Challenge IX has less than a month left. It is time to start kicking around ideas for Challenge X. Feedback on Challenge IX (good and bad) is also appreciated.
HOF Challenge Series X Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Ozbenno
- Start date
I would like to hear any ideas people have to stimulate greater interest in the Challenge series.
I would like to suggest a series of 5-6 games over a shorter time span, geared to have mass appeal. I think having a range of difficulties including 3 of 6 games at noble, prince or monarch willl draw more players. Having the other three be emperor or possibly one deity game. (I think immortal is a turnoff to many players.)
I want as much feedback as possible on the format of 5-6 vs. 10 games. Obviously, if people aren't interested in this or don't provide feedback, Ozbenno will likely keep the same format.
I would like to suggest a series of 5-6 games over a shorter time span, geared to have mass appeal. I think having a range of difficulties including 3 of 6 games at noble, prince or monarch willl draw more players. Having the other three be emperor or possibly one deity game. (I think immortal is a turnoff to many players.)
I want as much feedback as possible on the format of 5-6 vs. 10 games. Obviously, if people aren't interested in this or don't provide feedback, Ozbenno will likely keep the same format.
The 10 game series feels very long to me, and each game alone is often a long "challenge". So that's what deters me from playing. I often play one or two of my favorites, but I didn't even get that done this time. Maybe if the series was shorter or if a couple games were challenging, but shorter....but don't make changes for me.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
I agree that 5-6 games would be better than 10 games.
Ten games in a four month period is a lot, given most players are playing in other competitions take also take a lot of time.
Thus, I'd stick with four months for 5-6 games.
Sun Tzu Wu
Ten games in a four month period is a lot, given most players are playing in other competitions take also take a lot of time.
Thus, I'd stick with four months for 5-6 games.
Sun Tzu Wu
Walter_Wolf
King
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 806
Noble + Prince + Monarch + Emperor + Immortal + Deity = 6 would be great.
I believe we would see more people finish the whole series.
EDIT: or maybe 4 games in 2 or 3 months (I like better a 3 months period):
one of each
Domination/Conquest (kill, kill, kill),
Religious / UN (please the AI),
Cultural (builders / peacemongers heaven) and
Space race/colony (all skills combined).
So, who gets the most points in four games across all types of victory conditions.
EDIT2: a very important step would be - announce the Challenger series format change across the CFC forums.
I believe we would see more people finish the whole series.
EDIT: or maybe 4 games in 2 or 3 months (I like better a 3 months period):
one of each
Domination/Conquest (kill, kill, kill),
Religious / UN (please the AI),
Cultural (builders / peacemongers heaven) and
Space race/colony (all skills combined).
So, who gets the most points in four games across all types of victory conditions.
EDIT2: a very important step would be - announce the Challenger series format change across the CFC forums.
Challenge IX feedback
I had much fun playing Challenge IX. Imo, it was much more balanced and less tedious than Challenge VIII. I liked that many games could be played in a couple hours, but were still interesting and challenging.
One thing that should be avoided in future series is the use of maps with unreliable landmass distribution like Fractal, Continents, Ice Age and Global Highlands for Conquest, Domination and AP games. Its no fun playing Pangaea-like Continents maps (Game 5) as it feels like cheating and breaks the competition. Maps like Rainforest and Boreal have their issues too (one tile fresh water island AIs, AIs isolated behind mountain chains), but those appear to be much less common.
5-6 game series
I also believe a 5 or 6 games in 3 months series would be a more attractive format.
One could add a Score (or very rarely Time) game and, for a 6 game series, one OCC/AW/non ancient start/etc. game.
Game speed should be mostly Normal, one Quick, one (or two) Epic. Marathon very rarely and for short games like AP and early Conquest only.
Something to encourage people to play more games might be a small bonus (like 3 or 5 points) for completing the challenge. This has been discussed before and I still dont know why that idea was rejected. I recall many players were in favor of it.
