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

Do we dare to try to fix QScore?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Hall of Fame Discussion' started by Denniz, Feb 6, 2008.

  1. Thrallia

    Thrallia Prodigal Staffer GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,836
    Location:
    Maryland
    I've looked at them, and they look ok except that it still feels like the QScore goes down too fast.

    Well, for some tables, such as this one, or this one none of the QScore methods except Phantom scale it right between BtS and Van/Warlords.

    I still believe that for most tables, no adjustment is needed, so a new scoring method that doesn't really mess with those scores is needed. In general, I think that the average date is a great scoring method...it just breaks down when there aren't enough dates in the table to give it a good sample...what if 25%+adj was used for tables without a certain number of games, say...5. After that either use the Phantom Date, or the old scoring method, since it works past a certain number of games in a table.

    Here, I think 25%+adj gives a better adjustment to QScore for such a small table than Phantom does, but in general, Phantom gives a better adjustment for larger tables, even as low as with 5 entries.

    I think that needing balance could be good, but I think that the two limits you are considering are a little overboard. Limiting to two games per table, means I can only play 2 Monarch/Normal/Diplo games. If I'm going for a Monarch level EQM, I don't see how I can get 33 Monarch games without submitting more than 2 games per table, unless I were to play 1 game in each speed/victory condition...which gives me 32 games.

    As for the no more than 1/7(but vanilla/warlords only has 6 victory types?) of your games can be a single victory condition, BtS has 8 victories(I think), so I can't have more than 4 victories of any type, and I pretty much have to play 4 of each type, as 5 of any type would give me an unbalanced EQM sheet and disqualify me. I'd say you can have up to 1/3 of your games in any victory condition...maybe 1/4 of your games. That way, instead of going 4 dom/4 con/4 time/5 diplo/4 rel/4 cult/4 space r/4 space c(which is 33 games, so I'm unbalanced just to get 33 games!), I can go 4 dom/4 con/2 time/4 rel/3 cult/3 space r/5 space c/8 diplo if I so desire, my diplo % there is just over 25%, and I don't think that I'm unbalanced there...heck, I think going with 10 diplo and getting rid of a couple of those space wins(or one of those time wins) isn't unbalanced.

    I doubt many people really want to spread out their games that much, and you'll run into the problem of people like me or jesusin or others who are 'specialists' doing well in a specific victory type and kicking out a competing victory type from a leader(after having achieved EQM already), and thus, making us unbalanced and losing our EQM status until we replace that diplo/cultural/dom or whatever with a different victory type...which could be difficult.

    I think balance is a good idea, but that it should be more flexible than you've suggested. I think that the 50% rule you suggested at first is too high, but the newer figures of 1/7 and 2 entries per table are too low.
     
  2. Shadondriel

    Shadondriel Freak

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    82
    Location:
    70% Nuremberg, 30% Bangkok
    I like Phantom too, but the only thing I don't like is that it gives a 10% penalty for not playing BtS
    http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/tab...rathon&mapSize=Huge&dsply=0&limit=0&submit=Go
    compare #1 and #2. They are 2 turns apart on marathon, yet #2 gets only 90% with phantom on a full table with lots of worse dates.
    This is because I think it scores depending on the date, not the number of turns used.
     
  3. cabert

    cabert Big mouth

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,710
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    about balancing,
    what we're trying to do is make sure an EQM can't be acheived by submitting loads of the same VC/speed/leader.

    About the leader, since you need to play all civilizations, you can't play all with the same leader = no problem.
    About the speed and victory conditions, just make it necessary to submit 3 games / speed with 3 different leaders, and 3 games / VC with 3 different leaders.
    This way, the specialists can still play games towards EQM without being penalized before they even start.
     
  4. Denniz

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

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    11,092
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    Sorry, It was late and I wasn't very clear. Those balance ideas we possible alternatives. I didn't intend for them to be considered cummulatively.

    The VC limit idea of 1/7th was for All expansions. Van+War would be more like 1/5th. Those don't include Time or Score VCs. Score because it isn't a real VC as all games count towards it. Time because asking 1/8 or 1/6 of all game be time just seemed too much.
     
  5. Bindamel

    Bindamel Call me Bindy - mel

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    348
    Location:
    GMT - 5
    Denniz,

    Do you think this is "well" scored?

