1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

HOF Cheese Annex (unofficial poll)

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Hall of Fame Discussion' started by Denniz, May 27, 2007.

?

Is Quattromasters to too cheesy?

Poll closed Jun 26, 2007.
  1. I like things they way they are.

    4 vote(s)
    17.4%
  2. Exclude Duel Size Maps and only allow ancient starts for QM.

    7 vote(s)
    30.4%
  3. I have a different idea.

    12 vote(s)
    52.2%
  1. Denniz

    Denniz Where's my breakfast? Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,983
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    I have been concerned with the directionally challenged QM Ranking goals of some players. Some of this is because of the number of cheesy wins a player can use to fill in their QM requirements. It leads to a certain devaluation of the pride/prestige of being a Quattromaster.

    One goal of this forum is to for us to help each other become better players. That doesn't really work as well if half of us have given up and are now playing for the lowest QM Ranking.

    I think the number one cheesy move is the Duel map with the Inca. I am sure there are a couple others but I can't think of them at this point.

    So the point of this poll is to:
    • see if anyone else feels the same
    • consider a proposals to correct the situation (I've got mine ;) )
    • document all the cheese

    I am not trying to single out, belittle, insult, embarrass, harass, or otherwise upset anyone. I hope nobody else will either. :nono:

    This is about making the HOF more better.;)

    In addition to selecting your poll option please post about what you think is cheese and if you are a QM, how many of your requirements are cheesy? (confession is good for the soul :jesus: )

    EDIT: I am not suggesting we would take away anyone's QM title. I was more think on the order of creating an elite QM rank where we exclude the cheesy games.
     
  2. WastinTime

    WastinTime Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    13,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Good timing, I've just been studying this competition earlier today and I'm starting to learn how it works and get some ideas. I think you're right about the prestige thing. It seems winning a G-major is the only challenge. Maybe getting one Diety win is also tough, but we all know there's cheesy games for that. I don't have a suggestion for fixing prestige yet.

    However, from what I've seen so far, the competition is designed well to penalize these people when it comes to score. If they're proud of themselves for being on the bottom of the QM list, that's great for them. I don't think you should change the rules for that reason. It's not hurting the competition, but, as you pointed out, it destroys the pride value.

    My suggestion for improvement of the scoring is about map sizes. I'm not sure why you get such a huge penalty for playing standard size. Some people can't hardly play huge maps anyway. One could argue that Huge maps can sometimes be easier because you have more space to settle before the Diety AI closes in on you.

    I think Huge, Large, and Standard should all be 1.0 adjuster, small .9, tiny .8, duel .6. Or something similiar. Duel needs a big penalty, maybe Tiny should too. Or maybe Huge 1.0, Large .95, Standard .9, etc. but I like the first idea where they're all 1.0. Let people compete mostly on Standard size maps. Top players will still venture into the Large and Huge maps in order to get the fastest date since the steepest competition (most submissions) for score will be on standard size maps.

    (oh, and fix the League of Nations so it doesn't penalize Vanilla)
     
  3. playshogi

    playshogi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,260
    I voted to eliminate duel size and require ancient starts, but maybe all you have to eliminate are the conquest and domination victory types for duel and tiny maps. Eliminating these would cause many players including me to lose QM status, but what's the point of QM status if you can play cheesy and qualify in a week? I like Wastintime's idea of 1.0 for standard and larger maps, small .9, but tiny and duel should be .5 or lower. It's easy to say that the Future deity space starts can be beaten by a player submitting an ancient start game, but there are few players who can do this. I couldn't even beat a Future space result on Emperor level with an ancient start (1922 vs. my 1925).

    Even if BTS makes the AI stronger, it will just mean that players use the older version of the game for their cheesy wins. Will have to wait and see, but if BTS is all they claim it won't be the same game as 1.61 or 2.08. You may as well let Civ3 compete on the same tables.

    I still like the idea I had a while back of somehow requiring players to register a game by downloading a random start and keeping track of wins and losses. Players can choose map size and level, but nothing else. That would eliminate the cheese once and for all. No more abandoning games because you didn't get the right dice roll. (You could abandon it, but then you'd get a loss in the standings.) No more searching for starts with 2 gold and marble. That would demonstrate real skill to play a poor start to a victory. Of course, taking a beautiful start to a fast finish is skillful, too, but I guess I'm describing a different kind of competition.
     
  4. Denniz

    Denniz Where's my breakfast? Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,983
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    I amended my OP to note that rather than have a player loose their QM status, we would have to create an elite level QM instead.

    That's a little too much like xOTM. I don't think anyone is going to convince Superslug to do something so complicated when you can just play xOTM.
     
