HOF Challenge Series I

[Ozbenno]

In this forum, it says to use BUFFY 3.19.002, but on the HOF page, it says to use BUFFY 3.19.003. Is one of these correct, or is it an either-or option?

BUFFY 3.19.003 should be the version you use for these. We won't be accepting 3.19.002 games for much longer.

 

[Lord Dredd]

Hello folks, as can be plainly noted by my post count I just signed up for the forum and though I have followed some of the mods {love ROM w/AND} for some time I only recently noticed the HOF competitions. This has piqued my interest as I would like to participate but I have a question regarding this new 10 game challenge series. I have read through the rules and can find no definitive answer so forgive me if this question seems rather elementary. Are you allowed to submit more than one result for each of the challenges? I am referring to starting a completely fresh game for any second {or later submission - so I am not proposing playing a second game on a map you are familiar with}. Otherwise it seems that folks who submit early results are at a disadvantage as now others have a specific score/date to target for. Thanks

 

[Ozbenno]

Are you allowed to submit more than one result for each of the challenges? I am referring to starting a completely fresh game for any second {or later submission - so I am not proposing playing a second game on a map you are familiar with}. Otherwise it seems that folks who submit early results are at a disadvantage as now others have a specific score/date to target for. Thanks

Welcome to the Hall of Fame

You are allowed as many attempts at each game in the series (same goes for gauntlets). Obviously only your best time will be counted for the scoring (although 2 games in each game setting difficulty/size/speed can be counted for QM and EQM purposes).

 

[Ozbenno]

OK, feedback time

As this the first time we've run this type of thing we want to get some feedback so that the second version is better than the first .

At this stage, I want to get some feedback as to why you are taking part and what are your goals for the Challenge? If you're not taking part, why not (and what would get you motivated to take part)? I'll get feedback on the series as a whole and the games themselves later on.

As for me, I'm hoping to 1) finish all 10 games, 2) finish in the top 10 overall and 3) finish in the top 10 for each game

 

[bestje]

Why am I taking part? For the challenge! These are a tough series of games and I'll be happy to record a win for each one, anything else is a bonus.

Despite my earlier concerns about the difficulty level I found the games to be about the right difficulty for me (although I haven't tried number 8 yet)

I am curious how you're going to make the next set feel different to this one though.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

As this the first time we've run this type of thing we want to get some feedback so that the second version is better than the first .

At this stage, I want to get some feedback as to why you are taking part and what are your goals for the Challenge? If you're not taking part, why not (and what would get you motivated to take part)? I'll get feedback on the series as a whole and the games themselves later on.

The Challenge Series is a wonderful idea! I really mean this.

However, I haven't yet played a Game, because very few Games are at my preferred Difficulty Level (Deity). My favorite Game of the Series is #10 (Deity Modern Tank Conquest). Even though it was my suggestion, I already have enough Modern Era Games for Deity EQM Rock of Ages, so I probably won't Play it. Game #9 is also Deity level, but requires Huayna Capac's Quechua which I consider a far too Powerful unit; it also doesn't count for EQM. Not much interest in playing this one either. I have absolutely no interest in Playing Immortal or lower Difficulty Games.

Also, most of the Games had required options that would make getting a #1 Game in the corresponding HOF Table quite difficult or impossible. Too many Barbarian options. In the next Challenge Series, please don't restrict options so much that it severely limits the chances of getting a HOF #1 slot (best date).

For the next Challenge Series, please consider making Difficulty a minimum Level. The results could be grouped together (All Difficulty Levels) or selected by Difficulty Level. Or better yet, maybe the next Challenge Series could be all Deity Games?

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[kcd_swede]

My goal for the challenge was to see if I can just complete all 10 games. At the start of this thing, I thought I would be throwing in the towel after completing about 5 or 6 of them. I figured some of these games would be too far above my skills to be able to win at all, and therefore never really considered how I would fare in a competition since I would not qualify without all ten games. I was glad to learn that the scoresheet would show all participants, not just the 10-game winners, so that I could at least see where I stand in those games.

