HOF Questions and Answers Thread

[ParadigmShifter]

Right. I am still confused about Vanilla & Warlords expansion EQM gauntlet eligibility.

Denniz fixed the bug whereby I had a BtS game showing up in my V&W list.

However, this game:

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?dsply=&entryID=17012

Gets a gauntlet score of 37 which shouldn't be corrected for map size/difficulty/barbs in EQM right, so should show up on my status page as my best V&W gauntlet. It is from GMinor 73 http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=minor&gauntlet=170&submit=Go

These 2 lower scoring games are showing up as my best V&W minors:

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?entryID=9221

(I think something is wrong with that too, it shows up as 23.0 points in my status page but I can't see where that number is coming from at all, I think it should get 19.985 i.e. 20.0). This was from GMinor27 http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=minor&gauntlet=72&submit=Go

and this one

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?entryID=7320

which is showing up as 25.3 which seems correct from the QScore calculation. That was from GMajor 39 http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=major&gauntlet=142&submit=Go


GMinor 73 was open to all expansions however... but since mot gauntlets are going to (presumably) be like that from now on it's gonna be difficult for new V&W player to become EQM surely (unless they do a rare space race game gauntlet).

I always knew I should be a tester rather than a programmer

EDIT: My GMinor 73 game isn't showing up in my QM V&W gauntlets either, although it has the highest score, it seems you only count gauntlets that are only open to vanilla & warlords in this category, which seems wrong to me...

EDIT2: Nope, that can't be true, because this game http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?entryID=10548 is showing up there, which WAS open to BtS, it was GMinor 34, http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=minor&gauntlet=94&submit=Go. NOTE: This game is ineligible for EQM gauntlet status since it was a modern start

EDIT3: But again, I have no idea how the score is getting worked out, shouldn't it be 18.882 (since QM does take into account difficulty/map size etc.), but it shows up as 16.9??????

Colour me confused???

EDIT4: I suspect it is a case of "there are so many bugs they are holding hands and that's the only thing propping up the code"

 

[unclethrill]

Right. I am still confused about Vanilla & Warlords expansion EQM gauntlet eligibility.

Denniz fixed the bug whereby I had a BtS game showing up in my V&W list.

However, this game:

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?dsply=&entryID=17012

Gets a gauntlet score of 37 which shouldn't be corrected for map size/difficulty/barbs in EQM right, so should show up on my status page as my best V&W gauntlet. It is from GMinor 73 http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=minor&gauntlet=170&submit=Go

These 2 lower scoring games are showing up as my best V&W minors:

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?entryID=9221

(I think something is wrong with that too, it shows up as 23.0 points in my status page but I can't see where that number is coming from at all, I think it should get 19.985 i.e. 20.0). This was from GMinor27 http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=minor&gauntlet=72&submit=Go

and this one

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?entryID=7320

which is showing up as 25.3 which seems correct from the QScore calculation. That was from GMajor 39 http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=major&gauntlet=142&submit=Go


GMinor 73 was open to all expansions however... but since mot gauntlets are going to (presumably) be like that from now on it's gonna be difficult for new V&W player to become EQM surely (unless they do a rare space race game gauntlet).

I always knew I should be a tester rather than a programmer

EDIT: My GMinor 73 game isn't showing up in my QM V&W gauntlets either, although it has the highest score, it seems you only count gauntlets that are only open to vanilla & warlords in this category, which seems wrong to me...

EDIT2: Nope, that can't be true, because this game http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?entryID=10548 is showing up there, which WAS open to BtS, it was GMinor 34, http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=minor&gauntlet=94&submit=Go. NOTE: This game is ineligible for EQM gauntlet status since it was a modern start

EDIT3: But again, I have no idea how the score is getting worked out, shouldn't it be 18.882 (since QM does take into account difficulty/map size etc.), but it shows up as 16.9??????

Colour me confused???

EDIT4: I suspect it is a case of "there are so many bugs they are holding hands and that's the only thing propping up the code"

Wow. My brain hurts just reading that!

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Summary: I played a gauntlet that was open to all expansions as Warlords Isabella, got a better score than my 2 other vanilla and warlords minors, why isn't it in there... plus the scores seem weird as well.

 

[Denniz]

Wow. My brain hurts just reading that!

You think your head hurts...

Summary: I played a gauntlet that was open to all expansions as Warlords Isabella, got a better score than my 2 other vanilla and warlords minors, why isn't it in there... plus the scores seem weird as well.

The fix to the V+W Gauntlets exposes a weakness in the Qscore calculation for gauntlets open for all expansions. The V+W games are only being compared to other V+W games in the same Gauntlet. Right now I am not sure what the correct answer should be. Exclude mixed gauntlets, score regardless of expansion (tricky to execute), or what. Not to mention the future start mixed gauntlet showing up in V+W QM. Something to discuss here and in staff.