  5. WastinTime

    WastinTime Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    13,848
    Gender:
    Male
    I realized that my first post was a bit off topic. I've put some thought into the real reason for this thread. Cheesy wins. Yesterday I would have told you that I thought Future space race wasn't fair. Now I've learned that eventually someone should come along an score a better date to devalue these. So that's great for the top competitors in QM. But this thread is not about that. Even though my initial reason to dislike Future space races is minimized, I'd say these still have to be considered "cheesy" wins. I don't think all Future starts need to be cut however. I think it would be a shame to force Ancient only starts ... especially for Time games. So that's why I didn't vote for No Duel/Ancient only.

    Duel size obviously has to go. Maybe Tiny too. Again these are not an issue for players who care about their scores. Playshogi might have the right idea. Just stop the dom/conquest on Tiny. Duel probably has to go across the board. Just because the creators of Civ decided to add this map size, doesn't mean it is appropriate for QM.

    I agree with Playshogi that BTS will be like Civ 5. New HoF needed.
     
  6. WastinTime

    WastinTime Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    13,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Elite huh. Interesting idea. Then you can make even more restrictions. You'd probably eliminate Noble and below difficulty (or something close to that).

    Going back on topic. Excluding cheesy difficulty wins. Like I said before, just because the creators of Civ decided to put Settler difficulty in the game, it doesn't necessarily have a place in the QM. Settler is so a 6 year old can play and still get a good feeling and win. I would consider excluding at least the first 2 difficulty levels.
     
  7. Miraculix

    Miraculix Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    154
    Let me try to define a cheesy game:

    - It is significantly easier to win a cheesy game than to win other games on the same level.
    - It is quite easy to finish within a few turns of the best game of the respective HOF table.

    I also believe the cheesy games should be ranked according to two criteria:

    1) How many points the cheesy game can generate.
    2) How many QM slots one can fill using the cheesy game.

    Here is my ranking of cheesy games:

    1) Future Space Race games: 90-100 points, most QM slots.
    It is relatively easy to build the space ship before the AI on all levels. With Deity/Huge/raging barbarians one can easily get between 90 and 100 points.

    2) Duel Conquest games with Inca: 48-50 points, all Tempitrophy slots and most map quest slots
    With a little bit of luck, the Quechuas can easiliy capture the enemy city in less than 10 turns on all levels. On Deity level with raging barbarians, one would typically get between 48 and 50 points.

    3) Duel Conquest games, slow game speeds: 29-30 points, all LoN slots and most map quest slots
    At Prince level and below, the AI city is undefended for several turns after the game starts. At Prince level and with raging barbarians, one would typically get between 28 and 30 points.

    Regarding the need to take some action (e.g. elite QM), I am not worried about Dual games generating 50 points or less. If these games are the best one can do, one would not get far in the QM competition anyway. My only concern at the moment is the Future Space Race games. However, if someone can get one single ancient Space Race game at the top of each table, the score of all Future start games would probably drop by 50% or more overnight, and there would be no more cheesy games to worry about.
     
  8. WastinTime

    WastinTime Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    13,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Right, This needs to be done for the faster speeds--that's the tough part. Since I haven't bought in to this QM thing yet (because of League of Nations), maybe I'll be the spoiler and play these space race games. We should convince AAA to do them.

    Right now the competition part of the QM seems to be suffering, not enough players are going for high scores or knocking down others high scores. It might help if they take my suggestion about larger map sizes. Which was make Huge and Large the same score as standard. That might increase participation. Who wants to shoot for the #1 spot if you have to play dozens of Huge Diety games?
     
  9. Miraculix

    Miraculix Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    154
    Why worry about lower difficuly levels? A person who can only win on settler level would never become a QM anyway. Even if one created an Elite QM based on Deity games alone, I believe the top 10 players of the general and the elite QM would be almost identical. This is because the top players of the general QM will have Deity games in most slots anyway.

    I believe the real question is whether to do something with easy wins on higher difficulty levels. Also, do we want it to be more difficult to become a QM whatsoever, or do we just want it to be difficult to be close to the top of the QM ranking. If we want to make it more difficult to be on the list, we need to eliminate both Dual/Conquest/Deity games and Future Space Race games. If we just want it to be more difficult to approach the top of the list, we only need to be concerned about Future Space Race games.
     
  10. Denniz

    Denniz Where's my breakfast? Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,983
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    Great list! :goodjob: WastinTime has also mentioned a few "elite" criteria which is just the opposite of cheesy in my mind. Lets keep expanding on this.
    It is a question quantity vs quality. Right now the QM is biased toward quantity. I think that adding filters for quality would work nicely in establishing the new level of challenge to the QM competition.

