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. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    I'd still keep the number of time victories required at 2 though.
     
  2. VirusMonster

    VirusMonster Quechua General

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    at home :)
    mapquest does not need more weighting... To be honest, I find several map types repetitive and don't think beating more or less similar map types deserves additional weighting. If I were to take away weighting from somewhere and give to LoN, it would be mapquest. Perhaps tempi also could get slightly lower weighting, but not more than 2-5%.

    and thank you denniz for listening to our ideas :)
     
  3. shyuhe

    shyuhe Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    True, the banning of non-ancient starts does make it a little more difficult to mix up the games. The quick deity conquest game was interesting but probably a little too easy for a "real" deity game. I've piggy backed a domination win on a PA before on immortal. I imagine the same strategy would work on deity as well (so long as you don't get crushed in the BC years). It basically involved minimal warfare until warfare so it wasn't your typical marathon ancient conquest game (it was actually standard immortal normal).
     
  4. BLubmuz

    BLubmuz HoF Quattromaster

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,160
    Location:
    Vicenza, Italy
    Yes this can be the exception: a RL-time-consuming condition, and close to impossible to achieve over Monarch (just look at the tables).
     
  5. pholtz

    pholtz King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    665
    Location:
    California
    I think I remember something about requiring barbarians a while back, either in this thread or another. Since it affects score a bit I guess this is a place to discuss it.

    I would vote to require at least normal barbarians for the game to be accepted in the Elite Quattromasters. I just finished several games for the Religious victory Gauntlet minor (#37). One of my submissions was for 560 AD, a game with Barbarians on. Another was for 375 BC, barbarians off. Somehow sending unprotected missionaries though the Jungle to distant Civs without having to worry about Barbarians in the BC era just didn't feel right. I am more pleased with the 560AD win than the 375 BC one.

    If you don't require barbarians then no one (going for the top scores) will play with barbarians for most of the games, and a important part of Civilization is lost.
     
  6. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    I agree, barbs on should either get a score boost for ancient starts or be required.
     
  7. VirusMonster

    VirusMonster Quechua General

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    at home :)
    barbarians already get a score boost :-/ why don't you guys study the Qscore formula before you post... Barbarians increase the difficulty modifier by +5%, while raging barbarians increase the difficulty modifier by +10%. For example, an Immortal game with Raging barbarians has a Qscore modifier as good as a Deity game.

    I think current system is great. Most high lvl HOF entries use no barbarians, but that does not mean barbarians are significantly harder; it is just that people psychologically avoid the Barbarian setting. Barbarians actually help you promote your army before the initial rush and can be useful.

    As a side note, I find the map size modifiers very balanced as well. well, some don't like it, because they don't have the time to finish a huge map, but again if you want the highest Qscore, you should not be trying an easy small map. Even a standard map can be significantly easier than a huge map. I like the QM rules in general, it is obvious that they have been well thought.
     
  8. pholtz

    pholtz King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    665
    Location:
    California

    Since the "best" game is the game with the quickest time, NOT the highest score, barbarians are not used for most top HOF games. My religious games were one example. Lack of barbarians make what is a quick win, very cheezy. 5% is not enough to encourage players to play with Barbarians.

    You may say that Elite QM is all about score, not quick play. But the quickest game gets the highest score. The penalty in time of playing with Barbarians does NOT make up for the increased time to win, therefore it gets a lower score. There is no way that my 560AD game with Barbarians on will every score as well as my games with Barbarians off.

    I'm sure there are some exceptions where playing with Barbarians on makes sense. When I played Duel Conquest games, I learned to play with Barbarians on, as I would get a higher score, and not pay the price, since the game was over before the Barbarians made an appearance.

    Also to tell you the truth, with all the pages in this thread, and the removal of the difficulty modifiers.. I'm not sure if the Barbarian modifiers haven't also been removed.
     
  9. VirusMonster

    VirusMonster Quechua General

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    at home :)
    Removal of the difficulty modifiers? I suggest you read at least the current formula for EQM. Link is here. I don't think anyone attempting to change the basics of the current formula.

    On a large or huge map at higher difficulties, when you play with the most number of civilizations the HOF allows, barbarians do not compose a big threat, since they don't get much land to settle. All land is settled rather quickly. At least with normal barbarians, you still have time to build sufficient defenses after you settle the initial 2-3 cities. I don't have much experience with raging barbarians, but normal barbarians do not affect the final finish date much on the difficulty level I play most, ie Immortal. I would have built defenses to all my cities anyhow.
     
  10. VirusMonster

    VirusMonster Quechua General

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    at home :)
    I also suggest even if making barbarian setting score higher for Religious victory type might make sense from your point of view, introducing formula fixes remain specific for Religious victory condition only. Just so because you scored less or finished later for religious victory condition is not strong enough of a point to change the whole formula for all victory conditions.
     
