HOF Challenge Series II Ideas

[Denniz]

Series I is winding down. (10 days to go.)

Series I Stats, so far:

• We had 29 players participate.
• Only two players finished.
• More than half completed only 1-3 of the challenges.

Time to start thinking about Series II.

What about Series I did you like?

What about Series I did you not like?

What else would you change?

What base difficulty should Series II use? (Note: Variable difficulties would need a basis for comparison to be practical.)

What would be a good challenge?

Please provide at least all required settings for any suggestions:

• Condition (required)
• Difficulty (required)
• Starting Era (required)
• Mapsize (required)
• Maptype
• Speed (required)
• Civilization
• Opponents
• Must Check Options
• Must Not Check Options

Note: All ideas are welcome but they may not all be practical to implement with the resources we have.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

i like

I would have played more games had I got my graphics card earlier.

I think you should just enforce a minimum difficulty - so deity players can play on deity if they want.

And I think it should count for a major gauntlet or else make a new category for EQM.

 

[Denniz]

i like

I would have played more games had I got my graphics card earlier.

That's good to know.

I think you should just enforce a minimum difficulty - so deity players can play on deity if they want.

How would we compare the games if played on different difficulties? Best date alone puts the higher difficulties at a handicap. Who would bother to play the higher difficulty if they can do better on a lower one?

And I think it should count for a major gauntlet or else make a new category for EQM.

We decided for Series I not to make it part of EQM. Adding another category isn't practical as that would drop everyone from their EQM status. No exactly fair. Especially to those that are no longer active.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

OK, make it eligible as a major gauntlet then.

Rank the wins from difficulty downwards so all Deity wins > Immortal?

 

[WastinTime]

I would sometimes play on an optional, higher difficulty.
I would not need any favoritism in the rankings for this choice, certainly don't rank all Deity submissions above all Immortal.

The challenge series should not count as a gauntlet.

I thought 10 games was too many. Many people (like me) didn't want to finish all of them. I'm sure many others didn't want to bother starting in late March or April. There has been very little activity the past few weeks. This could indicate a reluctance to start the series once it's half over. I imagine a small surge near the end for a few people that need to finish up.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

How would we compare the games if played on different difficulties? Best date alone puts the higher difficulties at a handicap.

For the purpose of the Challenge, just specify a minimum Difficulty level. Player's that Win at a higher Difficulty level simply get better bragging rights. Nothing more.

The Game is also still a HOF Game that would count for EQM (Gauntlet excluded), right?

Who would bother to play the higher difficulty if they can do better on a lower one?

I would. WastinTime mentioned that he would as well for at least some Games. We would be willing to play at a Difficulty level handicap in Challenge II.

Speaking for myself: I partly want to do this so I can use the same Game for Deity EQM and Challenge II. Partly, because only Deity level is truly challenging (for Player's who play Deity level exclusively, or nearly so).

If you decide to do this, it would be fair to note in the results which Difficulty level he played, but it should have no role in the ranking. Ranking should be best date with Score Tie-breaker regardless of the respective Difficulty levels of the Games being ranked.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

OK, make it eligible as a major gauntlet then.

Rank the wins from difficulty downwards so all Deity wins > Immortal?

Thanks for the suggestions, but ...

I'd really prefer that the Challenge series not be considered a Gauntlet, Major or Minor. The Challenge series was meant more as a learning experience. It is already enough of a competitive event. Making it or all of its Games into a Major Gauntlet equivalent would detract and devalue the real Major Gauntlets too much. There will be plenty of real Major Gauntlets as the years go by. Once a Player wins a Major Gauntlet, that #1 position can never be taken away, unlike a #1 position in a HOF Table.

I'd prefer no rank benefit for playing a higher difficulty level. I simply don't like the idea of playing one level higher than the minimum and being guaranteed a higher rank than every Game at a minimum difficulty level. I suppose the rank could be calibrated to the respective HOF tables, one per Difficulty level and some formula could be devised to fairly rank Games using multiple Difficulties. However, I would personally prefer to play at a handicap with no compensation, simply for the privilege of competing at my preferred difficulty level.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I would sometimes play on an optional, higher difficulty.

