HOF Cheese Annex (unofficial poll)

[Denniz]

It would be interesting to hear from Denniz whether he believe these rules are sufficiently easy to implement.

I would judge it not too difficult since it consists of a filter and min value.

What it doesn't do is take into consideration all the existing QMs and the whole Qscore thing. We'll need that for ranking within the divisions. Also, don't forget we've been using the top two entries for Qscore.

I suppose we could keep the Settler level wide open to accommodate things as they are now. The other divisions could be as you say. The only real question would be Qscore.

 

[Bram]

The current system for becoming a QM seems fine. It should not be too difficult te become a QM.

That being said, the cheesy games should not have the top scores. Some suggestions for improving the scoring system:

- Modern and Future starts get no Barbarian bonus (I don't know about Renaissance and Industrial).
- Map sizes: Huge 1,0; Large 1,0; Standard 1,0; Small 0,8; Tiny 0,6 and Duel 0,4. I don't think a map larger than Standard is always more difficult and not everybody can run Huge maps.
- Increase the Barbarian bonus to 0,1 for regular and 0,2 for Raging Barbarians (This takes Settler down to 0 points without Barbarians. That shouldn't be a problem, as these games can still be counted towards QM.)
- The current scoring system doesn't work very well with only two entries. Even if the second game finished only a turn later, it will still be no more than 10 points.

Also, I believe there are currently too many games counting for QM. With less games, it would be more important to have some high-scoring games. That makes Duel map games less useful. Not counting the second game for each leader in the League of Nations competition (and only counting the best 18 leaders) and the second map for the Map Quest competition would also help equalize the number of games required for each sub-event.

 

[WastinTime]

Bram and I are on the same page. I second all of that. So, are we just spinning our wheels here? or will we see some (all) of these changes? Except for Denniz, the staff hasn't chimed in.

 

[Denniz]

Bram and I are on the same page. I second all of that. So, are we just spinning our wheels here? or will we see some (all) of these changes? Except for Denniz, the staff hasn't chimed in.

Superslug and Dianthus probably won't chime in since they are the ultimate decision makers of what if any changes get made.

That said, I think we still have a lot of work to do before they have anything to decide. We have a lot of different proposals floating around. But do we have consensus? I think we have proposals in three area that need to be refined:

• Changing the QScore formula.
• Creating elite rankings/divisions above and beyond the existing QM.
• Making the basic QM harder to obtain.

QScore
I can't intelligently discuss QScore but I can say that a concise list of changes needs to be created. Each change needs to have some analysis of the impact to the existing QMs and near QMs. I would suggest that one of you take ownership of the proposal and create a thread where those interested can help/debate the list. Your ultimate goal would be to create a poll so folks can vote on the final form. Who wants to do that?

Elite QM Rankings
Same kind of thing. Create a thread to work it out. Ultimately create a poll so folks can agree or disagree. Who wants to do this?

Tougher QM
I think I would discourage this in favor of elite levels. Kicking people out of QM is out of bounds right now.

A couple of notes on Value System we need to operate under:

• Don't belittle others ideas. Think wise/unwise instead of good/bad.
• Be practical about things. We aren't going to rewrite things from scratch. Think tweaks and add-ons. We'll try to inject some idea of what might be feasible as the discussions mature.
• Anything that causes someone to loose their QM status will be a tough sell. A lot of those people would have to volunteer for that to happen.
• Superslug and Dianthus have dictatorial powers over the final decision. Don't spend too much time calling their baby ugly.

 

[Methos]

Except for Denniz, the staff hasn't chimed in.

First off, let me point out my comments in this post are not as a member of the HOF Staff, but as a fellow HOF player.

The current scoring system doesn't work very well with only two entries. Even if the second game finished only a turn later, it will still be no more than 10 points.

I agree and tend to stay away from such tables unless ¹⁾ the fastest date is one I'm confident I can beat, or ²⁾ the two entries have dates that are not close together.

