What to do with EQM?
- Thread starter Ozbenno
- Start date
If we started a new competition fresh then Cabert's "Who wants to be #1" would be fresh for the taking
most of the games I play to fill the tables aren't even acceptable for EQM (future starts play out faster)
I hope the staff is not going to change the basic rules of HoF
Dracandross
Warlord
Naah I dont want that system. I just pointed out that any simple solution will not make difference to current situation. It just moves problems and makes gaming experience less satisfying. If I like to play more games I submit tiny games...
It just moves problem from loads of Relig games to loads of some other games. In the end EQM should still be part of HoF instead of being very strictly ruled part of it. Mostly bigger map makes only war oriented games harder.
Just focus on EQM scoring instead of completing it. If everyone play relig/tiny games there should be loads of submissions and all but top scores should drop down. I take that one who has bigger score but hasnt completed all games is still 'leading' compared to one who has partially incomplete score. If you can score with fewer games more than other you should be top dog instead of 'missing y categories'. Although to make it more fitting to style that you need to complete them there could be -points for each non completed game...
One more thing, theres on deity EQM part only 5 players now compared to about 40 on settler level so is this really neccessary even?
-D
It just moves problem from loads of Relig games to loads of some other games. In the end EQM should still be part of HoF instead of being very strictly ruled part of it. Mostly bigger map makes only war oriented games harder.
Just focus on EQM scoring instead of completing it. If everyone play relig/tiny games there should be loads of submissions and all but top scores should drop down. I take that one who has bigger score but hasnt completed all games is still 'leading' compared to one who has partially incomplete score. If you can score with fewer games more than other you should be top dog instead of 'missing y categories'. Although to make it more fitting to style that you need to complete them there could be -points for each non completed game...
One more thing, theres on deity EQM part only 5 players now compared to about 40 on settler level so is this really neccessary even?
-D
Dracandross
Warlord
Oh and DO not ban Religs they are completely different to others anyway and give different gaming experience.
Just put more weight on different VC category and maybe on different maps (as relig win is definitely bad on different maps). VCs and maps affect game more in my opinion than civ/speed
-D
Just put more weight on different VC category and maybe on different maps (as relig win is definitely bad on different maps). VCs and maps affect game more in my opinion than civ/speed
-D
babaBrian
Rock Chalk!
I've been doing some more thinking about possible additions. I'll start off by saying I haven't paid much attention to the scoring formulas but am fine with keeping the scoring the same. I'm equally fine if the group comes up with some scoring changes to QM and/or EQM that makes everybody happy. So I'll leave the scoring ideas to others.
Continuing on with the achievement idea, I'm thinking we can have two new types of distinctions to work towards: medals and trophies (names can change - that's a marketing decision).
Medals:
For each medal, there would be a very straightforward, simple criteria similar to the ad-hoc query. For example, you would get your Epic medal if you could fill each EQM slot with an Epic speed game. You would get your Domination medal if you could fill each EQM slot with a Domination victory. To make it not take so many games and make all the medals possible at higher levels, we could probably limit the requirements to filling just the League of Nations and Map Quest Events.
Trophies:
Similar to what others were proposing, each trophy would be a collection of games with predefined parameters, similar to the Gauntlets. These should range in difficulty from challenging to grueling. I think we can have a lot of fun coming up with these, and new ones can be added from time to time. Some could be relatively short, only requiring 4 games. There wouldn't be an upper limit really, but perhaps something around 25 games would be reasonable number. I would think 6-8 games would be a good normal range. Of course, they should have "clever" names that make pun-haters groan. These are just off the top of my head, so these just serve as hypotheticals that need a lot more thought and detail:
Four Horsemen: 4 difficult, interesting games where you play 4 different leaders with mounted UUs.
Divine Intervention: A collection of religious games with raging barbs
Culture Shock - A collection of games focusing on cultural victories
Star Wars - Space colony / Space race games with always war turned on
Giligan's Island - A variety of challenging games on Archipelago maps
Marathon: 26 games - all Marathon speed, all Greek, opponents always include Romans
There could also be ones named after staff and veteran/elite players:
Ozbenno's Challenge - ???