Some half-baked ideas for Challenge X
- A Culture (highest Score wins) game with Hannibal on Medium & Small
- Id love to play a Military Victory game with Isabella and make use of her Uniques. The settings should be difficult enough to make a win with Chariots/Horse Archers only impossible or very hard. I would suggest Rainforest, Quick, Domination, No Vassals, if I didnt know that everyone but me hates quick speed (and probably Rainforest, too).
- Noticing for the first time that Random Personalities is allowed in HOF I cant help but wonder, if an AP or UN game with that option would be fun or simply too luck dependent.
I had much fun playing Challenge IX. Imo, it was much more balanced and less tedious than Challenge VIII. I liked that many games could be played in a couple hours, but were still interesting and challenging.
One thing that should be avoided in future series is the use of maps with unreliable landmass distribution like Fractal, Continents, Ice Age and Global Highlands for Conquest, Domination and AP games. Its no fun playing Pangaea-like Continents maps (Game 5) as it feels like cheating and breaks the competition. Maps like Rainforest and Boreal have their issues too (one tile fresh water island AIs, AIs isolated behind mountain chains), but those appear to be much less common.
5-6 game series
I also believe a 5 or 6 games in 3 months series would be a more attractive format.
One could add a Score (or very rarely Time) game and, for a 6 game series, one OCC/AW/non ancient start/etc. game.
Game speed should be mostly Normal, one Quick, one (or two) Epic. Marathon very rarely and for short games like AP and early Conquest only.
Something to encourage people to play more games might be a small bonus (like 3 or 5 points) for completing the challenge. This has been discussed before and I still dont know why that idea was rejected. I recall many players were in favor of it.
Some half-baked ideas for Challenge X
- A Culture (highest Score wins) game with Hannibal on Medium & Small
- Id love to play a Military Victory game with Isabella and make use of her Uniques. The settings should be difficult enough to make a win with Chariots/Horse Archers only impossible or very hard. I would suggest Rainforest, Quick, Domination, No Vassals, if I didnt know that everyone but me hates quick speed (and probably Rainforest, too).
- Noticing for the first time that Random Personalities is allowed in HOF I cant help but wonder, if an AP or UN game with that option would be fun or simply too luck dependent.
Manco Capac
Friday,13 June,I Collapse
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 8,051
The first point is easily seen as sushi power.
Third point is perhaps random for some, but for me, it's completely predictable.
Yep, its a Sushi Power Domination game where you have to time your score peak with a culture victory. I know there has been at least one similar gauntlet some years ago (G-min 79), but that was even before I started playing Civ 4. There arent really a whole lot dedicated score games in the HOF table for the faster speeds. I know whats possible on Marathon speed and Id love to see what people can do on normal speed. Giving people a victory condition along with the Score milking objective might encourage them to play it, even if they don't like score games in general.
Of course, its very possible to deduce the leader personalities. The question is, if the detective work involved would add some flavor to an otherwise very repetitive AP game and if the randomness of the AI distribution affects the competitive aspect of the Challenge Series too much. Do leader personalities change when one rerolls from a 4000 BC save? If they dont, this whole scenario is pretty pointless, but Ill for sure use this option in the next all stupid warmongers culture game
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
I'd like to see all game speeds represented. The idea that Normal or any other speed is the best for competition is nonsense in my opinion. However, I would say that Quick games are usually more challenging than the other speeds though this is somewhat dependent on Victory Condition.
Sun Tzu Wu
Sun Tzu Wu
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
Reducing Randomness:
Challenge games almost always require Barbarians. This adds unnecessary randomness, since Barbarians spawn in unexplored areas and one can either be surrounded by AIs and expend no resources for Barbarian spawn busting or one has much area to spawn bust requiring the diversion of early resources away from early development.
Thus, Barbarians should be optional, unless they are a key part of the challenge game and in this case they should generally be Raging Barbarians.
Furthermore, any game with Barbarians can be broken by building or capturing The Great Wall.