Thanks especially for your support of this position. Also, thanks for the company, camaraderie, and competition.

I would not need any favoritism in the rankings for this choice, certainly don't rank all Deity submissions above all Immortal.

The challenge series should not count as a gauntlet.

I thought 10 games was too many. Many people (like me) didn't want to finish all of them. I'm sure many others didn't want to bother starting in late March or April. There has been very little activity the past few weeks. This could indicate a reluctance to start the series once it's half over. I imagine a small surge near the end for a few people that need to finish up.

I agree with everything WastinTime stated as quoted above.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[shulec]

What about Series I did you like?
I imagine I put the most time into this series compared to other players. I replayed 7 of 10 games 1 or more times to improve my scores. The saves from the top submissions helped offer insight that really helped. I became a bit obsessed with the series early on. I felt the competitive nature of the series drove me to try to learn and do better. My play definitely improved from the series.

What about Series I did you not like?
I think the time frame and/or the number of games was too many. I suspect that few will not finish due to a lack of time. Fluorescent said at one time that his time was limited. He (and perhaps AgedOne) appears to be the only one that may not finish due to time. I haven't seen a lot of action on the challenge table, so I suspect that most people who aren't finishing just don't want to play certain games. I would have loved to see more people finish all of the games.
I also think Agg AI was used for too many games.

What else would you change?
I believe a five game challenge over 45 to 60 days would be better.
I think varying difficulties need to be addressed.

What base difficulty should Series II use? (Note: Variable difficulties would need a basis for comparison to be practical.)
I think divisions would be better. Again, some sort of registration for a division would be best.

What would be a good challenge?

Please provide at least all required settings for any suggestions:

• Condition (required) Domination
• Difficulty (required) Deity
• Starting Era (required) Ancient
• Mapsize (required) Small
• Maptype Pangaea
• Speed (required) Epic
• Civilization Russia
• Opponents Any
• Must Check Options
• Must Not Check Options No barbarians, Perm Alliances.

Additionally, I do not care if these scores count for G-Major entries.

I think the most important input should come from those that finished 1 to 7 games. I would like to see these individuals complete Challenge Series II.

 

[kcd_swede]

Hi,
I think also that 10 mandatory games is too much. Honestly, I'd rather finish #6 out of 29 than #2 out of two.

How ever many games are in the challenge, the minimum number of games to qualify does not need to be "all games completed". So if you stick with 10 games, then maybe 6 games is a minimum for qualifying, with the other games providing addded challenge for those people with too much time on their hands or wanting to improve their overall score. Just a thought. But if you are keeping 4 month time period, I think up to 10 games is reasonable, with a minimum number for "finishing" the challenge less than that.

Also... I think a minimum difficulty level should be fine without adjustment for difficulty level chosen. In my experience, (settler to immortal) some types of games actually will finish faster simply by playing them at a higher difficulty level. Recognizing which ones might benefit from a higher difficulty level is skill just like recognizing a good starting position. And there are apparently a number of people who want to play it at their chosen level whether for EQM or for personal challenge... so I like this idea.

What about Series I did you like?

The games were hard to win!

What about Series I did you not like?

The games were hard to win!

What else would you change?

Should vary the conditions somewhat... Aggr AI and Raging Barbs are not always an additional challenge in every type of game.

What base difficulty should Series II use? (Note: Variable difficulties would need a basis for comparison to be practical.)

If you make the minimum difficulty level lower than Emperor, it will provide me a way to complete games by dropping level rather than by improving skills. I have no self control.

What would be a good challenge?

Condition (required) UN Diplo Victory
Difficulty (required) Emperor+
Starting Era (required) Ancient
Mapsize (required) Standard
Maptype Continents, High Seas
Speed (required) Quick
Civilization Babylon(Hammurabi)
Opponents: Ghenghis Kahn, Julius Ceasar, Montezuma, Catherine, Brennus, Alexander, Mehmed, Huayna Capac, Ragnar
Must Check Options: High Seas, No Vassals
Must Not Check Options: No barbs, Permanent Alliances

 

[Fluroscent]

I also think there were just too many games. 5-6 games in the same time frame would allow people to work harder on improving and competing in the particular legs. Only the OCC space race has had adequate progress, where I think the depth of strategy available to solve a particular game has been successfully reached. Most of the other games have few really good entries, as showcased by LowtherCastle, who has smashed the finishing dates on most of the games. More people could come close, if one had time to focus more on individual games, and develop the strategies like what happens in the popular gauntlets.