WastinTime's Challenge -???
Sun Tzu Wu's Challenge - ???
I think the trophies will be more difficult and meaningful to achieve, so they should be given a higher value (by default, listings/rankings sort by trophy count first, then by medal count). Also, much like EQM games, medals and trophies can be filtered by difficulty level.
The EQM page currently lists:
Rank Name Overall (score) Machiavelli Rock of Ages ... Gauntlet
The new EQM page Would list:
Rank Name Overall Trophy Count Medal Count Machiavelli ... Gauntlet.
The table will still be ordered by score, or alternatively there could be a drop down to change how the table is sorted.
The Statistics would have a new tab called "Trophy Room" where you could compare and view everybody's trophy and medal counts, even if they are not a QM or EQM. It would be fun to be able to click on a player's name and view their trophy room, too. This way you can still compete and be ranked even if you are bah-humbug about EQM (e.g. those Rock of Ages haters).
Hopefully this caters as much as possible to the variety of playing preferences, from completionist to low-quantity-high-quality, and from EQM lovers to EQM haters.
Man, this is a long one. About time for a smiley face
Continuing on with the achievement idea, I'm thinking we can have two new types of distinctions to work towards: medals and trophies (names can change - that's a marketing decision).
Medals:
For each medal, there would be a very straightforward, simple criteria similar to the ad-hoc query. For example, you would get your Epic medal if you could fill each EQM slot with an Epic speed game. You would get your Domination medal if you could fill each EQM slot with a Domination victory. To make it not take so many games and make all the medals possible at higher levels, we could probably limit the requirements to filling just the League of Nations and Map Quest Events.
Trophies:
Similar to what others were proposing, each trophy would be a collection of games with predefined parameters, similar to the Gauntlets. These should range in difficulty from challenging to grueling. I think we can have a lot of fun coming up with these, and new ones can be added from time to time. Some could be relatively short, only requiring 4 games. There wouldn't be an upper limit really, but perhaps something around 25 games would be reasonable number. I would think 6-8 games would be a good normal range. Of course, they should have "clever" names that make pun-haters groan. These are just off the top of my head, so these just serve as hypotheticals that need a lot more thought and detail:
Four Horsemen: 4 difficult, interesting games where you play 4 different leaders with mounted UUs.
Divine Intervention: A collection of religious games with raging barbs
Culture Shock - A collection of games focusing on cultural victories
Star Wars - Space colony / Space race games with always war turned on
Giligan's Island - A variety of challenging games on Archipelago maps
Marathon: 26 games - all Marathon speed, all Greek, opponents always include Romans
There could also be ones named after staff and veteran/elite players:
Ozbenno's Challenge - ???
WastinTime's Challenge -???
Sun Tzu Wu's Challenge - ???
I think the trophies will be more difficult and meaningful to achieve, so they should be given a higher value (by default, listings/rankings sort by trophy count first, then by medal count). Also, much like EQM games, medals and trophies can be filtered by difficulty level.
The EQM page currently lists:
Rank Name Overall (score) Machiavelli Rock of Ages ... Gauntlet
The new EQM page Would list:
Rank Name Overall Trophy Count Medal Count Machiavelli ... Gauntlet.
The table will still be ordered by score, or alternatively there could be a drop down to change how the table is sorted.
The Statistics would have a new tab called "Trophy Room" where you could compare and view everybody's trophy and medal counts, even if they are not a QM or EQM. It would be fun to be able to click on a player's name and view their trophy room, too. This way you can still compete and be ranked even if you are bah-humbug about EQM (e.g. those Rock of Ages haters).
Hopefully this caters as much as possible to the variety of playing preferences, from completionist to low-quantity-high-quality, and from EQM lovers to EQM haters.
