I was saying it was easy. It's not easy.

de Mott
Jul 16, 2007, 09:14 AM
But to be honest, it's just another quecha rush. Not knocking quecha rushes or anything, but there is more to this game than just picking an over-powered faction and running everything over :)

I don't think it's just another quechua rush.
Just look at the "early" dates:
770 BC You have captured Delphi!!!
The Greek Civilization has been destroyed!!!
360 BC You have captured Madrid!!!
The Spanish Civilization has been destroyed!!!
400 AD You have captured Smolensk!!!
The French Civilization has been destroyed!!!
980 AD You have captured Calcutta!!!
The Indian Civilization has been destroyed!!!

Quechuas help to weaken some of your enemies in the beginning and to get you some extra cities, which is very important. But there's far more to it than just rushing.

Misotu
Jul 17, 2007, 05:36 AM
Sure there is, but that's not the point. There's more to beating 20 other people in a settler-level game than just sitting down for an hour and pressing turn end, too :)

Moonsinger was saying that she thinks that the Gauntlets already score too highly. I strongly disagree with this because of the competitive element which means that the challenge lies not only in the difficulty level level of the game, but also in the fact that there are usually many competing entries for that one slot. I also disagree because Gauntlet competition is the single element that encourages people to try settings that are not obvious ... Korea for a cultural win, domination victory on the highlands map, etc. These victories will not score well at all on the standard Quattromasters rating because the settings are not ideal - but winning a Gauntlet is a real achievement and should be reflected in the scoring.

That was the point I was making. I was probably a bit too heavy on the irony when referring to the quecha game, because I feel strongly. Mea culpa. But the underlying point remains.

Dracandross
Jul 17, 2007, 05:45 AM
because the settings are not ideal - but winning a Gauntlet is a real achievement and should be reflected in the scoring.


Thats true! There should be some kind of plaque showing total performance in gauntlets. Of course that can't be part of QM as time will increase score but still. Now Gauntlet score shows just scoring of 4 best gauntlets and thats nothing really. Simply 10 points for first 8 for 2nd 6 3rd 5 4th etc would do the trick but more sophisticated method woulda be nice too ala game of the month.

-Dracandross

Harbourboy
Jul 17, 2007, 04:56 PM
but winning a Gauntlet is a real achievement and should be reflected in the scoring.

I certainly agree with that. Gauntlets are now the only HoF games I have time for, because they are simply much more difficult than normal games where you can choose all the settings, so it takes much longer (for me) to get a successful completion.

Miraculix
Jul 18, 2007, 03:42 AM
I am not convinced that increasing the reletive importance of Gauntlets in QM is a good idea. This might discourage people from filling up the HOF tables that are not covered by the Gauntlets.

To me, QM and Gauntlets are two different competitions, QM is about mastering a large variety of settings, and filling empty or almost empty HOF tables. Gauntlets are about competing with pre-selected settings in a very competitive environment on a regular basis. The current QM scoring formula seems like a somewhat unclean mix of these two competitions.

What about excluding Gauntlets from the QM score formula and create a Global Gauntlet Score Ranking similar to GOTM? This seems like a more clean solution with two independent HOF-based competitions, QM and Gauntlets.

Misotu
Jul 18, 2007, 09:06 AM
Yes, I see what you're saying. I think your concern could be covered quite easily by specifying the Gauntlets more accurately. But in any event ... I might be wrong about this, but looking at my scores, it looks like the Gauntlet score only counts in the Gauntlet table. Some of my QM scores - particularly in League of Nations - are Gauntlets games. And they only score vanilla HoF scores, not the score I got in the Gauntlet. I think the higher score should count? This would help to address the balance a bit, and encourage people to enter Gauntlets?

Moonsinger
Jul 18, 2007, 06:24 PM
Moonsinger was saying that she thinks that the Gauntlets already score too highly. I strongly disagree with this because of the competitive element which means that the challenge lies not only in the difficulty level level of the game, but also in the fact that there are usually many competing entries for that one slot. I also disagree because Gauntlet competition is the single element that encourages people to try settings that are not obvious ... Korea for a cultural win, domination victory on the highlands map, etc. These victories will not score well at all on the standard Quattromasters rating because the settings are not ideal - but winning a Gauntlet is a real achievement and should be reflected in the scoring.