Tables that have very few entries tend to have a highly fluctuating curve that doesn't correspond the way it should. IMO it's flawed when only a few games are submitted. In regards to not having enough submissions and those submissions being extremely close together in dates, I'd suggest altering the formula for such tables like this:

MinTurnSpeed = .05 * GameSpeed
if ((FastestDateTurnNum - SlowestDateTurnNum) >= MinTurnSpeed) {
	/* Use formula as normal*/}
else {
	SlowestDateTurnNum = FastestDateTurnNum - MinTurnSpeed}

/*
MinTurnSpeed is the minimum # of turns allowed when compiling BaseQScore, equals 5% of total possible turns
FastestDateTurnNum is the fastest date submitted for that table
SlowestDateTurnNum is the slowest date submitted for that table
*/

This would help offset the tables with very few entries whose dates are extremely close to each other, such as my hypothetical dates mentioned in the FAQ thread. My making the slowest date at least five percent of the total turns from the fastest date would make it so that two entries separated by one turn would have BaseQScore's that reflected that closeness, otherwise no matter how close the slower date will have a BaseQScore of 10. The only problem I see with this is if we have multiple entries that all have dates that are within that five percent. To counter it, we could include the above in a nested if statement where the # of entries have to have less than x in order to use the five percent rule.

MinTurnSpeed = .05 * GameSpeed
if (((FastestDateTurnNum - SlowestDateTurnNum) >= MinTurnSpeed) || (NumEntries >= X)) {
	/* Use formula as normal*/}
else {
	SlowestDateTurnNum = FastestDateTurnNum - MinTurnSpeed}

/*
MinTurnSpeed is the minimum # of turns allowed when compiling BaseQScore, equals 5% of total possible turns
FastestDateTurnNum is the fastest date submitted for that table
SlowestDateTurnNum is the slowest date submitted for that table
X is the minimum # of entries allowed where the five percent rule is no longer used
*/

Edit: BTW, I tried to make the coding as simple as possible and easy to understand.

 

[Methos]

In regards to the prerequisites for QM I agree that they're too easy. I would also say that they consist of a lot of games that are in fact not true HOF games. For instance, if a player wanted to quickly fill any section other than Inferno and Gauntlet, they could easily do so on a settler duel map. IMO that isn't playing a HOF game. I believe it should be tougher, or at least consist of games that aren't simply time wasters.

That said, I also believe QM should not be changed in that it would exclude many of our current Quattromasters. The current system may be a bit too easy, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the work that has already been done. Instead I agree we should create additional ranks of QM with tougher requirements. Possible requirements could be:

• must meet all conditions as required for normal QM, but cannot use any game at less than x difficulty level
• must meet all conditions as required for normal QM, but cannot use any game at smaller than x map size

Example: In order to attain the status of a Bronze Quattromaster you must have completed all boxes required for Quattromaster with games that are at least of noble difficulty and no smaller than a standard mapsize.

Each ranking of QM would require tougher requirements and not just relating to the above. Maybe the next rank would require Prince or Monarch difficulty level and that all games must start in the Ancient era. I'd hate to get into the larger sizes, as I don't feel we should exclude players with lower end computers, so standard should probably be the max size requirement.

 

[The-Hawk]

My two cents:

- I agree the scoring could be better. For example, among the games on the HOF I am most proud of are two Deity ancient start culture wins on standard size maps (I think this was a gauntlet?). Very tough game to win, on the whole HOF, I think only 6 players have succeeded at deity ancient culture on standard or larger maps. I submitted twice, my QScores were 17.9 and 8.1. My problem is I am holding the bottom two positions against an elite group. I got higher QScores for many games that were much easier to win, including a Chieftan level time score. So, ideas aimed at factoring the toughness of conditions have merit. Under tough deity conditions, the lowest scoring game deserves a higher QScore than the best chieftan game.

- The problem with toughness rankings is who decides and to what level? For example, we reward deity domination wins on larger maps vs. smaller. What about map type? Domination on an islands map scores how much more than pangea? What about leader? Deity domination with Ghandi must be an order of magnitude harder than Huayna?

