Civ3 High Score Hall of Fame

[damunzy]

I never even proposed using a scoring system other than Firaxis'. Not to say that I think it is perfect, but it is a standard that everyone knows, so that means that if people want to compete to be on the HOF then they need to play with that in mind. My question was to archive or keep the old scores. I am not trying to be ironhanded in anything as this is more your HOF and I am just here to administer it, but the final decision is mine and can only be overturned by Thunderfall. That said I also want you to know that I am more than willing to listen to input and if something gains enough support, even if I disagree with it, it might pass into a rule (and no, cheating will never be allowed in regular HOF games ).

Questions:
1. When do we change over to v1.21 only, which there is no rule on version right now. The reason I ask this is b/c someone might still be milking a lower version game and I would hate for them to waste all that time just to find out that it is no longer valid.
1a. Do we need to go to v1.21 only? The map size changes for Large and Huge can change the way the scoring works for milked HOF games so it might make sense to.

2. Is there anyway to check what version the save game is? I haven't looked into this yet so any input would be appreciated.

3. Are we going to archive the old HOF games or leave them up? I think that we should leave them up.

4. Customized map sizes: Should we allow pre-1.21 sized Large and Huge sized maps through customized map sizes? I think we should just use the new map sizes for a while. The game is still young so I am sure that, while amazing, some one will be able to best Aeson's game even with a reduced map size, eventually.

5. Should we allow the changing of victory conditions. I have never liked this rule but I think it is there to give the non-milkers a chance to make it on the boards....from the Civ2 HOF I thought the whole point of HOF was to milk the game (something for which I don't have enough patience, but I am still appreciative of the time and skill involved).

Statements:
6. I believe that everyone either doesn't care or thinks that 1 entry per person person difficulty level is enough. I will update the rules page to reflect this.

7. The scoring is staying the way it is. Read the reason at the begining of the post.

I would like to have an actual poll on this but if I made it in the Civ3 - General section a lot of people that never even considered play HOF would vote without knowing the background of the questions. While it would be great to get them interested it is like asking someone which Rapper is better and they only listen to Heavy Metal.

Random thoughts on new HOF categories:
8. Custom Map - Whatever type map you wanted to make, 200x200, all grassland, single A.I. located on island with mountain, whatever victory conditions enable/disabled, whatever you want free-for-all, EXCEPT actually cheating and save reloading for better results. I would limit this to either 1 or 3 people.

9. I am also thinking of adding in some additional categories like Cultural only and others. Where they will be placed if still up in the air. In these games you can disable all other victory conditions so you get only the one you want. Sound off to let me know where you want it and/or if you think it is a good idea. Categories I was thinking of adding:
a. Diplomatic
b. Cultural - Empire
c. Cultural - One City
d. OCC
e. Quickest
f. Space Ship
g. Custom Map - mentioned in point 8.

Conclusion:
I am making some changes to the HOF page. I am looking to format it so that more games will be able to be listed in the same amount of space. 1024x768, civfanatics.com's standard resolution, will be the recommended viewing size and I will be reducing the font by one category. I need eveyone's input on the points I have made above so please try to answer each question. Thanks!

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by PaleHorse76
1. When do we change over to v1.21 only, which there is no rule on version right now. The reason I ask this is b/c someone might still be milking a lower version game and I would hate for them to waste all that time just to find out that it is no longer valid.

I think end of May would probably be fine. If anyone has a game on the go right now and won't have it finished by that time hopefully they'll jump in and say so.

1a. Do we need to go to v1.21 only? The map size changes for Large and Huge can change the way the scoring works for milked HOF games so it might make sense to.

I vote for going to 1.21 only for future submissions, just on general principles. Haven't got a specific reason for this, just seems a good thing to me.

2. Is there anyway to check what version the save game is? I haven't looked into this yet so any input would be appreciated.

An easy way would be to check the size of the 4000BC .SAV file. Pre-1.21 the smallest for a HOF submission, for a standard size map, would be around 1Mb. With version 1.21 the largest would be less than 150Kb.

