Allow "No Barbarians"?

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I did not realise that you can hand pick the opposition. Maybe that should be disallowed? I.e. other opponents should always be random.

Introduction:

This idea has been suggested many times and rejected as impractical. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; there's simply no practical way of achieving it; also, a majority of HoF players are opposed to the idea.

The Details and Analysis:

Even if some random opponent mechanism is developed and enforced, a player can always choose to abandon any game whose opponents he doesn't like. Such a player can keep rolling new game starts until he gets reasonably close to the set of opponents he wants to play against.

A proponent of random opponents may claim that it virtually impossible to get exactly the set of a opponents a player wants randomly. While that is true, the player often needs just one opponent or small handful of opponents in the game and that is quite likely to happen often by chance for a single desired opponent and not that unlikely for a small subset of desired opponents.

More importantly, there is a precedent of HoF players being able to choose exactly which opponents they want and that will be virtual impossible to change, especially due to the fact mentioned above that true randomness is impossible to achieve without denying a player the option of retiring a game. All games started must be completed would be a rule that virtually no one could honestly support, but there would be no other way to enforce true random opponents.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In general I have nothing against randomness in a civ game. It is and always has been a part of the game. Civilization is not chess. If you take away all chance in the game, you take away part of its soul.

This is a sad excuse designers use to explain ALL chance. There are good and bad chance elements in games; good chance elements provide an element of risk vs reward as a strategic decision. Bad chance elements are those that are out of player control and/or do absolutely nothing to affect the eventual decision on optimal movement. Winning or losing on BAD chance elements is awful design; allowing or worse FORCING said bad chance elements in a HoF setting is ludicrous.

Your choice, not chance! In other words, barbarians are not a random factor, they are first and foremost a strategic factor. The game will be shallower without them.

Quantify the returns of early-build orders with and without barbs. Show me that having them present makes a difference beyond "nuisance" or "good start doesn't have to deal with them while other starts do". Tell me the rate at which they spawn near encampments isn't a chance factor. If you think they can even be potentially helpful, how does limiting player options make HoF LESS shallow?

And another thing: I think a HOF game should be as close to a 'regular' game of civ as possible. Otherwise there is little use for carrying over experience from one type of game to the other.

You probably want magical pony unicorns delivering you a cornocopia from candy mountain (CHARLIE!!!!!) too. I'd like it if HoF brushed my teeth for me each night and talked to people on the phone when I don't want to do that. Let's be realistic.

People play HoF to get faster finish dates/better performances than other HUMAN players. Yes, beating the AI is a prerequisite, but that is a minuscule hurdle compared to out-performing other HoF players. When you argue in favor of a chancy element, you are arguing in favor of skill losing to time spent playing. Why?

Because any time there's a chance element allowed, people will start-scum to beat it. This allows players with more time to have an increasingly consistent advantage over players with less time/able to play fewer games. HoF has historically taken pains to curb that "more time = more advantage" edge in the past; even going so far as to allow/endorse mapfinder in civ IV.

It would be rather sour to then allow or even FORCE players into situations where chance might give the other guy the 5-10 turn lead he needs to win, rather than who played in a superior fashion.

These arguments of "chance is part of the game" and "you need skill to adapt to chance" can be quite simply translated into one statement:

"I don't have enough skill to beat the best of the best straight up, so I'd rather allow large chance factors to help or impede players on the off chance that luck favors me and I can outperform somebody who plays better".

Every time someone argues in favor of forcing events, barbs, random leaders, etc to be on, that is exactly what they are saying. They might be trying to cover it up in a clever fashion. They might be pretending like they actually like to maximize the skill component of the outcome. They might even try to fool themselves into believing that a chance factor somehow makes a competitive game deeper, but the end reality is the same. They are making that statement, over and over and over again. Here in HoF, in XOTM, in SGOTM. People want random chance so they have a chance to beat Sun Tzu Wu, U_Sun, Rusten, Ironhead, Jesusin, Lexad, etc etc even if those guys outplay them.

Let's conclude this:

1. Does "no barbarians" give players who perform the best in-game a lesser chance to win if everyone chooses to use it?
2. Does forcing barbarians give players who perform the best a slightly lesser chance to win?

No, then yes. Why is this even a discussion? And for god's sake, how can we have a ridiculous MAJORITY opinion trying to limit HoF options and favor chance? This poll causes mental pain.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

And another thing: I think a HOF game should be as close to a 'regular' game of civ as possible. Otherwise there is little use for carrying over experience from one type of game to the other.