Having the discussion threads for each game, and making the published games logs easily accessible from the Challenge page is what made some of my wins possible (sheer bullheaded determination made some others possible).

I was working on Emperor level EQM when this started, and my win/loss ration was like 60:40 so it was taking some time but not really hard. The challenge forced me away from the same kinds of "comfortable" games with easiest maps and opponents for a given condition (or easiest VC for a given map/civ) -- it forced me to play types of games that I would never choose for myself in anything aimed at the HoF tables at all.

Some of the games were harder than I originally thought, and some easier. I had to study the tactics of the successful players and beg for advice just to complete some of them... and in the process I have learned new skills, and improved in many areas of my play. I only have one to go... and the Deity level doesn't scare me too much any more (esp. since it is anyhow nerfed by Inca's and/or Modern Era).

After completing the last game, I should/could go back and re-do my earliest submissions since I am sure that now I could improve upon those (though at the time of submission I just felt greatly lucky to have won them at all). But I probably won't since I've done what I set out to do with the Challenge and I'm not so driven by competition, actually.

I would also like to have the Challenge series be a challenge every time... and now that I've got this one under my belt (almost), you'd have to push the level up to at least Immortal (and to be honest, Immortal is imperceptibly harder than Emperor, so Deity, really, would be the level I'd recommend). However, you don't have to try to set up impossible game conditions on ALL of them. And you shouldn't have one or two settings typify nearly every game (I'm talking barbs/Aggr AI for the first series). Variety, while finding challenging games.

Now... not everyone is at the same development level as I, so I don't recommend making a Deity-only challenege. I do recommend making the level you choose "open", with one caveat: the worst Deity submission finishes ahead of the best Immortal submission; worst Immortal sumbission finishes ahead of the best Emperor submisssion, and so on for each game placing.

That would make it essentially a Deity Challenge for the top honors, but allow all of us to complete all ten games even if we have to drop down a level (and take the position penalty) to do it. To be honest, I would likely have wimped out and not pushed myself as hard on this challenge if that option were available, so you might want to set a minimum acceptable level rather than truly "open". But if its participation you want... there's a lot of people who would suddenly see it as something they could try.

 

[Fluroscent]

I am taking part because I like to play in a competitive environment in general. These games are very well suited to somewhat resemble a civ4 experience that quite nicely covers a lot of the different aspects of the game, and forces both pre-game planning and on-the-whim reactions. Unlike something like QM/EQM that I have absolutely no desire to play for. Which is why I almost 100% disagree with this:

However, I haven't yet played a Game, because very few Games are at my preferred Difficulty Level (Deity). My favorite Game of the Series is #10 (Deity Modern Tank Conquest). Even though it was my suggestion, I already have enough Modern Era Games for Deity EQM Rock of Ages, so I probably won't Play it. Game #9 is also Deity level, but requires Huayna Capac's Quechua which I consider a far too Powerful unit; it also doesn't count for EQM. Not much interest in playing this one either. I have absolutely no interest in Playing Immortal or lower Difficulty Games.

Also, most of the Games had required options that would make getting a #1 Game in the corresponding HOF Table quite difficult or impossible. Too many Barbarian options. In the next Challenge Series, please don't restrict options so much that it severely limits the chances of getting a HOF #1 slot (best date).

For the next Challenge Series, please consider making Difficulty a minimum Level. The results could be grouped together (All Difficulty Levels) or selected by Difficulty Level. Or better yet, maybe the next Challenge Series could be all Deity Games?

Sun Tzu Wu

I dislike #10 because it is the most mechanical, and thus least involving (for me at least). It is also incredibly easy! I dont understand the need to play the game at a certain difficulty level 'label', when in fact the most difficult games in the series are some of the emperor level ones (which are definitely harder than cookie cutter deity games).
Generally I think the difficulty level (actual difficulty, not the label) is almost spot on for the intention of the series, which I think the discussion shows quite clearly.
Lastly, I obviously couldn't care less about the synergy with the regular HOF table and QM/EQM stuff, so I would hate to have the games allow "easy" settings just to meet this need. I love the forced barbarians and aggressive AI(mostly, a few more could do without), and I especially love having to deal with troublesome AI.