    Maybe we could consider creating divisions to group comparable map sizes, difficulty ranges, game speeds, etc.

    It only takes one thing to facilitate a change: a clear, reasonable design with a broad consensus. Of course the design has to be feasible in the first place, but that is just a matter of checking the technical requirements from time to time.

    Oh, I guess there is a second requirement. We would have to convince Superslug and Dianthus it is a good idea. ;)
     
  11. Denniz

    Denniz Where's my breakfast? Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,983
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    Wouldn't it be better remove the player's name from the lower category standings when they graduate to a higher category? That way there is still something to strive for in the lower category.
     
  12. Airny

    Airny Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    297
    Location:
    Germany
    I would be great if you and some other pros can do it. If it is so important for the community, the mods could perhaps make an event.

    Mh, I think that's a normal behaviour for a large and quite young HoF.
    I, for example, tooka close look at the HoF and then tried to get #1 positions in spots that were empty or easy to beat.
    So naturally you will get the fewest competitors where the best results already are.
     
  13. Xerol

    Xerol Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,542
    Location:
    In an IDE.
    How about dividing QMs into levels: Wood, Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum or something like that. Have minimum requirements on both average QScore (out of qualifying games) - 25 for Bronze, 40 for Silver, 55 for Gold, and 80 for Platinum, and an extra parameter to require certain levels of play: a Standard (or larger) Emperor win to get Bronze, a win on every condition at Emperor for Silver, Standard (or larger) win on Diety for Gold, and a win of every condition on Diety for Platinum.

    The map size requirement keeps people from just doing small sizes for most wins if they want to get higher up, and the variety condition means you need to be able to play in a variety of strategies. Perhaps add another parameter for start dates, like needing a win in every condition on every level at Ancient to get Platinum. Still has somewhat of an emphasis on quantity, but it's a quantity of high-quality games, which is something lacking in the current requirement (the only high-quality game really required is a Diety win right now, which I managed by Future Duel Conquest as Toku vs. Liz).
     
  14. Harbourboy

    Harbourboy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    North Harbour
    My 2 cents:

    1) Maybe expand the Gauntlet requirements a bit more. That way, you can force people to win via certain non-cheesey setups, as a Gauntlet is never a Inca Duel. If you had to win 6 gauntlets, or if there were 3 levels of gauntlet, maybe this would enhance the difficulty of becoming Quattromaster.

    2) Maybe introduce Leader as something you can get a ranking in. Therefore, there would be incentive for someone to try a Genghis Cultural victory because they could get #1 on the Genghis Cultural Huge Epic Emperor table, rather than just using boring old Elizabeth or Huayna.

    3) I have to admit that it was a tad easy to become Quattromaster, as I proved during this update. All I needed was 3 Marathon Duel Quecha Rushes to get Emperor, Immortal, and Deity done, followed by 8 Quick Warlord Duels to cover off the remaining Leaders. Far and away the hardest thing was trying to complete the Gauntlets.
     
  15. WastinTime

    WastinTime Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    13,848
    Gender:
    Male
    This is the problem. People are doing a cheesy Future space race on a speed that no one has done yet (like quick). To defend against this, someone needs to do a real run at it and get a better finish date. If you add Leader to the problem, now you'd have to beat a whole new group of cheesy wins: "Genghis Future Space Race on X speed". Summary: don't do this idea.

    I'm not worried about them for the competition. Just like Future space races should not be a problem either once the competition matures. I mentioned this when I turned my focus to the problem of people getting easy wins and becoming QM with little effort. You outlined the problems with getting easy wins on higher levels as I see it too.
     
  16. Maydrock

    Maydrock Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Messages:
    328
    Location:
    CT
    Hi all and I know I am new to these HOF discusions, but I would like to add my noob 2 cents. First off I would like to say I have just recently started reading about this whole QM thing.

    The way things are set up right now probably 95% of the Civ population has been eliminated from ever achieving QM status, and I would have to say meating the conditions as set forth now, even if cheesy, is still quite an achievement for most of us. And thus even achieving these conditions show a certain level of knowledge of the game.

    My understanding of this is that the smaller the map size, the fewer the rivals, the lower the difficulty, etc makes is very easy to achieve many of the milestones for QM status and I can see how these can devalue the title for the experienced player. But as soon as someone one ups someone else then they have risen the bar for the top rankings. It's kind of like the old belief that the 4 minute mile could never be achieved.