Man, this is a long one. About time for a smiley face
The-Hawk
Old Original Geezer
I have to admit, I've lost interest in EQM completely. I'm in the camp that says it is demonstration of ability to play at a skill level and it should be generally admired as a mark of excellence. Sort of like a karate belt. E.g. is someone has the title Elite QM - Emperor, everyone would respect them someone who has completed a difficult journey of skill development at Emperor level ability. Only people who can consistently succeed at Emperor level across a breadth of game conditions would get that mark of honor. For me, EQM score was always a distant second.
Some months ago, we had a long debate about de-cheesing the event and were unsuccessful. Many of the ideas in here were discussed then and discarded. The result is that EQM is no different than QM (i.e. there is nothing "Elite" about it). I think the root problem is we are not aligned on the general philosophy and probably never will be. I've come to the conclusion it is impossible to de-cheese it, which explains my loss of interest. If it gets reconstituted into a new flavor of QM (RREQM - Really, Really Elite QM), there is 0% chance I will try for it. I learned my lesson with EQM.
I think the new ideas on challenges, super-gauntlets, and badges are interesting. This would certainly remove the cheese aspect of achieving recognition of skill level. My biggest concern is there would not be enough interest to make it meaningful. I.e. no real point in earning a badge if you are the only one who cares.
Some months ago, we had a long debate about de-cheesing the event and were unsuccessful. Many of the ideas in here were discussed then and discarded. The result is that EQM is no different than QM (i.e. there is nothing "Elite" about it). I think the root problem is we are not aligned on the general philosophy and probably never will be. I've come to the conclusion it is impossible to de-cheese it, which explains my loss of interest. If it gets reconstituted into a new flavor of QM (RREQM - Really, Really Elite QM), there is 0% chance I will try for it. I learned my lesson with EQM.
I think the new ideas on challenges, super-gauntlets, and badges are interesting. This would certainly remove the cheese aspect of achieving recognition of skill level. My biggest concern is there would not be enough interest to make it meaningful. I.e. no real point in earning a badge if you are the only one who cares.
unclethrill
Why am I up right now?
I think we should have more gauntlets running at the same time. They are the really fun part of the HOF IMHO.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
I agree, maybe they should be more restrictive in terms of leader choice though so we don't end up with Rome, Persia all the time for the warring games.
It would be cool to have a gauntlet for all VC's every update
It would be cool to have a gauntlet for all VC's every update
unclethrill
Why am I up right now?
That might be a bit much but 4 or 5 total each update would be nice.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Yeah I didn't think that through properly We want quality gauntlets with as many submission attempts as possible really.
We want quality gauntlets with as many submission attempts as possible really.I'm coming back with the "running gauntlets".
You know, in ice skating there are free rides and imposed figures (or whatever the name), let's say QM is the free ride, and let's build a few very strictly defined, a bit tricky but not impossible items to force every RREQM to go through those imposed figures.
I'd say the "difficulty level" doesn't need to be imposed, you get RREQM for the easiest level in which you played the imposed figures.
IMHO no more than 12 games are needed to prove things.
You know, in ice skating there are free rides and imposed figures (or whatever the name), let's say QM is the free ride, and let's build a few very strictly defined, a bit tricky but not impossible items to force every RREQM to go through those imposed figures.
I'd say the "difficulty level" doesn't need to be imposed, you get RREQM for the easiest level in which you played the imposed figures.
IMHO no more than 12 games are needed to prove things.
What would those games be?
Dracandross
Warlord
To prove things you need to do things that are not easiest, some of these will get combined in game or two so its really 12 games max that will get these completed.
