LowtherCastle
Deity
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,750
No probs.
I shouldn't even make suggestions because then I'd feel obligated to play them out. 
HOF Challenge Series XI Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Denniz
- Start date
I shouldn't even make suggestions because then I'd feel obligated to play them out. 
The required opponents listed for game 4 are the same as for game 5.Intended were:
Thanks! Fixed now.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
I believe there may be interest in a Deity level Challenge series. I recall shulec saying he would arrange one, if there was interest in it. Should a new thread be opened to discuss this?
Sun Tzu Wu
Sun Tzu Wu
Challenge XI is winding down!! Please give any feedback on likes and dislikes of this challenge and offer suggestions for Challenge XII. Please share any thoughts or interest in a Deity level challenge that could run concurrently with the regular challenge.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
Had no interest in playing Challenge Series XI, since all games were at a lower difficulty level than I'd prefer.
Definitely interested in a Deity level Challenge Series. I'd suggest making all the games easy enough for a Deity player to win. For example allow OCC in all games, even though it may not be competitive. No restrictive options or difficult maps. Would be nice to have most map sizes up to Standard represented plus all games speeds. Maybe a score game.
Sun Tzu Wu
Definitely interested in a Deity level Challenge Series. I'd suggest making all the games easy enough for a Deity player to win. For example allow OCC in all games, even though it may not be competitive. No restrictive options or difficult maps. Would be nice to have most map sizes up to Standard represented plus all games speeds. Maybe a score game.
Sun Tzu Wu
I like this challange a lot, as it is available to most players. But I will also like to see higher difficulties here. I think the way to go is to make odd chellanges - prince with difficult settings till immo with easiest possible settings and even challanges composed of immo-deity games. Thus way most players wanting to take part in challange will have some weeks of rest and some weeks of hard rivalisation :]
I also think 10 games is quite too much, 6 games like last one is good to enhance players to try to beat their best date several times rather than submit only once and mark game as checked
I also think 10 games is quite too much, 6 games like last one is good to enhance players to try to beat their best date several times rather than submit only once and mark game as checked
I think the Challenge series should live up to it's name. Keep it restrictive as it's always been and define specific challenges. I would like to see some 'impossible' challenges presented: like when we thought OCC culture was impossible or OCC Domination, or 'Always War Diplo' or 'Always Peace conquest!' I'm not saying do those again, but find other tough setups. So what if a game actually is unbeatable? It's the journey. If it starts a good discussion on how the game could possibly be won, that's what it's all about.
I remember discussing 'Always War Diplo' for a long time and testing it first to see if it's winnable. Who cares if it is? That whole discussion should have been part of the challenge series--not pre-series discussion.
examples:
Score : 1Million
Tiny
Deity
Normal
Time: (stop the spaceships!)
Standard
multi-landmass
Deity
Quick
Future
Conquest
Standard
Normal or quick
Archipelago or continents or hemispheres (something multi-landmass)
NO city razing
No vassals
Espionage Victory
Always Peace
(ok, not very challenging)
Religious Victory
Always War
Standard
Epic
Must Not Check : No city Razing
Space
No Perm. Alliance
OCC
Archi - Tiny Islands
Dutch maybe?
normal
Edit:
Culture
Modern (or Future?..impossible)
I see Challenge XII has an industrial culture game. That should give a good indication of how possible later eras are.
I remember discussing 'Always War Diplo' for a long time and testing it first to see if it's winnable. Who cares if it is? That whole discussion should have been part of the challenge series--not pre-series discussion.
examples:
Score : 1Million
Tiny
Deity
Normal
Time: (stop the spaceships!)
Standard
multi-landmass
Deity
Quick
Future
Conquest
Standard
Normal or quick
Archipelago or continents or hemispheres (something multi-landmass)
NO city razing
No vassals
Espionage Victory
Always Peace
(ok, not very challenging)
Religious Victory
Always War
Standard
Epic
Must Not Check : No city Razing
Space
No Perm. Alliance
OCC
Archi - Tiny Islands
Dutch maybe?
normal
Edit:
Culture
Modern (or Future?..impossible)
I see Challenge XII has an industrial culture game. That should give a good indication of how possible later eras are.
Seraiel
If you want anything from I please ask in German
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 8,165
A Deity-Challenge would be the only thing that could get me playing the Challenge-series. I'm not that interested in "the impossible challenge" that WastinTime formulates but simply in games that allow competetive settings (like i. e. with Huts! ) on slots that should be more contested (i. e. the Time-Victory or Score slots, those are overall really bad unless for some exceptions that WastinTime and me played) .
Maybe take a weak slot and choose some wacky mapscript that still allows for a #1 entry and allows for future #1 entries but also allows the Deity-HoFers to increase their EQM-scores and weak Civ + weak mapscript + Deity should actually be enough of a Challenge.
