Do we dare to try to fix QScore?

[Denniz]

I expect that we are going to have to look at the QScore calculation next. Or at least the adjustment factors for size, difficulty and barbs. The trick will be to build a matrix for those against the different victory conditions indicating the real, relative difficulty. Other factors like OCC, PA, etc. may have to be considered.

Of course, if it turns into a huge mess with people pulling for their favorite playing style, it is not likely to ever get anywhere. Only objective arguments are going to get the job done.

 

[Jimmy Thunder]

Three areas of Qscore that I think should be adjusted are:

Qscore penalty for victories obtained by Permanent Alliance. Fast victories with Permanent Alliances are all about piggybacking on the AI rather than getting ahead and beating the AI.

Hmmmm how to be objective about qscore and map sizes? The difference in qscore between standard/large/huge should be removed or reduced significantly. In general, huge/large maps take much more play time than a standard size map. With the current setup, players are almost forced to play these massive maps if they are concerned about maximising qscore (just an observation, I haven't really attempted many huge maps purely for qscore). The shear player-hours (and also issues with computer performance) can quickly wear away the enjoyment factor (IMHO). The justification of map sizes should be the same system as for gamespeeds. Gamespeed can make the game harder or easier, short or longer but currently does not affect your qscore beyond deciding which other victory dates you are compared against.

I do however think that a qscore penalty for small/tiny/duel should remain. This is purely due to my experience that these games don't have the same challenges compared to playing against at least 6 opponents. They have a cheesy feel to them.

Two final points that I think are not as major...

Raging barbs should only give a qscore advantage for early starts (ancient starts?).

I don't think OCC should be penalised in QScore since it is a self imposed handicap except for some very rare situations where it may slightly speed you up, for example on deity if you are going for diplo or perhaps PA spacerace.

 

[Dracandross]

Three areas of Qscore that I think should be adjusted are:

Qscore penalty for victories obtained by Permanent Alliance. Fast victories with Permanent Alliances are all about piggybacking on the AI rather than getting ahead and beating the AI.

Hmmmm how to be objective about qscore and map sizes? The difference in qscore between standard/large/huge should be removed or reduced significantly. In general, huge/large maps take much more play time than a standard size map. With the current setup, players are almost forced to play these massive maps if they are concerned about maximising qscore (just an observation, I haven't really attempted many huge maps purely for qscore). The shear player-hours (and also issues with computer performance) can quickly wear away the enjoyment factor (IMHO). The justification of map sizes should be the same system as for gamespeeds. Gamespeed can make the game harder or easier, short or longer but currently does not affect your qscore beyond deciding which other victory dates you are compared against.

I do however think that a qscore penalty for small/tiny/duel should remain. This is purely due to my experience that these games don't have the same challenges compared to playing against at least 6 opponents. They have a cheesy feel to them.

Two final points that I think are not as major...

Raging barbs should only give a qscore advantage for early starts (ancient starts?).

I don't think OCC should be penalised in QScore since it is a self imposed handicap except for some very rare situations where it may slightly speed you up, for example on deity if you are going for diplo or perhaps PA spacerace.

Well well

1) I do not think that PA is that cheesy to need lower of Qs. Diplomacy is as good as war even though it needs less micro. If you pull out quick/deity/anc spacerace without PA then I might change views. For example if you go war you do not pick agg/cre/pro AIs either.

2) Mapsize just for its size is not reason to get alot more QS. Although duel map is little harder (non inca at least) for some occasions. Try culture on duel instead of small. You need same amount of cities for caths but you can get boxed in. For conq/domi bigger is harder, for teching bigger is not so much for culture bigger is easier (specially biggest for cath of 2/3/4). Change in mapsize is not steep enough on lower levels and way too big on higher.

Suggestion about: huge 1 large .95 st .9 sm .75 ti .6 du .4 and modify according to victory condition.

And for that matter conq/dom should get more for faster speeds compared to peaceful ones and peaceful less for faster. Is this needed though?

3) Barbs definitely should give bonus (at least any meaningful bonus) for starts they do matter. Havent tried classic-industrial but at least they affect only a little on modern and nothing at future. And more on deity and lot less on settler (or just precentage bonus instead of set amount of increase)

4) OCC is again a way of playing and that should not give discount. If OCC is best way to go then it is. I mean way to get win on settings is skill and OCC is different to nonOCC.