You need to get ancient, nonmarathon, small+?,
1) Domination, it defines enough alone. Harder than conquest to do quickly
2) Time, if you can time win you can win any style
3) Diplomacy, just to add it to table
4) Religion, fast relig win is hard
5) Conquest with civ that has late UU and is not Agg is self explaining
6) Colony/Race, shows fast tech tree skills
7) OCC on, one aspect of game that gives alot
8) Always war on, really aspect that changes settings
9) Culture, well differs from other VCs alot
10) Diplo/Culture with aggressive civ (or opponents?) so that its not just peaceful walkthrough
11) Gauntlet Major
12) Gauntlet Minor
13) multicontinent maptype (or all games on it but its too restrictive)
14) Raging Barbs on
15) Non ancient start (which is not future either, medieval or so), just to bring aspect of game on board
Maybe you have X (that 12 or 10? doubled as usual of course) slots on board that best games will be filtered. For example slots 33% of them could require barbs on (so theres games wo barbs too but more than 1 game). Same with maps that theres X slots that need certain maptypes so all games but 1 game cant be pangaea and so on... Could be hard to implement though.
Settings cant be too restrictive or it doesnt leave ground for own combinations. Gauntlets are fun but if everyone plays same combo 10 times it really leaves some skill of choosing right playground out.
-D
You need to get ancient, nonmarathon, small+?,
1) Domination, it defines enough alone. Harder than conquest to do quickly
2) Time, if you can time win you can win any style
3) Diplomacy, just to add it to table
4) Religion, fast relig win is hard
5) Conquest with civ that has late UU and is not Agg is self explaining
6) Colony/Race, shows fast tech tree skills
7) OCC on, one aspect of game that gives alot
8) Always war on, really aspect that changes settings
9) Culture, well differs from other VCs alot
10) Diplo/Culture with aggressive civ (or opponents?) so that its not just peaceful walkthrough
11) Gauntlet Major
12) Gauntlet Minor
13) multicontinent maptype (or all games on it but its too restrictive)
14) Raging Barbs on
15) Non ancient start (which is not future either, medieval or so), just to bring aspect of game on board
Maybe you have X (that 12 or 10? doubled as usual of course) slots on board that best games will be filtered. For example slots 33% of them could require barbs on (so theres games wo barbs too but more than 1 game). Same with maps that theres X slots that need certain maptypes so all games but 1 game cant be pangaea and so on... Could be hard to implement though.
Settings cant be too restrictive or it doesnt leave ground for own combinations. Gauntlets are fun but if everyone plays same combo 10 times it really leaves some skill of choosing right playground out.
-D
Misotu
King
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 934
I've been away for a while so forgive me if I'm saying something that has already been utterly refuted by someone more erudite but ...
I'm not sure what is exercising people so much? EQM is a competition on many levels. One challenge is to complete a certain difficulty level - Mesix and unclethrill showed that this could be done even on deity level without too many problems, given a certain skill at the game. But for others this in itself is a challenge at levels lower than deity.
The other - perhaps more important - challenge is to compete against the other players in the league table. And this is where the cheesy game strategy gets nerfed. Because the easy slots attract more competition. AND the easy slots are very easy to nerf if a good player puts his/her mind to it for a couple of weeks (which adds a bit of a wicked, fun element to EQM if you think about it
.
Devising some kind of badge that confers true merit simply by completing the assigned tasks is probably not possible - or, if it is possible, probably not sensible. I say this because devising such a challenge would exclude, rather that include, many HoFers. Do we really want some strange badge of honour that only a handful can achieve?
If we want a competition that includes everyone, rather than the elite few, then the cheese question arises I suppose. Religious games, for example, are fairly easy. But they attract a lot of entries. So getting the win is one thing, but getting a good score is another.
And then there's forcing people to play a balanced set of EQM games. But why? taking, say, a player like jesusin as an example. He is very keen, as we know
on cultural games. As far as I'm concerned, he can play as many cultural games as he likes to achieve EQM. He still has to play at least 2 games of each victory type, 2 on each map type, 2 on each era etc etc to compete. That's enough, surely?