- As far as QM ranking and cheesy games, I think folks might be overreacting a little. Two reasons... First, I believe this will be self policing over time. The competition for future space times is already happening. Second, I think "cheesyness" is a continuum. If we eliminate what seems to be the "easiest" way to win, then something else will now be the easiest, and people will gravitate to it. Get rid of that one, they will find the next. Maybe we should disallow Huayna altogether?

- I think another problem is "specialization". It seems to me that the spirit of QM is breadth. Lots of leaders, lots of map conditions, lots of victory types. However, whether it is future space race, deity quechua rushes, or OCC strategies, I think people tend to find something they like (and that works), then specialize. In fact, I think the system allows/rewards specialization. It would be nice to find a way to truly encourage breadth (i.e. force people to do more than check the boxes to make QM, then focus on their specialty to grow score). The place for specialization is the HOF table itself (go for the fastest time in a cell).

So, my recommendations:

Rather than try to draw a line at an arbitrary point on the cheesyness continuum (declaring everything below that line "cheesy" and everything above it "OK"), I think we should allow all game types. No matter where you draw the line, there will always be a way to play that is relatively "easy" compared to the rest.

A better way to fix the QScore and ranking issue (maybe caused by cheesyness) is to modify the scoring itself. This means trying to better identify the real toughness factors (or more penalize the easy factors). It may be hard to do this until the HOF is more mature (there is more history to look at).

I am very intrigued by the ideas of elite QM's. Or the idea of Settler through Deity level QM. It could be very simple. You win all victory conditions at a given level, you get that title. Only caveats for the title are ancient starts and standard or larger maps.

Last word... I am currently top scoring QM, have been for maybe 6-7 months. This is a combination of "real" games and "cheesy" games, all done within the context of the competition as defined. However, I have no problem at all with a midcourse correction to the rules and/or the scoring system. I've invested lots of time in the existing rules, but I'm all for making the whole system better. An ancient deity standard culture win should score more than a future space win (or duel quechua win, etc.). If a new set of rules knocks me down in the rankings, I'll happily begin to work my way back up... After all, its all just an excuse to play more CIV, isn't it?

 

[Mutineer]

Again, this coefficient, like barbarian coefficient is very arbitrary. I would claim that Ragin barbarians can speed up your victory or even let you achieve victory sooo mach earlier then you can get with out them.

Example. It is posible to achieve conquest victory in BC time on noble/rabig barbs/huge map/ maraphon/continents, but barbarians elliminate your opponenet, including one on other continent.

With out ragin barb you will need astronomy and move your units around huge map to achieve the same effect.

On higher dificulty if you use trow away city strat (Whipe cities to 0 happy and let barbarian recupture them) one can achive faster conquest victory with ragin barbs.

So, where does it live as with increasing penalty for no barbs?

 

[Dracandross]

To prove that Ancient starts can beat Future starts under all circumstances, we need to pick the settings that are most in favour of Future starts.

Is it more difficult to win an Ancient start Space Race game on large maps?

I am not sure I understand the last part of your post. Why are you concerned about score for this Gauntlet? If it is possible to score 100 points on this Gaunlet (Deity/Huge), why is that a problem? And why is it an additional problem if the #1 game is a Future start game?

Well, if future can be beaten with any one civ (inca) its good enough to allow it without question.

And now we dont have non future wins on smaller maps even, we'll get more submitted games on smaller maps. It might take more than few games to pull it out. And if map is too large there are not enough submitted tries.

And scoring is problem if we have huge/deity/spacerace/future games scoring over 80pts for gauntlet its very hard for new players that didn't have chance to take part in this (if it proves cheesy) to take advantage of easy 80+ points for gauntlets. Check QM gauntlet part to see how much most players have on gauntlet scores. Specially as gauntlet score can't be reduced later.

But whole point of future being cheesy is kinda weird. If future is too cheesy I'd rule out Inca anyday because they are too cheesy compared to any other civ if playing monarch+

-Dracandross

 

[Dracandross]

condition… oh, wait, they consider Time victory to be a victory. Ummm, sounds quite ridiculous, if you have been unable to win the game by 2050 then you don’t deserve a win, but anyway, I read something about future starts that would give me that win.”