-D

 

[shyuhe]

I'm assuming emperor+ for analysis here. I don't think PA or OCC should result in a score reduction. They both require superior diplo skills to manipulate so they don't scream cheese to me. I would like to see the map adjustment recalculated. Dracandross has a nice proposal for that. I also wouldn't mind a flat 1.0 for huge, large and standard. Small would be .75, tiny 0.5, duel 0.25.

 

[Dracandross]

.25 for duel is quite meaningless. Id not like to see duel skipped altogether.

For deity/duel with barbs 25pts for #1, no. At least then we have to pump up diff adjustors too. In my opinion my % was more balanced, with good duel youd still get something. You have to remember that as duel is fastest it most likely has more competition and therefore its harder to get high% of score counted. If you get .4 (duel) instead of .9 (std) score is not high with duel but would mean something still.

Btw forgot:

*) We really need more pts for monarch+ and less for prince- and even less for warlod-. Reasons Monarch AI starts with archer, warlord- is possible to get settler/worker from huts.

Propose precentage for difficulty:
deity 100 (AI 2 settlers)
immort 85
emperor 70
monarch 55 (AI archers)
prince 40
noble 30
warlord 20 (hut workers)
chieftain 10 (hut settlers)
settler 5 (hut settlers)

If were to fix Qscore lets modify it enough so that it really counts for difficulty.

And in the end Id give extra Qscore for #1 holders (maybe #2-3 too) to make lower levels worth competing. Amount is unclear. (I know first date gets 100% and rest get less but it should be more significant, specially on easier levels, 100% of 5 is nothing and not worth going for instead of 90% of 5)

-D

 

[FiveAces]

I think PA and OCC should not matter. As noted by shuyhe a PA adds a level of complexity to the game. You want the highest QScore possible for space? Play a great non-PA game (e.g. kovascflo in the recent major - in fact he beat good players who made PA's) but research MT and manage your relations effectively. That should not be penalized. You want an easy deity space win with OCC and PA? Fine. But as soon as someone gets a better one by building a better empire your Qscore will suffer accordingly. The PA should be viewed as a bonus a good player can incorporate effectively into their game, not as a penalty.

As for OCC, if anything it should be given a bonus on larger maps since the disparity is greater - you tech slower and the AI has much more cities.

On map size, you must maintain differences in the larger maps for conq/dom/time/score (though the values can certainly change) or there is no incentive to play those. On space/diplo agree you could make all the same and let the player decide if potential for more cities on huge/large on is worth it.

IMO, area most in need of an adjustment is the diff level modifier. Deity is not 12.5% harder than immortal. It's at least twice as hard. I have a 15xx or 16xx (I forget which) deity culture victory that has a Qscore of ~8.6. I'm sure I could find a slot on a lower diff where that same time is worth at least 30 points. That's not right.

EDIT: I see Dracandross and I are on the same page with the diff level, although I would increase the difference between deity and imm from what he's suggested. I also agree there are bumps and warlord and monarch that should be taken into consideration.

 

[Denniz]

a few points:

• If we are going to really change QScore, we need to get extremely specific here. I want to get a table I can use to look up the adjustment for all the combinations.
• I brought up PA and OCC because if they are the dominant method of achieving non-diplomatic victories on higher levels it makes me wonder if they aren't a crutch allowing people to bypass significant areas of standard play. Remember, they are options/variants.
• It looks like Religious Victories are going to be significant part of the new cheese. Any ideas there?

 

[FiveAces]

a few points:

• If we are going to really change QScore, we need to get extremely specific here. I want to get a table I can use to look up the adjustment for all the combinations.
• I brought up PA and OCC because if they are the dominant method of achieving non-diplomatic victories on higher levels it makes me wonder if they aren't a crutch allowing people to bypass significant areas of standard play. Remember, they are options/variants.
• It looks like Religious Victories are going to be significant part of the new cheese. Any ideas there?

As a player with multiple deity PA and/or OCC victories I can tell you with certainity OCC is not a crutch. It is not possible to get a dom with it. It is would be much more difficult if not impossible to get a conq, time, or space (w/out PA) with it - you would either have to conquer all civs with only that one city or keep the remaining ones crippled for the duration of a time/space win. And you score/date for those VC's would be inferior to a non-OCC game. It is preferable for diplo (for me) only because the game pace (not the finish date) is quicker and I don't have to worry about building enough cities for Oxford. That said, I can still regularly build enough cities for Oxford even on deity, although if most are bad sites the finish date will be later than with a great OCC game. But you can also just play multi-city without Oxford (even on Deity) and still frequently win, albeit with a worse date. It's not a crutch.