I really detest the difficulty discussion so far in this thread. I do not think it matters AT ALL what the labeled/nominal difficulty is. The two Diety, and the one Immortal game in this series are among the easiest, so get real please. What matters is that the real difficulty makes games that are challenging enough to complete, that the name challenge series is warranted. BUT at the same possible to handle for aspiring emperor level players wanting to learn.

Optional Diety on otherwise Emperor/Immortal games makes no sense to me. I mean, if people do not really care about the comparison, who is stopping them playing games at these settings on Diety level for their own amusement? And if they are included, what benefit is it really to those playing the intended difficulty?
Not that I personally would mind more Diety games, and maybe even some more standard ones than the two we had. (Like a non-restricted (free choice of leader/map) Diety culture, with a couple of low peaceweights in to make it interesting)

The real difficulty has been the first series greatest success, as showcased by people like kcd swede, who managed to win games he initially thought was too hard, and improving greatly in the process. But if the next series has fewer games, I DO think we can afford to up the (real, not nominal) difficulty sligthtly. That may mean Immortal as a baseline, with Diety and Emperor used when appropriate.

Other things, Agg AI was definitely overused. And if there are games resembling the Inca game (i.e. compete with the best games by using cheesy strategies), I would like us to be able to use optimal settings. For someone like me who would never otherwise compete on those space races, it was nice to see what the fuss was about, but it was not really genuine, since there were forced things that made it noticeably harder than optimal.

 

[ChrisFromLux]

What about Series I did you like?

All games were really challenging, except maybe the Deity-conquest. There was no easy win, due to the chosen opponents and/or maps. At the beginning, I doubted I could win more than 2 or 3 games ...

I also liked the more 'special' set-ups. Having played 'normal' games until this challenge, I liked the OCC-Space Colony, the AW-game (even though I wasn't able to beat it) and the Quick-Deity-Tank-Conquest ...

What about Series I did you not like?

There's nothing I didn't like about Series I, but Series II should not be a simple copy/paste of Series I, with other leaders and maps! It must have its own interesting ideas!

What else would you change?

Maybe have some easier games (not necessarily at a lower difficulty, but an easier set-up), so that the challenge is not getting the victory, but achieving a good position in the rankings.

And as those before me already said, 10 games may be a bit too much for 4 months. Less games would allow more players to either finish all games and/or replay several games for a better result.
I myself have limited time to play, which may sound strange as I have completed 7 challenges (and game 5 is still in progress), but in the last 4 months, I didn't play a single gauntlet, a single xOTM or any other 'normal' HOF-game. And except for challenge 10, I didn't replay any other game for a better result.

What base difficulty should Series II use?

I don't know! Lower difficulties would probably attract more players, but OTOH, it is called 'Challenge', so it should be challenging!

Variable difficulties could work, but you (we) would really have to find a balanced ranking system.
I do not like the idea to rank all Deity-wins above all Emperor-victories, for example, but I don't know a formula to use either ...

 

[WastinTime]

RE: Agg AI. I really liked how Series I showcased this rarely used option. It even opened my eyes to ways it can be used as an advantage. So I don't mind it was over-used, but maybe that's because I only played half of the games. I think it would be a good idea to explore some other option that is often ignored. Are we allowed to use "No tech brokering"? or is that off limits for all HoF. Maybe Dense mountains, or random personalities, etc.

 

[cabert]

AFAIK random personalities is off limits too

I finished only 1 out of 10 in the series, but I must confess I only tried the one I finished + #1 (a few times) which I didn't manage. I got lazy, gave up seeing I had failed more than once, and I wasn't going to try the AW one (it's an option I totally hate) so I was not going to complete the challenge no matter what.

