HOF Challenge Series II Ideas

[Fluroscent]

Different divisions:

Good point that it may be a good time to try it out. But what if you, say, want to play one game at Deity, but cannot win all of them at Deity? Should you have to play all the games at the same level to be eligible for a final ranking?
If yes, then it would seem that it is impractical with free difficulty choice, but would rather be a split between a low and a high division, with preset difficulty ie. Monarch for low/Immortal for high (maybe a middle too?). I can see this work, but I imagine most of the games at high level should not be Deity for the high level, even if the bar is set higher than the first challenge. Would that be satisfactory for high level player participation?

 

[shulec]

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 don't know if you are implying that the next challenge will not require all games be finished to have a chance at winning the challenge. I feel that it would be best to award the victory to whomever scores the most points, regardless of whether they have completed every game. I hope people will not be deterred by having to complete every game.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Different divisions:

Good point that it may be a good time to try it out. But what if you, say, want to play one game at Deity, but cannot win all of them at Deity? Should you have to play all the games at the same level to be eligible for a final ranking?

I would say one should be able to split the Games between Divisions. If the rule that all Games must be played is not revoked, this rule should simply require that all Games be played in at least one Division.

Assuming we have different divisions based on Difficulty level, how would one score Games played in different divisions by the same Player? For example, would Games played at a higher division count for score in a lower division (without a bonus for higher Difficulty), or would those Games count for only for the highest qualifying Division?

If yes, then it would seem that it is impractical with free difficulty choice, but would rather be a split between a low and a high division, with preset difficulty ie. Monarch for low/Immortal for high (maybe a middle too?). I can see this work, but I imagine most of the games at high level should not be Deity for the high level, even if the bar is set higher than the first challenge. Would that be satisfactory for high level player participation?

I can only speak for myself. If Deity level would not be permitted in a Challenge series, I would be unlikely to participate.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Dynamic]

I can only speak for myself. If Deity level would not be permitted in a Challenge series, I would be unlikely to participate.

We don't compete with AI, we compete against human players. But average levels offer the lowest random effect from Huts or AI. IMHO.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

A couple of thoughts:

1) I really enjoyed this. I started a new job part way through and was never able to get a win on a couple of the games, which is why I won't finish the gauntlet (which makes me sad, cause I really enjoyed it)
2) I think it may be interesting to have a couple of much lower level games, as well. it's not just beating the AI, it's doing so better than anyone else.
3) really liked the variety of maps.
4) Fewer games for fewer months probably makes sense - I can see 5 in 2 months working better.

 

[playshogi]

How about a competition that involves completing 8 games over 4 months, that are introduced 2 games per month. At the end of the 4th month you have a champion for games 1-8. At the end of the 5th month you have a champion for games 3-10 and so on. Or offer 3 games per month, but only need to complete 8 with final score determined by your best 8.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

We don't compete with AI, we compete against human players.

To minimize the random effect from Tribal Villages, simply ban them. No Tribal Villages is an extremely common setting for multi-player Games (where players literally don't compete against AI Civs).

But average levels offer the lowest random effect from Huts or AI. IMHO.

It is not possible to pop Settlers or Workers from Tribal Villages in Deity level Games, so I do not agree with your premise that random effects from Tribal Villages is lowest on Average Difficulty levels (meaning Noble to Monarch?). The best thing that can be popped form a Tribal Village in Deity level Games is a Technology and this occurs at a lower probability than at the lowest Difficulty levels.

If any thing, Tribal Villages have the lowest value to the Player at Deity level Difficulty, because the AI Civs will pop almost all the Tribal Villages before the Player can. (The major exception to this is the Terra Map and to a lesser extent other water Maps where there can be many/some undiscovered Tribal Villages before any Civ discovers Optics; In this case the Player can bee-line Optics, send a Scout/Explorer to the New World or pristine Continents/Islands and pop numerous Tribal Villages.)

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[shulec]

A couple of thoughts:
2) I think it may be interesting to have a couple of much lower level games, as well. it's not just beating the AI, it's doing so better than anyone else.

This is why I think divisions would be a better way of comparing games. I realize this probably would make a lot more work for Denniz. I don't know how to do it, but players would have to declare a division or have all games excluded from a lower division if they submit a qualifying game for a higher division. The point would be to have similar level players competing.

I think Paradigm Shifter's idea of weighted scores is a great idea. Perhaps I am being too skeptical and this scoring system will be optimal to encourage increased participation.

Another thing to consider is that there may soon be a tremendous drop-off in Civ IV interest once Civ V comes out. I think this is another reason to have a shorter time frame for the challenge (which I think is universally agreed upon.)

I would also like to thank Denniz and Ozbenno for taking the time to set this all up and consider our opinions. Of course, I appreciate those opinions that are in disagreement with mine, since hearing both sides of an issue helps to arrive at the best conclusion.

 

[Dynamic]

It is not possible to pop Settlers or Workers from Tribal Villages in Deity level Games, so I do not agree with your premise that random effects from Tribal Villages is lowest on Average Difficulty levels (meaning Noble to Monarch?). The best thing that can be popped form a Tribal Village in Deity level Games is a Technology and this occurs at a lower probability than at the lowest Difficulty levels.

I wrote Huts OR AI. It means Huts for levels Settler-Warlord (give Settlers/Workers) and AI random for the highest levels, where if AI suddenly DOW on you or go to the certain tech path, differrent for other players.

 

[Denniz]

Well we definitely got side-tracked by the difficulty discussion. I don't really like the divisions idea but I don't like the alternatives with variable difficulties any better.

