HOF Challenge Series II Ideas

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Variable difficulty:

Variable difficulty while not giving a bonus might be good option. Coming up with a ranking system to compare difficulties is the Holy Grail of the Civilization.

A ranking system to compare difficulties can be another thread, right?

ParadigmShifter's idea of a bonus point per Difficulty level above the minimum is brilliant, because it is so simple. Just ignore Difficulty when ranking, but award an extra point per Difficulty level above the minimum after ranking.

___________________________

Base Difficulty:

I was kind of thinking in terms of putting the base difficulty down to Monarch or Prince to make the challenge more accessable to more people. Does the difficulty have to really high for a game to be a challenge?

I would be in favor of a base difficulty of Monarch or even Prince to make the Challenge accessible to more Players.

___________________________

Suggested Challenge Game settings:

I was hoping to take advantage of this community's experience to craft a set of challenging games. We are talking about a set of games that show the ability to master the most important aspects of playing Civ4.

What would be a good/fun challenge for each of the victory conditions? Nothing too easy but nothing too tedious either.

The Challenge series could cycle though all 6 Map Sizes in a single Challenge series (6 Games per Challenge series). All 6 non-Ancient Eras can be cycled in a single Challenge series. All 17 HOF permitted Map Types could be cycled in the course of three Challenge series. All 52 Beyond the Sword Leaders could be cycled through nine Challenge series. All Victory Conditions plus Score could be cycled twice in the course of three Challenge series. All the above cycles should be repeated until all combinations have been played; Cycles with common multiples must advance each affected cycle by 0, 1, 3, ... every common multiple cycle to ensure all combinations are Played.

For choosing AI Opponents, the best way may be to randomly pick the minimum number of AI Opponents for the Map, requiring all Players to use those fixed Opponents plus any of their own choosing up to the maximum for the Map Size. However, the especially difficult Games should usually allow the Player to choose all Opponents.

The following options should be utilized often: Aggressive AI, One-City Challenge, Permanent Alliance, No Barbarians, Barbarians, Raging Barbarians, No Tribal Villages (No Huts), No Vassal States, No Events and No City Razing. Other options that should be used less often include City Flipping after Conquest, Random Personalities, Always War, Require Complete Kills, Choose Religions and Rising Seas.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I would like to point out a flaw in this scoring.

A standard map conquest or domination victory on Prince would likely have a finish date well before a Deity game on the same settings.

Assuming that is true, how is it a flaw? The best Prince Player gets 10 points and the last place Deity player gets 0.5 + 4 bonus = 4.5. Is that unfair in some way?

Actually, your assumption is wrong. The Deity player doesn't have quite as big of a disadvantage as you may think. He may not win, but he may earn more points for his Game than the #1 Game won by a Prince Player. Considering the disadvantages the Deity player must overcome, he probably deserves more points in the case of a #3 placing (8 + 4 = 12) and the same as the #1 Game for a #5 placing (6 + 4 = 10).

A standard map cultural, space colony or diplomacy victory on Prince would likely have a finish date much later than a Deity game on the same settings.

The AI tech rate is so high on Deity that it makes a heavy war game take longer than on lower levels. In a (relatively) peaceful game, the AI tech rate dramatically helps the human player tech faster to a much earlier finish date.

I don't agree; if it were true, Prince level Players would play Deity level for these Victory Conditions and we all know they wouldn't even try the attempt, much less accomplish it (no offense intended).

Everything takes longer for the Player to do at higher Difficulties plus the AI Civs start with many bonuses. The Research rate is very slow for the Player on increasingly higher Difficulty levels. You are thinking of the Technology trading rate which could be higher, but with the except of Mansa Musa, the AI Civs are often not in a trading mood. Also, even with Mansa Musa, one must have something of value to trade to him for his cache of juicy Technologies. However, trading with a single Technology trading partner (Mansa Musa) is not enough, since that would require one's Research rate to exceed one's partner by nearly 50% as the partner is not trading Beaker for Beaker, but more like three Beakers for two Beakers.