Maybe take a weak slot and choose some wacky mapscript that still allows for a #1 entry and allows for future #1 entries but also allows the Deity-HoFers to increase their EQM-scores and weak Civ + weak mapscript + Deity should actually be enough of a Challenge.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
The "challenge" in Challenge Series means to challenge players to beat the current leaders and improve their game play - that is the whole point of revealing the game date/score immediately upon game acceptence. This is really only applies to games that are possible as opposed to "impossible" to win. My suggestion is avoid games that have a very small chance of a win.
I really don't see the point of a Deity Challenge Series where all the games are so difficult that 0 or maybe 1 player wins each game.
A Gauntlet Major may be a better venue for more difficult games. Maybe extend the deadline to 3 or 4 updates rather than the normal 2 to accomadate extra difficulty.
I really don't like games with multiple restrictions which prevent the game from doing well in the HoF Tables and EQM. I would imagine this would include "impossible" games that WastinTime wants to include as well games that require particular technologies like Astronomy and a navy or other mainly map specific diversions to win.
Sun Tzu Wu
I really don't see the point of a Deity Challenge Series where all the games are so difficult that 0 or maybe 1 player wins each game.
A Gauntlet Major may be a better venue for more difficult games. Maybe extend the deadline to 3 or 4 updates rather than the normal 2 to accomadate extra difficulty.
I really don't like games with multiple restrictions which prevent the game from doing well in the HoF Tables and EQM. I would imagine this would include "impossible" games that WastinTime wants to include as well games that require particular technologies like Astronomy and a navy or other mainly map specific diversions to win.
Sun Tzu Wu
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
@Seraiel: I understand your reasons for wanting Huts, since its hard to be competitive without them in the HoF tables. Please understand that I'm against them also for competitive reasons in support of fixing the loop that a string of lucky Hut popping may result in several virtually unbeatable #1 games.
@Everyone Concerned about HoF Competitiveness:
I would prefer that Tribal Villages be banned entirely. I really don't understand how hut luck can form a basis for a competition that reveals skill rather than luck.
The biasing the HoF Rules to favor increasing luck outcomes, by allowing in particular Tribal Villages, Events and Standard Resources, will eventually kill the HoF. That is why the HoF has far lower participation levels than most other areas of CFC.
I don't believe it is too late to reevaluate the HoF rules. Some of the rules seem very anticompetitive to some of the best players in CFC (Strategy and Tactics Forum participants).
Sun Tzu Wu
@Everyone Concerned about HoF Competitiveness:
I would prefer that Tribal Villages be banned entirely. I really don't understand how hut luck can form a basis for a competition that reveals skill rather than luck.
The biasing the HoF Rules to favor increasing luck outcomes, by allowing in particular Tribal Villages, Events and Standard Resources, will eventually kill the HoF. That is why the HoF has far lower participation levels than most other areas of CFC.
I don't believe it is too late to reevaluate the HoF rules. Some of the rules seem very anticompetitive to some of the best players in CFC (Strategy and Tactics Forum participants).
Sun Tzu Wu
Seraiel
If you want anything from I please ask in German
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 8,165
You cannot rule out randomness in games STW because fights i. e. are the true source of randomness. 6 Horse-Archers can conquer a complete empire, 6 Horse-Archers can be mostly dead after the first city or not even take that one.
What S&T players do is ruling out the randomness by playing without Huts & Events but also by reloading at any time where the RNG funks them. That's not what I consider as true CIVing. Gaming, maybe, but CIV is an RNG-game and that cannot be changed. What the people in the HoF want is to produce those unbeateable #1 games that had everything, chains of luck in huts, chains of luck in combats, and all that while the player was playing awesome.
"Our greatest wish in life is to leave a legacy" , and gambling is associated with luck and bad luck and in CIV, that can never be ruled out. Just think how much a random-AI-choice of a tech can influence the game and of all the other things that influence a game, huts are no different, all they do is making hunting-CIVs, which are most often regarded as weak, better, and sometimes, they can produce funny results like when getting HBR, but even then, the overall sources of other randomnesses are great enough so that that game can be beaten, i. e. siimply by Hatty + War Chariots.
Ruling out huts on classical starts, that's something I understand, because there, they give some definately crazy techs, but if that were done, all classical-games would have to be removed too.
What S&T players do is ruling out the randomness by playing without Huts & Events but also by reloading at any time where the RNG funks them. That's not what I consider as true CIVing. Gaming, maybe, but CIV is an RNG-game and that cannot be changed. What the people in the HoF want is to produce those unbeateable #1 games that had everything, chains of luck in huts, chains of luck in combats, and all that while the player was playing awesome.