Right now I am leaning toward an experiment with with two idential 4-month challenges of 7 games, one at immortal or diety (IIa) and one at prince or monarch (IIb). We'll pick the final difficulty for each game once we have a better idea of the settings and the real difficulty. As part of the experiment, we will only have one discussion thread for each game. (i.e. Game 1 for both IIa and IIb will be in the same thread since they will be the same except for difficulty.)

I figure the idea of each of the victory conditions + score is a good one.

So that's settled. What settings should we use for each victory condition?

 

[Fluroscent]

How about options that are normally disallowed in HOF play? and maps?

I'd like to see a No tech trading, Immortal space race of some kind.
Also, a Deity, Hub, Always war, culture would be cool.

A few other ideas:

Crowded terra, agg AI, no vassals, barbs ON, Tokugawa included, AP victory, probably Immortal.
Archipelago, Rome, Small, Epic, Deity (for IIa), Domination.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

What about Emperor? I'm too good for Prince & Monarch and not good enough for Immortal/Deity I can win immortal occasionally but deity needs serious cheese.

 

[ChrisFromLux]

What about Emperor? I'm too good for Prince & Monarch and not good enough for Immortal/Deity I can win immortal occasionally but deity needs serious cheese.

I'll have the same problem; I also consider me an Emperor-player, even though these games of Challenge-I were probably harder than 'normal' Emperor-games.

But playing similar, hard settings at Immortal level: Ouch . Not to speak about Deity ...

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'd scrap prince then and go monarch emperor (maybe with an immortal game in there to encourage moving up - i can do immortal culture and space occasionally), and the higher level immortal deity with an odd really difficult emperor setup.

EDIT: Difficult emperor - something like always war or huge/large conquest (or quick speed conquest/dom). Easy immortal - culture or religious diplo.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Well we definitely got side-tracked by the difficulty discussion. I don't really like the divisions idea but I don't like the alternatives with variable difficulties any better.

HOF Challenge series: Accommodation for higher Difficulty level play:

1) When a Players' Game is ranked, the Difficulty level used will be ignored, except that it must be at least the minimum Difficulty level required.
2) Each Players' Game will be assigned a Rank Point value: 1st place = 10, 2nd place = 9, ..., 10th place = 1, and 11th place and higher = 0.5 points.
3) Each Players' Game will have a Difficulty value: it will be the Difficulty level played minus the minimum Difficulty level.
4) Difficulty Adjusted Rank points are the sum of the Rank Point value and the Difficulty Point value, capped at a maximum of 10.

Rules #1 and #2 are exactly the ones used in Challenge I series. Rules #3 and #4 adjust Score for the Difficulty level actually played, and cap score to 10 points; thus the maximum Points that can be achieved via any higher Difficulty level can not exceed the maximum Points that can be achieved via the minimum Difficulty level.

The HOF Challenge series with the above rules could provide the venue of a dynamic community of Civ4 Players to learn and improve their play of any of the higher Difficulty levels (Prince through Deity). The HOF Challenge I series did this with few exceptions, but only for a single Difficulty level (Emperor).

What specifically don't you like about this accommodation for higher Difficulty level play?

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Denniz]

What specifically don't you like about this accommodation for higher Difficulty level play?

It is an arbitrary system that doesn't take into consideration the true differences in victory conditions, map size, speed or a bunch of other factors. The assumption that playing 4 levels higher is worth 4 pts is not supported by any data. It is almost certainly not a uniform 4 pts. Without a good idea of the true differences we risk falling into endless discussions of whether it is fair. Or worst, lack of participation because it is perceived to be unbalanced.

 

[WastinTime]

Seems to me most players don't really care what their score is and couldn't care less if someone gets a couple bonus points for playing a higher level.

It's similar to the extra points you get for Barbs and extra extra points for raging barbs in QM scores. There's not a whole lot of complaining about how fair that scoring is. It's a bonus that anyone can get if if they can handle the bonus options.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

It is an arbitrary system that doesn't take into consideration the true differences in victory conditions, map size, speed or a bunch of other factors. The assumption that playing 4 levels higher is worth 4 pts is not supported by any data. It is almost certainly not a uniform 4 pts. Without a good idea of the true differences we risk falling into endless discussions of whether it is fair. Or worst, lack of participation because it is perceived to be unbalanced.

It is no less arbitrary that giving:

10 pts. for 1st place
09 pts. for 2nd place
...
01 pts for 10th place
.5 pts. for 11th place and beyond

This ranking system has no fairness regarding how close adjacent places are in turns or years. The rank difference of 1 point could be as little as one turn or as great as a hundred turns.

You are placing greater design demands on the Difficulty adjustment points than the original ranking point system. How can 1 point per Difficult level be less accurate than 1 ranking point = 1 to 100 turns (as pointed out in the previous paragraph)?

No one really cares too much about the Victory Condition variations. It's really an insoluble problem anyway, until one has five sets of expert Prince to Deity Players that specialize in just one Difficulty to provide the Data you want. In any case, no one can get higher than 10 points regardless of the Difficulty level played.

Personally, I never really bothered playing Prince level Games. They were too easy. I don't see getting an extra four points to compete at Deity against Prince level Players as being too much. They should easy crush any Deity Games I'm able to submit. I may end up with 4.5 points or nothing for my efforts.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

There could be two HOF Challenge series results pages:

1) One that shows only Games submitted with the exact minimum Difficulty level using the rules as used in Challenge I series (no higher Difficulty Game submissions).
2) Another that shows all submitted Games and includes the rules (#3 and #4 from a previous post) for Accommodating higher Difficulty levels.

They could both be considered official results, but the first one would be the one people would refer to for a specific Difficulty level = the minimum required Difficulty level.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

To make Game submissions really fair for the HOF Challenge series, I would seriously suggest banning "Tribal Villages". Without the random bonuses this option provides, submitted Games could be more fairly compared.

Sun Tzu Wu