Please limit Barbarians to a few games; maybe at lower difficulty levels where they are trivial to deal with, even the raging variant.
Sun Tzu Wu
Challenge games almost always require Barbarians. This adds unnecessary randomness, since Barbarians spawn in unexplored areas and one can either be surrounded by AIs and expend no resources for Barbarian spawn busting or one has much area to spawn bust requiring the diversion of early resources away from early development.
Thus, Barbarians should be optional, unless they are a key part of the challenge game and in this case they should generally be Raging Barbarians.
Furthermore, any game with Barbarians can be broken by building or capturing The Great Wall.
Please limit Barbarians to a few games; maybe at lower difficulty levels where they are trivial to deal with, even the raging variant.
Sun Tzu Wu
Normal is the best speed to facilitate participation. Competition depends heavily on participation. Therefore, I think normal is best for this competition.
Suggestion:
OCC domination has been done before, but I think it's usually been with Perm. Alliance ON. Let's try with it off. This could be achieved with legendary culture+conquering most everyone...but probably needs to use vassals. So I won't force No Vassals (this time.)
Victory Condition - Domination
Difficulty - Monarch
Starting Era - Ancient
Map Size - Tiny
Map Type - any
Speed - Normal
Civ - any
Opponents -- pick 4
Required Options - OCC
Illegal Options - Permanent Alliances
This might also make for an interesting non-ancient start. I'm not opposed to forcing a particular set of opponents (probably should), but I think I'd like to keep the player civ open in case people want to pick one more suited to their approach (culture? aggressive? etc.) However, that's more of a gauntlet style. If someone wants to pick a player civ that we all must use, I'm fine with that. More of a challenge.
OCC domination has been done before, but I think it's usually been with Perm. Alliance ON. Let's try with it off. This could be achieved with legendary culture+conquering most everyone...but probably needs to use vassals. So I won't force No Vassals (this time.)
Victory Condition - Domination
Difficulty - Monarch
Starting Era - Ancient
Map Size - Tiny
Map Type - any
Speed - Normal
Civ - any
Opponents -- pick 4
Required Options - OCC
Illegal Options - Permanent Alliances
This might also make for an interesting non-ancient start. I'm not opposed to forcing a particular set of opponents (probably should), but I think I'd like to keep the player civ open in case people want to pick one more suited to their approach (culture? aggressive? etc.) However, that's more of a gauntlet style. If someone wants to pick a player civ that we all must use, I'm fine with that. More of a challenge.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
Normal speed for all the Challenge games? Do we want to bore all the competitors to apathy
Sun Tzu Wu
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
Tiny map can have a maximum of four opponents which would make Land Domination 68%. Given that vassals provide only 1/2 of their land plots for domination purposes, it will be challenging to get Domination without Conquest. Using one of the mini-Pangaea maps might be the only way to acheive Domination. However, maybe a Legendary City covers a greater percentage of a Tiny map than I'm assuming.
Great idea for a Challenge game regardless of the details alluded to above.
Sun Tzu Wu
Suggestion #2
2 or 3 years ago I had fun with this on a Huge map, but I sense people don't want huge.
Challenge:
Can you get diplomatic relations in order before the AI can launch a spaceship in the Future era? Those Apollo programs will be coming out fast.
Victory Condition - Diplomatic
Difficulty - Deity
Starting Era - Future
Map Size - Standard
Map Type - Continents
Speed - Epic
Civ -
Opponents --
Required Options -
Illegal Options -
I'm open to suggestions on civs and options.
2 or 3 years ago I had fun with this on a Huge map, but I sense people don't want huge.
Challenge:
Can you get diplomatic relations in order before the AI can launch a spaceship in the Future era? Those Apollo programs will be coming out fast.
Victory Condition - Diplomatic
Difficulty - Deity
Starting Era - Future
Map Size - Standard
Map Type - Continents
Speed - Epic
Civ -
Opponents --
Required Options -
Illegal Options -
I'm open to suggestions on civs and options.
