Do we dare to try to fix QScore?

Once again i agree with WT:
- If RoA is a required table to fill, at least 2 games per starting era must not be banned, particularly gauntlet games.
- About barbs, there's already an adjustor, and to compete with games in the tables we need to have the same settings. If the adjustor can be ... adjusted can be OK, but don't ask barbs to be required.

And to resume old posts, i think that ask for 4 slots to be filled under Macchiavelli (with the exception of time, only 2) and under Speed is enough to grant the variety of submissions.

I hope that those rules will be clear and definite with the next Upgrade (march 10th?).
 
If RoA is a required table to fill, at least 2 games per starting era must not be banned, particularly gauntlet games.

Not sure I understand your point about gauntlet. The gauntlet category is so small. Just one Major and one Minor is required. We should not allow that one game to be a non-ancient start. Especially not Modern/Future.
 
Not sure I understand your point about gauntlet. The gauntlet category is so small. Just one Major and one Minor is required. We should not allow that one game to be a non-ancient start. Especially not Modern/Future.
I meant that if a gauntlet is with a non-A start, the fact that IT'S a gauntlet automatically qualifies the game for all the EQM slots.
I know, even if i disagree, your thoughts about the last Deity/Modern gauntlet, but i think the balance is the G-M10 (IIRC), anyway i hope my opinion is clarified.
 
I hope that those rules will be clear and definite with the next Upgrade (march 10th?).
It seems unlikely since that is tomorrow and I haven't found the time to even figure out how implement any further changes.

The idea of requiring 4 of each VC is more complex that it sounds. The method of scoring and finding the best 2 of each is firmly entwined. I hesitate to mess with the most complex code when I am not convinced that the extra requirement would necessarily work to improve balance. It might just require more cheese to check off the boxes.

__________________

A couple things that I could use some feedback on:

Could someone explain why limiting EQM to a maximum of one or two games from any one HOF table is unworkable? For Vanilla+Warlords division, there are around 120 tables (5 mapsizes (no duel) * 4 speeds * 6 Conditions) for each difficulty level (score doesn't count). For All Expansions division it is 160 with two more VCs. Also except for Deity, the higher level tables are available. I am not sure it works for balance but the numbers seem adequate.

On the Qscore query there is a dropdown ("Include") that allows you to switch between All Games and EQM Restrictions for the QScores. The EQM Restrictions exclude Inca and Non-Ancient starts from the score calculations. I think many have pointed out that including Inca and Future starts that dominate the various tables would not be fair since they are not eligible for EQM. The option shows how the Qscore would look without those game. So far I don't think anyone has commented on that option. I think that whether I use the 25%+Adj or phantom date that is the best way to calculate the qscores for EQM.
 
Could someone explain why limiting EQM to a maximum of one or two games from any one HOF table is unworkable?

Unless you have players indicate which games they want to count, you will not be able to choose the correct set of games. You can't just choose the best game for that player. I may want my 3rd and 4th best games to count because the use certain maps/leaders, etc.
 
On the Qscore query there is a dropdown ("Include") that allows you to switch between All Games and EQM Restrictions for the QScores. The EQM Restrictions exclude Inca and Non-Ancient starts from the score calculations. I think many have pointed out that including Inca and Future starts that dominate the various tables would not be fair since they are not eligible for EQM. The option shows how the Qscore would look without those game. So far I don't think anyone has commented on that option. I think that whether I use the 25%+Adj or phantom date that is the best way to calculate the qscores for EQM.

I think this is one of the best ideas - if we can't be Incas then we shouldn't have to compete against them - especially with how they dominate Conquest and Domination wins.
 
Could someone explain why limiting EQM to a maximum of one or two games from any one HOF table is unworkable? For Vanilla+Warlords division, there are around 120 tables (5 mapsizes (no duel) * 4 speeds * 6 Conditions) for each difficulty level (score doesn't count). For All Expansions division it is 160 with two more VCs. Also except for Deity, the higher level tables are available. I am not sure it works for balance but the numbers seem adequate.

In addition to WastinTime's point about feasibility, I'm not sure what this would accomplish - IIRC you previously said your main concern about balance was repeated VC's and speeds. Well, if you only take one game from each table, you can still use your favorite VC for 20 of the minimum 26 (33-7 other VC's) "open VC" games and your favorite speed for all (30/30) of the "open speed" ones. Taking two games lets you complete all your LoN and MapQuest requirements with either your favorite VC or speed and 10/26 "open VC+speed" games with both.

EDIT: The above assumes all games are on the same diff level: If you submit games on at least 3 levels, at max 2/table you could use your favorite VC AND speed for all 26 of the "open VC+speed" games needed (though you would only qualify for the lowest of the 3 levels used)

And I'm also unclear what you meant about Deity tables not being available?
 