PA for conq/dom/time/diplo is definitely not a crutch, if it's even possible. Remember, you can't get a PA until communism. That means good times for conq/dom/culture are out, and I can't see it being preferable to take out AI's later rather than earlier even with a PA partner to help. For time, you've got to keep everyone from launching - why bother? For diplo, you either need mutual war or DP for the PA - that lowers your relations with the other civs who have to vote for you. And you have to tech comm and prob MT, delaying MM. It's definitely easier to win diplo w/out PA (I've tried both), so it's not a crutch.

PA/culture is useless in van/warlords since they don't go for it. I can't comment on BTS.

Now PA/space - that's interesting. I think it depends on the game. Take the kovacsflo example I used earlier - if he had made a PA in that same game, no one would say it was a crutch, since he didn't need it to win. But if you do need it to win - does that always make it a crutch? Take a deity OCC game. It's not possible to win space without a PA. But since you need it from the beginning, it's not really a crutch is it - it's your starting strategy for the VC you are pursuing. Plus it doesn't always work. But if you you are going for space multi-city and fail (or think you will fail) without a PA, then it is more like a crutch, but again, it doesn't always work.

Bottom line - PA/space is preferred on the high levels because when it works it gets a faster time. Duh - the AI techs faster and builds faster, so of course you would want one of them helping you. Now if what you want is to make it so that players who can't win space without a PA can't win space at all, then you've got to ban it outright. But if you just want to make sure the finish dates reflect the overall quality of the game I say leave it in - the best players can make a PA just as easy as the rest of us.

For the religious victories as I suggested in the other thread, make 'em count only for the VC, similar to RoA only counting for the era. Only 2 more games required and no more cheese.

 

[dutchfire]

Difficulty adjustor:

Difficulty  Value  
Deity       1  
Immortal    0.9  
Emperor     0.8  
Monarch     0.7  
Prince      0.6  
Noble       0.5  
Warlord     0.4  
Chieftain   0.3  
Settler     0.2

Barbs adjustor:

Raging    1
Normal    0.9
No barbs  0.8

Map Size   Value  
Huge       1  
Large      1  
Standard   1  
Small      0.8  
Tiny       0.6  
Duel       0.5

Huge, large and standard are about as difficult (especially considering that Huge tables are often not very well filled, giving higher Qscores in general).
Duel and Tiny are pretty cheesy, small is a bit cheesy too, so they get lower scores.

QScore = BaseQScore * DifficultyAdjustor * BarbAdjustor * MapSizeAdjustor

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Hmm not so sure about barbs, it badly affects your finish time (and I nearly always play with them on) - in ancient starts anyway.

I think a good compromise would be to have separate top 10 tables for the different barb settings myself.

 

[dutchfire]

Sudden idea! Why not multiply the barb adjustor, instead of adding it! This will alleviate the problems on lower difficulty levels (Raging barbs scoring twice as much as No barbs on Settler), and will still stimulate using barbs.

 

[shyuhe]

Separate tables = too many slots. We already have enough as it is. I remember somebody mentioned that barbs are in due to a grandfather exception. If that's the case, it seems really hard to undo it now - especially since most of the old HOF games have no barbs. You could instead make EQM require barbs (not raging) and take it out of the QScore calculations for EQM. The barb modifier would still apply to QM and HOF scores though.

The AP cheese is a problem I played a quick series of AP games, each taking about 20-30 minutes to cover 3 civs (at emperor). I stopped because it was getting repetitive but it's pretty trivial to play AP on tiny maps and fill the LoN. However it is a VC that needs to get filled for machiavelli too... How about some sort of linear (or other math function) decrease in your QScore as you accumulate more wins using a certain VC? So your first 2 AP victories would be worth full value but your 5th is worth less and your 10 less than that. This would help diversify the VC you use for filling the LoN. I know this penalizes people who like to play only one type of VC but isn't EQM about quality play over a large breadth of games?

Alternatively FiveAces's solution about limiting AP scores to the 2 Machiavelli slots may be the easiest (and best).

 

[ParadigmShifter]

OK, what is a "Grandfather exception"?

