The HOF's new home is now open at http://hof.civfanatics.net.

The HOF will be getting a new look, new submission process, and expanded to include a wider range of game settings and playstyles in the coming months.

Please feel free to use this thread to post your thoughts on what you would like to see included in the HOF. Fastest finish, alternative scoring, ect? Top score will continue to be a major part of the HOF, but segregating those scores by map size is also a possibility.

Aeson,

More info for noobies would be useful. For example, its not clear as to whether it can be played under PTW or not. On that issue, perhaps segregating PTW and CIV vanilla submissions would be useful. :)

I like the idea of splitting it down depending on map size, not everyone has the time to milk large and huge maps. If people can submit Standard map games in its own HOF table, it may generate more interest if they are not competing against scores made on the biggest maps, that are impossible to reach when playing a standard(or smaller) game.

Err, having said that, Am I right in thinking that a higher score is possible by milking rather than by getting a good early finish bonus? It would appear so by the trend for Huge maps in the current HoF tables.

A higher score is possible by milking rather than getting the bonus, as a general rule of thumb.

I do think that the PTW allowance does need to be clarified, as it is allowed. However, I'm not sure another HOF for PTW is needed. The precedent that sets that makes me cringe is having to down the road add a third for C3C.

Two column additions I'd like to see added to the current tables would be nation played and year-in-game won. That would help identify the games in the current tables that were won on the bonus.

I definitely do want to see more interest in HOF, but I also don't think the changes should go overboard. Just the fact that this page will be updated on a regular basis should provide a serious spark.

While I do think that there should be an oppurtunity for honoring 'bonus' victories, I believe the oppurtunity for players to demonstrate their skill at quick victories is already available-in the GOTM.

i agree with superslug that the table should include the cive that was played. also, maybe have a way to see all the settings that they used on their game, without having to download it and try to figure it out.

One idea that came to me today was about Tiny maps. I know they're currently banned because the bonuses possible are so high that they can easily overwhelm the milked games on huge maps. Would it be possible to create an HOF for just Tiny maps for those who want to pursue quick bloodbaths over a few hours, rather than milk for days on end...

I would like to see groupings by map size, but I figure that will not actually amount to much, large and huge will still be dominated by milked games. A better organization IMO would be just the goal, group milked games, fastest conquest together.

Another suggestion is to set up a checkpoint highscore, which will basically be an artificial end point, like say 1000BC, 10AD, 1000 AD or any meaningful point in a game. This would allow people to compete at different game stages and also certainly assist the learning process, much the way QSC does for gotm.


And going way, way back (say page 3 of this very thread) a method to balance the map types and make a composite score based on those differences would offer a lot more variety for players. For instance if you are going to milk you can't really compete on anything but the huge maps, and likewise with conquests and small maps.

Smirk, were you talking about page three of the thread? This one's new...

I really don't like the idea of composite scores. The HOF should be kept pure, based purely off of base score, IMO. However, the idea of having checkpoint scores based on date would keep things 'pure' while still honoring the two different approaches. Great idea!

Originally posted by ainwood
Aeson,

More info for noobies would be useful. For example, its not clear as to whether it can be played under PTW or not. On that issue, perhaps segregating PTW and CIV vanilla submissions would be useful. :)

I agree, I am planning on starting a HOF game. If PTW is possibe to play with. Would we use Version 1.21 or the latest one.

How about the top 20 games for each level?

JFL stated that PTW was okay, I'm hoping it's the latest patch because that's what my current multiple attempts are under, although some had to be abandoned due to the update...

I think that HOF games should be games with the highest Firaxis score so, after a while it will all be games milked to 2050 AD on a huge map.
This takes a lot of time and many players won't be able to afford it, but nevertheless this should be the main focus.

To get additional attention for HOF games I have two suggestions:

1) Add a HOF section for standard map size
It still will be milked games to get the highest score, but it will require less time.

2) Give a preset map, everybody can play this map as often as they want to beat the best score of this given map

Ronald

Since Aeson has asked for ideas, here's my 2 cents' worth off the cuff (along the same lines as Ronald):

1. Split the categories by Map Size.

2. Since we're not on a time limit, how about using preset positions from say GOTM that people can play over and over. It would be fun to see how the lack of a time limit AND "allowed, even encouraged" Spoiler thread discussions would affect the game scores..........perhaps we could use the "Jason" scoring as it applied to the specific GOTM game and thus compare HOF scores to the GOTM scores?! (After GOTM had closed for the month, naturally.)