"Our greatest wish in life is to leave a legacy" , and gambling is associated with luck and bad luck and in CIV, that can never be ruled out. Just think how much a random-AI-choice of a tech can influence the game and of all the other things that influence a game, huts are no different, all they do is making hunting-CIVs, which are most often regarded as weak, better, and sometimes, they can produce funny results like when getting HBR, but even then, the overall sources of other randomnesses are great enough so that that game can be beaten, i. e. siimply by Hatty + War Chariots.
Ruling out huts on classical starts, that's something I understand, because there, they give some definately crazy techs, but if that were done, all classical-games would have to be removed too.
@Seraiel +1
Well said.
Well said.
Conquistador 63
Deity
I'm not a HoF regular, so my vote should have less weight, but I really liked the current challenge setup, and thus submitted a game for each of the 6 settings. I would appreciate if next one would be along these lines, varied maps, leaders and settings.
I admit I couldn't care less for deity or "impossible" games, but if those are necessary to entice top HoF players participation, so be it, I can wait for another opportunity.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
@Seraiel:
You want to win games that will be remembered for your RNG (Hut/Event/Barbarian) luck just as much as for your actual Skill? The HoF rules are set up to do previsely that. Wouldn't you rather be remembered for the things you did in life based on actual skill rather than also for the luck of the moment?
Most players find the HoF rules frustrating, primarily because they multiply the RNG luck more than necessary, are unecessarily restrictive (some map types are banned without sensible reasoning) and especially for the luck that is needed for a good/great start. That is why there never were that many HoF game submissions and now there are fewer submissions than ever.
I have never heard a sensible reason for banning Balanced Resources. How could allowing Balanced Resources be considered somehow exploitative such that it is banned by HoF rules? Perhaps Balanced Resources don't allow enough RNG luck to be allowed by HoF rules?
Sun Tzu Wu
You want to win games that will be remembered for your RNG (Hut/Event/Barbarian) luck just as much as for your actual Skill? The HoF rules are set up to do previsely that. Wouldn't you rather be remembered for the things you did in life based on actual skill rather than also for the luck of the moment?
Most players find the HoF rules frustrating, primarily because they multiply the RNG luck more than necessary, are unecessarily restrictive (some map types are banned without sensible reasoning) and especially for the luck that is needed for a good/great start. That is why there never were that many HoF game submissions and now there are fewer submissions than ever.
I have never heard a sensible reason for banning Balanced Resources. How could allowing Balanced Resources be considered somehow exploitative such that it is banned by HoF rules? Perhaps Balanced Resources don't allow enough RNG luck to be allowed by HoF rules?
Sun Tzu Wu
Seraiel
If you want anything from I please ask in German
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 8,165
If Huts prevent "the usual S&T player" from playing for HoF, I'm happy with them 
.
No, seriously: I like remembering games where an unusual string of luck happened, like HBR in T5. I'd be sad when one of those games beat one of mine, but getting a #1 entry that's just so good that I cannot forget it, that's something I find awesome.
I wouldn't care about what other players think, fell and regard as "right" too much, if somebody wants to play for HoF, he will, if somebody is a candidate that changes his opinion with every strong person that speaks out, I wouldn't care about him anyway.
.No, seriously: I like remembering games where an unusual string of luck happened, like HBR in T5. I'd be sad when one of those games beat one of mine, but getting a #1 entry that's just so good that I cannot forget it, that's something I find awesome.
I wouldn't care about what other players think, fell and regard as "right" too much, if somebody wants to play for HoF, he will, if somebody is a candidate that changes his opinion with every strong person that speaks out, I wouldn't care about him anyway.
I've just submitted the last game and finally realised that it is not a challange against other players, but challenge against oneself! I hade to face conditions I dont play in my common games - I had to try for early domination, for conquest = I never do it!
So the idea of challange should be to propose some games of setting thet vary a lot and are definitely not standard - normally most players dont use occ, oasis, boreal, always war culture (settings for masochists) etc. - in order to challange one's habits!
I like that a lot and I hope there would be more challange serries like that. Probably next one adressed to immo/deity players, than next adjusted for noble-monarch players.
As far as I remember I didnt like previous challanges because I didnt even know to who they are addressed (game difficulty varied from warlord to deity). This one was addresed to monarch/emperor players and I felt comfortable to play all the games, even though some were very frustrating in some moments.
IMO challange series is not a place for beating HOF tables. I think gauntlets are better for this.
So the idea of challange should be to propose some games of setting thet vary a lot and are definitely not standard - normally most players dont use occ, oasis, boreal, always war culture (settings for masochists) etc. - in order to challange one's habits!
I like that a lot and I hope there would be more challange serries like that. Probably next one adressed to immo/deity players, than next adjusted for noble-monarch players.
As far as I remember I didnt like previous challanges because I didnt even know to who they are addressed (game difficulty varied from warlord to deity). This one was addresed to monarch/emperor players and I felt comfortable to play all the games, even though some were very frustrating in some moments.
IMO challange series is not a place for beating HOF tables. I think gauntlets are better for this.
Similar threads