Once one has 2-3 reliable Technology partners, the Technology trading can be of great help, but the Beakers per Technology for the Player is still extremely high. When I place Espionage on Mansa Musa, I can see him rip through numerous Technologies when I struggle to complete one.

Please reread your comments. Are you sure you got it completely right? It's only through Technology trading that the Player can barely keep up with the AI Civ Technology trailing Civs (usually) . If you think a Player can keep up same Research rate as Mansa Musa in a Deity Game you are dreaming; he's also not one to give the Player many Technologies for free; he actually wants more for less.

I'm not totally discounting what you are saying. When the Deity Player gets the Planets aligned and his trade relations are good with several AI trading partners and the trade timing gods are pleased, an excellent Deity Player can remain close to the AI Research leaders. When this happens, it is a Wonder to behold. However, this happens (in an optimal fashion) far less often than you think. In my current Deity Game for example, I had to Research Philosophy before starting Liberalism, because the two AI Civs that had Philosophy wouldn't trade it. Asoka was one of these Civs, but wouldn't trade because "We fear you are becoming too advanced", but he had six Technologies I didn't have and I had no Technology he didn't already have.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[kcd_swede]

I think a bonus per level above the base level is a brilliant idea. However, I am not sure this should be a simple additive bonus. I could guarantee at least 2.5 points by playing any prince game at emperor level, no matter how long it takes me to build nukes for conquest. This is not fair to the 20 prince level players, 10 of whom can get no better than 0.5 points, but should easily win before nukes are available.

I think there should be a multiplicative bonus. Multiply the points you score in straight up finish date comparison by a modifying (1+ X/10) where X is equal to 1 for each level above the base.

You'd still get 14 for winning prince game at deity, but you'd get lots fewer than 4 points for coming in 28th place with a deity finish date.

 

[Fluroscent]

Oh boy, I hate the way this discussion is going.

The problem with variable difficulty levels is to not cause the rankings to be meaningless (or at least too arbitrary), and at the same time not discourage lower level players at the same time (like: Hey the discussion is focused on beating the game on Deity, but I struggle at Emperor, whatever I'll just pass)
Adding points for higher difficulty is too arbitrary, because the difference between difficulties is so dependent on map settings. In some cases, the higher difficulty is even an advantage (for a good player who can handle it obviously).

The only reasonable solution to this is to have different leagues, but that would require a much greater participation or else it will only be 2-3 people in every category.

I'll complete this challenge, but I don't see myself competing if the picture gets unnecessarily muddled for the next one. I want to be able to play the same settings as all competitors to compare and improve the most, and that is the reason the whole HOF/GOTM thing is so great to begin with.

Also strongly against lowering the baseline difficulty, might as well just have a quarterly gauntlet ranking then.

By the way, if the goal is to have more people COMPLETE the challenge, then to those who want to be able to compete at Deity - Do you think this first challenge, with these settings would even be reasonable to complete at Deity level? I mean, would the OPTION have made you compete (AND WIN) continents conquest with SB? OCC space race with difficult opponents and no PA? Always war on boreal? Etc.
If not, I do not see any merit at all to the discussion. Otherwise the games would either have to be much simpler (yuck), or people would just be annoyed by the "fluke" wins the most persistent players would post, and give up in the end.

Consensus on lower amount of games, this is good. I like fewer games per time, to allow greater in-depth exploration of strategy by discussion.

 

[kcd_swede]

Oh boy, I hate the way this discussion is going.

The problem with variable difficulty levels is to not cause the rankings to be meaningless (or at least too arbitrary),

There is an aditional (potential) problem: that advice given in the discussion threads may not always be suited to the actual game level the answer-seeker is looking to play at.


Perhaps the best thing to do is to state the level that the game results will count, allow folks to play at a higher level if they choose, but provide no bonus for doing so.

This satisfies the needs of the folks who are interested in a challenge, but are focused on fulfilling an EQM level and would shun the games because they take time away from completing those requirement. It would also avoid being a turn off to people who would only find the game challenging at a higher level than the stipulated one. But it also prevents people from adjusting level purely to get some edge in a competition through bonuses.