3. Are we going to archive the old HOF games or leave them up? I think that we should leave them up.

I'd like to see them stay up.

4. Customized map sizes: Should we allow pre-1.21 sized Large and Huge sized maps through customized map sizes? I think we should just use the new map sizes for a while. The game is still young so I am sure that, while amazing, some one will be able to best Aeson's game even with a reduced map size, eventually.

I'd like to have a customized map size of 180x180 allowed. Aeson's entry is going to be quite a challenge to beat even on a 180x180 map. On a 160x160 map beating that entry will require at least 20% better play again, quite a feat at that level.

5. Should we allow the changing of victory conditions. I have never liked this rule but I think it is there to give the non-milkers a chance to make it on the boards....from the Civ2 HOF I thought the whole point of HOF was to milk the game (something for which I don't have enough patience, but I am still appreciative of the time and skill involved).

I don't think that victory conditions should be changeable. Removing some of the victory conditions doesn't make it possible for non-milked games to get higher scores, it just makes them easier at the same scoring levels. I think it reduces the challenge in the game when some victory conditions are disabled - it means that the player doesn't have to stop the AIs from winning by those conditions.

Random thoughts on new HOF categories

Sounds like fun to add some special categories! I'm not sure which ones would be best. There are three in particular that I'd like:
a) Unlimited map size. This is almost the same as "custom map" but I think it might be worth its own category. The difference vs. custom map is that all other rules remain in force, the only rule which is relaxed is the 180x180 map size limit.
b) OCC
c) "All victories" - a submission in this category would have to finish in 2050AD and be winnable all six ways. (Blatant plug here , my lower Deity entry which is about to disappear has this victory.)


Thanks for all the thought and work you are putting into this PaleHorse76!

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by dikwhit
A wild guess? close enough? cmon please guys. While i understand "close enough" the idea that we would all go to the trouble of milking games to death,we then go for close enough is garbage. Us anal retentive mofos are not going to settle for close enough.
SirPleb Im kinda even amazed those words came out of your keyboard.

Well, I was thinking just of the top Deity entries. I think that all other current entries in the HOF aren't approaching the maximum milking of a 160x160 map yet, so wouldn't need adjusting. And for those really high entries, it seems unlikely that a difference of a few percent will change the relative position of a new entry. There's a fairly wide spread.

But your point is well taken! Applying an adjustment factor to try comparing it to a different map size is not a precise thing. And the score itself is an exact number. The best thing to my mind would be to leave all entries untouched and allow for use of 180x180 in new submissions.

 

[MuddyOne]

1) Because of some flaws that are corrected in most patches, a one month period should exist to allow people to finish any games in progress. This should be a standard rule for any patch that comes out.

2) Unknown

3) Until the scores are to a level that is considered "unbeatable", there is no need to archive. At that point, is this the HOF, or a monthly, yearly, whatever best played games. If HOF, I would say to keep the scores forever- unless a patch drastically affects obtainable highscores.

4) Don't see any reason to allow custom sizes unless the scores were to a point that was unbeatable due to map size changes.

5) I don't think so. Perhaps additional categories of "high scores" as you propose later.

6) I agree. Having a category that only lists one person would be sort of a waste of space.

7) I don't see a reason to change scoring either. Whatever method is chosen will result in people optimizing their play towards that direction. Currently it demonstrates both early land grab ability combined with effective city growth.

8) I would actually probably go in a different direction here. A map for each difficulty level that remains constant. This would be a test to see who makes best use of a given territory. It will be assumed that you will play on the map multiple times shooting for high score, so it is best use of availbale territory.

9) I would say they need all victory conditions enabled. I would also go with fastest, not based on score, otherwise most players can easily steer games to finish anyway they pick in a milked game.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by SirPleb
I think end of May would probably be fine. If anyone has a game on the go right now and won't have it finished by that time hopefully they'll jump in and say so.

