1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Can Veni Vidi Vici be improved?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Hall of Fame Discussion' started by Miraculix, Dec 1, 2011.

  1. Miraculix

    Miraculix Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    154
    Although I have played Civilization since Civ III, I just recently started competing in Veni Vidi Vici. Unfortunately, I find Veni Vidi Vici less attractive than (E)QM in Civ IV. There are mainly two reasons for this.

    No incentive for diversity
    My understanding is that Veni Vidi Vici is supposed to encourage diversity in conditions, map sizes, speeds, map types, and leaders. However, this is not the case. Suppose I finish the minimum of 19 games (one for each leader) that are required to complete all categories in Veni Vidi Vici. These can be lousy games that don't give any medals/points. Next, suppose I earn a gold medal in all settler/duel/quick/domination tables. There are 12*19=228 such tables (one for each combination of 19 leaders and 12 map types). This could potentially give me 228*9=2052 points and a first place in Veny Vidi Vici by a good margin. But earning first place with all your points from settler/duel/quick/domination tables is not eactly diversity. I haven't done an exact count, but I believe almost 50% of all games currently counting towards Veni Vidi Vici points are settler/duel/quick/domination&culture games.

    No incentive to fill up empty tables
    If my game is the only game in a table, I get no medal and zero points for that game. So why would I even bother to submit a game to an empty table? When looking at Civ V HOF, it seems like most games are concentrated on a very limited number of tables and I suspect the main reason is that there is no credit for being the only game in a table.

    Suggested solutions

    1) For each category and sub-category, only allow for a maximum of N (e.g. N=4) games to be counted. For example, in category Inferno, sub-category Settler, maximum 4 games would be counted towards Veni Vidi Vici. This would correspond to the "2 best games per sub-event rule" in Civ IV (E)QM. This will effectively limit the number of medals/points earned from e.g settler/duel/quick/domination tables.

    2) Give one point for games being the only game in a table. This should give an incentive for players to start filling up empty tables. As soon as there is at least one game in a table, other players would have an incentive to submit a second game to that table to earn a bronze medal. Suggested scores to be earned:
    - Gold medal: 9 points
    - Silver medal: 6 points
    - Bronze medal: 3 points
    - No medal: 1 point
     
  2. vexing

    vexing knows

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,668
    i don't think this would change much...
    to make sure i understand correctly, you're proposing the vvv be an aggregate of each sub table, where the subtables are limited to 4 golds per category, whereas currently it is just a total medal count.

    even though the medals in inferno (difficulty) would effectively be reduced, there's no reason a person couldn't go through each leader on settler, duel, domination to earn four golds per leader (76 total), varying difficulty and map and stuff appropriately to fill out other categories as well... it wouldn't be too hard to reach the limit, while still having 90% of games be trivial duel domination wins.
     
  3. Peets

    Peets Emperor Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,056
    Location:
    Belgium
    If three or four good players are hunting for the duel domination wouldn't that lower their scores since you can't beat them all?

    I think it's more a matter of how many games you have submitted.
     
  4. Miraculix

    Miraculix Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    154
    Correct.

    It is true that you can still maximize your score with a majority of "trivial" games. I guess my point is that there should be a much lower limit to how many points one can earn from "trivial" games before one would have to start submitting non-trivial games to increase the vvv score further.

    Let's assume I only want to go for gold medals in "trivial" Domination/Quick games with Dual or Tiny map sizes and with Settler, Chieftain or Warlord difficulty levels. With these settings there are currently 2*3*12*19 = 1368 gold medals to be earned, one for each combination of map size (2), level (3), map type (12) and leader (19).

    With the suggested modifications, the maximum number of gold medals from such "trivial" games would be reduced from 1368 to 152 (or 76 with maximum 2 gold medals per sub-category):

    Inferno: 3*4 = 12 gold medals
    Machiavelli: 1*4 = 8 gold medals
    Go the Distance: 2*4 = 4 gold medals
    Tempi Trophy: 1*4 = 4 gold medals
    Map Quest: 12*4 = 48 gold medals
    League of Nations: 19*4 = 76 gold medals
    Total: 152 gold medals

    To increase my vvv score beyond that I would need to move to higher difficulty levels, larger map sizes, other speeds, and other victory conditions. Together with the suggested one point for games in single-entry tables, this would be an incentive for people to start submitting more "non-trival" games.
     