As I would define it, a 'regular' game of Civ V is any game that can be started by the Civ V application, including the full range of all game options.

Assuming you agree with the above statement, you are saying that a HoF player can chose any options presented in a 'regular' game of Civ V, right? In other words, a player can choose to have or not have Barbarians as a 'regular' game option.

Unfortunately, you seem to be defining a 'regular' game to be very narrow in the permitted options. For example, you seem to say that no one should be permitted to play a game with the game option "No Barbarians".

I'd prefer to define a 'regular" game in the widest sense possible, allowing all options except those that are literally exploits of the game. "No Barbarians" to the contrary is definitely not an exploit, but may actually be the opposite as BLubmuz so eloquently put it in his post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9832556&postcount=30

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

This idea has been suggested many times and rejected as impractical. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; there's simply no practical way of achieving; also, a majority of HoF players are opposed to the idea.

Sorry, I was not aware this had been discussed before. I am new to the HOF thing, desperately trying to make civ V interesting to play .

So what about a fixed list of opponents then? Has that idea already been suggested and rejected? It would level the playing field even more than random opponents. And it could possibly make a game more challenging too..

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sorry, I was not aware this had been discussed before. I am new to the HOF thing, desperately trying to make civ V interesting to play .

So what about a fixed list of opponents then? Has that idea already been suggested and rejected? It would level the playing field even more than random opponents. And it could possibly make a game more challenging too..

It is not really viable in standard HoF, but is a frequent restraint in gauntlets.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

As I would define it, a 'regular' game of Civ V is any game that can be started by the Civ V application, including the full range of all game options.

Assuming you agree with the above statement, you are saying that a HoF player can chose any options presented in a 'regular' game of Civ V, right? In other words, a player can choose to have or not have Barbarians as a 'regular' game option.

Unfortunately, you seem to be defining a 'regular' game to be very narrow in the permitted options. For example, you seem to say that no one should be permitted to play a game with the game option "No Barbarians".

I'd prefer to define a 'regular" game in the widest sense possible, allowing all options except those that are literally exploits of the game. "No Barbarians" to the contrary is definitely not an exploit, but may actually be the opposite as BLubmuz so eloquently put it in his post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9832556&postcount=30

Sun Tzu Wu

Well, I didn't have a strict definition of a 'regular game' in mind when I wrote that, but I think I meant something like a game that is started without going into the advanced setup. In other words, a game that more or less has all the options that the developers intended to be in a standard game.

One of the goals of playing HOF games is improving one's game style, isn't it? It seems to me that limiting the options in every HOF game is counterproductive in that sense. How can you improve your skills in handling barbarians by means of playing in the HOF if there never are barbarians in a HOF game?

I wasn't trying to say that no one should be permitted to play a game with the game option "No Barbarians". In fact, having a wide variety of different games will keep HOF games interesting, and help in improving play style in different circumstances. But maybe it would be better to have everyone playing with the same settings in a single HOF game? You do want to be able to compare scores for a single HOF game in a meaningful way. Of course by forcing a set of options for each HOF game you run the risk of turning the HOF into a GOTM. I can imagine that danger also having been discussed already in the HOF forum..

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

This is a sad excuse designers use to explain ALL chance. There are good and bad chance elements in games; good chance elements provide an element of risk vs reward as a strategic decision. Bad chance elements are those that are out of player control and/or do absolutely nothing to affect the eventual decision on optimal movement. Winning or losing on BAD chance elements is awful design; allowing or worse FORCING said bad chance elements in a HoF setting is ludicrous.

Agreed. But you seem to be implying that barbarians are bad chance elements. I don't think they are. There are ways to control them. Besides that, I really think handling factors with a certain amount of randomness requires tactical skill. A really good general will know the right thing to do even if there is a change in the anticipated circumstances. Why, the map itself is also a chancy feature. Would you prefer to play the same map every time just to get rid of chanciness?

Tell me the rate at which they spawn near encampments isn't a chance factor.

Well.. to the best of my knowledge it isn't. Barb camps only spawn in undeveloped areas, in areas that our outside of your field of vision. If you were to surround your territory with scouts posted on hilltops you will have no barbarians spawning close to your cities.

If you think they can even be potentially helpful, how does limiting player options make HoF LESS shallow?

Barbarians can be helpful, especially for the skilled player . But they can also be a menace. So I think they are a feature that makes a game a little more exiting. Barbarians give you situations to handle in stead of just clicking 'next turn'. That is what I meant.