Becoming an EQM is one measure of skill. But ranking in the tables is the *only* real measure long term. (Yeah, ok, I know I'm doing ok on ranking at the moment, but that will surely change over the course of time as other, better, players nerf my scores Watch and learn ... )
Here's the nub. Personally, I think conquest/dom games are cheesy and boring. That is not a view that is shared by the majority, I know. But then the majority are male and I'm your peaceful tree-hugging female type. The game, after all, is the game. It permits a range of victory conditions, appeals to players of all types and all genders and it just so happens that my preference, personally, is for the builder victory types. Whenever people start to say that one victory condition is more valid than another, I'm perplexed. I can do them all and my record shows this, including, for example, first place in a conquest gauntlet - but like everyone else I prefer some victory types to others and I definitely favour some more than others when I have 33 civs x 2 games each to play, given that religious is fast and space/time very, very slow ...
Some people have computer problems with huge/large maps. I don't, but I have computer problems with map finder which mean that only maps surrounded by sea will work - so I can't easily use Inland Sea, Rainforest, Great Plains etc etc. Many of my games are Pangaea simply because of this. Are you going to penalise me for what is already a penalty??? I'd dearly love to play Inland Sea more often, but I just can't stand the boredom of manually generating a reasonable map ...
Tiny maps. Yeah, they are quick and relatively easy on the scale of things. But over time, you will have to play a very good game indeed on a tiny map to get a good score for EQM, because many other people will submit entries. Getting EQM is about a lot more than simply completing the number of games required and I think the real complexity of the challenge is disappearing from view - too many trees being pointed out when there's a great big wood out there ...
I'm not sure what is exercising people so much? EQM is a competition on many levels. One challenge is to complete a certain difficulty level - Mesix and unclethrill showed that this could be done even on deity level without too many problems, given a certain skill at the game. But for others this in itself is a challenge at levels lower than deity.
The other - perhaps more important - challenge is to compete against the other players in the league table. And this is where the cheesy game strategy gets nerfed. Because the easy slots attract more competition. AND the easy slots are very easy to nerf if a good player puts his/her mind to it for a couple of weeks (which adds a bit of a wicked, fun element to EQM if you think about it
.Devising some kind of badge that confers true merit simply by completing the assigned tasks is probably not possible - or, if it is possible, probably not sensible. I say this because devising such a challenge would exclude, rather that include, many HoFers. Do we really want some strange badge of honour that only a handful can achieve?
If we want a competition that includes everyone, rather than the elite few, then the cheese question arises I suppose. Religious games, for example, are fairly easy. But they attract a lot of entries. So getting the win is one thing, but getting a good score is another.
And then there's forcing people to play a balanced set of EQM games. But why? taking, say, a player like jesusin as an example. He is very keen, as we know
on cultural games. As far as I'm concerned, he can play as many cultural games as he likes to achieve EQM. He still has to play at least 2 games of each victory type, 2 on each map type, 2 on each era etc etc to compete. That's enough, surely?Becoming an EQM is one measure of skill. But ranking in the tables is the *only* real measure long term. (Yeah, ok, I know I'm doing ok on ranking at the moment, but that will surely change over the course of time as other, better, players nerf my scores
Watch and learn ... )Here's the nub. Personally, I think conquest/dom games are cheesy and boring. That is not a view that is shared by the majority, I know. But then the majority are male and I'm your peaceful tree-hugging female type. The game, after all, is the game. It permits a range of victory conditions, appeals to players of all types and all genders and it just so happens that my preference, personally, is for the builder victory types. Whenever people start to say that one victory condition is more valid than another, I'm perplexed. I can do them all and my record shows this, including, for example, first place in a conquest gauntlet - but like everyone else I prefer some victory types to others and I definitely favour some more than others when I have 33 civs x 2 games each to play, given that religious is fast and space/time very, very slow ...
Some people have computer problems with huge/large maps. I don't, but I have computer problems with map finder which mean that only maps surrounded by sea will work - so I can't easily use Inland Sea, Rainforest, Great Plains etc etc. Many of my games are Pangaea simply because of this. Are you going to penalise me for what is already a penalty??? I'd dearly love to play Inland Sea more often, but I just can't stand the boredom of manually generating a reasonable map ...