I agree with you on everything you said about the competitive/challenging elements of those gauntlets; however, that isn't the reason why I think they are overweighted. Because the gauntlet score are eternal, for this reason alone, I think they are overweighted on the QM table.

For example, if you scored 1st place with 100 points on your spaceship gauntlet and your ship was launched around 2049 AD. This score is eternal! Down the road (may be many years later), someone manage to win the space race by 10AD on the exact same level+map+civ+same setting as your 2049AD game. Surely, the 10AD game may score 100 points too, but it will never decrease the value of your 2049AD game (because that gauntlet score is eternal). If you get your QM status by playing mostly gauntlet games, then your QM place will be eternal as well because there is no way people can knock you down the list. This is exactly the one reason why I think gauntlet games are over weighted on the QM table. Of course, I could be wrong about its "eternal" status, but at the moment, it seems to me that all those gauntlet scores are eternal.

PS: If you are wondering why a 2049AD space race game would win top gauntlet score, well, it can happen. For example, if you are the only one playing that gauntlet, naturally, your score will be counted as #1. Not only that it's #1, it also will be counted as an "eternal" #1 score too.;)

Ozbenno
Jul 18, 2007, 08:15 PM
If you get your QM status by playing mostly gauntlet games, then your QM place will be eternal as well because there is no way people can knock you down the list.



Your QM scores in categories other than gauntlet can erode (or increase) over time as other people submit games. Using your example, say you won the gauntlet in 2049AD using Washington, Deity, Great Plains, Normal speed and had 100 points in all categories for those settings. Someone comes along after you and submits a 10AD game with the same settings, your gauntlet score stays at 100 but all your other QM category scores go to 10 (I think for 2 games).

For my 2c, I think gauntlets are weighted right. It would be interesting to get scores based on places (as I have managed a 3rd once :)) but not that big a deal.

playshogi
Jul 18, 2007, 09:25 PM
Perhaps the distinction between Major and Minor can be eliminated by leaving the level the game is played at up to the player. Scoring would be based on 1) level played 2) date finished 3) score. This would have the effect of filling up more of the regular tables, too.

Misotu
Jul 19, 2007, 08:47 AM
@Moonsinger: Yes, I see what you are saying and I can understand why you'd be concerned. But how often does one player get the #1 slot? Well, yeah, I know there are some players who do *really* well on Gauntlets, but the thing is that if you looked at the Gauntlets over time, they do distribute. And if you give extra points for, say, the top xxx places, I'm not suggesting killer points. Just a weighting. That really wouldn't affect things over a year or two, so I guess your only real concern would be if you thought Civ IV were eternal. I know you don't think this ... nor do I :lol: In the time frame we're talking about, it really wouldn't affect stuff. And if we were both wrong, and Civ IV turned out to be the turn based strategy game to end all turn-based strategy games ... well, then another correction in the scoring formula might be in order down the line if those eternal scores proved to be a problem.

Right now, the Gauntlet affects just two slots in the overall picture. When you consider that league of nations alone commands 24 slots ... well, you know, it's worth considering. I agree a light hand - not a huge bonus, but just a filip. It would be good, I think. And I think that it's worth looking at Gauntlet scores scoring at Gauntlet level in the other slots. I haven't done the maths, so I don't know what the effect would be. But over a couple of years, we're really not talking that many Gauntlets by comparison with the overall number of slots in the table, are we?

Methos
Jul 19, 2007, 08:55 AM
Just a thought on the eternal thing, but what if a depreciation was instilled after certain periods of time? I believe GOTM uses this.

BTW, I'm just discussing Moonsinger's thoughts...

Misotu
Jul 19, 2007, 09:27 AM
Well, that would certainly be one way of tackling it, if it were a problem. But, to be honest, I'd rather Gauntlets than loads of Future Space games. Right now, that's the only way of getting a sensible score ... At least Gauntlets are competitive and varied!

sanabas
Jul 29, 2007, 04:20 AM
Lots of my QM games are cheesy from memory. I was planning on progressively replacing them with non cheesy games, and improving my overall score. Then I didn't play a game of Civ for a while as I was distracted by other things. Now I have the new expansion, and I'm planning on playing a fair bit, and I'd rather use a HOF mod, and submit what I do play. Once I remember how to play properly I might even go back to trying to improve my score.