I hope that would give me enough time to finish my current game. I'm currently on the milking stage at the moment; there is still over 200 more turns left in the game. There are only three civs left. Even though they all are technologically advance as I am, I'm controlling all the resources and they are fighting with stick and stone now. It's really sad to watch wave after wave of archers trying to charge my line of infantries. Those archers are just too dangerous. Some how they have been able to wiped out two of my bravest infantries last turn.

 

[Aeson]

4) Don't see any reason to allow custom sizes unless the scores were to a point that was unbeatable due to map size changes.

My score may very well be unbeatable (with current rules) on a 160x160 map size. I made a couple of mistakes during the course of the game that probably set me back a couple thousand points. I would guess I was within 5-10% of the best possible score on that map.

On a 180x180 map that would allow for the score to be beat. On a 160x160 map the max turn score is only 79% of what it is on a 180x180. I would have had to miss the max score on a 180x180 map by close to 20% for there to be any chance that it could be beaten on a 160x160 map.

Allowing 180x180 map sizes in 1.21f shouldn't cause any problems. It would give everyone a chance to compete on (mostly) equal footing.

 

[MuddyOne]

Originally posted by MuddyOne
3) Until the scores are to a level that is considered "unbeatable", there is no need to archive. At that point, is this the HOF, or a monthly, yearly, whatever best played games. If HOF, I would say to keep the scores forever- unless a patch drastically affects obtainable highscores.

4) Don't see any reason to allow custom sizes unless the scores were to a point that was unbeatable due to map size changes.

Originally posted by Aeson
My score may very well be unbeatable (with current rules) on a 160x160 map size. I made a couple of mistakes during the course of the game that probably set me back a couple thousand points. I would guess I was within 5-10% of the best possible score on that map.

On a 180x180 map that would allow for the score to be beat. On a 160x160 map the max turn score is only 79% of what it is on a 180x180. I would have had to miss the max score on a 180x180 map by close to 20% for there to be any chance that it could be beaten on a 160x160 map.

Allowing 180x180 map sizes in 1.21f shouldn't cause any problems. It would give everyone a chance to compete on (mostly) equal footing.

#3 applies as well, the last part after the hyphen. I would not want to see it done to a game that just got up on the board though. Your game was on a 18x180 I assume?

 

[Aeson]

The default huge setting in 1.17f. Pretty sure it was 180x180.

 

[Ronald]

Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Come on! I am on the number 1 spot in Monarch for almost half a year now! God, 8000 will not do!

Any challengers, please stand up, so I can crush you

Hi Beammeuppy,
I submitted my HOF attempt at monarch level with 23.888 points. Hopefully this is challenge enough for you

 

[Ronald]

HOF attempt at monarch level:

As Aeson posted somewhere, the starting location and the quality of the map is an extremely crucial part for high scores.
I was trying about 30 times for several turns (until horses and/or iron were visible) to get a really exceptionally map: One settler at 3800BC, lots of grassland with rivers, horses and iron relatively close.
My initial building pattern was not too tight, but a close built with some overlapping tiles; just getting scouts and settlers.
With my scouts I made contact with everybody else (besides Egypt) very soon.
1870 BC: I found out that the Chinese and the Aztecs were the furthest behind in power, so I demanded a city from both of them (it is no longer possible with patch 1.21f to just demand the cities, you have to declare war and at the same turn negotiate peace).
1325 BC: I demanded two more cities of both the Chinese and the Aztecs.
1250 BC: I could demand 1 city from the Iroquois and the Egyptians.
825 BC: 2 more cities from China, 1 from the Aztecs.
750 BC: The Iroquois threatened to take their city back, so I gave it to them without war (no defender there)
In the meantime I only build settlers and horsemen. My first target will be Greece, as soon as I have knights available (my research rate is at 10% or 0, I am saving all my money for upgrading horsemen. I get my research advances from goodie huts and trading)
550 BC: I could demand 2 more cities from Egypt
370 BC: 2 more cities from China
150 BC: 2 more cities from Egypt
130 BC: 1 city from the Aztecs, 2 cities from Greece
120 BC: 1 city from Rome
50 BC: Egypt took one city back
10 AD: The Iroquois declared war and threatened to get all my cities in Egypt territory
130 AD: Iroquois took one city, I made an alliance with Egypt and Rome against the Iroquois and donated my two cities with no defense to Rome.
230 AD: 4 more cities from China
270 AD: 2 more cities from the Aztecs
430 AD: I converted all my chariots and horsemen into knights (50+) and started the war against Greece
470 AD: The war is decided, just a few cities to take, got a GL and built the forbidden palace in Athens, got 1 more city from both China and the Aztecs
550 AD: India is the 2nd power, so I declared war, razed a few of their cities. Since all my cities are producing knights and musketeers, my army is stronger than at the beginning of this war.
610 AD: The last city of Greece is destroyed, they re-spawn north of the Iroquois. In the meantime, the war between the Iroquois against Rome, Japan and Egypt is still going on.
660 AD: Got peace with the Indians (now after razing a few cities, they are less of a threat, additionally I asked the Japanese to go to war with them to keep them occupied), declared war against the Chinese and the Aztecs
890 AD: The last Chinese city is destroyed, they also re-spawn north of the Iroquois
990 AD: Started the war against India again
1150 AD: The Aztecs are almost destroyed, India has no good defenders, I am converting my knights into cavalry, it will be an easy war with India
1190 AD: I made an alliance with Rome against India
1290 AD: India is destroyed, I am coming close to domination limit. In order not to worry about the remaining civs, I want to destroy them also as soon as possible to be able to concentrate on growing my cities.
Rome will be a difficult opponent because they got riflemen, but with more than 100 cavalry and more coming every turn, it should be possible to defeat them.
1330 AD: Rome declared war ( I demanded that they leave my territory) and in the first turn I was able to capture 7 Roman cities.
1410 AD: The war against Rome is almost over (they have just one city far north), I captured all the land I need, from now on everything is easy: Destroy the rest of the civs (I now have more than 130 cavalry and lots of workers to build railroads for quick movement) and develop my cities (marketplace, harbor where possible, hospital)
1475 AD: Every civ except one Greek city is destroyed, but unfortunately Greece does not accept ROP, so I decided to stay in Monarchy (it’s a monarch game anyway) and use part of my military to keep all my citizens happy.
Around 1700 AD: Many of my cities grow beyond size 12, my research rate is rather slow (not much libraries and universities to avoid early cultural victory), so pollution becomes a problem. Between 1750 and 1950 I got 10 to 15 tiles per turn polluted and for some period (1800 to 1930) on average 3 tiles changed because of global warming.
Additional to that, the time for turns became quite long: about 6 minutes per turn although I did nothing but buying hospitals and later mass transits. So I decided to read books while the computer was busy.
Around 1950: The time between the turns was back to about 2 minutes. At this stage I could have set up almost every victory at 2050: Overall culture at 100.000, 20.000 culture in Washington, Domination; Conquest and Space Ship. I didn’t want to count every tile and I also was too lazy to count the culture increase exactly, so I just went for conquest and space ship.
2050 AD: Finished with 23888 points with space ship victory (after all the time I spent, I wanted at least a nice video to watch as reward)

Final remarks:
This is by far not the optimal score for monarch level:
I realized only too late, that sea tiles don’t count for domination limit, so my territory could have been larger
After capturing the required territory stopping war and developing the cities should lead to more population earlier on
I did not use high production cities to produce units disbanded in corrupted cities to rush improvements (too tedious work for me), I just bought whenever I had enough money
I did automate most of my workers
I checked my cities for unhappy people not often

 

[Beam]

Ronald!

The main difference in approach with my submission is that I was more peaceful initially. Effect is that it is much later when it really is possible to improve cities.

With a Large Map game being released this Friday it might take a couple of weeks before I pick the gauntlet and even more time before it is submitted but I'll be back!

Ronald, may I conclude from your postcount that you spend most time playing rather than posting?

 

[Ronald]

Originally posted by Beammeuppy

Ronald, may I conclude from your postcount that you spend most time playing rather than posting?