 

[shyuhe]

When BTS options were being discussed, somebody compared no tech brokering and some of the other newer options to the lack of barbs in most HOF games. One of the moderators replied that the barb option is a grandfather exception - a rule that has been in place so long that it would be unfair to retroactively remove the rule. Requiring barbs for all HOF games now would empty out the HOF tables because most of them are played with no barbs.

I think the concern about barbs are overstated as well. For example, I'm shooting for immortal EQM. Thus, I have been playing all of my games at deity/immortal. So the strange phenomenon of raging settler counting double that of no barb settler doesn't affect me. I don't think I'm alone in this either... The players shooting for higher level slots really don't play (and/or submit) that many settler games.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I don't think barbs make that much difference at lower levels, they are alot worse at higher levels. But it does mean you finish later because some of your early time is spent building escorts and fogbusters. You can't afford to REX in the early game as quick with them on, unless you take stupid risks and restart if your unescorted settler gets eaten by a lion. Getting improvements pillaged also means you lose alot of time early on.

However, I did play with raging barbs on for the minor gauntlet (modern conquest), which had zero impact at all (lost 1 worker, not a big deal).

I still think the barb setting should be taken into account though.

 

[dutchfire]

Well, I agree that Barbs are often slightly annoying, and they do slow you down a bit. When playing lower levels, the bonus you get for playing with barbs on is just too high though, making a half decent game with barbs on score more than a near perfect game with barbs off.

 

[ArcadicGamer]

That said, I can still regularly build enough cities for Oxford even on deity, although if most are bad sites the finish date will be later than with a great OCC game. But you can also just play multi-city without Oxford (even on Deity) and still frequently win, albeit with a worse date.

Bottom line - PA/space is preferred on the high levels because when it works it gets a faster time.

For those 2 reasons i would remove them from the EQM as a playable option, or give a good - to games that use it. If its the ONLY way to get a better and faster time, then its a crutch.

This goes along with the topic of barbs on/off too. I think an "Elite" Challenge would have almost everything on a level playing field. You can forget Q-score when there are as little options as possible to vary games.

But all settings are all relative. If you want to gain from raging barbs, should you be penalized for selecting only civs without aggressive and protective? It only matters if you actualy are going to war them.

 

[Denniz]

So the OCC is always harder and PA only helps with space victories. Does anyone diagree with that?

__________________________

@Dutchfire, those adjustors are interesting but how would it look if you had a column for each victory condition? I think most would agree that a Conquest on Huge is more difficult that a Standard one.

_________________________

How about Vassals and events? Do they affect any victories enough to warrant an adjustment?

_________________________

I think that Barbs are not always a significant factor a game. Can we agree on where and when, with enough detail, to do it more fairly?

 

[shyuhe]

HOF is fundamentally all about finishing with the fastest time. If you can manipulate the settings to achieve that result, I think it's part of the game. I distinguish between manipulating game settings (barbs, AI civs, map settings) and achieving cheesy VC. Ancient AP and future conquest/space are cheesy VC and should be eliminated (or their effects minimized).

 

[shyuhe]

So the OCC is always harder and PA only helps with space victories. Does anyone diagree with that?

OCC diplo is easier. You can concentrate on the diplo part and just tech straight to MM. PA definitely makes SS launches faster. I've used a PA recently for a domination but you can't get a fast domination using PA so I don't think it really "helps."

How about Vassals and events? Do they affect any victories enough to warrant an adjustment?

vassals make early conquests easier if you have the time to tech to feudalism. For ancient era starts though, I imagine vassals really don't speed things up except on immortal/deity. At those levels, having vassals can help your war effort tremendously. I can't comment on random events - I think they're a mixed bag of positives and negatives.

I think that Barbs are not always a significant factor a game. Can we agree on where and when, with enough detail, to do it more fairly?

Barbs are a factor at normal levels on emperor-deity (more so on deity obviously). Raging barbs can be an issue from about prince/monarch, depending on how long the game goes and whether you build the great wall or not. If we have to play with raging barbs all the time, many players will opt for the GW (resulting in slower times from wasting hammers). If it's just normal barbs, I think only the slower game speeds will opt for the GW so again it's not clear-cut as to the effect of barbs.

For non-ancient era starts, barbs aren't as much of a factor because of the easy access to metal/horse based units. Or as the case of the current major - just not enough in numbers.