According to the OP, there was some competition for how low you could make your rank? I don't see that as worth striving for, as it doesn't require much skill. I don't see it as devaluing anything else, because to have a good QM score still takes plenty of skill.

It is easy to be a QM, because it is easy to beat Deity on a duel map. That might devalue QM a bit. But since mostly the HOF isn't about showing off how good you are, but is about improving your own game, helping improve others' games, and feeling like you've achieved a bit with your play, I don't think it's a real problem. If you think only non duel games make for a QM, no worries, you can do all non duel games for it. I'm certainly planning on having that long term. I'll feel I've achieved far more when I have large & huge wins on all the levels than I did by getting to be a QM.

I'd have no problem with duel maps being excluded from QM, I'd have no problem with not being a QM anymore if they were. But doing that wouldn't stop there being formulaic ways to win higher levels than you're comfortable with. It would just remove the main one.

Misotu
Aug 04, 2007, 07:10 PM
With the exception of the duel conquest on deity, it really doesn't matter. Given that larger maps get a huge bonus ... why play duel if you can play a larger map?

For those of us who ... ahem :blush: are rubbish at warfare, the duel conquest with quechas option is a useful filip

IglooDude
Sep 25, 2007, 06:47 AM
With the exception of the duel conquest on deity, it really doesn't matter. Given that larger maps get a huge bonus ... why play duel if you can play a larger map?

For those of us who ... ahem :blush: are rubbish at warfare, the duel conquest with quechas option is a useful filip

And for those of us who are rubbish at Emperor and above, ditto.

Having actually taken a look and decided to direct my HoF entries toward Quattromaster requirements, I feel qualified to offer an opinion here now, which is - Quattromaster status seems to indicate a solid familiarity with all Civ4 game aspects, not necessarily just an ability to comprehensively beat the AI at all skill levels. Thus, I wouldn't seek to de-cheese it via taking away the duel Quecha rushes as you'd pretty much exclude anyone who already has a tough time winning on Prince level (like, for example, me). I would have suggested ranking Quattromasters if you didn't already, though - within its ranks there's a solid competition going on, and if the Nobles are struggling to get above the bottom slot and the Deities are knocking each other off the top of the hill, more fun for all.

I guess how to adjust Quattromaster to accomodate BtS is the next question...

IglooDude
Jan 16, 2008, 07:39 AM
Sorry for the :bump: (though might as well, since Methos referenced this thread) but it occurred to me - on the quecha-rush duel map cheese 'issue', might it be easier and less disruptive to simply disallow single-opponent games? I.e., change the rules on the number of opponents on duel maps from min one max two to min two max two? Or can you quecha-rush two civs as readily as one?

shyuhe
Jan 16, 2008, 08:27 AM
You can rush 2 just as fast as 1. It involvers a little more luck but it's doable.

Shadondriel
Jan 17, 2008, 04:20 AM
Why not change the QM a little bit. It could be a rule that only games with a rank in HoF can be used for QM, that would kick out all cheesies. :p
(there would be still more than 10000 games eligible, but it just won't be THAT easy to submit really unspectacular games for 50 Qscore)

Denniz
Jan 17, 2008, 04:28 AM
Why not change the QM a little bit. It could be a rule that only games with a rank in HoF can be used for QM, that would kick out all cheesies. :p
(there would be still more than 10000 games eligible, but it just won't be THAT easy to submit really unspectacular games for 50 Qscore)It would probably cut out most but with so many tables there is still room for a lot of cheesy games.

Shadondriel
Jan 17, 2008, 04:36 AM
It would probably cut out most but with so many tables there is still room for a lot of cheesy games.

At least that'll fill the tables then :D (and it will force people to submit games that actually fill a spot or kick somebody else out)

Edit: A filled league of nations would require 66 ranked games, so far only 15 players have that many games in the HoF

cabert
Jan 21, 2008, 03:35 AM
At least that'll fill the tables then :D

Some empty spots aren't THAT easy, if you ask me...

I'm currently looking through the tables.
I've found 11 empty spots so far :
Huge deity conquest, for quick normal and epic speeds.
Huge deity cultural for normal and epic speeds
Huge deity diplo normal speed
Huge deity domination for quick and normal speeds
Huge deity time for quick, normal and epic speeds (note that marathon has 1, thanks to wastintime)
Of course huge deity religious and space colony are empty so far too.

then again, there is still room at settler level, duel size...