This being said, I think all the games where well calibrated (hard but not out of reach). The sheer number of games made it quite an achievement for those who finished and thus congrats to them. That's the part I liked.

I didn't like ... well, the AW game.

Suggestion : a time victory on deity, quick or normal speed, standard size, as Tokugawa or hammourabi. No special option required, any starting era, any map. IMHO time victory are the hardest, so there is no need to put too much more difficulty in this one. I would try a future, modern or industrial era start, but to get a better score you may want to start earlier.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Random personalities is allowed! It makes a mockery of some of the gauntlets where horrid personalities are involved, I think there's a "gentleman's agreement" (sorry Misotu ) not to do that though

 

[Denniz]

I am not inclined to make the Challenge Series count towards EQM. It seems that with the Gauntlets, EQM overshadows whether the settings might just be fun to try.

____________________________

Getting the right number of game for the right period of time seems to be a popular theme. Should we just reduce the number of games or the amount of time too? Say 5 games for 3 month or 7 games for 4 months?

___________________________

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.

___________________________

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 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.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

4 months is too long, especially for people like me who had PC problems and had to play NetHack instead, reduce the number of games to 6 or so.

Don't lower the difficulty - that's what the gauntlets are for.

If variable difficulty maybe award a point or a half point for each level in excess.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Length and Number of Games:

4 months is too long, especially for people like me who had PC problems and had to play NetHack instead, reduce the number of games to 6 or so.

If I may build on ParadigmShifter's fine ideas on duration and # of Games, slightly:

Maybe the Challenge can be a quarterly event lasting 3 months and featuring 6 Games. That would average 1 Game per HOF update, although it probably wouldn't start and stop on a HOF update.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Challenge Incline:

Don't lower the difficulty - that's what the gauntlets are for.

Rather than have all the Games comprise roughly the same challenge to a competent Player, one could have an incline of successively more challenging Games, where most Players could easily finish the 1st Game, but relatively few might complete the last Challenge. Progressive awards could be issued for finishing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Games; in other words the Player with the highest score completing just 1 Game, 2 Games, ..., all 6 Games. This may be enough incentive for some Players to play some of the easier Games and be recognized for superior Play without having to Play all or nearly all the Games.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point Bonus for higher Difficulty levels:

If variable difficulty maybe award a point or a half point for each level in excess.

Great idea. The ranking of the Win Date (or High Score) would be the same for all Difficulties. The higher Difficulty levels would gain an extra point per Difficulty Level in excess of the minimum Difficulty. There really should be a small bonus for Playing a higher than required Difficulty and a single point per Difficulty level would be enough for many Players to go for it. Otherwise, WastinTime and I may be the only Players playing at a higher Difficulty level. Assuming a minimum of Prince Difficulty, the bonus would never exceed 4 points for playing at Deity; If a Player at Deity actually Wins a #1 position in a Game where many playing the minimum level, Prince, it is hard to argue that Player doesn't deserve an that extra 4 points, making the #1 position worth 14 points. I'd expect winning 14 points in a single Game to be rare, but 11-12 points might be common enough, so that other Players start raising the bar, voluntarily.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[shulec]

Point Bonus for higher Difficulty levels:

Great idea. The ranking of the Win Date (or High Score) would be the same for all Difficulties. The higher Difficulty levels would gain an extra point per Difficulty Level in excess of the minimum Difficulty. There really should be a small bonus for Playing a higher than required Difficulty and a single point per Difficulty level would be enough for many Players to go for it. Otherwise, WastinTime and I may be the only Players playing at a higher Difficulty level. Assuming a minimum of Prince Difficulty, the bonus would never exceed 4 points for playing at Deity; If a Player at Deity actually Wins a #1 position in a Game where many playing the minimum level, Prince, it is hard to argue that Player doesn't deserve an that extra 4 points, making the #1 position worth 14 points. I'd expect winning 14 points in a single Game to be rare, but 11-12 points might be common enough, so that other Players start raising the bar, voluntarily.

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.

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.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Score is borked though because of the in built bonus for difficulty level, so I'd avoid a point boost for score VC.

See... I get my initial ideas shot down but enough brainstorming and anyone can come up with an answer