HOF Questions & Answers

[NiceOneEmlyn]

You have the general idea. Basically the points from your duel games are capped because you haven't submitted many games at other sizes. But that cap only applies to the map size portion of your total score. So you aren't losing out on that many points. Like I mentioned. For example even though I'm capped by 1000 pts for my domination games, that's only in the victory type category. Those games are still providing maximum value in the map type category, for example. It's complicated but you've got the idea.

Here for example are your settler games:

Seq Rank Player Type Date Turn Score ID Submit_Date TRank TScore
1 Silver Medal NiceOneEmlyn Settler Domination Duel Marathon Pangaea Germany (Bismark) BNW 3520 BC 32 5150 8548 2014-12-16 1 29.628
2 Silver Medal NiceOneEmlyn Settler Domination Duel Epic Great Plains Greece (Alexander) BNW 3325 BC 27 14500 8552 2014-12-16 1 29.628
3 Gold Medal NiceOneEmlyn Settler Domination Duel Quick Great Plains Celts (Boudicca) BNW 3040 BC 16 8250 8551 2014-12-16 1 26.327
4 Silver Medal NiceOneEmlyn Settler Domination Duel Standard Pangaea Russia (Catherine) BNW 3000 BC 25 2260 8509 2014-12-11 1 29.628

Your total points should be over 100 for your settler games in the difficulty category but you're capped at 71 because you only have 35 points in chieftain. So submitting a chieftain game would give your 40+ points from settler being uncapped.

OK, cooking by gas now. I fully understand the whole concept, all that remains is to learn how to play this BNW game!

Thanks Cromagnus also thanks to Peets and zenmaster.

 

[Bleidraner]

I think I remember someone saying that once all games have been evaluated and accepted, the actual update & email is an automated process. They press a button and it all goes through.

If I were to hazard a guess, the delay is likely due to increased participation. (More games to check)... But I could be wrong.

Here's what I propose, since actually posting the new g-minor probably requires the update... Maybe they could post a preview on the day the minor is schedule to end, detailing the settings of the next minor, so people who don't want to risk missing the deadline can start on the new minor. GoTM does something similar to this, and it's nice if you've already submitted games, to have something to work on. Especially given the reduced time if the update comes late.

Agree. Just happened to me, in fact, sat idly for a couple of days as I thought I would not have time for the GMinor submission. The proposed solution seems workable without too much overhead and would probably increase the engagement of the community. If HOF staff are using number of games played as a key performance indicator, think about what an easy increase you would have just by having 3-4 more days per month in which the players can play.

Anyway, I also want to say that the enormous amount of fun and pleasure I have in this site is unbelievable and it is only possible through the hard work of the HOF staff, so THANK YOU!

By the way thank to you Cro, have never focused on VVV as. I found it daunting to understand how it worked, and your explanations have changed that. Now if the twin evils of work and family )) allow it I will start working on it.

 

[Cromagnus]

Bah ignore this post. I was wrong. Again.

The average cap limits the unmodified score, which means it limits high difficulty games less. SO, if you have an average cap of 400 on Inferno, and you have 1600 pts of Deity games, all 1600 count. If you have 1600 pts of Settler games, only 400 of those pts count.

A game on Deity (difficulty modifier 4.0) raises the subtotal by 1/4 of its score. So, a 280pt Deity game raises the subtotal by 70. But that subtotal is divided by 8 categories to determine the average cap.

So, if Deity is already capped, a 280 pt Deity game raises the cap by 17.5 pts, and is worth 70 pts towards Inferno.
On the other hand, if Settler is capped, a 120pt Settler game raises the cap by 30 pts. (modifier 1.0, divided by 8) But it only gives you 30 pts. However, by raising the cap by 30 pts, if Deity was capped by 30, you get an additional 120 pts from Deity. So that Settler game is worth 150 when you're capped, and if the situation was reversed, a capped Deity game gives you at most 17.5 for Deity and 17.5 for Settler if Settler was capped for a total of 35.

But, a Settler game isn't worth 30pts unless it's a marathon huge map. 32*3*1.25*1/(1*8) = 30.

A Deity Huge Marathon map, when you're capped, gives half as many points towards the cap. 32*3*1.25*4/(4*8) = 15

Of course, a Deity Huge Marathon game contributes A LOT of points total towards the VVV, just not much towards the Inferno score. (When capped)

That Deity 4.0 multiplier also contributes to the score for speed, map size, civ, VC, and map type.