People play HoF to get faster finish dates/better performances than other HUMAN players. Yes, beating the AI is a prerequisite, but that is a minuscule hurdle compared to out-performing other HoF players. When you argue in favor of a chancy element, you are arguing in favor of skill losing to time spent playing. Why?

While I disagree on the point that handling barbarians doesn't require skill, I think something else is the matter here. Much of the yes/no to barbarians seems to have to do with the mind set of the HOF player. One type of player will go all way to be the pit boss, to be number one in the list. Another type of player plays a HOF game for improving his/her play style, to learn from other players and to make a game more interesting because he/she knows that others will be playing a similar game. For the latter type, the HOF score is interesting to get an idea of his/her competence level. Beating the rest of the players is not that important. At the moment, I consider myself to be of the second type. But I can imagine that one gets more fanatical as one approaches the top of the HOF. I can also imagine that at that point people will go into a lot of trouble to optimize the starting position by restarting the game over and over again during the first turns. For that type of player, a good case for disallowing barbarians can be made. But for players like me, it would reduce the fun factor of a HOF game. I kind of miss the ruins too..

Because any time there's a chance element allowed, people will start-scum to beat it. This allows players with more time to have an increasingly consistent advantage over players with less time/able to play fewer games. HoF has historically taken pains to curb that "more time = more advantage" edge in the past; even going so far as to allow/endorse mapfinder in civ IV.

It would be rather sour to then allow or even FORCE players into situations where chance might give the other guy the 5-10 turn lead he needs to win, rather than who played in a superior fashion.

These arguments of "chance is part of the game" and "you need skill to adapt to chance" can be quite simply translated into one statement:
"I don't have enough skill to beat the best of the best straight up, so I'd rather allow large chance factors to help or impede players on the off chance that luck favors me and I can outperform somebody who plays better".

I get your point. You are probably right in thinking that people with a lot of time on their hands will take advantage of the opportunity of starting over and over again. But don't you think those people will do it anyway?

Anyway, please accept the fact that there are people that would like to have barbarians for other reasons than your statement above.

Every time someone argues in favor of forcing events, barbs, random leaders, etc to be on, that is exactly what they are saying. They might be trying to cover it up in a clever fashion. They might be pretending like they actually like to maximize the skill component of the outcome. They might even try to fool themselves into believing that a chance factor somehow makes a competitive game deeper, but the end reality is the same. They are making that statement, over and over and over again. Here in HoF, in XOTM, in SGOTM. People want random chance so they have a chance to beat Sun Tzu Wu, U_Sun, Rusten, Ironhead, Jesusin, Lexad, etc etc even if those guys outplay them.

Some people might, but I don't think you can accuse everyone in favour of barbarians of thinking this way.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

So what about a fixed list of opponents then? Has that idea already been suggested and rejected? It would level the playing field even more than random opponents. And it could possibly make a game more challenging too..

It is not really viable in standard HoF, but is a frequent restraint in gauntlets.

Tersely and quite accurately stated. Kudos to you sir!

Game of the Month (GOTM) does Provide a Fixed List of Opponents:

Neither random nor a fixed list of opponents will work for the HoF, outside of the exception TheMeInTeam stated above. However, the "Game of the Month" (GOTM), does have a fixed list of unknown opponents and it works, because everyone plays the same Start revealed each month and each player can make only one attempt at winning the game (no reloading is permitted in GOTM as well as HoF). The opponents are revealed only in the process of playing the game out.

Briefly, GOTM versus HoF:

So, really, GOTM is what you want to play, if you want to demonstrate more skill rather than skill obliterating randomness, contrary to any sound game design principles as TheMeInTeam so persuasively argued against in his post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10075928&postcount=42

HoF Option Decisions:

We need to decide these HoF option decisions such as "Barbarians" or "No Barbarians" in the sense of fixing the game that the game designer didn't quite get right. The Barbarian option is severely broken; how can we seriously force players to use it? Although, I'd prefer to force "No Barbarians" (note that the poll attached to this thread doesn't even provide this alternative), I'm willing to compromise to allow either "No Barbarians" or "Barbarians".

A Civ V Designing Digression:

In the case of Civ V, the game designer, publisher and producer are probably equally to blame for such a poor game. The game designer (Jon Shafer) probably wanted to design a better game than what resulted:

Jon Shafer leaves Firaxis!

I have no doubt that Jon Shafer left, because his hands were tied behind his back in the sense that marketing wanted a game that was more fun than skill related. At least I hope he really wanted to design a game that was as skill related as possible.