OK it seems that there is some traction for a reduced number of games. That seem fair enough, we'll go with 6 games over 4 months. Any objections to that?
Keep the game ideas coming in, we tried the OCC domination without PA for a gauntlet a while back, was very hard to achieve (think you couldn't have any water squares in the legendary city BFC which was a bit random) but possible.
Keep the game ideas coming in, we tried the OCC domination without PA for a gauntlet a while back, was very hard to achieve (think you couldn't have any water squares in the legendary city BFC which was a bit random) but possible.
I remember that, but I'm pretty sure that was no vassals, so this game wouldn't have that annoying feature.
vranasm
Deity
Challenge IX feedback
I felt that the series offered very nice mixture of games and even if I finished only 3 games from the series, I felt at least 3 more offered nice mixture which I should have attempted (but got distracted by different games).
I felt that the series was very good for normal players interested in civ iv game, the barrier here will probably be that civ iv game starts to be a little bit old and people naturally touch other games/projects on the way.
I liked that we didn't went too deep with very untraditional settings, which Quick speed, Larger maps and to some extend AW (no diplomacy), OCC (no sense of building empire) I consider being the worst barriers for interesting gameplay.
S&T runs most games very close to "standard settings" which we can understand as standard map size, normal/epic game speed which seemed to be best balanced on itself.
Difficulty of games is always questionable, but having most games on Emperor I feel opens the games to biggest audience since Emperor is something for newer players to strive for while being still realistic and offers interesting enough gameplay (more choices viable) for Immortal players (honestly I long time think that any new player coming to forums should just start on Monarch and ignore the noble, prince step stones with the amount of info we have on hand now).
The highest levels tend to be too demanding on "perfect play over one path".
the victory types are matter of taste and I think having all types present offers all kind of players at least 1 game to play, so I guess that's good way how to approach such series
I felt that the series offered very nice mixture of games and even if I finished only 3 games from the series, I felt at least 3 more offered nice mixture which I should have attempted (but got distracted by different games).
I felt that the series was very good for normal players interested in civ iv game, the barrier here will probably be that civ iv game starts to be a little bit old and people naturally touch other games/projects on the way.
I liked that we didn't went too deep with very untraditional settings, which Quick speed, Larger maps and to some extend AW (no diplomacy), OCC (no sense of building empire) I consider being the worst barriers for interesting gameplay.
S&T runs most games very close to "standard settings" which we can understand as standard map size, normal/epic game speed which seemed to be best balanced on itself.
Difficulty of games is always questionable, but having most games on Emperor I feel opens the games to biggest audience since Emperor is something for newer players to strive for while being still realistic and offers interesting enough gameplay (more choices viable) for Immortal players (honestly I long time think that any new player coming to forums should just start on Monarch and ignore the noble, prince step stones with the amount of info we have on hand now).
The highest levels tend to be too demanding on "perfect play over one path".
the victory types are matter of taste and I think having all types present offers all kind of players at least 1 game to play, so I guess that's good way how to approach such series
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 27,129
^^^ well, OCCs are kinda fun really since they play very quick but agree on Quick speed and large maps.
For me I guess the first question begs is whether folks are more interested in Challenges to fill up HOF tables or more for a different style of play. Some of these Challenges are pretty much HOF prohibitive, although some are indeed more normal.
I tend to like the Challenges to be more focused and different. "Focused" meaning set map and AIs and such, and "different" in that it offers set objectives and rules that go outside the norm to either create a "challenge" or a different setup to try out. For instance late area starts, occasional AW. Something unique that is challenging and different. I'd rather have set maps and leaders so everyone is on a level playing field kinda like GOTMs. The difference being that Oz would just roll a map vs. cooking one up. (He could still have staff check the maps for balance and whatnot)
So yeah, go to 6 challenges on a reduced schedule, but make the challenges less about HOF tables and more about unique and fun gameplay. Keep mainly to standard settings as far as speed/map size for the most part. I can stomach a Quick speed game now and then but slower speeds and large maps are just too much for me and I refuse to play Mara. Mara always seems very unpopular in challenge games.