You are partly right, besides playing I do have a lot of work and I post mainly when I think I can contribute something.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Ronald
HOF attempt at monarch level:
...

2050 AD: Finished with 23888 points with space ship victory (after all the time I spent, I wanted at least a nice video to watch as reward)

Well done! I still have about 140 turns left to go. Since I have made so many mistakes in this game, my final score probably will be a couple thousand points lower than yours.

 

[Beam]

Originally posted by Ronald


Hi Beammeuppy,
I submitted my HOF attempt at monarch level with 23.888 points. Hopefully this is challenge enough for you

As said previous, great score! btw what was your mapsize and patchlevel?

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Beammeuppy
As said previous, great score! btw what was your mapsize and patchlevel?

Check out the map of my current game on this thread.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=294056&t=912#post294056

It's the best naval blockage I have come up with in my entire history of civ3. My map size is huge with a total of 16 civs. I'm currently in 1852 AD, but I'm expect to get at least 20K out of this game.

 

[Ronald]

Originally posted by Beammeuppy


As said previous, great score! btw what was your mapsize and patchlevel?

Huge map, pangea, patch 1.21f

 

[RufRydyr]

I think I'm playing on a huge map, but how do i find out what size it is?
since the maps are now smaller shouldn't we need less rivals? shouldn't 7 rivals min. be enough for huge map or is it easier to get higher scores with more rivals and the min. amount is then mute?
[plasma]
one more question. the smilies on this site rock, can they be used elsewhere and how?

tyvmia all!

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by RufRydyr
I think I'm playing on a huge map, but how do i find out what size it is?
since the maps are now smaller shouldn't we need less rivals? shouldn't 7 rivals min. be enough for huge map or is it easier to get higher scores with more rivals and the min. amount is then mute?
[plasma]
one more question. the smilies on this site rock, can they be used elsewhere and how?

tyvmia all!

You could always copy them to your harddrive, upload them to a picture hosting place like yahoo briefcase or www.netfirms.com, and then make links to the pictures. Please do not link to the pictures that are residing on the CFC web server as it then uses up our bandwidth...thanks.

For everyone that has submitted a game recently: I plan to have them reviewed and up by the weekend, my weekend, which happens to be Monday and Tuesday, so give me a little bit more time. After this I plan to do it weekly or if the mood hits me (meaning I have extra time) whenever I can, but at least weekly.
I believe I have recieved 2 games that have some question to whether they are valid games:
1. GotM are not valid games for the HOF.
2. 7 A.I. on a huge map. I am going to reread the rules to see if it says 8 civs or 8 A.I.. I personally thought it said 8 civs......does any of the regulars in here have any input on this situation if it does say 8 A.I.? Should it be left like that or should it be 8 civs (that means 7 A.I. + 1 player instead of 8 A.I. + 1 player).

 

[damunzy]

Just read the rules...it states pretty plainly that you need 8 rivals.....unfortunately I will need to reject that submission.
Well fortunately the same guy that submitted the 7 rivals game was the same as the one that submitted the GOTM game. Two birds one stone

 

[JFL_Dragon]

Hello Fellow players

Im an old civ2 vet, but i only got civ3 two weeks ago as Ive been working overseas, so please excuse my ignorance on any comments i might make. Ive only played 3 games on civ3 but ive read quite a few postings on this webpage.

The Hall of fame represents a variety of different patches. Personally I would archive old games using old patches but I think most people want the old scores to remain.

Would it be possible then next to the huge,large etc the actual size of the map. Eg The Huge (180). as the 1.21 patch maximum is (160) At least this would give more credit for players playing on a different size map ? Also would it be possible to put the version there also but this may be difficult to check.

Other hall of fame ideas could be possible best score using one of the harder civs listed in the war academy or the fastest spaceship launch.


Finally, I would like to say this is a fantastic site and people like Sir pleb etc etc has done a wonderful job anaylsing this game which will save me hours and hours of research.


Cheers

JFL_ Dragon