HOF IV Update

[FiveAces]

Do you really think quick culture games "deserve" to fill any EQM slot?
Or APs? Or PAs?

I just looked up the one accepted deity gauntlet.
It was completed by more players, by most in a similar or even less time than major21, and -of course- VC was quick culture. Each one of our so-called "cheesy 50 turns" took thrice or more time than any of your 150 turn culture gauntlet. (But probably more thoughts, imho...)

As it is now, most or all EQM slots can be filled with shorter and easier games than GM21. As a matter of fact, I completed the whole Deity RoA in a time roughly the same as one or two GM21 runs. This could be done with many other slots as well, it just would be more boring.

To answer your question: This major should not only count as EQM gauntlet, but for all events/appropriate slots. I see no reason to ban non-ancient starts at all, especially as long as APs, PAs, quick culture games, tiny maps, continent maps with all civs on one continent are allowed - just to name a few. The cheese list can and will go on forever; I for instance wonder if diplo and culture should count at all outside the special all-vcs-event...

Um... You can't ignore the fact GM21 required no teching, no diplomacy, and no city specialization/building strategy - you spent a few turns building factories and barracks, and then you built tanks and then you attacked everything. You didn't have to strategically prioritize worker/military/happy/science techs or AI trading since you had all that you needed already.

So basically GM21 eliminated every aspect of civ play except military unit movement and warfare tactics.

Now I agree with you that this isn't much different from an Ancient chariot rush, as Lexad pointed out in the thread. But at least in an Ancient start, you can't trade maps as soon as you meet a civ, you don't start with 2 explorers, and you can't simply regenerate until you have all your strategic resources nearby. And most importantly, your economy can crash on Ancient if you go all out military production. In GM21, it couldn't.

As to gameplay time taken in comparison with a culture victory, well I don't believe you can compare them. GM21, you have 30+ units to move, each requires a thought. Culture you have ~6 cities. You're probably right you need more thought for GM21, considering the massive number of units, but you need better thought in a culture game - you only have 6 cities - they all have to be optimized for their purpose, and they have different purposes. A bad decision or two may cost you a few tanks and a few spots in the GM21 standings, but it's not going to mean you pop a GS instead of a GA and lose the entire culture game because somebody launched 2 turns before your next GA.

I submitted for both GM21 and the deity culture gauntlet. If you measure the "ease" of a gauntlet by the ratio of attempts vs. wins, I can tell you GM21 was far easier, and I'm not a warmonger. It may have required equivalent skill to take the #1 slot in both guantlets, but it didn't just to get on the table, for me anyway.

I'll think I'll let jesusin answer whether quick culture belongs in EQM, assuming he reads this thread.

 

[BLubmuz]

10872 & 10894 are the only entries on that table. I am not sure why it give the second one a 100 but it isn't something from the recent changes to the EQM.

10715 - where are you seeing a 100 score? I don't see it. Same with 6701.

The first one is strange, you must admit.
10716 (not 10715) i can see 100 in the gauntlet slot and 81.4 in the Russia and fractal slots
6701 100 in RoA (Med) slot - it was gauntlet - and nothing under Arabia, but this can be due to the same (stupid) rule to not consider non-ancient starts.

This will enforce my opinion: that Major #10 was really hard, only 4 submissions (mine was 3rd) and i think it deserves FULL credit:
- 30 hours of play time,
- the med start was an handicap, see the level and the VC of that gauntlet.
After a year i still remember that game, just go in the thread and see how many people gave up.

 

[kovacsflo]

I was surprised that my 160AD game reduced the raw score of my PAST 1000AD game to 59 (my 160AD result gave 100 raw points). Both games were huge/prince/dom. I haven't known that rule, I don't like it: if I would finish my 2nd game at for example 950AD, the reduction would be smaller I think. In this case, the worse result would mean a better sum of the 2 games. Isn't it a bit bizarre?

 

[Denniz]

@Denniz - BLubmuz is correct there's something wrong. My entry 10420 is showing as 100 in the Gauntlet table but 65.9 in the Time (M'vli) table. The Time table is right. It was the highest Vanilla submission in the Gauntlet though - is the expansions filter causing it to get 100 because of this?

The score for a gauntlet with a mixture of BTS and non-BTS looks like the problem. It will have to wait until tonight, though.

Oh, no!

After all the effort, they have stopped announcing new Vanilla QMs!
Even if someone enters the table among the 13 best!

Sorry, but there are so many Vanilla + Warlords QMs that we gave up announcing them a long time ago. But you are always welcome to self-announce as you did. Congratulations!

The first one is strange, you must admit.
10716 (not 10715) i can see 100 in the gauntlet slot and 81.4 in the Russia and fractal slots.