I answered yesterday night, but my post was lost by the server update, so:

Nice that "include" thing :goodjob:, perhaps using it as default in the Hof tables will clean them up from all those Incan and Future games, mainly on the top levels!
I've tried some tables, some are empty with the option on :D, and some look strange: the game on first place is without score.

Back to the EQM requirements:
you put on the table the VC/speed variety thing, and most players, which are trying EQM would not lose their ability to compete for an HoF table in their preferred VC.
So it comes the idea of the 4 slots to be filled for Macchiavelli and Time, to ensure variety, but to prevent penalizations for the players.

If this is unworkable for technical reasons, we (me?) can't see a solution, if not forget that penalization.
Sure like hell, once completed my EQM requirements, i'll start to attack my favorite VC: Space.
 
Sorry for the long post, I just wanted to get all my thoughts out, and I promise not to post again on this thread. Ok, did I hear a collective sigh of relief? :lol:

I'm sure I don't understand the issues in this thread. Some of my concerns may have already been taken care of. It seems like you got a good way to adjust the scores with some kind of phantom game. Good work on that!

I am still confused about the new modifiers or lack of them. For instance, map size. It seems to make sense on the HOF where the size of the map is already taken into account by the table. But to have a high scoring Small game (not mentioning Tiny, just in case that size is no longer valid) score the same or better than a high scoring Standard or larger map size game on the eQM seems wierd. It seems to bring back cheezyness to the eQM, something we were trying to avoid. Again, if there is another factor that makes my worries incorrect, sorry.

As far as Barbarians. I guess you all know my preference, but let me try to explain it a bit more. Yes, most games in the current HOF are without barbs. But I've seen many people post that they perfer to play with barbarians, and even play with them for HOF or QM entries even though they know they won't score as good as those that play with no barbarians. I have a feeling that there are two kinds of players.

1. Those that work hard at achieving the best time in a catagory, removing barbs allows them to win quicker so thats what they do.

2. Those that feel removing barbs removes something from the game and prefer to play with them.

The HOF is definately for those in catagory 1. It seems we should have something for those in catgory 2, and the eQM seems like a nice place for it. By requiring barbs, we may actually bring more people into the HOF, those that would never get into an HOF table, but would like to see their efforts of playing a "standard" civ game rewarded. Sometimes I get the response, sorry, playing no barbs has gone on too long now, it may have been a mistake but we got to live with it. No we don't, the eQM can be a fresh start without affecting the HOF or the normal Gauntlet. As far as the scores on the eQM being lower because they would be compared to games played with no barbarians? So what? eQM scores would be compared to other eQM scores, everyone suffers the same penalty. If the best eQM score is a 50, then that's what it is, the best eQM score, and a score to be proud of.

eQM is also supposed to be elite. So make the games harder, require barbs, require standard size maps, require anything else you can think of. Perhaps, no permanent alliances? Only normal or epic speeds? Just a few thoughts.

Where do I fall? Probably in both catagories. I like working hard to maximize my game and get an HOF entry, even if only on Settler mode. But I also like to play a "standard" game of Civ from time to time and would like to see good games of this type rewarded. You removed all Duel games from the eQM without making any adjustments, I don't see why removing all "no barbs" games would require any big adjustments (except for all the people who would have to play new games to complete the eQM).

If we made all these changes, it would be a long time before anyone completed the eQM at any level (although I'm continually surprised by how fast some can churn out games). If only a few people made the list just as Civ 5 was being released, wouldn't that make it elite? Just completing the Map Quest or the Rock of Ages would be accomplishments to be proud of.

As far as the Inca's. I would like to see them back in the LoN. Is there some way of including them in the LoN but having Inca games count ONLY towards the LoN? Same idea with the maps that are currently banned because they give too much of an advantage, the wooded map (Boreal, Aboreal? I forget which one is banned), the fantasy map, all the maps except those intended for multiplayer. Games on these maps would only count towards Map Quest. I for one would like to be able to see good games with the Inca, or on these maps without them unfairly affecting other games.

Ok, that's my last rant. I know I'll enjoy whatever is the final product. I'm still working on the Gauntlet, and have a LONG ways to go to finish the eQM, even with its current rules. If you adopted all my suggestions, I'm not sure I would ever get it finished, but then maybe I'm not elite :) But I would have a bit more fun trying.
 
Unless you have players indicate which games they want to count, you will not be able to choose the correct set of games. You can't just choose the best game for that player. I may want my 3rd and 4th best games to count because the use certain maps/leaders, etc.
I knew I was forgetting something. :sad:

And I'm also unclear what you meant about Deity tables not being available?
I just meant that on Deity there are no higher level tables that you could use also.