Option Wish List Digression:

Too bad there isn't an Eliminate Gratuitous Randomness option that turns off options that contain gratuitous randomness such as guaranteed Ruins rewards and the highly randomized Barbarian settlements/spawning whose only redeeming qualities are the eye candy "fun" they provide in exchange for subverting player skill.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Civ V Barbarians and Barbarian Encampments:

There is absolutely no reason to design Barbarians differently than multiple "barbaric Civilizations" that function exactly like the canonical Civ V Civilizations that have the full range of Culture, Technologies, etc. They can start as "barbaric" and unwilling to talk diplomacy, but they should eventually become civilized if they survive that long or they can remain Barbarians right through to the Future Era, perhaps a more likely eventuality via the "Raging Barbarian" option.

There should not be a concept of barbarian spawning, Barbarian units should be built just like AI Civilization and City State units. Barbarians should spread via capturing cities and founding cities via Barbarian Settlers.

Barbarian Encampments should simply be Barbarian cities that are no different than Player cities, AI cities or City States cities.

There should be different groups of Barbarians such that they are just as hostile to each other as they are to other Civilizations and City States. However, each such Barbarian group can control multiple cities and since they are usually geographically separated they will not often interact with other Barbarian groups such that wars between Barbarian groups will be as rare as contact/wars between similarly geographically separated normal Civilizations.

Barbarian cities can still retain the special attributes of Barbarian encampments such as City State rewards for elimination of specific Barbarian cities, simple wealth rewards for their capture and a captured city too, if not automatically razed for game balance issues.

Barbarian units can still reasonably be easier to defeat, since they would naturally be less militarily disciplined and lack professional military leadership that AI Civilizations and City States would have. This of course would change if they become more civilized.

Therefore, I conclude that Civ V Barbarians are in serious need of a complete rewrite.

Civ IV Barbarian Digression:

BTW, Civ IV Barbarians are in need of a less major rewrite, replacing the Barbarian spawning rules with sensible AI Civilization rules, just with extremely hostile Diplomacy (essentially none, until they begin to become somewhat more civil over time, if ever). At least Civ IV Barbarians can own cities that function like AI or player cities and build units, buildings, research, etc. just like a player or AI Civ can (or are at least given the illusion of such more refined activities though they should be simulated to the same extent as in true AI civilizations).

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Agreed. But you seem to be implying that barbarians are bad chance elements. I don't think they are. There are ways to control them. Besides that, I really think handling factors with a certain amount of randomness requires tactical skill. A really good general will know the right thing to do even if there is a change in the anticipated circumstances. Why, the map itself is also a chancy feature. Would you prefer to play the same map every time just to get rid of chanciness?

Anybody who is a competent-to-elite player can handle barb camps. It's quite possible that they might even prove favorable in the metagame, to the point where people will reload over and over again until they get more of them. I can especially see this with Germany potentially.

Even if that isn't the case, all good players will handle them precisely the same way, and yet their chance element will put someone ahead. It's not tactically difficult. The skill threshold is so low that anyone who could possibly be competitive for top spots can do it; but that doesn't cut the chance element of turn shaving does it?

Well.. to the best of my knowledge it isn't. Barb camps only spawn in undeveloped areas, in areas that our outside of your field of vision. If you were to surround your territory with scouts posted on hilltops you will have no barbarians spawning close to your cities.

I am referring to the rate at which they spawn from existing encampments.

Barbarians can be helpful, especially for the skilled player . But they can also be a menace. So I think they are a feature that makes a game a little more exiting. Barbarians give you situations to handle in stead of just clicking 'next turn'. That is what I meant.

a) You didn't answer or counter my point. At all. This isn't a political debate, so you're not getting away with that .
b) Features that require a similar or precisely same reaction each time are not, IMO, "exciting". They're more like "nuisance" or "busywork". If you like it, great, but don't force it on others.

I get your point. You are probably right in thinking that people with a lot of time on their hands will take advantage of the opportunity of starting over and over again. But don't you think those people will do it anyway?

Anyway, please accept the fact that there are people that would like to have barbarians for other reasons than your statement above.

The goal here is to reduce the "game spam" = win as much as possible. It's impossible to eliminate it, but HoF goal should still be to give the people who play a game with the most skill the best chance of finishing better than competition.

And while some people may enjoy playing with barbarians for fun, I am not arguing in favor of banning barbarians for everyone. I am countering arguments from players who think that nobody should be able to disable them. The players who are demanding chance elements be forcibly added to HoF gameplay are the ones I'm calling out for wanting "luck > skill". If you simply like them, there's no issue with leaving them on. People did that in previous versions of the game also.