Which gauntlet? What were the setting you selected where you saw a 100 score on the gaunlet tab of EQM? If they were a mix of BTS and non-BtS that is a new bug I have to track down.

6701 100 in RoA (Med) slot - it was gauntlet - and nothing under Arabia, but this can be due to the same (stupid) rule to not consider non-ancient starts.

Why is it using a gauntlet score there? It should be using the time table score. Somthing else to look at. I don't think that is a bug from the recent change.

I was surprised that my 160AD game reduced the raw score of my PAST 1000AD game to 59 (my 160AD result gave 100 raw points). Both games were huge/prince/dom. I haven't known that rule, I don't like it: if I would finish my 2nd game at for example 950AD, the reduction would be smaller I think. In this case, the worse result would mean a better sum of the 2 games. Isn't it a bit bizarre?

That is how the Qscore has always worked. You can take a look at the formula tab to see how it works. All we did was take away the adjustors for the EQM. There is a thread going on about fixing qscore if you want to look into it. But, I should say that 59 is a pretty good score for a game over 800 years behind the best date on the table.

 

[BLubmuz]

Sorry, but there are so many Vanilla + Warlords QMs that we gave up announcing them a long time ago. But you are always welcome to self-announce as you did. Congratulations!

I think QM still deserve an acknowledgement: perhaps it can be too easy, but not SO easy.

Which gauntlet? What were the setting you selected where you saw a 100 score on the gaunlet tab of EQM? If they were a mix of BTS and non-BtS that is a new bug I have to track down.

I selected all exp. warlords EQM: you can see in the major (the game was the major 20) slot.

It would be nice to see a comment of yours about my opinions on my Major 10 game.

 

[kovacsflo]

That is how the Qscore has always worked. You can take a look at the formula tab to see how it works. All we did was take away the adjustors for the EQM. There is a thread going on about fixing qscore if you want to look into it. But, I should say that 59 is a pretty good score for a game over 800 years behind the best date on the table.

OK, I know, but I supposed that a raw score of a result will never change in the future (before my 160AD my past 1000AD result got 100 raw score).

I try to understand this: normally if someone get a better result than the previous one, the pre-result won't change, only exception if the same player has both the previous and the new submission, is that right?

 

[jesusin]

Sorry, but there are so many Vanilla + Warlords QMs that we gave up announcing them a long time ago. But you are always welcome to self-announce as you did. Congratulations!

No need to be sorry! As you point out, it was only a selfish auto promotion post.

 

[jesusin]

Do you really think quick culture games "deserve" to fill any EQM slot?

Eh, eh, easy on this!
I don't know about Major21, I didn't participate. But you just can't say Quick Culture is cheesy.

Cultural games deserve their EQM slot. No doubt. It is one of the more difficult and interesting VC. The decissions involved in any cultural game aren't linear, as the ones used in a Conquest, for example.

Culture+Quick. Yes, Fireaxis blundered. 66% of 50000 is 33333, not 25000. It's true. Culture-Quick is only 75% as difficult as it was supposed to be.
Now, even with this discount in difficulty, a Culture-Quick game is much more difficult than a Culture-Marathon game. Try yourself.

Time spent? I have played sooooo many Quick-Cultural games in exactly the same settings that I can play them "without thinking". I call a "no thinking" cultural game a game that takes 15 hours in-game and near 20 hours in my spreadsheets. When I play a Quick-Cultural game in new settings, I really have to think. Those games take 40 hours in-game plus 50 hours in spreadsheets.

I have yet to find a VC that stretches my intelligence more than Cultural. Only Domination, with its stopping research point, its settler spamming phase and its avoiding bankrupcy all along, comes close. Don't say it doesn't deserve a spot on EQM. I would go as far as to say that NormalSpeed-Culture-Standard-Continents is THE EQM spot.

 

[WastinTime]

Do you really think quick culture games "deserve" to fill any EQM slot?
Or APs? Or PAs?

I just looked up the one accepted deity gauntlet.
It was completed by more players, by most in a similar or even less time than major21, and -of course- VC was quick culture. Each one of our so-called "cheesy 50 turns" took thrice or more time than any of your 150 turn culture gauntlet. (But probably more thoughts, imho...)

As it is now, most or all EQM slots can be filled with shorter and easier games than GM21. As a matter of fact, I completed the whole Deity RoA in a time roughly the same as one or two GM21 runs. This could be done with many other slots as well, it just would be more boring.

To answer your question: This major should not only count as EQM gauntlet, but for all events/appropriate slots. I see no reason to ban non-ancient starts at all, especially as long as APs, PAs, quick culture games, tiny maps, continent maps with all civs on one continent are allowed - just to name a few. The cheese list can and will go on forever; I for instance wonder if diplo and culture should count at all outside the special all-vcs-event...