Time victory is different kind of go. It's either skill to eliminate all opposition so that they can't launch space ship or test of milking. Try to play larger maps on higher difficulties where AI launches 1700-1900 AD. It is a bit harder to prevent them to do that, specially on quick. And of course you have to watch out for domination but still get enough score to be 1st. That gauntlet few updates ago on highlands/large/time was pain I heard, sucks to lose on 2040.

Of course for QM settler time win is ok, but thats not worth points.

-Dracandross

 

[Dracandross]

Another QScore thing is that now Id say it's harder to score well on settler because huts make game vary so much. No use to aim for top 10 without lots of settlers & workers. For QM part its plainly stupid to play settler without raging barbs. I have one diplo game that on settler was 1000 AD for me and leading score is around 500. I have about 12pts and first one has 10. And I like it should be this way too, but it wont work on higher anymore.

Settler game is worth 10-20pts with raging compared to chieftains 2030. Is there really that big difference, 50% to 100%. As pointed out higher diffs are way more harder than lower ones, could QS rise first a bit slower and then faster on the end? On lower diffs barbs add more difficulty than going 1 level up. For barbs .05 or .1 is not enough on higher diffs and on lower ones its either too much or just great so that theres some point playing settler even.

-Dracandross

 

[Ozbenno]

Wow, don't check the boards for a few days and what happens

My 2 cents worth:

I don't think you can change the rules mid-stream so Duel and Future starts probably have to stay. I'll put up my hand and say that I used a few to check some boxes in order to qualify in the first place and to boost my ranking once I did but now only play ancient starts on bigger than standard maps (also means I only get time for 1-2 an update ).

Having elevated QM levels would be a great idea as it gives everyone a higher level to aim for once you get there. As it is now, my only goal is to try to stay in the top 10 rankings (which is looking less likely with each update ).

One thing that hasn't been mentioned (unless I missed it ) is to include things like Always War and One City Challenges in higher QM rankings.

Anyway, really intersting seeing other peoples thoughts so keep up the discussion

 

[KMadCandy]

Hmmm, First you agree Time Victories should be thrown out then go on and on about how fun, interesting, and challenging it was. I agree it can be quite fun and very challenging to get a high score. Sure it's boring on Settler difficulty. Try Diety...it looks like no one has ever been able to do it on Huge or Large. Moonsinger is the only one who can claim she could definitely have done it. Her Conquest games obviously could be converted to a Time win. People only need one Time win and it can be Future start, Quick speed, and on a Duel map if you want (unless they change the rules,) so don't cut this from QM.

not really a contradiction in the context of this thread.

what you quoted from mine:

i had fun, and it was an interesting challenge to avoid winning in other ways, slow them down but not too much, a different way than i'd every played before.....

what you didn't:

found a cheesy way ... it was silly and amusing. but it was cheesy and did not reflect any skill on my part whatsoever. ... that one box than any other, even the deity box when i am far from a deity level player, was pure "i want to get this one out of the way cuz it isn't fun the real intended way".

i wasn't aiming for elite by any means, and for the "non-elite" QM if cheesy options are still there i wouldn't oppose a time victory. my thoughts were more for "if we want non-elite QM to be harder to get and a better reflection of skill, that's a requirement that in my opinion is an odd one in that sense, maybe not proof of a good player, it's frustrating as all get out if you do need to aim for non-cheese." but yes i did learn from it, even doing it with double-extra-cheese. i don't regret doing it, i'm glad i did it in fact. i do regret my first attempt at the "skilled, non-cheesy way" that ended up 30 hours gone due to a crash.

i never did try future/quick/duel and there may be non-frustrating non-cheese ways to do that, if so, spiffy .