Shadondriel
Jan 21, 2008, 11:57 AM
Some empty spots aren't THAT easy, if you ask me...

I'm currently looking through the tables.
I've found 11 empty spots so far :
Huge deity conquest, for quick normal and epic speeds.
Huge deity cultural for normal and epic speeds
Huge deity diplo normal speed
Huge deity domination for quick and normal speeds
Huge deity time for quick, normal and epic speeds (note that marathon has 1, thanks to wastintime)
Of course huge deity religious and space colony are empty so far too.

then again, there is still room at settler level, duel size...

Sorry for not clarifying what I meant with "filling". Right now there are some spots that have little or no competition at all.

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/index.php?show=cond&difficulty=Settler&pubID=51&mapSize=Large&incBeta=0&speed=Epic&expansion=0&submit=Go
like these for example

While other spots such as dual maps on marathon are stuffed with submissions.
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/quattromasters.php?show=civ&pubID=-1&dsply=0
an extreme lot of games here are cheesy games (those on dual map without even the chance of a ranking for conquest victory) All of these are even worth 20+ points, while something like a 900 BC huge settler domination is only worth 10 points... (though it is a really awesome achievement imho)

Making only ranked games count would force everybody to submit games that are at least worth something. I'd really love to see lots of competition there. (it would either require to fill a spot with less than 10 games or kick somebody else's butt)

P. S. I'll try to submit actively again after next update, Hindi is almost the only one submitting in most categories :-S (though I don't think I can beat that guy)

Conquistador 63
Jan 21, 2008, 12:26 PM
Making only ranked games count would force everybody to submit games that are at least worth something. I'd really love to see lots of competition there. (it would either require to fill a spot with less than 10 games or kick somebody else's butt)
Each person has its own objectives. This suggestion, while valid, is a disincentive to those who intend to fill their QM slots with Gauntlet games. Those will have often a high # of submissions with the same settings, so there is a higher chance one won't make it a top-ten score, even if the settings are obviously not cheesy.

In any event, I plan to continue submitting almost only gauntlet games for HoF. The discussions and opportunity to compare strategies and learn in that competition are just too much fun to pass up.

If this strategy prevents me from ever becoming a QM, I'm fine with that. :)

Denniz
Jan 21, 2008, 06:27 PM
The elite QM will not require games to be on the "Official" tables.

The quality aspect is going to come from eliminating certain easy wins. Right now that means: no Inca, no Duel maps, and only Ancient starts.

There are some other twists that address the "I made QM, now what?" factor.

Thrallia
Jan 22, 2008, 02:43 AM
would you consider me as having fallen to that factor? I haven't submitted a single game since making QM :crazyeye:

Denniz
Jan 22, 2008, 03:11 AM
would you consider me as having fallen to that factor? I haven't submitted a single game since making QM :crazyeye:Yeap. QScore is just too hard to improve significantly and advancing from 13th to 12th isn't that exciting a long term goal. We are hoping give people something strive for. :)

IglooDude
Jan 22, 2008, 06:46 AM
The elite QM will not require games to be on the "Official" tables.

The quality aspect is going to come from eliminating certain easy wins. Right now that means: no Inca, no Duel maps, and only Ancient starts.

There are some other twists that address the "I made QM, now what?" factor.

Ruhroh... That means for some of us that winning a Deity game is going to become a much higher hurdle... :undecide:

jesusin
Jan 22, 2008, 07:08 AM
Right now that means: no Inca, no Duel maps, and only Ancient starts.


Woohoo, only 33 leaders needed.

...Wait a second, do you mean I have to play a Time Victory starting on 4000BC? I can't see that happening anytime soon.

Methos
Jan 22, 2008, 07:17 AM
...Wait a second, do you mean I have to play a Time Victory starting on 4000BC? I can't see that happening anytime soon.

There's always G-Major 20. :mischief:

jesusin
Jan 22, 2008, 07:43 AM
There's always G-Major 20. :mischief:

:)

This month's Gauntlets are too much time consuming for my liking. But, hey!, you can't please everyone. Keep up the good work, guys.

shyuhe
Jan 22, 2008, 07:49 AM
:lol: There goes my quechua rush on deity.