There's no doubt that to fine-tune a game like the top 5 finishers did takes a lot of effort and strategy. I didn't mean to take anything away from your amazing finish date. Getting a perfect Future Space game is also fun/challenging. However, what makes GM21 cheesy is that ANYONE with no experience playing Civ can follow the simple plan of build tanks, attack and beat diety just like on Future Space. Anyone who attempted that one should have won it without much thinking. On the culture gauntlet, many people couldn't get their culture done before spaceships launched by the AI, or they get attacked because of bad diplomacy.

jesusin defended culture games well. It's funny that you mention only Quick Culture. It takes more strategy on Quick than any slower speed, ever move counts. The game just ends a few years earlier because of the 25,000 mark. This is one of the things that take away from the creditility of your post. Ban all culture and diplo? This is obviously a personal bias of yours against peaceful games. Ban all conquest would be more sensible (but still a crazy suggestion). Ancient Conquest takes even less strategy than GM21. You don't have any wonders, civics, religions, diplomacy, tech, resources, etc to worry about. It's just build one type of unit forever, attack with no plan needed, just outnumber them. (It take a little money management on larger maps of course, but that's the basics.) Conquest games can be a fun distraction from playing a real game of Civilization where you have to be concerned about the things listed above. And its challenging to get the very best scores, but so would Tetris or Minesweeper if they added that to the game. Conquest's narrow focus makes is more like a separate game inside the game of Civ. Imagine how insulted Firaxis would be if everyone who played Civ just built warriors (Quechua) and no other game feature was used. They coulda saved a year of development time! Whew, I'm rambling...

I agree non-ancient banning was going way overboard.

AP is horribly easy on Small/Tiny. Probably Standard Size too on Marathon.

 

[karmina]

Sorry about those culture/diplo comments. Actually I don't really think these VCs are cheesy; I was just upset by a short, disrespectful comment about a gauntlet that wasn't even played by the poster.

And I wanted to make clear that the question of cheesy games can never be objectively answered and agreed upon by everyone. People have different interests, different practice, and play best on different setups.

(Btw, I already played and submitted a quick culture deity game. It felt extremely easy and quick. However, it was a Renaissance start . I'm aware that starting in 4000BC is something completely different )

 

[shyuhe]

To be fair, major21 was a very easy gauntlet to get a win (not necessarily place in the top 3). Major 19 was probably harder to get a win than major 21. I agree that categorizing one or the other as "cheesy" is a little too subjective though.

 

[Denniz]

I selected all exp. warlords EQM: you can see in the major (the game was the major 20) slot.

I don't think you and I are seeing the same thing. This is what I see:

Spoiler :

It would be nice to see a comment of yours about my opinions on my Major 10 game.

Everyone has something they think should be done differently with the EQM challenge. You are entitled to your opinion. While I disagree with it, I don't care to debate it. There is only one of me and many of you. I choose instead to focus on the possible bug you were reporting.

Please Note:

• We did not change the resuts of the Gauntlet.
• We did not change the results of the QM.
• We did not change the results of the whichever HOF table that particular gauntlet appears.

The EQM is new. We are trying to balance a lot of things. To pharaphrase Lincoln: You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time.

 

[Denniz]

OK, I know, but I supposed that a raw score of a result will never change in the future (before my 160AD my past 1000AD result got 100 raw score).

I try to understand this: normally if someone get a better result than the previous one, the pre-result won't change, only exception if the same player has both the previous and the new submission, is that right?

The QScores are not fixed. They always reflect the current view of the HOF Table. Otherwise any game that was ever #1 on a table would always get 100 points.

 

[kovacsflo]

The QScores are not fixed. They always reflect the current view of the HOF Table. Otherwise any game that was ever #1 on a table would always get 100 points.

My results wasn't so far changed, that's why I supposed it. I myself had to change my past result to experience it I see that this system try to prevent us to submit a too strong result if we already has a strong result in that sub event.

I still say that I should wait for 800 years for example instead of submitting a 160AD result, however a so early result more easily can remain it's 100 raw points.

 

[Thrallia]

until someone else wins 800 years earlier and kills both of your games

 

[jesusin]

My results wasn't so far changed, that's why I supposed it. I myself had to change my past result to experience it I see that this system try to prevent us to submit a too strong result if we already has a strong result in that sub event.

I still say that I should wait for 800 years for example instead of submitting a 160AD result, however a so early result more easily can remain it's 100 raw points.

No. You should play yet another game on those settings and get another 160AD date. That way you would quick the 1000AD game out of the equation, that game doesn't measure up to your level.

 

[kovacsflo]

until someone else wins 800 years earlier and kills both of your games

Some players could submit better than my 160 AD for a huge/prince/dom game, but I don't afraid my raw score ever could be less than 90-95.