Glad you're here... HOF format?

[pholtz]

Glad to see you are getting things going. Was looking for HOF or GOTM. I realize it will be quite a while before things get started officially.

All I ask is that the HOF be run more like III or IV. I never did like the "matched setup" HOF of V. Part of the fun, for me, is trying different combinations and seeing if I can get a good time. Using the exact same setup is for Gauntlet play, not normal HOF.

So here's my vote for the format, for what it's worth.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Thanks for the input, will be interesting to get other feedback.

 

[Xger]

I'm curious what you mean by 'matched' play. In Civ V you had your highest score for each category. How is that playing the same settings across the board?

 

[pholtz]

Look at the HOF for both V and IV. Totally different.

In V you could play a game, and if no one else played that exact combination of options, you didn't get a score.

In IV. There was a category. Best domination game, prince level. You could play any leader, any speed, any map and try to beat that score.

 

[Ozbenno]

Look at the HOF for both V and IV. Totally different.

In V you could play a game, and if no one else played that exact combination of options, you didn't get a score.

In IV. There was a category. Best domination game, prince level. You could play any leader, any speed, any map and try to beat that score.

Not quite true, in IV the tables were separated by difficulty/victory/size/speed, so you could try any leader or map to get #1 on a table but you would have to play the same speed.

In V this was expanded so that leader and map were included.

No decision has been made on how VI table will look yet but are grateful for any input/opinions.

 

[pholtz]

Yet, unfortunately don't know where the tables are now, even though the tables were separated by those four categories, the top level table combined some of them. So you could easily see the fastest difficulty/victory ignoring all the other options, or difficulty/victory/speed or whatever. In V you had to match all the options or there was no way to compare them. Or since there were so many options it was impossible to fill out the table as III and IV eventually were. Hard to talk specifics when I can't look at the tables. I just know I stopped doing V HOF, because I just didn't like the system. I liked the IV or even III (even fewer separations if I remember correctly) much better.

I think difficulty/victory type should be the two main dividers, with possibly size and speed as optional subdividers. Map and leader should be left up to the player. Finding the right map or leader to get the best score is most of the fun.

Gauntlets frequently specify all the options if you want to compare your score directly with others. And there is the combined "super table", I forget what you called it. Where you had to win victories over many different maps/speeds/leaders etc. where your combined score was matched against others to claim the "best player" title. Always enjoyed trying to even get on that table, and watching the best players compete for the top spots (I was always the middle of the table guy)

 

[Ozbenno]

Tables can be seen in the links in my signature.

 

[Xger]

Yet, unfortunately don't know where the tables are now, even though the tables were separated by those four categories, the top level table combined some of them. So you could easily see the fastest difficulty/victory ignoring all the other options, or difficulty/victory/speed or whatever. In V you had to match all the options or there was no way to compare them. Or since there were so many options it was impossible to fill out the table as III and IV eventually were. Hard to talk specifics when I can't look at the tables. I just know I stopped doing V HOF, because I just didn't like the system. I liked the IV or even III (even fewer separations if I remember correctly) much better.

I think difficulty/victory type should be the two main dividers, with possibly size and speed as optional subdividers. Map and leader should be left up to the player. Finding the right map or leader to get the best score is most of the fun.

Gauntlets frequently specify all the options if you want to compare your score directly with others. And there is the combined "super table", I forget what you called it. Where you had to win victories over many different maps/speeds/leaders etc. where your combined score was matched against others to claim the "best player" title. Always enjoyed trying to even get on that table, and watching the best players compete for the top spots (I was always the middle of the table guy)

Doesn't a super=table like that serve little purpose? The Domination table in V would just be filled with Attila (battering rams, IIRC). I think there is some value in a master table like you want, but it would be difficult to not have it be just break down to be all similar maps. It would require different kinds of balancing.

 

[pholtz]

OK, great, maybe I can make a bit more sense.

Looking back at III, I can see the options where a bit limited. The tables are only difficulty/victory.

I think IV found the right mix. I can see that you were correct, the summary handles 4 different options. But it shows only the top player. You can look at the more detailed tables and see the top 10 for any of the four options.

The fun I had as a middle of the road player, was looking over that table and trying to figure out if I could get the top score for any of the entries. And I did manage to, I still see my name in 5 or 6 places and it's still fun looking for my name and trying to remember how I managed it. My game in IV was slowly improving, until I got to about the 70% ranking or so on the Quattromasters when I stopped playing.

