HOF Challenge Series X Discussion Thread

[lymond]

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

You know, I first wanted to say that I didn't like the idea of further subsets within the Gauntlets, but after walking it through I couldn't really come up with a counter-argument.

Speed vs. Difficulty is debatable. I think everyone has a speed preference, but for most of us Difficulty is flexible. I know that you only play Deity exclusively, but I'd say that is a very small majority (for any level, that is). And for those playing any difficulty below Deity, they are generally striving to attain a higher level even if they...say...currently play mainly Prince.

Point being is that I think the Difficulty idea is good, but Speeds make for a better finite breakdown of the Gauntlets....and there are only 4 speeds vs. 9 levels. I think it is simpler that way. And yeah, just post the results by difficulty. It sure would open it up to a wider group of people and, interestingly, provide more options for any player (seasoned or green) seeking Quatrros as some of the settings are very rare (chieftain???) Honestly, the thing that drove me away from the Gauntlets is that I really don't like choosing leaders, AIs and maps. I want to be forced to play Leader X for Culture game or Leader Y for Diplo, etc. Make us play all the Quatrro leaders instead of Gandhi and Ram month after month. Boooorrriiinng.

Leaders and Maps for Gauntlets would always be set, but rotate through all leaders per given Speed. Just run them through inversely or start at different points for each leaders. Easily setup in a spreadsheet.

As for Challenges though, I disagree. I think they should be unique focused settings for each one of the six with a mix of difficulties. Less HOF Table focused and more GOTM-like. Just have a couple of them on easier levels. Players still need something to strive for.

Summary:

Gauntlets - Table focused. All Business! (not that you won't be having fun )

Challenges - Fun focused. Anything goes!

 

[lymond]

Oh..and OZ...advertise HOF more in the forums. I don't know about y'all, but I rarely look at main CFC page and I never notice the announcements at the top of the page. Also, newer player/members are often completely clueless about the site and other forums than General or S&T.

My suggestion is to simply post a new thread (non-sticky - I never notice those either) in General and S&T. It will get a few responses over a few days...ooohs and aaaahs....and then filter out like any normal thread. But it will get noticed.......

 

[Ozbenno]

My suggestion is to simply post a new thread (non-sticky - I never notice those either) in General and S&T. It will get a few responses over a few days...ooohs and aaaahs....and then filter out like any normal thread. But it will get noticed.......

Good suggestion! Can certainly do something like this.

 

[shulec]

You know, I first wanted to say that I didn't like the idea of further subsets within the Gauntlets, but after walking it through I couldn't really come up with a counter-argument.

Here is your counter-argument: Turnout for the last several G-Minors and G-Majors has been outright pathetic. There are generally 3-5 participants for each with a few outliers such as 10 for a G-Minor and zero for a G-Major.

I don't think multiple levels of difficulty or speed will attract the number of players to get a significant competition at each level. I suspect there will be a hodge-podge of submissions with 1-2 at each level.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Here is your counter-argument: Turnout for the last several G-Minors and G-Majors has been outright pathetic. There are generally 3-5 participants for each with a few outliers such as 10 for a G-Minor and zero for a G-Major.

I don't think multiple levels of difficulty or speed will attract the number of players to get a significant competition at each level. I suspect there will be a hodge-podge of submissions with 1-2 at each level.

Your argument only proves that players don't like the specifics of the past few G-Minors and G-Majors.

Also, when one opens up a Gauntlet to multiple levels of play, it is natural that there will be fewer competitors per difficulty level. What is more important is it increases the total number of players participating.

The Civ IV HoF has demoralized participation in the HoF Tables by rejecting an Inca checkbox filter. The only thing still alive is the Civ IV HoF Gauntlets and the Civ IV HoF Challenges, primarily due to the Inca ban. What is needed to revive all of these is more flexibilty rather than rigidness. Also sound arguments for permitted and banned options.

If the rules don't make sense, most players will not play or play somewhere else.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[shulec]

Your argument only proves that players don't like the specifics of the past few G-Minors and G-Majors.

Also, when one opens up a Gauntlet to multiple levels of play, it is natural that there will be fewer competitors per difficulty level. What is more important is it increases the total number of players participating.

The Civ IV HoF has demoralized participation in the HoF Tables by rejecting an Inca checkbox filter. The only thing still alive is the Civ IV HoF Gauntlets and the Civ IV HoF Challenges, primarily due to the Inca ban. What is needed to revive all of these is more flexibilty rather than rigidness. Also sound arguments for permitted and banned options.

If the rules don't make sense, most players will not play or play somewhere else.

Sun Tzu Wu

I feel that the only thing I can come up with to respond to your comments is a purely emotional response that I have been holding in for way too long:

"Whaaaatever"


...and a quote:

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? " -Joshua, Wargames, 1983.

 

[WastinTime]

Here is your counter-argument: Turnout for the last several G-Minors and G-Majors has been outright pathetic. There are generally 3-5 participants for each with a few outliers such as 10 for a G-Minor and zero for a G-Major.

I don't think multiple levels of difficulty or speed will attract the number of players to get a significant competition at each level. I suspect there will be a hodge-podge of submissions with 1-2 at each level.

I'd have to agree that there's not enough submissions to support splitting it. Probably just stick with the more popular speeds. Participation comes and goes due to various reasons (SGotM is a good one).

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I'd have to agree that there's not enough submissions to support splitting it. Probably just stick with the more popular speeds. Participation comes and goes due to various reasons (SGotM is a good one).