To compensate for general HOF stuff, expand the Gauntlets so that it covers more settings, maps, leaders/civs and difficulties. I just realized I have never seen or tried a game on chieftain. Maybe 1 Gauntlet per speed or map size per Month (or whatever the timeframe). Instead of G-Minor/Major, call them G-Quick, G-Norm, G-Epic, G-Mara. That way every speed is represented more often. Maps and sizes can rotated among those games. Use set leaders and rotate them as well so we don't have Gandhi and Ram almost every game. More interest in Quattro.
Anyway, my suggest for a game plays off a suggestion I made a couple of challenges ago that flopped....for me as well. It was a late era start corporation game. However, I made the mistake of suggesting Renaissance era which was too early. Corps weren't needed. Maybe an Industrial or later culture game. Something like:
Leader: Shaka or Mehmed or JC
VC: Culture
Speed: Normal
Map: Big and Small
Size: Normal
Era: Industrial
Difficulty: Emperor or Immortal
For me I guess the first question begs is whether folks are more interested in Challenges to fill up HOF tables or more for a different style of play. Some of these Challenges are pretty much HOF prohibitive, although some are indeed more normal.
I tend to like the Challenges to be more focused and different. "Focused" meaning set map and AIs and such, and "different" in that it offers set objectives and rules that go outside the norm to either create a "challenge" or a different setup to try out. For instance late area starts, occasional AW. Something unique that is challenging and different. I'd rather have set maps and leaders so everyone is on a level playing field kinda like GOTMs. The difference being that Oz would just roll a map vs. cooking one up. (He could still have staff check the maps for balance and whatnot)
So yeah, go to 6 challenges on a reduced schedule, but make the challenges less about HOF tables and more about unique and fun gameplay. Keep mainly to standard settings as far as speed/map size for the most part. I can stomach a Quick speed game now and then but slower speeds and large maps are just too much for me and I refuse to play Mara. Mara always seems very unpopular in challenge games.
To compensate for general HOF stuff, expand the Gauntlets so that it covers more settings, maps, leaders/civs and difficulties. I just realized I have never seen or tried a game on chieftain. Maybe 1 Gauntlet per speed or map size per Month (or whatever the timeframe). Instead of G-Minor/Major, call them G-Quick, G-Norm, G-Epic, G-Mara. That way every speed is represented more often. Maps and sizes can rotated among those games. Use set leaders and rotate them as well so we don't have Gandhi and Ram almost every game. More interest in Quattro.
Anyway, my suggest for a game plays off a suggestion I made a couple of challenges ago that flopped....for me as well. It was a late era start corporation game. However, I made the mistake of suggesting Renaissance era which was too early. Corps weren't needed. Maybe an Industrial or later culture game. Something like:
Leader: Shaka or Mehmed or JC
VC: Culture
Speed: Normal
Map: Big and Small
Size: Normal
Era: Industrial
Difficulty: Emperor or Immortal
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
A Gauntlet for every game speed (G-Quick, G-Normal, G-Epic & G-Marathon) is a great idea. Rather doing that, one could have the same G-Minor and G-Major, but allow players to choose their preferred game speed and announce the results by Game Speed.
However, more than game speed, players prefer Difficulty Level. So why not just allow players to choose their preferred Difficulty and announce the results by Difficulty level?
Something similar could be done for the Challenge series, but again the results would be listed separately for Game Speed and Difficulty Level.
Sun Tzu Wu
However, more than game speed, players prefer Difficulty Level. So why not just allow players to choose their preferred Difficulty and announce the results by Difficulty level?
Something similar could be done for the Challenge series, but again the results would be listed separately for Game Speed and Difficulty Level.
Sun Tzu Wu
Similar threads