This just confuses me more.

Suffice it to say that the only way to be sure is to make a spreadsheet.

 

[zenmaster]

I find it best to keep it simple when thinking about what to play for the VVV.

In each of the VVV category tabs (Inferno, etc.) you can see which subcategory (difficulty/speed/map/whatever) that you either haven't played yet or have fewer points in than the others. You should play games with those settings to get the most VVV bang for the buck . No need to have to figure out the exact right combination if you don't want to. Just make a short list of the civs/settings you are lacking or short on and try to play games with as many of those as possible.

I'm currently looking at maps and leaders I haven't played yet, and making new games or finding entries with those maps and leaders to play.

Much obliged to Cromagnus for all the enlightening discussion he has engendered!

 

[zenmaster]

OK, cooking by gas now. I fully understand the whole concept, all that remains is to learn how to play this BNW game!

Thanks Cromagnus also thanks to Peets and zenmaster.

Good luck exploring the game!

I will echo the huge thanks to Peets for all the time and effort he puts in. We all appreciate it immensely!!!!

 

[Peets]

I am making a excel spreadsheet were you can easily follow up your score for the HoF.
It's a little work, Inferno is ready. 5 more to go

 

[Cromagnus]

zenmaster: I used to think that, but because of the multiplier, sometimes your lowest score is actually capped. My settler score is capped even though it's my 2nd lowest score.

If you have 400 in Deity, and 200 in Settler, Settler is capped, and you need to raise your Deity score. (Because 400/4 = 100, and 200/1 = 200)

However, when it comes to map type, victory, and civ, your lowest score is always what's capping you.

 

[zenmaster]

zenmaster: I used to think that, but because of the multiplier, sometimes your lowest score is actually capped. My settler score is capped even though it's my 2nd lowest score.

If you have 400 in Deity, and 200 in Settler, Settler is capped, and you need to raise your Deity score. (Because 400/4 = 100, and 200/1 = 200)

However, when it comes to map type, victory, and civ, your lowest score is always what's capping you.

Thanks for the heads up on that category! I will keep that in mind.

 

[Peets]

Check the spreadsheet, now you can easily see how score is calculated.

 

[Tzar Sasha]

I've been trying to get Steam accomplishments alongside completing HOF/VVV games. As a result, I submitted a game for the HOF that used the Earth map. However, on further inspection the Earth map is not listed in the HOF rules. Will the entire save be disqualified from HOF & VVV?

It is fine if it is. I can easily do a new game with the same settings aside from the map.

 

[Peets]

I've been trying to get Steam accomplishments alongside completing HOF/VVV games. As a result, I submitted a game for the HOF that used the Earth map. However, on further inspection the Earth map is not listed in the HOF rules. Will the entire save be disqualified from HOF & VVV?

It is fine if it is. I can easily do a new game with the same settings aside from the map.

Yes, the game will be rejected.

 

[zenmaster]

Check the spreadsheet, now you can easily see how score is calculated.

Hi,

I'm monkeying with the spreadsheet right now, and it seems to work to replicate the score you get on the VVV on the HoF website. Some tips to make sure everything works properly:

The 2 typos I have in my version are "Rainforrest" for Rainforest, and "Highland" for Highlands. Once I changed those spellings in the "My Games" sheet to the wrong spellings, those games got calculated. Ad Hoc Queries on the website don't yield a TScore for Time games until you choose sort by scores instead of dates. Make sure you input the Time Game Tscores.

Thanks so much to Peets!

 

[vadalaz]

This isn't a question technically, but I figured it'd be the right place to post this anyway. Sorry if not, or if it's been discussed before, but I haven't found such a discussion.

Something I don't understand about VVV scoring is why having a game in a table with multiple entries gives you less points than submitting a "standalone" one, unless you have the best finish time or very close to it. I get that it rewards the top competitive finish times and makes them more valuable, but at the same time the penalty seems really harsh for the entries further down the table. It doesn't make much sense score-wise to submit such games, it's worse for you AND it increases the score for the winners.

Take the latest G-Minor for example:
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ5/tab...4&exp=2&speed=1&maptype=21&leader=3&submit=Go

Morcar_olmig received only 20.775 points for his game. Had he played as a different leader to make it a standalone game, he'd receive 86.29 points, and the finish time wouldn't even matter in that case! In fact, Zenmaster would've gotten 6 more points like that as well, despite having finished second in the gauntlet just 13 turns behind.