Expanding (aka splitting) the competitions into more categories of Game speed and Difficulty Level is just one good way of offering more ways to participate.

The Challenge series doesn't need more odd-ball games where the settings are as tight as drum membrane (specified player Civ, specified opponents, excessive options restrictions with the exception of those that make sense, i.e. No Tribal Villages, No Events, No Inca and the still controversial No Barbarians). On the other hand, infrequently used required options can be good like Always War, One City Challenge (not enough of these), etc.

My point is the Challenge Series games need to be balanced in a way that increases total participation. I'm not sure we should immedately reject ideas for doing this without first seeing where they we take when seriously pursued. Otherwise, we are doomed to living the Status Quo which probably few of us really want. Let's try something new! If that doesn't work better, try something even more daring and differrent.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[WastinTime]

Expanding (aka splitting) the competitions into more categories of Game speed and Difficulty Level is just one good way of offering more ways to participate.

Hmm... I think you're on to something. GotM is really like a dozen competitions crammed into one. It has the illusion of higher participation, when in reality, there are only a few people competing for the various awards and some play it just for the fun, challenge, or uniqueness of the scenario. It's like a gauntlet with "Victory:any"..and even more than that since there are many other awards. So I'm for whatever gets asses into the seats.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So I'm for whatever gets asses into the seats.

Given the limited activity I'd be inclined to agree. There's no point if people aren't playing the games.

 

[lymond]

I think with better marketing as I addressed with Oz above, and more accessible games as Wu and I have mentioned, it may open the door for more participation.

I still would not drastically change the Challenges though, as they are challenges. However, the Gauntlets could be reworked quite a bit. And...who knows...if we can pull more folks into the HOF and Gauntlets in general the maybe participation in the Challenges will go up. It not that bad anyway, but could be much better. Gauntlet participation is quite weak though. For me, I've mainly not done any Gauntlets recently because of undesirable settings like large maps. I will probably do the Industrial start game though.

I agree with Wu. Folks are knocking our suggestions, but staying Status Quo is likely not to work either. Gotta shake things up if you want anything to happen.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Wow, this challenger thingy is up to number 10 already?


Fine, then I will challenge all of you since people want some drama.
I'm gonna win Challenge X and everyone else can fight for 2nd place.

 

[Manco Capac]

No, I'm gonna crush you with my cheaty over 9000 archi pelago HoF gambling supaaaa powaaaazzzzz.

Or die trying.
And

 

[Kaitzilla]

They only think we gambled. It was legendary informed intuition that made us follow that river to the promised land. It's depressing how they have the entire correct strategy mapped out on page 1.

Maybe there should be secret goals.

You complete the 1st goal, the SGOTM people PM the Captain goal #2. That way the team has no idea what to expect next and will have to build their empire for flexibility and reactivity. I'm sure we'd get gold in such a cooked game.

By the time goal #6 gets revealed, people can scream in frustration as the lurkers have a great laugh. I certainly haven't thought this through since I'm lazy(or checked if it's been suggested before), but whatever gets us gold seems like a good idea. Maybe I can think up some bad advice to put into their thread.


****
NO shiney objects won't save you this time. Already I win challenge X

 

[Ozbenno]

Do people think that a Gauntlet split up into 9 categories for difficulty would attract more participants (not more entries by existing players but new blood)?? I'd be willing to experiment with this to see.

 

[Ozbenno]

What about a gauntlet/challenge that was open to all starting eras. I think people like playing non-ancient starts and playing conquest on the different eras requires different units to be used so can be a varied game.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

What about a gauntlet/challenge that was open to all starting eras. I think people like playing non-ancient starts and playing conquest on the different eras requires different units to be used so can be a varied game.

This is great idea, but Tribal Villages would have to be banned. Classical Era with Horseback Riding popped from a Hut in the first few turns is almost as unbalanced as Inca in the Ancient Era which is already banned for all Eras.

It might be reasonable to allow Inca in non-Ancient Eras, though even in the Classical Era, Quechuas could cause the AIs some major problems, if the AIs aren't able to connect Copper or Horse. Quechuas still have a window of opportunity until Iron Working is completed and AIs connect the usually rather plentiful resource. So maybe the ban on Inca should remain until the Mediaeval Era.

Sun Tzu Wu.

 

[Ozbenno]

This is great idea, but Tribal Villages would have to be banned. Classical Era with Horseback Riding popped from a Hut in the first few turns is almost as unbalanced as Inca in the Ancient Era which is already banned for all Eras.

Yep, huts are banned from Gauntlets and Challenge Series.

It might be reasonable to allow Inca in non-Ancient Eras, though even in the Classical Era, Quechuas could cause the AIs some major problems, if the AIs aren't able to connect Copper or Horse. Quechuas still have a window of opportunity until Iron Working is completed and AIs connect the usually rather plentiful resource. So maybe the ban on Inca should remain until the Mediaeval Era.

The idea would be the same settings (Leader, Speed, Size etc) and have a seperate 'mini competition' across the different eras, so possibility that Inca may be used (unlikely though).

I might experiment with this in the G-Major 112 (have G-Major 112a, 112b, 112c etc) which hasn't been set up yet, if enough people think it a good idea.

 

[WastinTime]

A new idea is a good idea to try. Can't hurt to try it since it sounds like you're up for the extra work it will cause you.

 

[Ozbenno]

My first thought if we do this, is to do a conquest victory across the ages. Do you think more participation would come about from a set leader or from any (except Inca) leader. Any leader might generate some discussion and participation to try and find the best leader for each age.