The funny thing is, I think most of the deity table is filled with HC. Except maybe the culture victories. It's going to be pretty challenging to get deity level wins without HC. Maybe a new gauntlet to kick off the elite QM?

edit:

@jesusin: The current minor is relatively painless compared to the major. The minor took about 3-4 hours of in-game clock time.

jesusin
Jan 22, 2008, 07:58 AM
@jesusin: The current minor is relatively painless compared to the major. The minor took about 3-4 hours of in-game clock time.

What a fast player!:eek:

My Deity Quick cultural games take 10 to 14 hours, even if I don't have to think the strategy too much and I don't have units to move.

cabert
Jan 22, 2008, 08:30 AM
:lol: There goes my quechua rush on deity.

The funny thing is, I think most of the deity table is filled with HC. Except maybe the culture victories. It's going to be pretty challenging to get deity level wins without HC. Maybe a new gauntlet to kick off the elite QM?

edit:

@jesusin: The current minor is relatively painless compared to the major. The minor took about 3-4 hours of in-game clock time.

What a fast player!:eek:

My Deity Quick cultural games take 10 to 14 hours, even if I don't have to think the strategy too much and I don't have units to move.

don't believe him!
I played through the minor, and it took me a lot more than 4 hours!
then again, I'm playing through the major and it's been more than 10 hours already, and I'm only halfway done.

Shadondriel
Jan 22, 2008, 11:21 AM
The elite QM will not require games to be on the "Official" tables.

The quality aspect is going to come from eliminating certain easy wins. Right now that means: no Inca, no Duel maps, and only Ancient starts.

There are some other twists that address the "I made QM, now what?" factor.

I really don't think #1 deity games can be called cheesy, even if it is with Huayna Capac. Don't know :crazyeye:

shyuhe
Jan 22, 2008, 01:35 PM
don't believe him!
I played through the minor, and it took me a lot more than 4 hours!
then again, I'm playing through the major and it's been more than 10 hours already, and I'm only halfway done.

:lol: I was referring to the in-game clock :mischief: I just checked and it was 3:18:11 for my second attempt. I don't know why, but it always counts WAY less than the RL time I spend in the game. I don't think it counts the time when you're going through city build orders (at the start of a turn) as "game time." Hence, my low number. I spent a lot of time counting tiles in this game so I think the actual time I spent on the game is closer to double the 3 hour number...

edit: My first keshik attempt was closer to 6 hours :lol: Go figure.

Dracandross
Jan 22, 2008, 09:09 PM
Woohoo, only 33 leaders needed.

...Wait a second, do you mean I have to play a Time Victory starting on 4000BC? I can't see that happening anytime soon.

Hey just pick settler, tiny, quick. Rush 1 AI and park units on 2nd. Then hit next turn like no tomorrow :) Not a good score but it was about finishing it.

-D

pholtz
Jan 23, 2008, 12:20 AM
The jokes on me :lol:

Except for Gauntlets, I haven't yet submitted a game that wasn't going to be on a top ten someplace, mainly because I didn't think of it. Even my cheezy high difficulty duel conquest games made the top ten; One, my immortal, made 1st. Of course these are on lesser played speeds :)

Playing games just to get a QM space filled doesn't seem right to me. But I'm going to change a bit....

I'm tired of playing games setup for maximum speed/score. Tired of playing games with no barbarians. I need to play some totally random games, random map type, random leader and opponents on standard or larger maps, and just see what I can do. If I manage to win the game and it would fill a QM spot then I'll post them even though they won't make a top ten.

jesusin
Jan 23, 2008, 12:54 AM
I don't think it counts the time when you're going through city build orders (at the start of a turn) as "game time."

Yes, it does, that's where 50% of my time comes from. The other 50% is spent on my excel spreadsheet :rolleyes:

FiveAces
Jan 23, 2008, 01:00 AM
The funny thing is, I think most of the deity table is filled with HC. Except maybe the culture victories. It's going to be pretty challenging to get deity level wins without HC. Maybe a new gauntlet to kick off the elite QM?

Deity diplo and space are pretty easy (relatively). Diplo with OCC and space with an OCC/PA make for very quick games that you will frequently win.