Civ3 HOF and not accepting tiny/small maps - unfair.

[Exsanguination]

What was it about tiny/small maps that pushed CivFanatics to stop accepting such entries into the HOF? They said something about the way civ3 scores games based on size, but by the looks of it everything seems to be fair and well.

Case and point:
Ari 19335 Deity Tiny Conquest
Aeson 63545 Deity Huge Spaceship

Don't you see a rather large difference in the scores? One was tiny (lower score), the other was huge (much higher). I'm just curious what exactly it was that stopped CivFanatics from accepting tiny/small maps.

The reason why this is a concern to me is that my computer is SLOOOOOOW (ie 20-30 mins between turns on a huge map). And I know I'm not the only one out there with this problem. The biggest map I can play is a Standard, and even that gets tedious. I'd like to see tiny/small maps accepted once again into HOF - I can't see what difference it makes scorewise.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Tiny maps were stopped because you could get very high scores with little effort (read short time). I think people really thought that those would be the high scores at the time and then no one would ever submit anymore when the tables filled. In some ways we have the same problem with huge maps, they really do allow you to score more points (but it really does take effort). Maybe someday the HOF will be classed by map sizes and level the field for a wider range of participants.

CB

PS. In the olden days they did make lots of games on MAC before PC (eg. SimCity). Apple lost it along the way.

 

[God]

Read the HOF topic around the 3rd page or somewhere, because the Duke mentioned why he wasn't allowing smaller maps.

He said that he was getting too many games too quickly. People were completing games in a few hours. He also mentioned something like, half the games he got had empires that could barely hold themselves together, and the player got the high score because of early conquest.

 

[Moonsinger]

Because the small map is a lot easier to play than the big map. For example, tiny map with 2 civs at Deity level = a piece of cake since AI don't trade techs as much as in the huge map with 16 civs. Imagining 15 civs and each reseach a different tech, then they trade with each other (except you). That's not all. If they are in a bad mood, they will all declare war against you.

 

[Exsanguination]

well, in order to cut out the quick games and conquest people - make it so only histographic/SS/cultural/diplomatic victories are counted. Less bonus, more time.

To be honest, the only reason I want this is so when I play a game I can actualyl have a goal - it makes it more fun. Or at least CivFanatics could have a separate, continuing HOF for tiny/small maps.

 

[JFL_Dragon]

Hi Exsanguination

I sympathize with you about your computer, my piece of crap want go larger than a standard map too

If you eliminate fast conquest from the tiny & small maps they would be really struggling to get in the HOF now, pending the next update.

I agree with the decision made to remove tiny & small maps for the above reasons already mentioned, but standard map can still get into every HOF category.

Cheers

JFL_Dragon

 

[Sullla]

The HOF as it currently stands is almost useless. It's a measure not so much of playing ability (though the players with the highest scores certainly are very good) but of how willing you are to sit in front of the computer for hours and hours to milk a game for the max score. Since this doesn't represent what I think of as fun, I think I'll pass. What the Hall of Fame BADLY needs is a different table not just for difficulty, but also for map size. It's clear that no one playing a standard map can ever score as highly as someone on a huge map, and the HOF should reflect this.

 

[JFL_Dragon]

Hi Sulla

Although I agree with your comments, it does still very much represent playing ability. What it does do is eliminate those player who are good, (like yourself) but don't want to milk the game. (but point taken)

It still requires the ability to quickly dominate the map. I would really like the end date to be reduce to 1950 in HOF submissions. I mean milking the game for another 100 turns after this is damm boring, and Im sure
many more players would participate in the HOF challenge if this was the case. I know you start milking way before this, but that last 100 turns is painful.

However, I do agree with your last comment about setting up tables for different size maps.

Give it time and things will change for the better I think.


Cheers

JFL_Dragon

 

[Beam]

In the same HOF thread you can find a discussion on the scoring system in Civ 3. This scoring benefits either very quick victories or fully milked games. Given the elimination of tiny/small, gameplay where non-milking skills are rewarded is not supported by the standard scoring system.

In order to get around the standard scoring system a new one has been developed for the Tournament. Base philosophy is that early achievement of a specified victory condition is rewarded highly and the Civ3 score acts as an extra bonus to determine the Tournament result.

Since my assumption is that HOF will always be based on the standard Civ3 system milking will be one of the main skills IMHO. Changes are high I will stick with the Tournament.

 

[RX2000]

Wow I thought having to wait 1 minute or so on a huge map in the modern age sucked.

 

[JFL_Dragon]

RX2000 Ive got to wait more than that on a small map And yes its time to upgrade

BTW is it really sluggish to move around from city to city, or is that just my computer too ????

 

[Bamspeedy]

Yes, as been stated before the reason the tiny/small maps were dropped is because they were getting flooded with submissions. A quick domination or conquest on a tiny map only takes an hour or so (maybe less?). I would feel sorry for the administrator of the HoF if I had 50 submissions every day to go through.

I understand your point about milking, it is tedious. It does require a combination of skills. To get the highest score, you need to get to the domination limit the fastest, then milk the most efficiently. It was already suggested about having different charts for different map sizes. Definitely a good idea, but even on a standard map, milkers will score higher.

I thought it was suggested somewhere that we also have fastest conquest, spaceship, cultural, etc? Wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[JFL_Dragon]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy

It was already suggested about having different charts for different map sizes. Definitely a good idea.

Agreed.
As time goes by Standard and Large Maps will become obsolete as it currently stands.

Players with more time restraints (who cant really play a huge map) or player with crappy computers are already eliminated from the top 3 positions in most cases.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Bamspeedy
But even on a standard map, milkers will score higher.

So True about 25-35% more.

 

[God]

Just an example. Sir Plebs monarch game he got around 8000 points. It was on a standard map and he milked it.