Also note that there are gauntlet versions of HoF that will force barbs or even raging barbs, separate from general rules.

Some people might, but I don't think you can accuse everyone in favour of barbarians of thinking this way.

You are reading statements then answering a different statement from what you read.

I am not accusing people who favor barbarians of thinking that way.

I am accusing people who favor forcing all HoF submissions to have barbarians on of thinking that way. There is a difference.

 

[Misotu]

I voted to allow no barbs - and frankly I don't have a problem with raging barbs either if people want that too. I'm firmly of the opinion that more choices and more strategies are better and I can't see any pressing reason to force people to have them turned on in the HoF. That was my opinion before reading the thread and I agree with most of the pro-choice arguments already made. I think most people will keep them on for most games, but I can see situations and map types where turning them off could be the better choice.

 

[Denniz]

For the record, Barbarians being optional for HOF has been the traditional approach. (i.e. civ3 and civ4) Civ5 has a different approach to barbarians that seem more central to game play. We are leaning toward making barbs being require for HOF submissions. The poll is intended to spark discussion and validate our thinking.

_______________________

The thought that all oppenents should be random seems like an idea worth considering. The use of cherry-picked opponents haa not gone unnoticed as some of the gauntlets show. People are going to toss out games for many reasons in their quest for perfect games. The question is would the time required to find a good mix of opponents be low enough to provide a significant advantage to players with more time? On some map types it could be a fairly large investment of time.

[teaser]
BTW, the Civ5 HOF is going to have tables defined by the combination of Victory Condition, Difficulty, Map Size, Speed, Map Type and Leader. The tables lists will be sorted by participation to minimize the effect of empty/unpopular tables (i.e. Huge, Marathon, Deity, Time, etc. ).
[/teaser]

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Comparison of Barbarians in Civ V and Civ IV:

For the record, Barbarians being optional for HOF has been the traditional approach. (i.e. civ3 and civ4) Civ5 has a different approach to barbarians that seem more central to game play. We are leaning toward making barbs being require for HOF submissions. The poll is intended to spark discussion and validate our thinking.

How are Barbarians more central to game play in Civ V than in Civ IV? The Civ V just adds some bells and whistles to Barbarians while making them much weaker in many ways ...

Civ V) You get 25 wealth for destroying a Barbarian Encampment.

Civ IV) You get a fully functional city for capturing a Barbarian City plus maybe some wealth too depending on options specified.

Civ V) You get influence with a City State when you destroy a Barbarian Encampment they specify.

Civ IV) Options permitting, you get a fully functional "City State" plus some wealth when capturing any Barbarian City.

Civ V) Otto von Bismarck: Furor Teutonicus: Upon defeating a Barbarian unit inside an encampment, there is a 50% chance you earn 25 Gold and they join your side.

Civ V) Suleiman Kanuni: Barbary Corsairs: 50% Chance of converting a Barbarian naval unit to your side and earning 25 Gold.

Civ V) Askia Muhammad I: River Warlord: Receive triple Gold from Barbarian encampments and pillaging Cities. Embarked units can defend themselves.

These three are the only Leaders that have a Unique Ability whose power increases with the number of Barbarian Encampments found. Since this affects a small minority of Leaders, it is hardly central to game play.

Civ IV) All Leaders in Civ IV are able to more easily kill Barbarian units and capture Barbarian Cities.

Civ V) Barbarian spawn rate seems far slower.

Civ IV) Barbarian spawn rate seems much faster.

In conclusion, Barbarians in Civ IV are far more central to game play in Civ IV than in Civ V.

Is this or is this not the type of discussion you want to see concerning whether or not to allow the "No Barbarian" option in the Civ V HoF?

Random Opponents:

The thought that all oppenents should be random seems like an idea worth considering. The use of cherry-picked opponents haa not gone unnoticed as some of the gauntlets show. People are going to toss out games for many reasons in their quest for perfect games. The question is would the time required to find a good mix of opponents be low enough to provide a significant advantage to players with more time? On some map types it could be a fairly large investment of time.

Before the Game Start is generated, all the Opponents can be specified as Random, but after the generation is done and before the first move in Turn 0, all teams have been resolved to specific opponents. People are simply going to toss out games whose "Random Opponents" they don't like, so the opponents are no longer statically random. A player can start a game a thousand times to get the opponents he wants. Do we want players who can win the Random Opponent lottery to win the #1 games as opposed to the best players?