I understand that it's hard to perfectly balance everything, but this seems unfair to everyone except the first place finishers.

 

[zenmaster]

This isn't a question technically, but I figured it'd be the right place to post this anyway. Sorry if not, or if it's been discussed before, but I haven't found such a discussion.

Something I don't understand about VVV scoring is why having a game in a table with multiple entries gives you less points than submitting a "standalone" one, unless you have the best finish time or very close to it. I get that it rewards the top competitive finish times and makes them more valuable, but at the same time the penalty seems really harsh for the entries further down the table. It doesn't make much sense score-wise to submit such games, it's worse for you AND it increases the score for the winners.

Take the latest G-Minor for example:
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ5/tab...4&exp=2&speed=1&maptype=21&leader=3&submit=Go

Morcar_olmig received only 20.775 points for his game. Had he played as a different leader to make it a standalone game, he'd receive 86.29 points, and the finish time wouldn't even matter in that case! In fact, Zenmaster would've gotten 6 more points like that as well, despite having finished second in the gauntlet just 13 turns behind.

I understand that it's hard to perfectly balance everything, but this seems unfair to everyone except the first place finishers.

Well, in small sample multiple player games, you do get the effect you mention. I think the main rationale is that this is how you make the HOF/VVV competitive. If I had the time to play a hundred games, I could just put up a bunch of solo scores without worrying how well I played. What's keeping me from doing that and running away with the VVV? The fact that other players can come along and take out most of my points by playing much better than me. Theoretically, this encourages people to look for games already on the table to beat and create competition. I think it does its job that way to some degree. It prevents the VVV from being too much of a "who played the most" and makes it more of a "who played the best".

In the big gauntlet games where you have many entries, having multiple players does help most people's t-scores. The rising tide lifts all boats much more the more players are involved.

Also, you have to keep in mind there are 2 medals standings boards and 2 measures in the HOF, time AND score. Some people go for high scores intentionally. I don't necessarily, but for example, I have a gold medal for high score in an early gauntlet game even though I finished far out of the time medals. I won't consider replaying that one [emoji6] .

Just my 2 cents on your question.

 

[vadalaz]

Well, in small sample multiple player games, you do get the effect you mention. I think the main rationale is that this is how you make the HOF/VVV competitive. If I had the time to play a hundred games, I could just put up a bunch of solo scores without worrying how well I played. What's keeping me from doing that and running away with the VVV? The fact that other players can come along and take out most of my points by playing much better than me. Theoretically, this encourages people to look for games already on the table to beat and create competition. I think it does its job that way to some degree. It prevents the VVV from being too much of a "who played the most" and makes it more of a "who played the best".

In the big gauntlet games where you have many entries, having multiple players does help most people's t-scores. The rising tide lifts all boats much more the more players are involved.

Also, you have to keep in mind there are 2 medals standings boards and 2 measures in the HOF, time AND score. Some people go for high scores intentionally. I don't necessarily, but for example, I have a gold medal for high score in an early gauntlet game even though I finished far out of the time medals. I won't consider replaying that one [emoji6] .

Just my 2 cents on your question.

Thanks Zenmaster, these are good points and I can see now why the system is the way it is... It was just odd to see an Immortal standard sized game score only 20 points which is so much less than it'd get in a single entry table. This feels wrong.

I agree that it should be about who played the best rather than the most. I guess the problem is that it's extremely unrealistic for every possible Leader/Map/Size/Speed/VC combination to have more than 1 entry, let alone 10+ entries. This creates an imbalance between single entries and runner-up entries in tables of less than 5 or so, as the finish time doesn't affect the TScore in case of a single entry. It's true that someone can beat a single entry unless it's a very good time. How likely is it that this someone will care enough to do the same for 100 submissions though? There are just too many possible combinations for single entries.

 

[Cromagnus]

There are just too many possible combinations for single entries.

NiceOneEmlyn is trying to prove you wrong.

Seriously though, I actually think that this part of the system works. For example, take NiceOneEmlyn's recent and impressive list of Deity submissions. Deity Huge/Large Marathon/Epic games are worth tons of points, and at this rate, NiceOneEmlyn will be on top of the VVV in no time flat.