Guidelines for reading Game Info page:
EQM & V+W - use dropdown on V+W and use Raw QScore
EQM & All - use dropdown on all expansions and use Raw QScore
QM & V+W - use dropdown on V+W and use QScore
QM & All - use dropdown on all expansions and use QScore

The 3 games you mentioned above: http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?dsply=1&entryID=9221|7320|17012.

I can't see your status page so I can't speak to what you are seeing. (I guess I am going to have to put a User dropdown on there so I can debug it.) I believe that the games showing on the Gauntlet tab add up correctly if you click on the "2" hot link.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Ah OK I see what is going on.

That means Adama gets 100 points for GMinor73 gauntlet QScore for having the best V&W entry even though it is only ranked #4 in the gauntlet.

I'm getting close to all expansions QM so I'm trying to knock off some V&W games now so if I ever beat immortal and deity at Vanilla or Warlords I can be a V&W QM too

 

[cabert]

Wow. My brain hurts just reading that!

at least you managed to read it

 

[Denniz]

Ah OK I see what is going on.

That means Adama gets 100 points for GMinor73 gauntlet QScore for having the best V&W entry even though it is only ranked #4 in the gauntlet.

Not quite the intended result.

 

[duckstab]

Are we likely to see a HOF mod patch for 3.19 before the next gauntlet starts?

 

[Mesix]

I would expect not...but Denniz and Ozbeno would know more about it than me.

 

[Ozbenno]

No, work is going on for the next version of the mod to include 3.19 but won't be before the next update.

 

[cabert]

No, work is going on for the next version of the mod to include 3.19 but won't be before the next update.

then again, the next update is just a few days away

 

[oyzar]

Will it come before the next update then? Will the new hof mod have any holdover from previous versions, or will it be worked on almost from scratch with 3.19 (I guess I might not get an answer to this, but I am just curious)?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Good question. Some BUG stuff would be nice (WHEEORN esp).

 

[Denniz]

Will it come before the next update then? Will the new hof mod have any holdover from previous versions, or will it be worked on almost from scratch with 3.19 (I guess I might not get an answer to this, but I am just curious)?

I can't give a date for the release. We will release it when we are sure it is sable. I am not sure what you mean by holdover but we always merge code. We go with new code where there have been fixes.

Good question. Some BUG stuff would be nice (WHEEORN esp).

There will be some BUG stuff included but I am not prepared to list them right now. I think WHEEORN is in there. There will be a complete list of new features and fixes when we release it.

 

[The-Hawk]

Not sure where to post this... had some weirdness with mapfinder this morning. I set it running and walked away for a few hours. When I came back, it seemed to be running fine, saved something like 25 games. However, the screencap for each was the same jpeg:

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Not sure where to post this... had some weirdness with mapfinder this morning. I set it running and walked away for a few hours. When I came back, it seemed to be running fine, saved something like 25 games. However, the screencap for each was the same jpeg:

View attachment 220803

Your MapFinder may be suffering from an issue I discovered in April 2008 ...

Incorrect JPEGs are created by MapFinder on Vista when using BtS in Full-screen mode. Windowed mode works fine; expand the window to fill the entire screen to get nearly the same size JPEGs that full-screen should provide.

Neither Vanilla nor Warlords are affected in this manner on Vista.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[unclethrill]

Not sure where to post this... had some weirdness with mapfinder this morning. I set it running and walked away for a few hours. When I came back, it seemed to be running fine, saved something like 25 games. However, the screencap for each was the same jpeg:

View attachment 220803

Your MapFinder may be suffering from an issue I discovered in April 2008 ...

Incorrect JPEGs are created by MapFinder on Vista when using BtS in Full-screen mode. Windowed mode works fine; expand the window to fill the entire screen to get nearly the same size JPEGs that full-screen should provide.

Neither Vanilla nor Warlords are affected in this manner on Vista.

Sun Tzu Wu

You could also just get rid of Vista and run Linux. MF works great there. There is a new walk through on the main page that explains installing CivIV in ubuntu. It really is easy and I think it runs much smoother than in Vista or XP.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

You could also just get rid of Vista and run Linux. MF works great there. There is a new walk through on the main page that explains installing CivIV in ubuntu. It really is easy and I think it runs much smoother than in Vista or XP.

I wasn't able to find the walk-through you are referring to. Please provide a link.

Does the Ubuntu walk-through work for all three versions of Civ IV (Vanilla, Warlords, BtS) as well as MapFinder?

Will the Ubuntu walk-through work with "The Complete Edition" DVD?

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[unclethrill]

Here is the link.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=327508


It should work for Complete. I have Vanilla, Warlords and BTS running. MF works fine to generate maps but I have been unable to get the MF gui to run in Ubuntu so to create the rules files, I still find that I need a windows machine. I have asked what dependencies the MF gui requires so that I can include them in the install under WINE but as of yet haven't been able to get them.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

If you can get hold of depends.exe it should tell you the dependencies. There's also a version with a gui but I can't remember the name of it.