So it comes the idea of the 4 slots to be filled for Macchiavelli and Time, to ensure variety, but to prevent penalizations for the players.
The 4 slots thing shares the same issue is FiveAces pointed out above about the 1 or 2 games per table thing. It only works if someone actually limits themselves to the minimum number of games. They can still play the optimum leader/map/speed for the Machiavelli games and fill the rest with cheese.

But to have a high scoring Small game (not mentioning Tiny, just in case that size is no longer valid) score the same or better than a high scoring Standard or larger map size game on the eQM seems wierd. It seems to bring back cheezyness to the eQM, something we were trying to avoid. Again, if there is another factor that makes my worries incorrect, sorry.
You forget that the score for the small map is compared to other small maps. We aren't really comparing small to standard.

As far as Barbarians.
As has been pointed out in this thread and others, barbs are not necessarily a handicap for all game settings. Without making EQM start as of a certain date, requiring barbs would unfairly favor those who have played with barbs on in the past. I don't think anyone really wants to start over from scratch...

As far as the Inca's.
While including Inca in the LoN is possible, it would complicate things too much for the coder. (And he doesn't want to muck things up that much. :mischief:) Seriously, it is easier to filter something globally than to insert exceptions throughout the code.

With all of this, I am trying to work things in without have to re-write the entire thing. Dianthus created some really slick code. Minimal lines of code and very efficient. :bowdown:
 
The 4 slots thing shares the same issue is FiveAces pointed out above about the 1 or 2 games per table thing. It only works if someone actually limits themselves to the minimum number of games. They can still play the optimum leader/map/speed for the Machiavelli games and fill the rest with cheese.

How could they fill the rest with cheese? I think you have to answer that question to identify the problem before you can come up with a solution.
 
You forget that the score for the small map is compared to other small maps. We aren't really comparing small to standard.

But EQM will have different weightings for different map sizes, right?

As has been pointed out in this thread and others, barbs are not necessarily a handicap for all game settings. Without making EQM start as of a certain date, requiring barbs would unfairly favor those who have played with barbs on in the past. I don't think anyone really wants to start over from scratch...

If it were to be truely elite, it should require barbs IMO, especially since barbs are a handicap for a large majority of games.
 
One more thing comes in mind, participating in the Minor 39:
I've already used this Civ for my EQM table (warlord level), and i've submitted a good game, still i'm in second place.

What if i submit another 1 or more games to try to grab #1?
With the mixed VC/maps/civ/anything rules this would be a kill.

So keep this in mind when you'll decide those rules.

One more thing:
what is "cheese" at warlord level? any game is, you have just to figure how to play a damn good game given the VC, surely not to win the game, too easy for any setting.
 
I have applied the EQM restrictions (i.e. no duel, no Inca, & only ancient) and the variable Phantom date to the EQM QScore calculations. (RoA using original Base Qscore.)

The main reason I favored the "25%+Adj" was to implement a balance solution I had my eye on. I have determined that any solution that filters for balance is probably not feasible. So rather than drag things out any further, I have implemented the Phantom date as it is closer to the original QScore.

I have updated the EQM announcement thread, the EQM Formulae tab, and the QScore Table Query page to reflect the most up-to-date EQM Rules.

I will continue to search for a good approach to reward a good balance in achieving EQM level status. It will probably be in the form of showing percentages on the status tab and highlighting those that have achieved a balanced EQM status.
 
I have applied the EQM restrictions (i.e. no duel, no Inca, & only ancient) and the variable Phantom date to the EQM QScore calculations. (RoA using original Base Qscore.)

The main reason I favored the "25%+Adj" was to implement a balance solution I had my eye on. I have determined that any solution that filters for balance is probably not feasible. So rather than drag things out any further, I have implemented the Phantom date as it is closer to the original QScore.

I have updated the EQM announcement thread, the EQM Formulae tab, and the QScore Table Query page to reflect the most up-to-date EQM Rules.

I will continue to search for a good approach to reward a good balance in achieving EQM level status. It will probably be in the form of showing percentages on the status tab and highlighting those that have achieved a balanced EQM status.