    It seems to me the formula for calculating the score is what needs to be changed, so there is an incentive for every higher difficulty setting. Then set up a level of QM titles that is based on overall score with the highest QM titles only achievable by completing all milestones at the highest of the various difficulty level settings; diety, size of map, number of rivals, raging barbs, etc. All aspects should be given weight if possible.

    I am sure alot of you could already list off various game settings that you believe no one could win. These games would be the ones to give the top titles. And as the top average scores continue to increase, new titles could be added to the top so everyone would feel they are given his/her proper pedestal. The first to break the the top score of the range for the highest title could be given the privilege to name the next title just as glorious and triumphant leaders of history have done.
     
  17. KMadCandy

    KMadCandy giggling permanoob

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,993
    Location:
    Peepsville
    for the cheese documentation records: deity/future/duel but not space race, domination via peaceful culture swarm. i used highlands map, built a couple workers, spammed settlers like crazy. ran an engineer in the capital from day 0, used the GE to build the eiffel tower, and dominated the world by culture. asoka lost so many tiles that he was only able to build 2 or 3 parts before i won, his cities were that worthless. it was easy, and for me it was much more fun than relying on luck the usual spam quecha way, altho overall it took me longer i'm sure. learned it from superslug who learned it from somebody else.

    i may be using a different concept of cheese. miraculix is clearly going by numerical score; i'm going by ease of getting the box completed to achieve QM status. i think mine does not match his "- It is significantly easier to win a cheesy game than to win other games on the same level" but it might be the easiest way to get that victory condition at that level. anyway, it's something i hadn't seen mentioned.

    i like your thinking there. that's definitely the way to go, so that the folks in the lower category do have something to aim for if they want to. (i realize i must be criminal #1 in inspiring this poll and i'll shut up about that. i'm sorry. made an edit where a post hadn't been replied to yet to try to help fix it maybe.)

    this made me think of the children's taunt "i'm rubber and you're glue ... " *giggle*. more seriously, the "map size requirement" is tricky. denniz/HoF will think of it i'm sure, but it's ultra-important to me so i will be a brat and explicitly request that it be "standard (or larger)" and that QM not ever require large or huge maps, because some people don't have computers that can handle them with any reliability. more options is always good, restrictions based on who has more money to invest in their civ hobby make me cringe. not-more-than-one-in-a-row gauntlets are okay IMO.

    the gauntlets are the most fun. but part of the reason they're hardest by far is that there are so few. there are 12 shots at a major per calendar year, max. if we need to win 3, but there are still only 12 a year to even try, i think a lot of people might run out of gumption well before they get there. and shortening majors to two weeks wouldn't make it any better IMO. i needed three weeks for the last one, due to my RL schedule, if it had been two weeks only i'd not have made it.

    i think requiring more gauntlets would make elite-QM much harder to obtain. but not purely due to skill, partly based on how much tolerance the player has in waiting for the right gauntlet, luck that they're not on vacation and pc-less when it comes, things like that. i cannot tell whether that would be considered a good thing for the elite-QM or not.
     
  18. Harbourboy

    Harbourboy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    North Harbour
    I actually have no problems with the current system. I used some so-called "cheese" (no future starts, though) to get to QM level but I'm languishing close to the bottom of the list. I can now see what I can do about going up the ladder.
     
  19. Harbourboy

    Harbourboy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    North Harbour
    Actually, I take back what I said about my use of cheese. In my opinion, the number one cheesey tactic is using MapFinder to come up with perfect dream starting location. The number two cheesey tactic is choosing your opponents and the number three cheesiest tactic is turning off barbarians. Other than turning off barbarians for a few of the most difficult games, I managed to meet the Quattromaster requirements without raiding those particular cheese fridges at all.

    But back to the original question, I think it would be OK to have additional Quattromaster titles like Gold and Platinum for people who manage to complete additional Gauntlet requirements (either by submitting more of the existing Gauntlets or by submitting a new type of Gauntlet, e.g. G-Mega 1 – Genghis Standard Quick Cultural Immortal Ancient Start Archipelago)
     
  20. Denniz

    Denniz Where's my breakfast? Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,983
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    never assume. :nono: It was more a pattern I was thinking about than any one player. I am sorry if you felt singled out. That wasn't my intent. Also, I can't think of a single reason why you should shut up either. If you are having fun talking with other players about the last place QM position then that's what you should do. We're talking about how to add a new level to the QM competition. I really don't want to spoil anyone's fun with what we have and what they have accomplished.

    I am afraid that boat already left the dock. Custom Game setup and Map Regeneration are part of Civ4. We can't police people using them. Map Finder is just there to level the playing field for people with less time for regenerating. As for Barbs, I believe that they are taken into account in the QM Scoring.
     

Share This Page