As I stated in a recent post, there is no way to ensure that Opponents are Random without forcing every game started to be completed. Why? Simply because players will have a new huge category of abandoned games whose opponents they didn't like enough. Like you said "People are going to toss out games for many reasons in their quest for perfect games.", why add to it by forcing "Random Opponents" which become statistically skewed by player abandonment anyway?

The only way Random Opponents works is when everyone gets the same of "Random Opponents" as in a "Game of the Month". Random Opponents works in a GOTM, because you get exactly one chance to play a game and for that one chance the opponents are not known to you until you contact them. Suppose we want to give GOTM players a second chance to play in the same competition. To be fair, one must use the same set of initially random opponents, but in the second game, the player knows who all the opponents will be. The HoF provides multiple chances to submit and this compounds the Random Opponent problem further.

If we want the HoF to be a measure of randomness (as opposed to skill), then by means include Random Opponents. On the other hand, if we want the HoF to be a measure of player skill, then we must eliminate as much randomness as possible, except that which is required in excellent game design to meaningfully challenge the player's risk assessment skills.

Civ V HoF Presentation Structure:

[teaser]
BTW, the Civ5 HOF is going to have tables defined by the combination of Victory Condition, Difficulty, Map Size, Speed, Map Type and Leader. The tables lists will be sorted by participation to minimize the effect of empty/unpopular tables (i.e. Huge, Marathon, Deity, Time, etc. ).
[/teaser]

Doesn't the Ad Hoc search page provide almost exactly same sorting parameters and control over them as you stated above? Doesn't Civ V have a "Start Era"?

Won't the Civ V HoF Table be rather sparse when specifying some specific Leader and specific "Map Type" (not to be confused with "Map Size") to the traditional categories of Victory Condition, Difficulty, Map Size, and Speed?

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Denniz]

How are Barbarians more central to game play in Civ V than in Civ IV?
<snip>
In conclusion, Barbarians in Civ IV are far more central to game play in Civ IV than in Civ V.

I was talking about the dynamic between the City States and the Barbarians as well as the few civs that have traits related to them. They may not be better in Civ5 but they seem more required to complete the whole picture than just a speed bump they have been in the past.

Is this or is this not the type of discussion you want to see concerning whether or not to allow the "No Barbarian" option in the Civ V HoF?

yep.

Before the Game Start is generated, all the Opponents can be specified as Random, but after the generation is done and before the first move in Turn 0, all teams have been resolved to specific opponents. People are simply going to toss out games whose "Random Opponents" they don't like, so the opponents are no longer statically random. A player can start a game a thousand times to get the opponents he wants. Do we want players who can win the Random Opponent lottery to win the #1 games as opposed to the best players?

The question is whether amount of time (turns) it would takes to discover all your opponents would discourage the search for the best combination enough to be viable.

If we want the HoF to be a measure of randomness (as opposed to skill), then by means include Random Opponents. On the other hand, if we want the HoF to be a measure of player skill, then we must eliminate as much randomness as possible, except that which is required in excellent game design to meaningfully challenge the player's risk assessment skills.

There are two ends of the spectrum: random chance vs. optimized set ups. Neither seems very attractive when it comes to demonstrating skill. It is very hard to level the playing field when it comes to time available. (i.e. available to try many starts or time to dig through the XML).

Doesn't the Ad Hoc search page provide almost exactly same sorting parameters and control over them as you stated above? Doesn't Civ V have a "Start Era"?

The difference is the official definition of a HOF table. The is more to tie it all together that will be revealed in time. (We are going to require ancient starts only in Civ5 HOF.)

Won't the Civ V HoF Table be rather sparse when specifying some specific Leader and specific "Map Type" (not to be confused with "Map Size") to the traditional categories of Victory Condition, Difficulty, Map Size, and Speed?

Yes, but ignoring the map and leader makes the games on a given table less comparable. People are going to play their favorate leader/map anyway. The unpopular combinations can be ignored. It is all in the presentation. It aligns the tables with the Civ5 version of the Quattromasters challenge.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

You are reading statements then answering a different statement from what you read.

I am not accusing people who favor barbarians of thinking that way.

I am accusing people who favor forcing all HoF submissions to have barbarians on of thinking that way. There is a difference.

You got me there ! I must admit that in the course of discussion I was confusing the question "Do we want to make barbarians optional?" with the question "Do we want to disallow barbarians?". My apologies.