As for my goals, I had a lot of time earlier, and now.. not so much. But still I hope to be able to do more than just complete all 10, but I definitely will do that. I want to win at least one of the 10 legs, and place top5 total if possible.

Making the next series better? I like the current format a lot, and I am sure you guys can come up with more interesting settings for new games. More emphasis on games that are not designed with a specific strategy needed to be competitive. Thus less #9+#10 type games would suit me better. Also, more variety is always good. I'd like an isolation game, a no tech trading game and other things like that to involve more of the variety of ways to play this game.

 

[babybluepants]

I've play-tested most of the games. I don't submit so much because: (a) I'm a very, very, very slow player compared to most people here; (b) been quite busy with other games and RL stuff these couple of months; (c) I tend to set myself a goal in these HOF challenges and abandon games if I'm not on schedule (I must have started 20 Sitting Bull games the last couple of weeks, but nowhere near hhhawk's pace ). I also never really expected to complete the whole series. Still, I hope to complete about half of the games - Toku, Joao, AW and Inca first, probably.

I thought the Series as a whole is quite good. Even though I suggested it (retracted later), the Inca game probably doesn't belong here, due to sheer game duration (I'll be playing it out, simply 'cause it's my fault). Also, not a big fan of the modern era conquest one. I tried it once, and it felt a bit like a chariot rush game on Noble. I definitely like the forced barbarians in most games. Not sure why the religious game doesn't have them? Aggressive AI is... meh... I personally don't really like the setting, since it mostly just slows down AI tech pace past a certain point.

I like Sun Tzu Wu's previous suggestion of allowing higher levels of difficulty to compete, but without any kind of scoring benefit. Namely, if someone wants to play an Emperor level game at Deity, I don't see a problem with it, but ultimately I'd place their date against others without regard for level. I don't know what that takes to implement (though I imagine it's simply replacing a = with a >= somewhere in the code).

One suggestion:
I like the QM scoring system a lot more. The 1-10 point system doesn't reward exceptional dates so much. We already have several games with runaway leaders in front of a pile-up of similar scores (currently I-01, I-03, I-06, I-10). I don't know what it would take to implement this, or whether others agree with me, but I just thought I should mention it here.

 

[WastinTime]

A fine challenge series, maybe a few too many games. What I like best is playing settings that I normally wouldn't.

The challenge nature of the series makes it somewhat incompatible with seeking #1 spots, but that's a nice refreshing change. (although I may beat the 1426 AD space colony for I-09...)

I won't likely play all ten. I'm motivated to play the games that look fun to me or suit my style.
(loved I-10, it just needs to be harder next time.)

There are no duel maps, so this is compatible with QM/EQM for the most part. #9 isn't, but that is EQM's error. Inca are a necessary evil. They should be included/allowed more often.

bbpants - good scoring idea

TSW - I'd also like to be allowed to play some of these at Deity.
I don't need to get any boost in the ranking for doing so. However, there would have to be a minimum level so there aren't any Settler games in there.

Fluroscent - Agree, not to get hung up on the Deity label. If the series is all Deity then we won't be able to have some of the harder situations.

10 challenges and not one high Score game? (Time game also being a Score challenge) I guess there's no challenge in finishing it, just in finishing it with a good score, so I can see why it was left out. Could you have a challenge with a minimum score?

 

[Ozbenno]

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

One thing to note is that we deliberately seperated this series away from Q-score/QM/EQM/#1 considerations. These games are not designed around fastest finishes etc but trying to make people play games using settings/leaders etc they wouldn't normally use. They may incidentally help you along the path to QM or EQM but that is not the goal.

We did think long and hard about using Q-Score or ranking as the score. I agree that it doesn't award dominant victories but equally for most games the Q-scores in the middle of the pack would be very close, so there isn't as much incentive for people to try and improve their performance (which is also a goal of this).

