HOF Mod Support/Suggestions

[Harbourboy]

a much simpler approach is to just load the 4000BC save with the settings you want and regenerate.

Really? That is good news that I can do that. Not that I want to keep choosing the same opponents, but given that it takes me so many attempts to complete a Gauntlet, it would be great to have all the Gauntlet settings "saved" in that way, that it would save a bit of time to be able to "restart" that way. So regenerating the map resets the "reload" count, so the game played after the regen will be acceptable?

 

[Methos]

So regenerating the map resets the "reload" count, so the game played after the regen will be acceptable?

When you regenerate the map the game creates a new 4000 BC save, therefore it's not reloading it. You're starting a new game every time you regen. I realize you don't use MapFinder, but this is exactly what MapFinder is doing.

 

[illram]

I am trying to look at some of the saves in the HOF, but I get the following error message when trying to load a warlords HOF save file:

"the save file you have selected is protected to ensure that the assets in your mod folder have not been changed."

And then the game shuts down. What gives? I just installed the mod yesterday via the .exe in order to check out some of the saved games online, and have not modded or done anything to any of my original game files or the HOF mod itself.

The save file is the warlords Inca 1600 space race win, on monarch I believe. Any ideas?

 

[Methos]

I am trying to look at some of the saves in the HOF, but I get the following error message when trying to load a warlords HOF save file:

"the save file you have selected is protected to ensure that the assets in your mod folder have not been changed."

And then the game shuts down. What gives? I just installed the mod yesterday via the .exe in order to check out some of the saved games online, and have not modded or done anything to any of my original game files or the HOF mod itself.

The save file is the warlords Inca 1600 space race win, on monarch I believe. Any ideas?

The save you downloaded, did you check to see what version of the HOF mod it is using? Not all submissions are with the current version of the mod. Each submission tells you what version is being used, so you can either download the correct version of the mod or you can download the unprotected version of the save.

 

[Denniz]

I am trying to look at some of the saves in the HOF, but I get the following error message when trying to load a warlords HOF save file:

"the save file you have selected is protected to ensure that the assets in your mod folder have not been changed."

And then the game shuts down. What gives? I just installed the mod yesterday via the .exe in order to check out some of the saved games online, and have not modded or done anything to any of my original game files or the HOF mod itself.

The save file is the warlords Inca 1600 space race win, on monarch I believe. Any ideas?

The save you downloaded, did you check to see what version of the HOF mod it is using? Not all submissions are with the current version of the mod. Each submission tells you what version is being used, so you can either download the correct version of the mod or you can download the unprotected version of the save.

While we are able to change any Vanilla save files to be compatible with the current version of the HOF Mod. We can't do that with Warlords saves. You will have to download the old Warlords HOF Mod Version required by the save. You can get them here.

The 2.00 versions would require the prepatch version of warlords so you probably would want to avoid messing with those saves if you don't want to mess with doing a dual install.

 

[illram]

Thanks for your responses Methos and Denniz.

This is the saved game I am trying to view. (It's the only one I've tried so far.) It's the same version as the mod I downloaded and it's warlords. Is there something else I'm missing? Again, this is probably some minor thing I've overlooked, so pardon my ignorance on the subject. (New to the HOF, wanted to see how some of these amazing scores were done!) Thanks for your help.

 

[Denniz]

Thanks for your responses Methos and Denniz.

This is the saved game I am trying to view. (It's the only one I've tried so far.) It's the same version as the mod I downloaded and it's warlords. Is there something else I'm missing? Again, this is probably some minor thing I've overlooked, so pardon my ignorance on the subject. (New to the HOF, wanted to see how some of these amazing scores were done!) Thanks for your help.

I was able to load the final save, so I am guessing that your installed assets (either Vanilla and/or Warlords) have been modified. Either that or the HOF Mod. I am not talking about CustomAssets as those are ignored by Civ4 when it loads the HOF Mod.

Try creating a game with Locked Modified Assets checkec to see if you get any HOF Warning messages. You can go to the Victory Screen, Settings tab for details. If it says assets are different then there are a couple things to try but most likely a reinstall will be necessary.

If you used CivScale, you can have it restore the defaults. (Alexman's Hotseat fix would also cause your assets to be different.) Clean up any changes you know you have made by restoring the original files. Delete any back up copies (i.e. "Copy of xxx").

In the end, people usually end up uninstalling both Vanilla and Warlords, deleting anything left behind, and then reinstalling and repatching.

 

[Misotu]

With the HOF Mod, it doesn't generate the same map each time from a given save.

I didn't know this - how *spiffy* Now I don't have to worry about which game I use to regenerate a few starts and avoid having to enter all of my settings again in the custom screen. Before, I used to endlessly go in and re-enter all of the opponents etc because I was worried about inadvertently playing the same start twice if I regenerated from an old file ...

 

[Denniz]

Spread the good news.

 

[Dracandross]

Could it be possible to make some kind of QScore modifier if there are just 2 games submitted. Now first one gets 100% and second gets 10% no matter whats the score. It really doesn't make me want to try those Deity/Mara/conquests as Im not really going to beat Moonsinger. Also lost one of my Time scores to Wasting from 80 to 8, and no other has even bothered to try .