    (Conquest, Noble, Marathon, Small Map)
    Code:
    Rank	Player	Score	Date		       Turn	Old	Old2	25%	25%+Adj	50%	Phantom	Phantom2 Min+60%BindyScore
    1	Mareck       	6919	3535	BC	31	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
    2	bostich    	30302	2890	BC	74	88.306	95.639	90.827	90.827	95.413	87.782	94.967	23.81	56.60996917
    3	dwarrior	31435	2860	BC	76	87.646	95.366	90.4	90.4	95.2	87.089	94.649	20.599	55.46548923
    4	J_RocKeT76	36470	2455	BC	103	77.784	91.421	84.64	84.64	92.32	76.726	90.006	2.194	42.72918169
    5	bostich    	136490	20	AD	302	16.216	50.3	42.187	42.187	71.093	14.44	42.292	0	7.714308654
    6	billator	116219	1160	AD	458	5.623	21.226	8.907	5.445	54.453	4.751	14.394	0	0.932373855
    
    The second place postion is more than twice the turns of the leader, and gets ~91 points in 25%+Adj.

    I know you said discussion is closed, but I figured I'd give it one last shot. This is one of the few tables I've found where my formula differs significantly at the high end from 25%+Adj.

    On the games side, I think you're on the right track, but I think you really do need to include most of what you listed to avoid my earlier concept of "personal cheese". I think I posted my Bindy's EQM challenge numbers before, but 7 or 8 limit at each victory condition and game speed is probably sufficient to force variety. I think you should just limit map size to small, standard, large, or even just standard, large. I think you need to have a map type limit too. I certainly don't want to have 30 Pangea games just to compete.

    Seeing as you're probably already :crazyeye:, I need to say one more thing. I'm a Monarch player right now. I consider that quite an accomplishment; I remember getting completely owned on prince when I first started coming to civfanatics. There are many people who are far better than me, but I might get there someday, and I'll certainly keep challenging myself. Exclusion from the tables because my scores aren't high enough will discourage me from participating, especially if my games are being compared to Immortal/Deity players playing at the Monarch level. The best I could do at that point is hunt for tables that are underpopulated, so I can score well enough to be included with a mediocre game. Ideally, EQM should exclude games from people who have already completed the requirements at a higher level, but I suspect that may be impossible.

    Please do not punish players for only having achieved a certain level in their play.
     
  6. BLubmuz

    BLubmuz HoF Quattromaster

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,160
    Location:
    Vicenza, Italy
    I agree with Thrallia, just to pick a post in this page:
    too severe limiting in VC can discourage people to participate
    My favourite is Space, my less are Diplo (or AP).
    I can go for those sometime, to keep me trained, but don't ask me to play for those conditions the same number of games i play for Space, or simply i'll say a big goodbye to the HoF.

    And i spare you my toughts about how stupid is the AP victory (from my point of view, of course).
    And if i wanna compete for a slot in the Hof first page under space, don't ask me to choose Montezuma or Tokugawa, 'cause i used too much Peter or Lizzy.
     
  7. shyuhe

    shyuhe Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    I think the simplest balance solution is to require 4 games (instead of 2) for Machiavelli and Tempi. If score inflation is an issue (from 4 games being averaged), then just divide the final score of the 4 games in half to put it on the 0-200 scale that the other categories are based off of. This will also avoid the problem of players knocking themselves out of EQM due to balance issues.
     
  8. Thrallia

    Thrallia Prodigal Staffer GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,836
    Location:
    Maryland
    you know, that might actually work...requiring four for each of those categories at least, means that you've got to do 24-32 games on differing victory conditions just to fill it up, which means you can focus on a couple victories you prefer, but still have to be balanced enough to fill up 28 games on other victories, which will likely take up most of your LoN and EQM anyway...just make it required to fill up all four of those slots for Machiavelli and Tempi.
     
  9. jesusin

    jesusin Ant GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,135
    Location:
    Madrid
    I like it. Looks simple and effective.
     
  10. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,237
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    What I don't like is that means I'd have to do 12 ancient conquest games. 4 actual conquests, 4 domination, and 4 time. These 12 are all played virtually the same. :sad: and will all probably have to be on marathon :sad: That will draw a lot of action on the Tiny map (which should probably be cut -- I think the vote indicated that it should if you read between the lines.)

    Now, if non-ancient starts are allowed again (like they should be), then it's not nearly as boring/repetitive.
     
  11. BLubmuz

    BLubmuz HoF Quattromaster

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,160
    Location:
    Vicenza, Italy
    I think shyuhe's idea seems good.
    If i'm not wrong now we need only 1 slot, the second is for additional score.
    Requiring 4 to be filled under Macchiavelli and Time, satisfies the requirement for a balance, without affecting further submissions to compete for a slot in the tables for the VC a player likes to pursuit.
    Easy and clean.
     