 

[WastinTime]

Sounds about right Oz, but I'm not sure I got the last sentence. Are you saying the goal of this series was to: NOT have much incentive to improve performance? In other words, just finish all 10, but not obsess over each like a gauntlet?

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I like Sun Tzu Wu's previous suggestion of allowing higher levels of difficulty to compete, but without any kind of scoring benefit. Namely, if someone wants to play an Emperor level game at Deity, I don't see a problem with it, but ultimately I'd place their date against others without regard for level. I don't know what that takes to implement (though I imagine it's simply replacing a = with a >= somewhere in the code).

I would be fine with any Scoring method that handles multiple Difficulty Levels.

This is actually how Difficulty Levels are treated in EQM for qualification. For example, a Emperor, Immortal or Deity Game would qualify for Emperor EQM.

One suggestion:
I like the QM scoring system a lot more. The 1-10 point system doesn't reward exceptional dates so much. We already have several games with runaway leaders in front of a pile-up of similar scores (currently I-01, I-03, I-06, I-10). I don't know what it would take to implement this, or whether others agree with me, but I just thought I should mention it here.

I agree that the 1-10 point system isn't fair where there are large Date gaps, but I wouldn't like QM scoring where Huge maps would be given a far greater weight than any smaller Maps, especially Small, Tiny and Duel:

Huge       100
Large       90
Standard    80
Small       70
Tiny        60
Duel        50

I would prefer EQM scoring where the top Game is always 100 points regardless of Map Size.

TSW - I'd also like to be allowed to play some of these at Deity.
I don't need to get any boost in the ranking for doing so. However, there would have to be a minimum level so there aren't any Settler games in there.

Well that makes two of us. I agree that there should be no Scoring benefit for Playing a Difficulty level higher than the Minimum Difficulty Level (i.e. Emperor).

On the other hand, Difficulty Level could be handled the same as is done in EQM where there would be a drop down menu for Difficulty Level and only those Games at the selected Difficulty Level and above would be scored.

Or the scoring for different Difficulty Levels could be completely separate, allowing separate Challenge Series at for example Monarch, Emperor, Immortal and Deity Difficulty Levels. Keeping the Difficulty Level scoring separate would also allow the Challenge Series at even lower Difficulty Levels (Settler, Chieftain, Warlord, Noble and Prince).

10 challenges and not one high Score game? (Time game also being a Score challenge) I guess there's no challenge in finishing it, just in finishing it with a good score, so I can see why it was left out. Could you have a challenge with a minimum score?

In my opinion there should be at least one Game for all BtS Victory Conditions (Conquest, Cultural, Diplomatic, Domination, Religious, Space Colony, Time) plus a Score Game. I definitely liked Game #8's Victory Condition (Any).

A minimum (Low) Score Game may need have to limitations. For example, one could plan on a Conquest Victory via an Axe rush or Chariot rush, research only through Bronze Working or Animal Husbandry and use Slavery in the final turns of the Game to reduce one's only City to Population 1. I would prefer a High Score Game to a Low Score Game. However, a Low Score Game would be interesting because it turns the Game Designer's measure of the "best" Game up-side-down, making what they consider the "worst" (Lowest Score) the "best" Game. Great idea!

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Ozbenno]

Sounds about right Oz, but I'm not sure I got the last sentence. Are you saying the goal of this series was to: NOT have much incentive to improve performance? In other words, just finish all 10, but not obsess over each like a gauntlet?

No probably wasn't very clear there, we thought using Q-score would be a disincentive, and ranking an incentive to try and improve. As an improvement of a few turns finishing in most challenges will improve your place (and hence score) but would make a negligible difference in Q-score.

 

[WastinTime]

However, a Low Score Game would be interesting because it turns the Game Designer's measure of the "best" Game up-side-down, making what they consider the "worst" (Lowest Score) the "best" Game. Great idea!

Sun Tzu Wu

Ummm...yea, great idea. It's your idea though! I wasn't referring to a low score game.

Here's what I meant:
Have a minimum score that a player needs to reach to consider the game "won". This goes with the concept of a "challenger series". If any old score counts as a win, the player doesn't really have to work at score...which can be fun BTW.