Now if you look at V, there is no table, to try and find a slot where you can get top ranking. Instead each table is more than half made up of entries with only one submission. Looking for my name there is kinda useless. So for me, most of the fun, finding a spot where I can get the "top" score, is gone. I look at the table, trying to see who has the best conquest/skill game, and it's kinda meaningless. Someone could have had the best conquest game ever, but if he's the only one that played that combination, it's down in the "ones" and ignored.

I would be happy if you reduced the size of the table in VI to three. Not sure which you would remove, map size or speed, but either one would be ok with me. But you should be able to seach in more detail in the other tables where all four options are considered.

Now I know that means that leader and map type are ignored. But they are in Quattromasters, so that's fine.

Sorry for going on at such length, but apparently I wasn't understood in my initial posts. Hope this clears up what my opinion is.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I like the Civ IV tables much better than Civ V. I believe going back to the Civ IV format for Civ VI would be best.

I very much like the division of the Civ IV tables into Difficulty/Victory Type/Speed/Map Size in that order.

If anything, I would add filters to include/exclude one or more Leaders and Options to the Civ IV format. The default filter would be include all games.

 

[Mesix]

I would prefer if there were fewer filtering factors so that games are compared with larger pools of competitors...more like a leader board.

The matrix style of has too many possibilities. Using the Civ 5 system:

8x difficulties
5x victories
6x map sizes
4x game speeds
20x map types
43x leaders

There are 825,600 tables for people to compete on. This leads to a few tables (generally Gauntlet settings and some popular combinations) having many entries, and most having few or none. Players often search for empty tables where their game will be guaranteed a 1st place finish, or a table with only 1-2 entries which are not very competitive.

In my opinion, games should be compared to larger pools of games rather than trying to isolate so many minor factors. It is okay if Pangaea type maps always have faster domination times than island type maps. It is also okay if a science victory with Genghis Khan is not competitive with Nebuchadnezzar.

That said, being able to filter lists with specific leader/map/victory combinations is a nice feature. A player can still take pride in having the fastest domination victory on a huge map of small islands playing as Japan even if the score for this game is not competitive on the overall leader boards.

Perhaps there could also be a VVV or EQM style list of games to earn badges and such.

I also think that scoring should only take into account the best games of each player. Going up on the leader boards and being recognized in the HOF ought to be based on improving game play rather than having more time to submit many repetitive games. Perhaps the best 2 or 3 games from any player will count for the leader boards and going up in rank will require a player to out play his/her previous best games. This also creates a system which forgives players who may start out at a basic level and submit several noncompetitive games who later improve and submit some of the best times. If the scoring system takes into account a large pool of rubbish games for an average in scoring, players may be discouraged from submitting games if they do not feel it contributes to their score.

I agree with much of what Pholtz said above. Having leader boards based on difficulty/victory type should be enough. Let the cream rise to the top, even if that means that certain victory types will have a few favorite leaders or map settings which are more competitive.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

The problem with Difficulty/Victory Type tables is everyone competing for a top game will likely use Duel map size and Marathon speed to the exclusion of all other map sizes and speeds. The Civ IV tables were originally structured Difficulty/Victory Type/Map Size and this resulted in everyone playing Marathon speed, until the Civ IV tables were restructured to give Speed equal status to Map Size.

I agree that adding Map Type, Leader and certainly Game Options on an equal footing with Difficulty, Victory Type, Map Size and Game Speed is absurd. That is why I suggested them as filterable (via drop down menus perhaps).

The HoF tables should be structured so at a glance one can see the best dates for all combinations of a single difficulty level and all combinations of Victory Type, Game Speed and Map Size as in the Civ IV HoF tables. Everyone that looks at the Civ IV HoF tables can see at a glance what the best game is in each slot of a particular difficulty. Who won the #1 game in each such slot is a secondary consideration, though often of primary consideration for competitive players.

The Civ V HoF structure seems to appeal mainly to highly competitive players, because trying to get a broad clear view of the entire table is so difficult to do. The dates of the 2nd and 3rd best games in a category are really only important to the player that won them; that is just too much information for a main table page, which the Civ V HoF really does not even have. The Civ IV structure is more useful to all players at a glance. When you go deeper, it also shows the best 10 games and not just the top three, so it has more appeal to developing players as opposed to just highly competitive players.

The Civ V HoF is also more dependent of the meanings of the individual icons, which aren't intuitive if one is not accustomed to using them. The Civ IV HoF has a static structure that is easier to understand. The Civ V HoF is highly dynamic which makes it more flexible, but impossible to look at and immediately see all the top games in a particular Difficulty level and all Victory Type, Game Speed and Map Size combinations as in the Civ IV HoF.