Hi Denniz, gj updating the rules. Do you plan on changing the rules further to include:

  • no Tiny starts, currently only duel starts are excluded :-/ Beating a small map size should not be a problem to anyone even if they are time-constrained through their family,job, or school. Tiny sounds too easy to beat (I am not a regular tiny map size player however, but my 2 :commerce: on this issue).
  • change event weightings to encourage people to submit quality games with all leaders. For example:
    • LoN = 42%
    • Machiavelli 17%
    • Rock of Ages 14%
    • Map Quest= 10%
    • Tempi Throphy 10%
    • Gaunlet =7%
  • to encourage people to prefer BTS over Vanilla/Warlords for early finish dates. The better BTS AI poprushes more effectively and most of the early domination and conquest dates on Vanilla/Warlords cannot be matched in BTS. (If anyone thinks this observation is not correct, let me know.) Counter argument would be that BTS has a different turn system, and a BTS date corresponds to a later turn count in Vanilla/Warlords, but still I find the Vanilla/Warlords AI making early domination victories easier than BTS AI.
 
no Tiny starts, currently only duel starts are excluded :-/ Beating a small map size should not be a problem to anyone even if they are time-constrained through their family,job, or school. Tiny sounds too easy to beat (I am not a regular tiny map size player however, but my 2 :commerce: on this issue).
Tiny will stay in. Someone playing mostly on Tiny maps will probably be noted in the standing at some point.
change event weightings to encourage people to submit quality games with all leaders. For example:
  • LoN = 42%
  • Machiavelli 17%
  • Rock of Ages 14%
  • Map Quest= 10%
  • Tempi Throphy 10%
  • Gaunlet =7%
I am tempted to increase the weighting of LoN and Map Quest but nothing as extreme as you suggest. The gauntlet's weighting may be a problem with the distribution of difficulties we normally use for them.
 
no Tiny starts, currently only duel starts are excluded :-/ Beating a small map size should not be a problem to anyone even if they are time-constrained through their family,job, or school. Tiny sounds too easy to beat (I am not a regular tiny map size player however, but my 2 :commerce: on this issue).

What is the fascination with getting rid of Tiny starts? And by this I don't just mean VirusMonster, I mean all the others that have said it?
My computer can't handle Standard (or larger) maps, the game crashes around 1800AD (even small maps can crash around 1900AD); I have a family (wife and 2 kids) so I can't rush off and buy a new computer.
Also, by having a family I can't play as much as I would like - but I do like to start and finish a game in one session, which means I usually play Tiny or Small maps.
 
What is the fascination with getting rid of Tiny starts? And by this I don't just mean VirusMonster, I mean all the others that have said it?
My computer can't handle Standard (or larger) maps, the game crashes around 1800AD (even small maps can crash around 1900AD); I have a family (wife and 2 kids) so I can't rush off and buy a new computer.
Also, by having a family I can't play as much as I would like - but I do like to start and finish a game in one session, which means I usually play Tiny or Small maps.

I can't speak for others, but to me, Tiny map does not have the overexpansion problems, so you can rush and conquer your 2 neighbours and win the game in the early BC era. Try the same at large and huge or even standard, your winning date is set back by atleast 1000 years for economical reasons. Small and Standard are fine, but Tiny sounds too easy (although I haven't played enough Tiny games to back off this statement with experience)

There is no mapsize EQM score modifier at this point, maybe I am missing something? Denniz mentioned we should try to balance our games with all map sizes, but in the end, there is little motivation to try a huge map. (BTW, I doubt anyone will try to submit all Huge map games for EQM. It is just too time consuming. I just feel larger map sizes should get a bit higher Qscores, just like in the basic Qscore system) I always thought that the original Qscore map and barbarian modifiers were fair and nicely thought, so I wished they carried over to the EQM.

edit: @CliftonBazaar: I love family time too :) and small map size is fine in my book, just no Tiny :)
 
Tiny just does not make for a credible game. If it's conquest, you can get to them before they can research bronze or certainly before they can hook up copper. In other VCs, the AI lives off trading with other AI. You cripple them when there are only 2 to start with. Religious victory is easy even on small, but on Tiny it is a joke. Standard and larger at least get interesting.

I'm sorry about your computer problem, but I don't think I've heard anyone else report consistent crashes. I wouldn't think a slow computer = unstable. You should try a different video card or updated drivers. That is usually the problem.

And why not play in several sessions? Maybe your computer would perform better if you saved and rebooted every couple hours.

It's too bad they made Civ4 such a resource hog, but that doesn't make Tiny any more valid. I would be sad to see Tiny go as well, but I know it's the right thing for Elite games.

I hope Denniz didn't use the results of that poll to keep Tiny. The poll clearly indicated that Tiny should be cut if you read between the lines. It was a poorly worded poll to begin with. Many people answered "keep Tiny, but restrict it this way...", or "keep it, but I have another idea...", or "my computer can't handle larger (your response)", or "I like to play short games", and there there are the ones that want the easy route to eQM, so they vote to keep Tiny. None of these gives any reason that Tiny should qualify as an Elite game submission. If you eliminate the votes made for selfish reasons and do what's right for the challenge, the outcome is clearly No Tiny.

Now it's worse because Tiny no longer gets a score penalty. I think that fact would change a few more votes to "NO Tiny".
 
Top Bottom