 

[KMadCandy]

I think being a Quattromaster should indeed mean, that you have at least once played all victory conditions, map sizes

i assume from your "I think being a Quattromaster" that you are talking about non-elite QM. i think an all map size requirement is a really bad idea. player A has the financial means to invest in a computer that can handle huge maps, player B does not. we can't tell which of them is a better, more skilled player, or even which one is more willing to invest the time and effort into becoming a non-elite QM (or elite QM but my main "don't forget this please!!" focus for this issue is on non-elite). time/effort spent on a hobby or game is not tied to financial circumstances in the outside world, and money doesn't relate to skill or ability at the game. but i've said that before and am sure you read it so i'll make this my last mention of that i hope.

in the sidenote to The-Hawk category:

My two cents:

- I agree the scoring could be better. For example, among the games on the HOF I am most proud of are two Deity ancient start culture wins on standard size maps (I think this was a gauntlet?) ... I got higher QScores for many games that were much easier to win, including a Chieftan level time score. So, ideas aimed at factoring the toughness of conditions have merit. Under tough deity conditions, the lowest scoring game deserves a higher QScore than the best chieftan game.

QScore doesn't, shouldn't, and cannot reflect the impact a game has had on other people. however, one of the goals of the entire HoF concept is to help each other learn to be better players. your chieftan level time win did that! it taught me several things that i've applied to much higher level games. even that low level game has made me a better player on higher level games. i know for certain that it helped others too, i saw that in your strategy/tip forum thread. that's a good thing. thank you

 

[Airny]

As for the the discussion of ancient against later starts, I want to point out that not the HoF system is flawed, but the setting of starting eras.
For example, modern age on marathon starts in 1450AD, which is too early in my opinion.

We could reevaluate this quite easily by adding for example 50 turns on every modern age morathon game finish date.

To future space races:
I have no problem with these as long as there is no other faster way to win deity space races.

 

[Airny]

i assume from your "I think being a Quattromaster" that you are talking about non-elite QM.

I talk about the actual Quattromaster-system.

i think an all map size requirement is a really bad idea. player A has the financial means to invest in a computer that can handle huge maps, player B does not. we can't tell which of them is a better, more skilled player, or even which one is more willing to invest the time and effort into becoming a non-elite QM (or elite QM but my main "don't forget this please!!" focus for this issue is on non-elite). time/effort spent on a hobby or game is not tied to financial circumstances in the outside world, and money doesn't relate to skill or ability at the game. but i've said that before and am sure you read it so i'll make this my last mention of that i hope.

Mh, I don't want to exclude owners of slow computers, but I also don't like the idea of people having a title (Quattromaster or elite-QM, we'll see) in civ4, that can't share the experience of playing with more then 6 AIs on standard maps.

The title should not only stand for skill but also experience on a variety of settings.

 

[superslug]

Except for Denniz, the staff hasn't chimed in.

NonCFC matters are keeping Dianthus away from us a lot of the time these days. Personally, I've been traveling a lot the last two weeks. Of course there's Denniz's point as well: since I'm the final decision maker, it's better for me to stand a bit back from this thread. Should I make a post where I imply (consciously or otherwise) disagreement with any posters opinion, they might not be as vocal in other opinions. That would hinder what's turning out to be quite an interesting thread.

On the other hand, I do have a few behind-the-scenes insights I could share on certain posts that might prove fruitful for the conversation. I'll reread the thread and do so later.

 

[Harbourboy]

I think more weighting should be given to gauntlets. At the moment, someone who did 20 gauntlets might have the same outcome as someone who did 4 because 16 of them might not count for much. For me, gauntlets are far more challenging and interesting. And given that it's impossible to cheese your way through one, they are potentially a good indication of general Civ 4 mightiness.

So I say either:
- more gauntlets = better QM title; or
- each gauntlet counts for more QM points.

 

[playshogi]

I agree with Harbourboy going so far as to say the gauntlets could even define the whole competition. For example, the staff comes up with 24 gauntlets and to qualify for HOF, your game must meet 1 of those 24 game types. The gauntlets should be designed in such a way that a player can fill all the other blocks of the table and it would not be required to complete all 24 gauntlets to be QM. However, your overall score would be multiplied by the # of different gauntlets you completed and your success on each gauntlet table. (1st place would be worth 10 points, so if you're 1st on all 24 your overall score is multiplied by 240!). New gauntlets would be added to increase the total and variety of available play challenges. This should eliminate unworthy HOF game submissions. I'd also vote for an annual competition with scores starting over annually.

 

[DaveMcW]

Just ban all Marathon/Duel games from the HoF.