OneBinary
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2005
- Messages
- 132
Hi All,
Has a score based (Firaxis score) HoF ever been considered? Some might say that G/WOTM cover that, but in reality they don't. There are only 2 games per month, and they have set parameters. Compare this to the event, goal driven idea behind HoF and I can't really see a comparison.
Also, the Firaxis score takes into account the finish date. From what I'm seeing, if the HoF were to continue, by mathematical reasoning, the top spots in the tables would all have almost the same dates. With the current HoF, everybody is gunning for a single victory point: 4000BC. As time progresses, everybody will gradually improve and migrate their HoF entires to this date, therefore the finish dates will start to get closer to each other, closer to 4000BC, and will start to duplicate.
Now if you look at a purely Firaxis score HoF, everybody is gunning for... infinity. (Yes, there is a theoretical maximum score for each game, but what's interesting is that maximum score changes each and every turn.) I think there are many more complex factors that go into a Firaxis score, versus trying to minimize your finish date. Having a Firaxis score HOF makes for a more (mathematically) interesting array of games.
For example, each entry in the current HoF table can theoretically be duplicated (although maybe not easy to do, it can be done with certainty). Whereas maximizing score will always result in a wide range of games, where the likelihood of a game being duplicated approaches zero.
To further discuss this point, if you take a game that has 200 turns, and have two players with duplicate maps play the exact same play each turn up until turn 150, the likelihood of the scores being different is extremely high. Granted at that point the scores would be close, but the likelihood of two or more players playing the exact same play on the exact same map for 150 turns is improbable (but still theoretically possible if you look at statistics).
Now compare this to two or more players gunning for the fastest conquest victory. Many players can get this done in a handful of turns. To demonstrate this point, look at the top 10 for Conquest Duel. (Notice the Firaxis scores are much more varied compared to the finish dates)
Anyway, long post, but I'd like to get some reactions.
Has a score based (Firaxis score) HoF ever been considered? Some might say that G/WOTM cover that, but in reality they don't. There are only 2 games per month, and they have set parameters. Compare this to the event, goal driven idea behind HoF and I can't really see a comparison.
Also, the Firaxis score takes into account the finish date. From what I'm seeing, if the HoF were to continue, by mathematical reasoning, the top spots in the tables would all have almost the same dates. With the current HoF, everybody is gunning for a single victory point: 4000BC. As time progresses, everybody will gradually improve and migrate their HoF entires to this date, therefore the finish dates will start to get closer to each other, closer to 4000BC, and will start to duplicate.
Now if you look at a purely Firaxis score HoF, everybody is gunning for... infinity. (Yes, there is a theoretical maximum score for each game, but what's interesting is that maximum score changes each and every turn.) I think there are many more complex factors that go into a Firaxis score, versus trying to minimize your finish date. Having a Firaxis score HOF makes for a more (mathematically) interesting array of games.
For example, each entry in the current HoF table can theoretically be duplicated (although maybe not easy to do, it can be done with certainty). Whereas maximizing score will always result in a wide range of games, where the likelihood of a game being duplicated approaches zero.
To further discuss this point, if you take a game that has 200 turns, and have two players with duplicate maps play the exact same play each turn up until turn 150, the likelihood of the scores being different is extremely high. Granted at that point the scores would be close, but the likelihood of two or more players playing the exact same play on the exact same map for 150 turns is improbable (but still theoretically possible if you look at statistics).
Now compare this to two or more players gunning for the fastest conquest victory. Many players can get this done in a handful of turns. To demonstrate this point, look at the top 10 for Conquest Duel. (Notice the Firaxis scores are much more varied compared to the finish dates)
Anyway, long post, but I'd like to get some reactions.