Tiny maps. Yeah, they are quick and relatively easy on the scale of things. But over time, you will have to play a very good game indeed on a tiny map to get a good score for EQM, because many other people will submit entries. Getting EQM is about a lot more than simply completing the number of games required and I think the real complexity of the challenge is disappearing from view - too many trees being pointed out when there's a great big wood out there ...
Dracandross
Warlord
I think you are wrong. Not sure if I could pull always war through but Im sure someone will... Just to slap you
At least with Inca if with nothing else... (and I didnt rule out Incas at least or maybe that one could be mara too just to make it tad easier)-D
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
I've read this entire thread and there were some great Gauntlet like ideas, but like Misotu, I see no reason to change the EQM. Here's Misotu's post on the subject:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8216485&postcount=75
So, EQM has cheese, but its self-correcting cheese. I especially liked the part where Misotu explains that most people will play a bunch of Religious Victory games, because they are easy to Win. Likewise, there will be far more Tiny Map games than any other size, because the Win can be had much sooner. However, as the Tiny Religious Table gets crowded, and a date better than yours is recorded, your score will drop. If you have the #1 Tiny Religious game at a particular Difficulty and Speed, you deserve the corresponding 100 EQM points, because you have bested a vast number of people and an extremely early Religious Win date is extremely hard to get. There's no cheese at the top, eventually, if not right now.
Now with three people already at Deity EQM, EQM is no longer just about which level of EQM one has achieved, but what score one has achieved at a particular difficulty level. This should have been the focus all along. Give everyone their overall EQM score. This is aimed at only those that are missing games/events (some missing a lot of games/events, because anyone that has completed EQM at a difficulty level will see their score on the Main EQM page, if not elsewhere. I suppose a missing game should be counted as zero, but then I'd at least one would see an overall score on their EQM Status page.
Sun Tzu Wu
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8216485&postcount=75
So, EQM has cheese, but its self-correcting cheese. I especially liked the part where Misotu explains that most people will play a bunch of Religious Victory games, because they are easy to Win. Likewise, there will be far more Tiny Map games than any other size, because the Win can be had much sooner. However, as the Tiny Religious Table gets crowded, and a date better than yours is recorded, your score will drop. If you have the #1 Tiny Religious game at a particular Difficulty and Speed, you deserve the corresponding 100 EQM points, because you have bested a vast number of people and an extremely early Religious Win date is extremely hard to get. There's no cheese at the top, eventually, if not right now.
Now with three people already at Deity EQM, EQM is no longer just about which level of EQM one has achieved, but what score one has achieved at a particular difficulty level. This should have been the focus all along. Give everyone their overall EQM score. This is aimed at only those that are missing games/events (some missing a lot of games/events, because anyone that has completed EQM at a difficulty level will see their score on the Main EQM page, if not elsewhere. I suppose a missing game should be counted as zero, but then I'd at least one would see an overall score on their EQM Status page.
Sun Tzu Wu
Overall EQM score?
who cares?
I'm the 2nd in the "rock of ages" competition at monarch level.
Isn't that the most important event
You seem to forget that QM already did the overall score thing (and possibly better than EQM does).
In the current situation, most people would need to compare at settler level or reject many competitors for no good reason.
I mean, either the overall score is important, and then you compare against as many people as possible, or the achievement of EQM level X is important, and then the overall score isn't that big.
who cares?
I'm the 2nd in the "rock of ages" competition at monarch level.
Isn't that the most important event
You seem to forget that QM already did the overall score thing (and possibly better than EQM does).
In the current situation, most people would need to compare at settler level or reject many competitors for no good reason.
I mean, either the overall score is important, and then you compare against as many people as possible, or the achievement of EQM level X is important, and then the overall score isn't that big.