  12. FiveAces

    FiveAces Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    Singapore
    Well, if you want a GOOD Ancient Time, you can't finish it the same way as conq/dom so there's a bit more to it, but you are correct that effectively 12 ancient conquests would be required. Therefore, I suggest that 2 of the 4 submissions be allowed to be non-ancient.
     
  13. VirusMonster

    VirusMonster Quechua General

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    at home :)
    Well if you increase the total number of games requirement for EQM, ie 4 games for tempi instead of 2, people might prefer not to join the competition... I strongly the feel the game number should be minimal even if it leaves some option for abuse... The abuse should be minimised through the Qscore formula, not through extra submission requirement.

    and don't let my suggesstion of improving LoN weighting to 50% get lost... The weighting should be at least 40% with 33 leaders out there, and no one submitting quality games with them to the tables.
     
  14. BLubmuz

    BLubmuz HoF Quattromaster

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,160
    Location:
    Vicenza, Italy
    I do NOT see it (the 4 submissions for M+T) as a workload to complete the quest to EQM:
    it's enough to mix the leaders to fill those extra slots, without need to increase the total number of games.
    And if RoA can took some place, with the banning only of the future/modern starts over the 2 required, we're going to decrease the total number.

    IMO at low levels non-A starts are an hadicap for the human.
     
  15. Thrallia

    Thrallia Prodigal Staffer GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,836
    Location:
    Maryland
    @WastinTime: if you have to have 4 submissions in each game speed, as well as 4 of each victory type, it wouldn't do very well to have 12 marathons for those victories, as then you might end up short in the other speeds, requiring extra games for you to play.
     
  16. shyuhe

    shyuhe Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    The submission requirement really isn't increased by changing it to 4. LoN in BTS requires 33 games minimum. If you submit 2 games per civ, it's 66 (I'm ignoring Incas). Machiavelli requires 28 and Tempi requires 20 with a 4 game requirement. So if you balance all of your games, you will still finish Machiavelli and Tempi before LoN so it's not really increasing the submission requirement.

    @WastinTime: I see your point about how conquest/domination/time play similarly but isn't the point of balance to require players to achieve a more balanced distribution of VC's and not a more balanced in-game playstyle? I think trying to control how the player plays the game (i.e., using an ancient conquest strat. for all conquest/domination/time games) is outside of the scope of the HOF rules.
     
  17. Thrallia

    Thrallia Prodigal Staffer GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,836
    Location:
    Maryland
    I see domination and conquest as playing differently, myself...when I am attempting a conquest win, I don't keep many cities, but in attempting domination, I generally keep every single city I take...that's a big difference in play style and empire management between the two.
     
  18. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,237
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Apparently it's not outside their scope. By banning non-ancient starts they force us to play these ancient conquest games. Is there an ancient peaceful strategy for winning Time or Domination that I'm not aware of?

    Worse yet, there are only a couple leaders that work for ancient conquest (and one of those is banned). So now they think we want to play the crappy leaders for the ancient era with no UU until late game just to have "balance".

    They're creating a competition that is not fun and no one will want to participate in.
     
  19. Denniz

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

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    11,092
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    For those confused by all this back and forth, I am sorry. But don't worry, once we settle on the changes well fully communicate the requirements. The most important thing to remember is that we have all been tossing out ideas to get feedback. Nothing is in stone until it is announced officially.

    If you have a question about something please ask. If you have an issue with something then please share your thoughs. All I ask is that you keep an open mind and try to focus why something might be a problem for the community.

    Also, please remember that all we are discussing here is changes to the EQM competition, recently introduced. The general HOF and the QM are not being changed.

    Finally, while I have discovered that I don't have enough time to respond to every post, I am reading them and trying to take them into consideration.

    ___________________________

    The idea for requiring 4 of each VC and speed seems workable. Everything I have considered so far would be very difficult to implement. The only question is whether 4 is enough. My main concern is that the games on the EQM be quality games. Not just enough to meet the minimum requirements with the rest played in the quickest/easiest way possible.

    _____________________________

    What do people think of the idea of putting higher weights on the LoN and Mapquest scores as well?
     
  20. Thrallia

    Thrallia Prodigal Staffer GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,836
    Location:
    Maryland
    I like more weighting for LoN, but I'm not sure if Mapquest needs one or not.

    If 4 isn't enough, them making 5 required doesn't seem that much more. And I'd much rather be required to submit 4/5 of each victory type than be limited in how many diplo victories I can submit...I think it works much better than limiting how many games a person can submit per victory.
     

Share This Page