 

[WastinTime]

I would like to point out a flaw in this scoring.

A standard map cultural, space colony or diplomacy victory on Prince would likely have a finish date much later than a Deity game on the same settings.

The AI tech rate is so high on Deity that it makes a heavy war game take longer than on lower levels. In a (relatively) peaceful game, the AI tech rate dramatically helps the human player tech faster to a much earlier finish date.

This is not true. The beakers/tech are so much lower on prince. It is an extreme rare case that Deity will beat Prince at any VC. You would have to have an Inca Rush for sure which is normally not allowed.

 

[WastinTime]

I agree with the person that first noted the difficulty label doesn't carry much meaning. The *actual* difficulty of each game was quite high with some Emperor games harder than the Deity ones.

Here's the issue: The challenge series is best with lots of participation. To get that, suggestions are being made to lower the difficulty to bring in more players. This will make it less of a challenge. Allowing an optional difficulty increase would fix that, but you probably need that boost to the scoring (I like the suggestion of +1pt per level) otherwise it will just be an easy Monarch "challenge".

You wouldn't have to make them all Monarch or Prince. Like series I, the min difficulty can vary based on the specific game.

I also like the other suggestion of having the games ramp up in difficulty.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

6 or 7 games seems the optimal number of games.

Then you can have 1 VC of each type (with 7 games, including score). If 6 games I'd have score & religious diplo drop out every other series.

EDIT: And ban PAs unless they really are required (e.g. OCC culture, OCC dom)

 

[WastinTime]

PA's are off by default, so the game designer would have to make a conscious effort to allow them....which they should do as often as possible! PA's are a good strategic option in some cases. It's not that easy to get one, and get the right one, and manage it properly. Most games end before the PA is even available. And games Emperor level and below don't have much benefit from a PA. The AI is just a ball and chain.

 

[shulec]

This is not true. The beakers/tech are so much lower on prince. It is an extreme rare case that Deity will beat Prince at any VC. You would have to have an Inca Rush for sure which is normally not allowed.

I will accept your opinion as well as Sun Tzu Wu's on this matter based on your greater experience.

In the games I have played, I have found that my general tech rate, fueled by AI trades, is faster in my diety (and immortal) games than my emperor games. I percieve that my monopoly techs are more quickly discovered by the AIs forcing me to trade them faster before losing the advantage of being able to get techs for them. This drives the overall tech race more quickly.

I don't play many games below emperor, but I do recall that in those games, I received little help from the AI in tech trades after the first round of trading after alphabet, due to their slow tech rate.

 

[Dynamic]

The beakers/tech are so much lower on prince.

Deity has coeff 130, Prince 110.

 

[WastinTime]

In the games I have played, I have found that my general tech rate, fueled by AI trades, is faster in my diety (and immortal) games than my emperor games. I percieve that my monopoly techs are more quickly discovered by the AIs forcing me to trade them faster before losing the advantage of being able to get techs for them. This drives the overall tech race more quickly.

I agree that Emp/Immortal probably is a close call and your observations are correct.

But Prince, and certainly lower levels, will tech faster, so finish dates should beat Deity dates in most cases.

 

[Denniz]

1 pt per level difference seems high. Prince vs Deity you would get 4 points or 40% of the base 10 pt score for #1. Is Deity 40% harder than Prince? How about a half point per level with a cap at 10pts. (i.e. no more that 10pt per game.)

______________________________

Remember the whole variable difficulty thing is speculative unless we come up with a balanced method for scoring it.

_____________________________

I don't mind having multiple difficulties in the various games of the series. I could see a series where we do a victory type at each difficulty level. Or some other mix that makes sense.

_____________________________

BTW, while we said you have to complete all ten games, but except for a couple players who did, I think it has been fairly obvious that wasn't going to happen for awhile. Ozbenno's monthly announcements reflected that, I think.