 

[WillowBrook]

I think I agree completely with Sun Tzu Wu.

 

[Mesix]

The problem with Difficulty/Victory Type tables is everyone competing for a top game will likely use Duel map size and Marathon speed to the exclusion of all other map sizes and speeds. The Civ IV tables were originally structured Difficulty/Victory Type/Map Size and this resulted in everyone playing Marathon speed, until the Civ IV tables were restructured to give Speed equal status to Map Size.

I agree that adding Map Type, Leader and certainly Game Options on an equal footing with Difficulty, Victory Type, Map Size and Game Speed is absurd. That is why I suggested them as filterable (via drop down menus perhaps).

The HoF tables should be structured so at a glance one can see the best dates for all combinations of a single difficulty level and all combinations of Victory Type, Game Speed and Map Size as in the Civ IV HoF tables. Everyone that looks at the Civ IV HoF tables can see at a glance what the best game is in each slot of a particular difficulty. Who won the #1 game in each such slot is a secondary consideration, though often of primary consideration for competitive players.

The Civ V HoF structure seems to appeal mainly to highly competitive players, because trying to get a broad clear view of the entire table is so difficult to do. The dates of the 2nd and 3rd best games in a category are really only important to the player that won them; that is just too much information for a main table page, which the Civ V HoF really does not even have. The Civ IV structure is more useful to all players at a glance. When you go deeper, it also shows the best 10 games and not just the top three, so it has more appeal to developing players as opposed to just highly competitive players.

The Civ V HoF is also more dependent of the meanings of the individual icons, which aren't intuitive if one is not accustomed to using them. The Civ IV HoF has a static structure that is easier to understand. The Civ V HoF is highly dynamic which makes it more flexible, but impossible to look at and immediately see all the top games in a particular Difficulty level and all Victory Type, Game Speed and Map Size combinations as in the Civ IV HoF.

It would be simple enough to restrict HOF ladder games to standard speed and standard sized (or larger) maps.

There could also be a reduced score for smaller maps.

 

[pholtz]

It would be simple enough to restrict HOF ladder games to standard speed and standard sized (or larger) maps.

Anytime you make a restriction like that, you cut out some of the people that would like to play. Perhaps someone plays on a computer that can handle small maps but standard or larger maps cause problems. Now he can't compete at all. HOF should try to be as inclusive as possible. V's system favored the best players, as average players could not compete in the popular setup's. IV's system was a good compromise. People of most any skill level could get their name on the table. Only the poorer players would eventually be kicked from the top spots, but even they would be represented in the top ten games for some combinations. And average or better players could find an option where they could take a top spot.

And it was amazing how such a huge table eventually came to be filled in (except for espionage wins, which I don't even remember).

 

[Noble Zarkon]

And it was amazing how such a huge table eventually came to be filled in (except for espionage wins, which I don't even remember).

Espionage is a new category created in the last year due to some players creating an innovative way to win culture.

 

[Emtee]

The Civilization 5 HOF already has the ad-hoc search where you can filter only on some of the options. For example if you want to search for the fastest Deity Science Victory on Standard speed but on any map/size/leader since they're not as relevant for that condition, you can visit http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ5/adh...r=-1&pubID=135&dtSc=0&exp=2&user=-1&submit=Go

I can agree that these tables are perhaps not as prominent as they should be and maybe people haven't found them at all. There should be at least some presets for this kind of things where you can see the true top games.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Oops, I did not notice the Civ V Ad-Hoc Query, because I wasn't logged in.

I selected Culture, Deity and Quick speed and the query found only three games. Very disappointing, considering I made no map size selection.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Thanks for all the feedback guys, it's much appreciated - stay tuned!

 

[Emtee]

Oops, I did not notice the Civ V Ad-Hoc Query, because I wasn't logged in.

I selected Culture, Deity and Quick speed and the query found only three games. Very disappointing, considering I made no map size selection.

Seems like a golden opportunity to grab the number 1 spot! Should be easy enough to cheese on some sort of duel map.

In general, the most common speed in HOF games by far is Standard speed. Also, for culture victories not a whole lot of people submit "normal" victories where you just build wonders and great works and get to the Internet. To get any sort of reasonable finish turn you have to go for Sacred Sites/Futurism or the Greek Liberation strategy, and these are very difficult to pull off on Deity. Even the "normal" culture victory is sort of hit or miss because you cannot guarantee wonders and sometimes the AI just goes crazy culture. So that specific combination apparently haven't been submitted a lot.