 

[kcd_swede]

No probably wasn't very clear there, we thought using Q-score would be a disincentive, and ranking an incentive to try and improve. As an improvement of a few turns finishing in most challenges will improve your place (and hence score) but would make a negligible difference in Q-score.

I agree with this assessment. The Q-score curve provides disincentive to improve over a game if there is a pack of 8 people beaten by 2 really good finishes. With Q-score, you might be #3 or you might be #9, and you have essentially the same Q-score. Wheras if #1 and #2 are close, the Q-score differs by almost nothing.

If you assume that you will only be able to marginally inprove your finish, you'd have absoluetlely no incentive to do so because the amount of points you get for doing so is almost nothing.

However, if I see seven posted games ahead of my result by just a handful of years... I could see a second effort might be rewarded.

But I don't really care how you score it because my results will not be competitive unless you let me devise the scoring system after the submissions are closed.

 

[shulec]

I think this series is great! I am a late comer to HoF games. I missed out on a lot of gauntlets. As you have all seen, I was rearing to go at this challenge.

I do like the scoring ranked one through ten. I have already improved four of my initial submissions. I think it would be great to have divisions, but since at this point, there have only been 20 people to participate, there seems to be too little interest. On the flip side, it is possible that there are several players who would like to play but are not skilled enough participate at this level.

I am interested to see if there will be a procrastinators mad rush as the challenge gets near its end. I have noted for the last several gauntlets that there do not seem to be many submissions until closer to the deadline and there is often not a lot of discussion until closer to the deadline.

I would like to see more immortal or deity level games. I think the three non-emperor games were all relatively easy. They were roughly equivalent to the level of the other emperor games. I think 1 or 2 straight up immortal or deity games would be appropriate. I think using aggressive AI is OK for a few games, but, I didn't care for it being required for most games. I would like to see a few straight up games, so not all of the games have quirky little challenges. I think a balance is appropriate. I don't mind the barbs, but I don't look forward to any archipelago games with barb galleys destroying all my workboats. I do agree that games should be set up without any consideration as to whether it is likely to fill top spot in the tables.

My main goal was to finish. Done. I would also like to be competitive. I imagine I will finish in the top 10 overall. If the best players don't complete all the games, then I hope to finish in the top 5.

I look forward to Challenge number 2 and improving that abysmal 9th place on game 7.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Ummm...yea, great idea. It's your idea though! I wasn't referring to a low score game.

Here's what I meant:
Have a minimum score that a player needs to reach to consider the game "won". This goes with the concept of a "challenger series". If any old score counts as a win, the player doesn't really have to work at score...which can be fun BTW.

Sorry, my mistake. I took "minimum score" to mean "lowest score". Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

"minimum score" Game:

The Games with the minimum qualifying Score would be ranked by earliest Date.

"lowest score" Game:

The Games would be ranked by lowest score and thus be the antithesis of a Score Game.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Fluroscent]

A minimum (Low) Score Game may need have to limitations. For example, one could plan on a Conquest Victory via an Axe rush or Chariot rush, research only through Bronze Working or Animal Husbandry and use Slavery in the final turns of the Game to reduce one's only City to Population 1. I would prefer a High Score Game to a Low Score Game. However, a Low Score Game would be interesting because it turns the Game Designer's measure of the "best" Game up-side-down, making what they consider the "worst" (Lowest Score) the "best" Game. Great idea!

This sounds fun, but it would probably work best on a forced optics/astro map like hemispheres, so that one would have to figure out how to win most "efficiently" while eliminating axe/chariot conquests. Also, "any VC" could work, with Diplo=Off probably. Would it be possible to "reverse" the scoring algorithm so that score increases instead of decreases with time? This way one would indeed have to combine a fast finish with low base score.

 

[Fluroscent]

I personally like everyone to compete at the same settings, because then the discussion can be more focused, and games more easily compared. This usually benefits those wanting to learn the most.
Thus I dont like the optional higher difficulty, even if it scores the same. But if it is a choice between allowing deity or losing participation, then I'd say go ahead and allow it.