_____________________________

I think the discussion is getting bogged down in the difficulty issue. It is not possible to please everyone when it comes to difficulty. We are looking for ideas for the next challenge that will be challenging and fun. Challenging doesn't have to mean hard (i.e. Diety) does it?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Yeah I suggested a point or half point and am swinging more towards half a point.

 

[shulec]

I would prefer to see different divisions and not a weighted scoring system. For me the biggest reason is the ability to learn from other players playing the same game. I believe the discussion threads will be much less informative for me. I will not likely participate in a future challenge if a majority of the games are at a lower difficulty.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

1 pt per level difference seems high. Prince vs Deity you would get 4 points or 40% of the base 10 pt score for #1. Is Deity 40% harder than Prince? How about a half point per level with a cap at 10pts. (i.e. no more that 10pt per game.)

I like the idea of capping the Score at 10. It really isn't fair that a Player could get more than 10 points by simply playing very well at a higher Difficulty level via bonus points, regardless of how remote that possibility might be. Players playing the best minimum Difficulty level Game, thus gaining the #1 position should get the highest number of points that can be awarded (10).

The difference between 1st and 2nd place at the minimum (same) Difficulty level is 1 point. In fact the difference between any two successive places nth versus (n+1)th is one point for n=1 through 9. Given that any increment in rank above 10th is worth an extra point, any increment in Difficulty level should also be worth at least one point. Put in another way, an increment in Difficulty should be worth an increment in rank. There has to be an adequate/fair bonus for playing a higher Difficulty or only one or two players are likely to take the increased Challenge of a higher Difficulty level.

Summary: The 10 point cap is a good idea. Playing a higher Difficulty level raises the challenge level a lot and that really deserves one full bonus point per Difficulty level.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Dynamic]

Personally I like average levels (Noble-Emperor) because of minimum random effect from Huts or AI.
Using several difficulties per game could increase interest to tournament and even gives a new tacktics for achieving max points depend on the rules.
As Denniz said it's difficult to set right additional value of points for level. Especially for such scoring system with points for place number but not for difference between dates of top and current player. I think it's in [0,5...1] interval. But it will work right only if common amount of submittions for every game will be big enough - >=20 I think.

 

[WastinTime]

I would prefer to see different divisions and not a weighted scoring system. For me the biggest reason is the ability to learn from other players playing the same game. I believe the discussion threads will be much less informative for me.

The participation is too small as it is. It's not likely we can support multiple divisions.

I don't recall there ever being a game (gauntlet, GTOM, etc.) that allows multiple difficulty options (there probably was one.) That alone is the perfect reason to try it. Who knows, the discussion could be more informative than ever! I expect to learn something about playing the same setup on different levels. Several people have mentioned that they are afraid the discussion won't have any value to them if it's not about their difficulty. I think they will be pleasantly surprised. It certainly can't hurt to try once.

 

[shulec]

The participation is too small as it is. It's not likely we can support multiple divisions.

I believe multiple division will encourage greater participation.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I don't recall there ever being a game (gauntlet, GTOM, etc.) that allows multiple difficulty options (there probably was one.) That alone is the perfect reason to try it. Who knows, the discussion could be more informative than ever! I expect to learn something about playing the same setup on different levels. Several people have mentioned that they are afraid the discussion won't have any value to them if it's not about their difficulty. I think they will be pleasantly surprised. It certainly can't hurt to try once.

I also believe that discussing strategy for several different Difficulties will be very useful to vast majority of Players. That's because the vast majority of Players that are active do plan to increase the Difficulty level of the Games they play, thus learning about strategies effective at higher levels will be useful when they attempt/reach that level and also, because the strategy may work fine at their current Difficult level with some minor adjustments.

I agree with WastinTime that discussing strategies for multiple Difficulty levels has never been done with the HOF Gauntlets (or at least rarely done) and it could be beneficial for Players playing at Prince through Deity Difficulty levels. The Challenge II series would be the perfect time to try it out, before the tradition of the Challenge series becomes "Set in Stone".

Sun Tzu Wu