3. A section for games finished by say 1000AD or 1500AD...........cuts out the "Milking" aspect that so many people complain about. (No offense, Mooonsinger!)

4. A section for games submitted after a specific number of turns, say 50 or 100...........this would allow people to play quick games that did not have to be played to a finish.

Well, you did ask for a "Wish List"! :)

As superslug said, updating the HOF on a regular basis would be a treat! :goodjob:

As superslug said, updating the HOF on a regular basis would be a treat!

Updating is already and will be a treat. Aeson's mere presence is already doing wonders...

Call me a fanatical purist, but I think we need to stick to random maps...Allowing multiple attempts at the same map will wind up in some players getting to know the map real well!

Originally posted by superslug


Updating is already and will be a treat. Aeson's mere presence is already doing wonders...

Call me a fanatical purist, but I think we need to stick to random maps...Allowing multiple attempts at the same map will wind up in some players getting to know the map real well!

Yes, and knowledge of the map bfore you actually have explored it, is IMHO as bad as reloading....

A very simple and effective solution to most of the issues raised would be to continue to not accept tiny maps, but do a simple HOF division of large/huge and standard/small.

Just to give an idea about server side limitations...

Thunderfall has given us 500MB of server space.

With th top 10 scores on each difficulty, that's 80 games (once Conquests is out and Demi and Sid are included).

Dividing up with map size would put us up to 400 submissions, but also would lower the average size of the save files. The average size of the save packages will be about 500KB if we include tiny-huge. That means the 400 games to have a top ten for each setting will put us at about 200MB, or close to half our useable space for save files. A fastest finish section with the same difficulty/mapsize categories could be fit in to, needing roughly the same server space. That would leave plenty of room for new submissions between updates and website files.

If we go with more listings than 10 for each category, the 10+ games will need to go without save links.

...........I would vote for the 10+ games with NO saved-game-link to save space.

Looks like we shouldn't get too ambitious on how many different types of games are displayed in the HOF! :)
(Unless the saved-game-links are omitted!.)

Thanks for taking over HOF, Aeson! :goodjob: :goodjob:

Given the ambitious number of lists you're looking to put in, Aeson, especially if it's one for every map/size, I'd say keeping each one at ten would be good. There's a comfort, familiarity and 'roundness' to a top ten. I don't think there's a need to increase each list, even if the number of lists increase.

I think that is a good proposal Aeson. You've got my vote...

I'd like to see more groups, not to slight any particular play style but milking huge maps is the only way to score the top slots in a composite highscore list. I would be happy with only a top 3 in each group. But a safe compromise would be to only keep the save file for the top three.

It would be interesting to hear what others do with the saves, but I know I've only looked at the top 3 in some difficulties. I also check out the only other group that currently exists which is the fast conquests. Keeping the top 3 saves for those two groups (and the other fast games you have in mind?) is all that I see a need for.


Also more specifically the 4000BC save, since replaying a map from someone else is questionable (at least for submission), maybe changing the submission to have just a screenshot (ala gotm) of the start position will serve in place of that initial save, but I'm not too sure the original reasons. A long time ago I suggested this (supplying the initial save) and my reasons were to just get a feel for the players start position's power, a screenshot would serve the same purpose. That could save 100k for huge maps and 50k for small. (And along those lines a link to see that image from the HOF page would be great.)


Along the lines of my earlier suggestion to include some more endpoints, something like 10AD is readily available with most submissions. Adding a 10AD section will not add any more space, assuming any highscore game has an equally high scoring 10AD save. Also if there are any plans to automate the highscore page (like the global gotm rankings) this could just be another data point and not an event in of itself. In other words the score and other info can be displayed for both the final and the 10AD save.


Edit:
Another suggestion, read the first 5-6 (or more) pages of the "Really Big Thread", back when Duke was running it, lots of the same issues existed then and now, and many of the same suggestions. Duke didn't seem to want to separate the highscore by game type but it seems pretty essential if you want more people interested than just milkers and fast conquest.