Why is civ 5 HoF "divided" 5 times by mapsize, difficulty, speed, civilization and map type?

Civ4 HoF is only divided by mapsize and difficulty and speed which has the advantages that you can fit the entire HoF in the very nice mega table http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/index.php

To me it seems that the Civ4 HoF system is better in that it gives a better overview. Also it adds some elements of strategy where the players can themselves pick the map-type and civilization that gives the best advantages for a given VC and mapsize.

What are the advantages of Civ5 system and why is it organized the way it is?

I like the Civ3 HoF better, the only options are mapsize and victory condition! Just force everyone to play the same speed+mapsize.

Advantage of more options is more medals. Disadvantage is there is only a fixed amount of fame, so you get medal inflation.

it wouldn't be too hard cut out some of the divisions to create bigger tables...
of the 6 divisions, i'd say only leader and map type don't play a huge part.
games on settler will obviously be faster than games on deity,
domination games will be faster than any other vc,
peaceful vc on huge maps will be faster than duel maps while vice versa for domination,
games on marathon will have earlier "dates" than quick

those 4 options still leave a huge number of tables...

it wouldn't be too hard cut out some of the divisions to create bigger tables...
of the 6 divisions, i'd say only leader and map type don't play a huge part.
games on settler will obviously be faster than games on deity,
domination games will be faster than any other vc,
peaceful vc on huge maps will be faster than duel maps while vice versa for domination,
games on marathon will have earlier "dates" than quick

those 4 options still leave a huge number of tables...



Hmmm yeah,

I mean obviously these has huge impact:
Map size
Difficulty level
Speed
Victory condition

The ones that dont matter so much that are currently "divisions":
Map type (ex. continents)
Civilization (ex. Siam)


I like the civ IV system where the last two are not included as categories for the HoF

Civ5 was a bit of an experiment to see if the HOF tables could be more comparible without the dilution of there being more tables making things less competitive.

It is a bit disingenuous to say the the Map Type or Leader don't make a difference in finish date for a lot of the combinations of the other four critieria. Anyone familar with the history of the Civ4 QScore understands the issues of trying to compare games.

The fact that Civ5 has been a more than bit disappointing, has affected the competitive aspect of things. :sad: The early contention over rules and the difficulty of integrating DLC content has also affected participation. :sad: :sad:

On this moment there are 487 different tables that have been played. That is about 0,22% in total. This is not much but I find that there is enough options to choice which I want to challenge. And this will only grow. I am a fan of this cause I am only a medium player and this way I can make some points. All the big players can't play them all so I have some chance to get some score. This will include the low players too.

Now I can choice an options with three friends and make a battle. The winner of that battle will be number one then with a silver medal. I like it that we have this option.

Don't see much problem the way it is. What bothers me though is being unable to use DLC civs.
There comes the question: As the leader/civ you chose is already a distinct criteria for a table. And which enemies are chosen are not. So... actually it would be perfectly fine to allow DLC civs, there's no disadvantage for those that do not own the DLCs except that they have maybe 100.000 less game option variations than the others. But the 4.2whatever million variations they have should be enough, no? Having a DLC civ as enemy might even be an disadvantage as I believe the common belief is those are rather a bit stronger than weaker over the vanilla civs.

Of course it might still make sense to keep the TSGs/Gauntlets DLc free, as you'd want to take as many people take part in them as possible. But for general game submissions DLC seems perfectly fine to me?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Something else, that fits the topic title (but not it's content^^):
The options order is displayed differently on some subpages of the HoF website. For consistency reason I'd suggest to make them the same order everywhere.


In the ad-hoc querry page we have this order:
Difficulty | Victory | MapSize | Speed | MapType | Civ

http://i.imgur.com/84Mvw.jpg

While at other pages we have this order:
MapSize | Difficulty | Victory | Speed | MapType | Civ | StartEra(!?)

http://i.imgur.com/DCO1m.jpg

The Ad-hoc order makes more sense to me.
However maybe the most logical order would actually be this:
Difficulty | Victory | Speed | MapSize | MapType | Civ
At least to me having the mapsize next to the maptype makes more sense.
Game speed also seems like a much more important factor for people to determine if they play a game than the map type.


Also:
On the my submission list/table, I think you guys should try to make every game fit into a single line instead of the current two. For my few submissions that's probably not as important, but it'll grow over time and then it would be much better. Not to mention that the game options being in a single line would make it much easier to look at in the first place:

http://i.imgur.com/jrEf3.jpg
I think this could easily be achieved by getting rid of the "Ancient" Icon. Every game must start on Ancient. No point in even having that. The game version also doesn't seem necessary there. And finally if it isn't enough, the font size looks larger to me than it would have to be ;)

In the Hall of Fame under "By Condition" (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ5/index.php?show=cond&pubID=-1&dtSc=0) the option to display "Time" victories is missing.

In the Hall of Fame under "By Condition" (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ5/index.php?show=cond&pubID=-1&dtSc=0) the option to display "Time" victories is missing.

No it doesn't.
you have to change "dates" to "scores" and then it will appear.
Since Time won't give any date medals :)

Ah... alright, thx. But just selecting scores does nothing, you actually need to "Go" with for e.g. culture+score - only then time will appear in the list.
Therefore it would be better if Time was always there and then either "Date" disappears or as it will be the same as I just described above "Date (for Time)" will just redirect to "Score (for Time)" automatically.

And yes... I wanted to know where your Time gold medal (the only one handed out) came from :D (already found it via the ad-hoc to work around my problem).
That score seems pretty high... might try it though as I still need to submit a large map anyway ;)

Ah... alright, thx. But just selecting scores does nothing, you actually need to "Go" with for e.g. culture+score - only then time will appear in the list.
Therefore it would be better if Time was always there and then either "Date" disappears or as it will be the same as I just described above "Date (for Time)" will just redirect to "Score (for Time)" automatically.

And yes... I wanted to know where your Time gold medal (the only one handed out) came from :D (already found it via the ad-hoc to work around my problem).
That score seems pretty high... might try it though as I still need to submit a large map anyway ;)

You devil one :p
Good luck!

I'd like to see a way to show games that top both lists for medals. :> (i.e. a single game that earned a medal for both time and score)