  11. Shadondriel

    Shadondriel Freak

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    82
    Location:
    70% Nuremberg, 30% Bangkok
    Those formulas are the ones of normal QM, not EQM.
    Since Settler games are invalid for Chieftain EQM there is no point for those things, otherwise it would just be a copy of QM with the best ""Settler""(!!) game being a ""Deity"" game. EQM is fine as it is now with a competition for every level of gameplay.

    @barbs
    Why is it that barbs should be included into anything? All they do is increasing the sheer amount of luck anyone needs. One time they wipe out an entire continent of adversaries and another time they make the game just impossible for you. It is like a device in Formula 1 that makes cars explode at random. Sure it will be harder for some drivers, but the lucky rest will get it even more cheesy
     
  12. VirusMonster

    VirusMonster Quechua General

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    at home :)
    yep, the new EQM will sort things out by the title of the EQM, ie Chieftain EQM, Emperor EQM, etc.. so there might be no need for the difficulty modifier in the Qscore formula.
     
  13. Denniz

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

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    11,092
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    The adjustors for difficulty, map size and barbs are not part of the EQM score. We will update the formulae tab once we settle on the final formula.

    The depending on game settings the Map size and barbs adjustors didn't always correspond with the true handicap/advantage of the game being played. It was all too subjective.
     
  14. pholtz

    pholtz King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    665
    Location:
    California
    As Denniz says in the last post, they have removed all the modifiers, including map size, difficulty and barbarians. Also if you note my initial post on the subject, I am talking about Elite QM, not talking about changing the scoring of the HOF or regular QM.

    I am only a Monarch player at best. But I find the ability to send out those first few settlers unescorted a great help (a time saver) in the first turns. You know that even the mad AI's don't start a war during that time, so barbarians add the threat that is missing from the AI's.

    Yes I agree that barbs can be a large luck element, but then so are goody huts which are part of the game. I think the initial placement of your Civ and the others is the biggest luck element (esp if you are going for a quick win... why the map finder is used so much) Barbs are also part of the game, removing them leaves Civ poorer in my opinion. I've been reading the old ALC games and thinking about barbarians is a large part of the initial strategy.

    Besides religious games which benefit greatly from removing the barbs, so do Domination wins. If barbs are still around, you can't send out all those unescorted settlers and have them sitting around for the final Settler spam for the win. The leading edge would be subject to barb attacks, or later on, you might have to clear out a few barb cities.

    @Denniz
    If all modifiers have been removed, are the options going to be limited?

    no map size modifiers - require standard or larger maps?
    no barb modifier - require barbs?
     
  15. Denniz

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

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    11,092
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    No. Map size is a component of the table so like compare to like there. 90% of the games in the HOF were played without barbs. Too much water under the bridge. Trying to adjust for that would be way too complicated.
     
  16. Shadondriel

    Shadondriel Freak

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    82
    Location:
    70% Nuremberg, 30% Bangkok
    Are there going to be modifiers for map size again in EQM?
    I really liked the old way completely without them. 160 Slots [Huge to tiny] are nicer than just 32 [Huge on all speeds and conditions] to have a 100 score, which is not even enough to fill LoN. If you want to implement that only one game per table is valid that could be really critical :crazyeye:
     
  17. pholtz

    pholtz King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    665
    Location:
    California
    Sorry I don't understand. We are talking about Elite QM. Requiring barbs would just be that. No adjustments required. Leave the HOF alone, but the 90% number you quote confirms my opinion that leaving out barbs makes things too easy.

    As to map size being a component of the table, yes it is a component of the HOF, but not the Elite QM. I'm surprised no one is commenting on the cheezyness of using a Tiny map for all the Elite LoN games and getting very high scores to boot! Or am I just not understanding something?
     
  18. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,234
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    I think they're hoping there will be a lot of competition on Tiny so the scores won't be so high, but the scores will probably be high anyway...for most. And the other people don't care about score, they just want to check the box.

    Tiny (and small) need a score penalty.

    eQM is related to the HOF, so since 99% of HOF games are No barbs, it would not fit well to require barbs on. I like to fill my QM slots as I go for #1 HOF table spots. Similarly, they should be allowing non-ancient starts so the RoA fits better.
     
  19. pholtz

    pholtz King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    665
    Location:
    California
    Yes eQM is related, but they keep emphasizing the difference. HOF is for people that want to specialize in a victory etc. QM is for breadth of play. I think if you required barbs in eQM you would slowly see more barbs on games in the HOF, but in some tables the top positions would always be barb free.

    People have stated that they don't care if they start with a fresh slate for eQM, well, requiring the playing with barbs would do much to wipe the slate almost clear and make the play more interesting. I would probably play eQM qualified games most of the time, but occasionally shoot for a good HOF slot.
     
  20. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,234
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Banning Non-ancient starts is the #1 thing that will keep me from bothering to try for eQM. Requiring barbs on would be #2. I believe this competition will suffer from lack of participation.
     

Share This Page