  5. Miraculix

    Miraculix Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    154
    I am not sure I understand your argument, but my point is that with the current rules, people have no other choice than to submit games to a few very competitive tables since "all" other tables are empty and result in zero points.
     
  6. vexing

    vexing knows

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,668
    you need to find tables which have 5 competitors to earn a gold medal. i don't think aggregating + limiting would add any "incentive" for players to submit different games, though it may be disincentive to submit some game for which they're at the vvv limit.

    it also removes some competitive prospects. currently anyone who wanted first place could go through and find any table i have a gold medal in and beat my score... with an aggregate + limit, losing any particular gold may not reduce my vvv standing at all.
     
  7. Miraculix

    Miraculix Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    154
    To me, discouraging trivial games (where one is already at the vvv limit) is the same as encouraging non-trivial games.

    True, but you seem to be advocating a competition where the total number of medals/points is the only parameter used to rank players. After I submit the minimum of 19 (potentially lousy) games required to complete all 6 vvv categories, it doesn't matter which table I choose for subsequent games. Except for the first 19 games, the current vvv is just a "total number of medals in HOF" competition, and you don't really need the vvv categories. What is the purpose of distinguishing between Inferno, Machiavelli, Go the Distance, Tempi Trophy, Map Quest, and League of Nations categories if the number of points for a particular player is exactly the same in each of those?
     
  8. vexing

    vexing knows

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,668
    for me they're not related. if i wanted to defend my position with most gold medals, even under your scheme i'd still focus on trivial games with enough competitors to get a gold. as things are currently, i would do the same or alternatively find the gold medals of my competition and poach them (which as i pointed out may not be effective under your scheme).

    maybe a different approach would be more fruitful?
    if you wanted to discourage these trivial games, there could be a weighting system in place designed to penalize the points awarded for trivial games, ie lower awards for map sizes tiny or duel with a domination victory
     
  9. Denniz

    Denniz Where's my breakfast? Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    11,092
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    Right now the medals and score are the composite of all games played (Date and Score) that meet the critieria.

    Playing all the combinations is the price of admission to the Overall VVV Rankings. Each of the categories can be looked at separately for folks that want to specialize.

    The total medals being uncapped means you don't get ties where people have reached the cap. Over time, the number of medals available will increase as folk start to submit entries for more tables and people start to contest them.

    If people want to get more medals they need to "open" more tables by submitting the first one. If someone submits a better game then they would get the bronze. If they cannot beat it, they still may want to submit since they may still earn a medal if more people submit.
     
  10. Miraculix

    Miraculix Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    154
    I guess I don't understand the specializing part, since any player has exactly the same number of points in each category. If I earn a gold medal, I get exactly 9 additional points in all categories. This also means that the ranking of players is exactly the same in all categories.
    Agree, but the problem seems to be that people are reluctant to "open" a table because they don't get a point immediately.
     
  11. Denniz

    Denniz Where's my breakfast? Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    11,092
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    I don't think I intended for categories to have the same scores as the overall. I guess it makes sense how that came about. Once you have all subcategories that should cover all your games. I am going to have to think about that... :sad:
     
  12. Kyp Durron

    Kyp Durron CP5

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    418
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Cant seem to find out exactly what Veni Vidi Vici is... someone point me in the right direction?
     
  13. sanabas

    sanabas Psycho Bunny Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,269
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    I think if instead of tables with 2 games having bronze, 4 games having silver, 6 games having gold, change it to 1/3/5. That will encourage empty tables to be 'opened', and having a score to beat should encourage others to try and knock them off.

    Another way to encourage it would to leave it at 2/4/6, but count every player's 2 best games in a given table.