I think a agree with the main point that you are making, I can see no reason to force people to play with barbarians off if they really want to. I can't imagine why you would want that, though.

So you think that all the skilled players will turn barbarians off if they had the chance? In my modest experience barbarians are more a blessing than a curse, even for civs that do not have barbarian specific traits.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

The question is whether amount of time (turns) it would takes to discover all your opponents would discourage the search for the best combination enough to be viable.

In my most recent (and second) HOF game, which was a domination challenge, I had some luck with having two pacifist, non-expansionist neighbours. It doesn't take many turns to find out who your neighbours are. Aren't your neighbours the most important opponents? I can imagine people restarting because they don't like their neighbours.

 

[Denniz]

You got me there ! I must admit that in the course of discussion I was confusing the question "Do we want to make barbarians optional?" with the question "Do we want to disallow barbarians?". My apologies.

I think a agree with the main point that you are making, I can see no reason to force people to play with barbarians off if they really want to. I can't imagine why you would want that, though.

So you think that all the skilled players will turn barbarians off if they had the chance? In my modest experience barbarians are more a blessing than a curse, even for civs that do not have barbarian specific traits.

We are exploring whether playing without barbarians should be allowed for HOF submissions. I hope that clarifies things.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I was talking about the dynamic between the City States and the Barbarians as well as the few civs that have traits related to them. They may not be better in Civ5 but they seem more required to complete the whole picture than just a speed bump they have been in the past.

City States and Barbarians:

What dynamic between City States and Barbarians? The Barbarians seem to live in their own world and rarely interact with the player or City States. Unless one intrudes into their space or engages their units in combat, Barbarians seem content to not wander only very short distances from their encampment.

Get X Influence for waxing a Barbarian Encampment, if you're ever lucky to have a City State ask you to do it, even when using a military approach? Of course there may be ways to milk this in the early game for an advantage 10-100 greater than the +1 Population from Ruins when one's capital is only 1 Population.

Civ V Barbarians are simply a pot of gold (the opposite of a speed bump, since they seem help more than hinder).

Before you decide to prohibit the "No Barbarians" option, you may want to force its use in beta gauntlet to see whether it provides any unfair advantage. Almost everyone believes it would be the the player's disadvantage to select the "No Barbarians"; if a beta gauntlet "proves" this to be the case and "No Barbarians" is a significant disadvantage, why bother to make its use illegal; almost everyone will probably select the "Barbarians" option anyway.

There is a very definite dynamic between Civ IV Barbarians, Civilizations and the player. The dynamic is the Barbarian's hatred of anything civil.

Civ V Barbarians are very precise. When you capture their Encampment, you always get 25 Wealth it seems. As I said before, with Civ IV Barbarian Cities, capture usually provides one with a fully functional City, not quite the speed bump you mention.

Leaders with a Barbarian related unique ability:

There are at most three Leaders that have a unique ability that is at least partially related to Barbarians. Otto van Bismarck's unique ability of having 50% of Barbarians captured in an Encampment would seem to be game breaking with map conditions that would virtually guarantee large numbers of Barbarian Encampment. Other than perhaps two initial military units, Bismarck military might consist solely of Barbarian "conscripts".

Dealing with Barbarian Encampments:

It probably was TheMeInTeam that brought up the fact that dealing with Civ V Barbarians is very mechanical and boring. There's no risk assessment involved, because Barbarian Encampments seem to be a tacked on addition that doesn't really relate to the rest of the game. Just keep pounding the Barbarian Encampment with two units, preferably a Melee unit and an Archer unit that can move and attack.

Comparison of Civ V and Civ IV Barbarians:

In my previous post, I provided a fairly detailed analysis of Barbarians in Civ V and Civ IV. In almost all instances the Civ V Barbarians are very lame in comparison to Civ IV Barbarians. At least Civ IV Barbarians eventual form Cities, build Workers, other units and even some buildings (if I recall correctly). Civ V Barbarians have nothing but lame behavior and lame rewards for their destruction. Even the, over-powered leader, Otto von Bismarck gets only a 50% chance of getting the allegiance of any Barbarian unit in an Encampment when it is destroyed; compared to Civ VI always keeping the captured Barbarian City, Civ V's reward is very poor.

Conclusion:

Although Civ IV's Barbarian implementation isn't really very good, it fits with the game better, and is partially modeled on Civilizations in that they can built cities, workers and other units. Civ V Barbarian Encampments by contrast are extremely one-dimensionally, have no similarity to cities and frankly have no place in the game other than as a source of Wealth and occasionally city state influence for their destruction and training military units via attacking them virtually endlessly. To say there is a dynamic between Barbarians and City States in Civ V is a gross over-statement. This relation is extremely artificial, even for a game.