However, *because* NiceOneEmlyn has submitted those games, attempting to beat those times is now worth more points than submitting games in uncontested entries, making it highly likely that someone will attempt to beat those times. (Read: I will if I have time)

Previously, I've been attempting to only submit games for contested entries, because generally they're worth the most points, and I've been avoiding Deity because for me it's capped. However, now that NiceOneEmlyn has posted a bunch of Deity games, those games are worth more, and perhaps more importantly, I'm motivated to try to beat those times because it serves a double purpose: It boosts my score, and lowers NiceOneEmlyn's overall VVV score, which would keep me at #1.

I'm not picking on NiceOneEmlyn here, just using it as an example. (And no I don't actually have enough free time to beat all those times)

So, I think the system works. You gain 300+ points by beating those times, and take away 200 pts from your competitor by doing so.

Yes, I agree that in general, not all combinations of entries will be submitted, and this *is* a problem with the VVV, but it's not the biggest one IMHO, and I'm ok with it, because better times > more entries in general. Deity is the exception, and frankly, if you submit tons of Deity games... you deserve to be on top of the VVV.

 

[Peets]

Zenmaster is correct.
That is why we implented this system to create some competition if possible.
I'm not that good so I look for submitted games with times I can beat to get a nice score
But the downside is that someone can beat it and get even a better score.

With multiple entries, at some point it will be more worth then a solo game. It depends on the entries and finish date.
It all depends how good you are. If you look good you can find some easy games to score some good points and sometimes it is better to do a solo game.

(solo game = game without an entry)

 

[zenmaster]

Zenmaster is correct.
That is why we implented this system to create some competition if possible.
I'm not that good so I look for submitted games with times I can beat to get a nice score
But the downside is that someone can beat it and get even a better score.

With multiple entries, at some point it will be more worth then a solo game. It depends on the entries and finish date.
It all depends how good you are. If you look good you can find some easy games to score some good points and sometimes it is better to do a solo game.

(solo game = game without an entry)

Yes, that confirms what I thought.

As an aside on HoF "etiquette", I have one hard and fast rule above all others: If Peets has a medal in a table entry, I studiously avoid playing that!! I accidentally knocked him down a peg on one of my earlier entries before I decided this but he still retains a bronze in that one, so I don't feel too guilty. I would suggest others take note of this one.

My 2nd rule of thumb is that unless I really need the combination of settings from the table entry, I will try to avoid playing entries which feature only players currently low on the VVV. So, if playing an existing entry, I will try to make sure that player(s) with 10000 VVV points or higher or at least a high gauntlet score player are in that entry already, so it is fair game! I've already done my fair share of beating some of NiceOneEmlyn's Duel and Tiny Deity/Immortal scores. I'll start working on the other ones in due time if his VVV score continues to climb , assuming I can of course. His experience is climbing rapidly and he is quite the warmonger now! Congrats to him on a bunch of great wins. Like Cromagnus, I am not picking on him specifically either, just playing table games which will help out my VVV standing the best (when I eventually finish it that is...)

 

[NiceOneEmlyn]

But the downside is that someone can beat it and get even a better score.

The really big downside is not their score so much but the effect that an excellent player like Vadalaz can have on your score, he has voiced his concerns on the subject and so too has Zenmaster. One or two of my own entries have halved other peoples scores, this bothers me to such an extent that I am thinking of just narrowly beating others in the future, the problem then would be having my points quartered by one of you top guys.

From my own point of view, I am entering HOF games whilst in the process of learning how to play different aspects of BNW, as a consequence I will be competing against players of a similar standard to myself. As time goes by and hopefully I will improve, I just know that I will practice the same sort of etiquette that Zenmaster is talking about.

On the subject of what I am up to on the VVV, I welcome having my games torn apart by some of you good players. From there I will be able to judge just how much I need to improve! I havn't managed to work out whether a One City Challenge is better or not, I have been playing against the Dutch and Portugal for most of my games just for the sheer enjoyment of being challenged in the last third of the game! This particular enjoyment strategy would certainly have to be changed if you guys come in on the act!

I thank you guys for your compliments, it's kind of good to be seen as a threat, albeit a case of me using the scoring system to my advantage rather than skill.

 

[Peets]

As an aside on HoF "etiquette", I have one hard and fast rule above all others: If Peets has a medal in a table entry, I studiously avoid playing that!! I accidentally knocked him down a peg on one of my earlier entries before I decided this but he still retains a bronze in that one, so I don't feel too guilty. I would suggest others take note of this one.

Haha
I don't mind, I wish I had more time to play to get up. But I already have played over 1000 hours of Civ V.
I want to play so many games that I have to choice.