    I'm also not a massive fan (It's ok, but I'd be happy if it was scored like civ 4) of every single possible variation of map/leader being its own separate table for scoring purposes, and really can't see how the justification for doing that (we only want to compare games that are very similar, and not force people to use the 'best' map/civ for a given table) matches up with the justification for excluding DLC (they'd be the 'best' civs, and so stop people without DLC being competitive). If you want variety, if you don't want players to feel constrained to playing the best civ in order to be competitive, then it shouldn't be a problem allowing the best civs to be used, since they're only compared to each other. That's a separate issue though.
     
  14. Denniz

    Denniz Where's my breakfast? Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    11,092
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    It is a link on the HOF Website. (Veni Vidi Vici) The idea is to play at least one of every Victory Condition, Difficulty, Map Size, Map Type, Speed and Leader.
     
  15. ColinTH

    ColinTH Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    441
    Location:
    Bedford
    Hi guys, this is my first post on the HOF forum. I fully concur with the point being made by Miraculix, my long term thinking would be to submit a far less than perfect time, thus encouraging others to go for the bronze. One month later you can then play your perfect game and perhaps get your bronze, silver or gold. This long term strategy would apply to any duel domination games where our time expenditure is at a minimum. Even duel continents maps are sometimes not separated by the deep blue sea (much to my surprise), the scope for posting a better time is obvious!

    Before I ever looked at this site, I was playing Deity, England, Huge map, Marathon, Archipelago/tiny islands and going for all victory conditions. I have probably spent a thousand hours playing this type of game and have had a 1,000AD domination victory in the past. Just to emphasize my point from the previous paragraph, Vexing has posted a finnish date of 270AD, so what would be the point of me playing a twelve hour game just to give vexing a bronze medal? Even if I managed a finnish around 800AD, who in their right mind would spend twelve hours of their life beating my time for no medal? In my opinion Vexing desrves a gold medal for his achievement and I can't see this finnish time being challenged for years to come!

    EDIT - I would love to see these exact conditions come up on a G-Max game for two reasons -
    1 - vexing gets his just reward.
    2 - I can play my favourite game and just maybe get a silver or bronze!
     
  16. Arnold_T

    Arnold_T Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2009
    Messages:
    399
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    I like this idea!
    Maybe an even better idea would be to forget about the minimum number of entries in a table for medals, and just award medal no matter how many entries, and points for:

    - 1st place (Gold medal): 4 * number of participants in table
    - 2nd place (silver medal): 3 * number of participants in table
    - 3rd place (bronze medal): 2* number of particpants in table
    - 4th place : 4 points
    - 5th place : 3 points
    - 6th place : 2 points
    - 7th+ place : 1 point

    I think this would help to get all the tables opened up and to get the tables populated with more entries.
    And it also makes a gold medal versus 20 competitors more valuable than a gold versus 5 competitors.
    Which opens up some new competitive opportunities.
     
  17. Peets

    Peets Emperor Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,056
    Location:
    Belgium
    Sounds interesting but scores will be very high.
    And you don't want to know how many points Vexing will have then....
     
  18. Arnold_T

    Arnold_T Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2009
    Messages:
    399
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    :) true.
    but, we could just shorten his scores with K shortforms.
     
  19. Denniz

    Denniz Where's my breakfast? Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    11,092
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    Interesting points discussion. I like factoring the number of participants in the score.

    One think we were trying to do with minimum participants for medals was to avoid giving away cheap gold medals for just for submitting a game. I don't see that changing.

    Coming up with an incentive for additional entries make sense. But we don't want to reward low quality submissions. Take the same example of Vexing's 270AD date. Should I really get a reward for a 2000AD submission? Remember it is the Hall of Fame not Hall of Submissions.

    One nice thing we have with Map Type and Leader added to the criteria is better comparibility. We may be able to make use of the relative turn numbers to differentiate.

    Another thought I had was rather unlimited points, have a number of points (10 or 100) that is divided up amoung the participants. The medal limits could also unlock fractions of the total so just submitting to an empty table doesn't award the full amount.
     
  20. Arnold_T

    Arnold_T Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2009
    Messages:
    399
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    yes Denniz, I think limiting the points in some way would be a good idea, either with your idea, or
    just by putting a limit on how the multiplier for number of participants can go (maybe 10?)
    So that a gold medal is worth maximum 40 points, no matter how many participants submit.
     

Share This Page