The developers of Civ V need to fix leaders whose special ability requires Barbarians when the "No Barbarians" option is selected. Frankly, they need to fix Barbarians to be a game element that meshes well with the rest. What I can't understand is why the HOF staff wants to force players to use the poorly implemented Barbarian game element with Civ V by making the "No Barbarian" option illegal.

Barbarians in Civ V is not its only or even its worst flaws, as the exodus from Firaxis of lead designer Jon Shafer amply hints at. Indeed, does Civ V even have a future without its lead designer only four months since its initial release. Seems they were only willing to hold unto him through the Christmas season; many other developers were apparently axed last summer.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

Dealing with Barbarian Encampments:
It probably was TheMeInTeam that brought up the fact that dealing with Civ V Barbarians is very mechanical and boring. There's no risk assessment involved, because Barbarian Encampments seem to be a tacked on addition that doesn't really relate to the rest of the game. Just keep pounding the Barbarian Encampment with two units, preferably a Melee unit and an Archer unit that can move and attack.

I think there is more involved in handling barb camps:

1) There is the city state request to dismantle a certain camp. What you see happening then is a mad rush of all players towards that camp (it was especially visible on the recent GOTM lakes map). When you arrive there chances are that units from one or more other civs are already there. So you need both speed and careful planning to make sure it is you that takes out the camp.

2) I often see camps located in places with a one tile access route. That means you do need some thinking and risk assessment in order to tackle the camp. Or it means that you have to have a ranged unit, in which case the barbarians influence your early research and army composition.

3) There are situations where a coastal camp has spawned some triremes. If you don't have a navy (yet) you have a good risk of losing a unit, especially the one making the final attack. Combinations of narrow strips of land combined with barbarian ships are especially tricky.

4) In general, if you have enough time, taking out barb camps is not really difficult. But your challenge is do do it as quick as possible. There are other barb camps out there and any time wasted will be of benefit to your opponents. Also you want to minimize your total hit point loss, because time spend healing is also precious. To my mind this means some risk assesment is always involved.

By the way, I agree that barbarians should have been made more interesting in Civ 5.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I was talking about the dynamic between the City States and the Barbarians as well as the few civs that have traits related to them. They may not be better in Civ5 but they seem more required to complete the whole picture than just a speed bump they have been in the past.

No way. Short of raging barbs you have to actively TRY to lose cities to barbs, even if you settle a city adjacent to a camp. Minor rewards =/= more central to gameplay.

On the flip side, they can easily force you to delay a tile improvement for 3 turns or something, and if that didn't happen to the other guy...

The question is whether amount of time (turns) it would takes to discover all your opponents would discourage the search for the best combination enough to be viable.

You are going 100% in the wrong direction. The answer for some people will be "no", but for players with a lot of time, the answer will be "yes". Games going well/poorly will then have an extra crapshoot element of opponents on top of everything else. You are arguing in favor of deliberately reducing skill as a factor in first place finishes. There's no pretending otherwise. Good players can win games easily, but top spots are decided by razor thin margins on occasion. Do you really want to cut into the odds of skill being the determining factor in an individual game? In a mod that historically has allowed players to reroll maps faster simply to REDUCE the chance element? I don't see how you can possibly stand on that ground .

There are two ends of the spectrum: random chance vs. optimized set ups. Neither seems very attractive when it comes to demonstrating skill. It is very hard to level the playing field when it comes to time available. (i.e. available to try many starts or time to dig through the XML).

Non-gauntlet HoF is ABOUT "optimized setups"; why do you think so many players reroll starts?! Unless you lock in maps like XOTM, you're not going to get around this. Gauntlets function to add additional constraints, but ultimately as long as players have approximately the same setup, optimized conditions won't affect the outcome of "who finishes first", player skill will determine that. Every player you allow to fall victim to random chance rather than simply allowing them an optimized condition (like the guy who made 100 submissions instead of say 3) is another incidence of dropping skill in favor of chance. It cheapens what HoF stands for to do that. Optimized starts can have victors determined by skill consistently, random chance can not do that.

So you think that all the skilled players will turn barbarians off if they had the chance? In my modest experience barbarians are more a blessing than a curse, even for civs that do not have barbarian specific traits.

I really don't know. It could easily be difficulty level or strategy dependent. We'll never find out what the metagame reveals if we lock the option one way or another though.