I'd suggest that lower score would be modified accordingly by either 2nd game/first game turn ratio or One higher / lower of same tab added to give general idea of whats the timeline. Or if just 2 games given first gets 100% and next 50% (and third 25%) and 4th+ it would be normal.

Like Deity/Mara/conquest/huge game 1, game 2 and Immort/mara/conquest average for example. Or one size smaller/larger map? Most likely that won't help much but a bit.

 

[CliftonBazaar]

Could it be possible to make some kind of QScore modifier if there are just 2 games submitted. Now first one gets 100% and second gets 10% no matter whats the score. It really doesn't make me want to try those Deity/Mara/conquests as Im not really going to beat Moonsinger. Also lost one of my Time scores to Wasting from 80 to 8, and no other has even bothered to try .

One 'trick' is to submit another game. This will result in three games in the results, this will push the score up of the second game.
In your second attempt you try to beat your old score; then the higher of your games will score higher.

 

[Dracandross]

One 'trick' is to submit another game. This will result in three games in the results, this will push the score up of the second game.
In your second attempt you try to beat your old score; then the higher of your games will score higher.

Well I know it's one way, but for larger maps and specially for time it will take enormous amounts of time just because scoring is flawed. And that doesn't still solve the problem. Compare these two. Settler/duel/raging barbs/conquest 10pts and Huge/deity/Conquest 2nd&last place 10 pts. I think you can't claim they are equal.

Technically that shouldnt be too hard at least with 50% option and it wont be even too cheesy as score will drop if anyone else will bother to submit.

 

[Methos]

One 'trick' is to submit another game. This will result in three games in the results, this will push the score up of the second game.

This shouldn't work, as BaseQScore is designed to take only the best game from any one player when compiling its calculations.

 

[Ozbenno]

This shouldn't work, as BaseQScore is designed to take only the best game from any one player when compiling its calculations.

What if the two games were different leaders? I've submitted two attempts at a gauntlet using different leaders and gotten differentr Q-scores for both.

 

[Dracandross]

What if the two games were different leaders? I've submitted two attempts at a gauntlet using different leaders and gotten differentr Q-scores for both.

I understand that it meant QScore takes only your best game for counting average time. That means if you submit game with 1000 bc and 1000 ad average for qscore count is 1000bc not 0ad. Though you are right different leaders should affect that (if they do not now).

And your qscore is of course different if end date is different

Edit: (hit post too fast) Actually this is even worse if BaseQScore is counted from best game per player only. Lets think I submit 1ad conq/deity and Moonsinger has 900bc now. I get 9 points out of that submission. Well then I decide to improve my score and got 895bc and now its my best score and only other score in the table and again i get 9 points. Ewww!! That means I have to wait untill someone submits game that doesnt beat my nor Moon's score to get it higher. This really needs to be fixed for lower amounts of games. Yes, it will be fixed in 3 years when all tables have more games. Unless some very hard conditions just do not get games.

 

[Methos]

What if the two games were different leaders? I've submitted two attempts at a gauntlet using different leaders and gotten differentr Q-scores for both.

Different leaders does not matter, only the table does. Only one submission for that table by the player is taken into account when compiling BaseQScore.

Ewww!! That means I have to wait untill someone submits game that doesnt beat my nor Moon's score to get it higher. This really needs to be fixed for lower amounts of games.

Correct, hence the reason I never aim for a table with only one submission unless I know I can beat it.

 

[Airny]

Hey Methos,
as I also complained about this a couple of weeks ago, I still feel like you avoid the discussion. We want this issue to be changed into a fair system.
Why do you think nobody submits a conquest deity game on larger maps?
As Moonsinger is the only one having submitted yet and we all know how good he is, there is no use in putting much time into a game that will count 9 points.
This is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: Everybody waits for someone else to submit a bad second game, which won't happen then.

 

[Methos]

Hey Methos,
as I also complained about this a couple of weeks ago, I still feel like you avoid the discussion. We want this issue to be changed into a fair system.

I don't believe I was avoiding the discussion, as I recall, I even brought up an idea that was ignored. Granted, that could have been because it sucked! Remember also, that I am in agreeance that there is a problem with tables with only two or so submissions.

As Moonsinger is the only one having submitted yet and we all know how good he is,

Just to clarify, Moonsinger is a she.

 

[Airny]

Ok, you got me.
I am also HUMAN, so I'm allowed to make mistakes I guess ;-).
If Moonsinger reads this: I am very sorry for this, usually one guesses gamer to be male, thats my (bad) excuse.

After having clicked on your suggestion, I know why I didn't remember it:
I am unable to understand it without intensive thinking!

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.

It sounds very complicated and the 5%-mark is rather random, right?
Did you talk about it with another staff-member?

For me, it's ok if you fix it in a way that the other admins agree.
and give us an idea of how it works.

 

[Methos]

I am unable to understand it without intensive thinking!

Sorry, I did make it a little too complicated.

the 5%-mark is rather random, right?

Yes, due to the differing number of turns per game speed. I'm thinking now that 5% might be too much, maybe make it 3% or something.

Did you talk about it with another staff-member?

No. That post was the first time I brought it up and since no one replied to it, I dropped the idea.