The bottom line is that the HOF competition serves as a benchmark for player success. What one player is proud of may not matter as much to another player. The ability to customize the display of the tables allows everyone to filter the results to display what they deem important. One player may be trying to achieve the highest average score per game, another a certain difficulty level, and yet another targeting 100% spots in the tables. It is okay that different players have a different measure of success. At the end of the day this is a game, players should have fun, and the HOF should encourage participation in the spirit of competition.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
EQM is as easy or as hard as you want: If you want easy, pursue Settler EQM. If you want a challenge, pursue Deity EQM.
You think Deity EQM is easy? Then prove it and become the 4th Deity EQM by the next update.
Just to qualify for EQM, one needs a minimum of:
- 08 games for Machiavelli (not counting Score)
- 18 games for Map Quest
- 07 games for Rock of Ages
- 04 games for Tempi Trophy
- 33 games for League of Nations
- 01 game for Gauntlet
Not counting games that fit multiple categories a minimum of 71 games are required and double that + 2 more Gauntlets for maximum possible score. Thus to maximize EQM score, a total of 144 games per EQM difficulty level attempted would be needed.
By making games fit the maximum number of categories, the minimum can be reduced down to League of Nations (33) and non-Ancient Rock of Ages (6) or an absolute minimum of 39 games and double that + 2 more Gauntlets for maximum possible score. Thus a minimum of 80 games per EQM difficulty level attempted would be needed for maximum possible score.
However, to optimize score without playing more than two games per slot, the number of games required would be anywhere between 80 and 144. Isn't that hard enough?
Considering that I can't play 24x7 and don't want all my HOF games to be EQM focused, I could probably submit an average of one new EQM qualifying game per update. Mmm, Between 80 / 24 = 3 years and 4 months and 144 / 24 = 6 years. Six years! Isn't that hard enough?
80-144 Standard Size or larger games? Just Standard? That's 80-144 Standard Size games? Are you serious? Standard games take much more time to complete than either Tiny or Small. So you want to eliminate 3 of the 6 Map Sizes or 5 of 6 Map Sizes? You can't be serious, right?
Wouldn't a minimum of 2 Victory Conditions be rather redundant? Machiavelli already requires two games per Victory Condition for maximum possible score.
A minimum of 4 Speeds? A maximum of 10 Speeds? There are only fours speeds. Doesn't Tempi Trophy already cover this adequately, anyway?
For what possible reason would a maximum on the Victory Condition be desirable or even possible to compute; which 6 or 8 games would you allow to count for players with more than the maximum.
For what possible reason do you want Players to Win multiple Victory Conditions or Multiple Speeds they don't enjoy Playing just to qualify for EQM? Isn't Winning two games of each Victory Condition for Machiavelli good enough to demonstrate that the Player can win those Victory Conditions? Isn't Winning two games of each Speed for Tempi Trophy good enough to demonstrate that the Player can win those Speeds?
Surely, jest! If you want to make it hard, require Raging Barbarians and Always War!
Inca is banned from Gauntlets for good reason! Keep it that way!
It seems that non-Ancient (6 of the 7 Rock of Ages) Gauntlet games should qualify for EQM Gauntlet.
No, the Quechua is just as effective against Archers at Settler through Prince. One just needs to wait a bit for the AIs to research Archery and build Archers. The Quechua unique unit is grossly over-powered regardless of Difficulty level, although clearly the effect against AI Archers starts at turn 0 for Monarch through Deity difficulties. The Quechua's effect just starts a few turns later than turn 0 for Settler through Prince.
Great idea! Finally something that encourages EQM participation. Suggestions #1-3 above discourage participation! (Suggestions #4-5 have minimal effect either way.)
However, would this be optional or another required category of EQM. I'm not sure I'd like it to be required, since EQM is already challenging enough.
Conclusion:
Please don't try to "fix" EQM; it is well designed as it is; it is EQM Score that will separate the chaff from the wheat. The chaff will be blown away by subsequent games in any categories that prove to be popular. Please see again Misotu's eloquent post on this subject:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8216485&postcount=75
Sun Tzu Wu
Similar threads
