• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

HOF Questions & Answers

I'm new to HoF and recently submit my first game. But the status is always Not Checked for at least 10 days.
May I ask if it is common or there is something wrong with my game.

Welcome to the Civ V Hall-of-Fame!

We do an update once a month, and all games are "unchecked" until that processing is done. So, yeah, it's common. I can see the game you submitted is fine, it'll go in with the next update, which is scheduled for 8/22/21. (And it usually takes a few days. There are some moving parts, and two of us do the update. We're 4 or 5 time-zones apart, so sometimes some modified scheduling becomes necessary.)
 
Welcome to the Civ V Hall-of-Fame!

We do an update once a month, and all games are "unchecked" until that processing is done. So, yeah, it's common. I can see the game you submitted is fine, it'll go in with the next update, which is scheduled for 8/22/21. (And it usually takes a few days. There are some moving parts, and two of us do the update. We're 4 or 5 time-zones apart, so sometimes some modified scheduling becomes necessary.)

Thanks very much!
 
Hey I'm new - is the 'AutoSave_0000 BC-4000.Civ5Save' sufficient for the 'start file'? (didn't think to manually save on start as the rules didn't say)
In fact, are autosaves fine for all the first 3 saves?
Obviously the last save is manual
 
Autosaves are fine for the first three files, but the default name for the starting save is "Autosave_Initial_0000 BC-4000"
 
From time-to-time certain maps get rolled that end up with fewer city-states than is standard for that map size (should be two city-states for each AI on the map). I think there are others, but for sure a Lakes map has this problem. It has been theorized that, because of the higher frequency of mountain tiles on the affected maps, a CS settler might spawn on a mountain, then not be able to settle its city. Nobody's sure what the underlying technical problem is, but when one finally discovers the entire map, "Dang, there are only 15 city-states on this standard map!".

As the HOF rules require the standard number of city-states, these anomaly games get red-flagged by the parser software, and thus have to be rejected. However, previous discussions about this revealed that some games do not get red-flagged, even though it had too few city-states. I cannot tell you why or how, but there must be a couple of manifestations of this issue, one that DOES trigger the red flag, and another that does NOT. In the case of "does not", it must be that the parser can tell that the right city-state count was created, even though they all didn't settle. (I am reasonably certain that the parser always knows if a player has adjusted the city-state count prior to rolling a map.)

While correcting the code is not likely to happen (I presume it would take the game developers to do that), in my opinion players should submit any of these games they choose to finish. If the parser sees that there was indeed the correct count at the start, (i.e. no red flags), then that game could be accepted. If the parser does red-flag the game, it obviously won't be accepted. I will check with Noble Zarkon, but I think those red-flagged submissions could be deleted rather than rejected.
 
Forgive me, looking to maybe start playing HOF games but can someone point me to where the rules are? It doesn't seem obvious to me!
 
Welcome to the Hall of Fame!

Here's the link directly to the rules. But you'll be better off to know that right below the forum title ("Civ5 - Hall of Fame Discussion") it says "Test yourself against the best in the Civ5 Hall of Fame". That "Civ5 Hall of Fame" is the link to the entire site.
 
From time-to-time certain maps get rolled that end up with fewer city-states than is standard for that map size (should be two city-states for each AI on the map). I think there are others, but for sure a Lakes map has this problem. It has been theorized that, because of the higher frequency of mountain tiles on the affected maps, a CS settler might spawn on a mountain, then not be able to settle its city. Nobody's sure what the underlying technical problem is, but when one finally discovers the entire map, "Dang, there are only 15 city-states on this standard map!".

As the HOF rules require the standard number of city-states, these anomaly games get red-flagged by the parser software, and thus have to be rejected. However, previous discussions about this revealed that some games do not get red-flagged, even though it had too few city-states. I cannot tell you why or how, but there must be a couple of manifestations of this issue, one that DOES trigger the red flag, and another that does NOT. In the case of "does not", it must be that the parser can tell that the right city-state count was created, even though they all didn't settle. (I am reasonably certain that the parser always knows if a player has adjusted the city-state count prior to rolling a map.)

While correcting the code is not likely to happen (I presume it would take the game developers to do that), in my opinion players should submit any of these games they choose to finish. If the parser sees that there was indeed the correct count at the start, (i.e. no red flags), then that game could be accepted. If the parser does red-flag the game, it obviously won't be accepted. I will check with Noble Zarkon, but I think those red-flagged submissions could be deleted rather than rejected.
I have had many many games accepted with fewer than max city-states. To be honest, I think as many games have fewer than max city states as have max city states.

If this parser behavior is new, maybe we can just amend the rules? Otherwise, games on island maps will play out for over the half the game before a player would discover that it might get rejected.

It has never been an issue, and rejecting games people are playing specifically for HOF would be such a time waste for them.
 
"Amending the rules" would be okay with me. I agree, it is very frustrating for when this affects a game that been played for 100 or more turns. I had never heard of this as an "issue" until a couple of years ago @billybgame had a couple games go south on him. Since then, I've had a few of my own, plus a couple of other players have had it happen.

A wrinkle is - sometimes it trips the parser, other times it doesn't. So there are likely a good number of games with incorrect C/S counts that have made it in over the years.

I will run the idea of changing the rules up the flagpole. There may be other considerations that I am not aware of, so I'll find that out. Once I have some direction, I will post a new thread with the goal of having a focused community discussion, so that everyone is heard.
 
"Amending the rules" would be okay with me. I agree, it is very frustrating for when this affects a game that been played for 100 or more turns. I had never heard of this as an "issue" until a couple of years ago @billybgame had a couple games go south on him. Since then, I've had a few of my own, plus a couple of other players have had it happen.

A wrinkle is - sometimes it trips the parser, other times it doesn't. So there are likely a good number of games with incorrect C/S counts that have made it in over the years.

I will run the idea of changing the rules up the flagpole. There may be other considerations that I am not aware of, so I'll find that out. Once I have some direction, I will post a new thread with the goal of having a focused community discussion, so that everyone is heard.
Yes, this is just strange. Soooo many Duel games do not have 4 City States and so many Time games where every CS and every board space matters have had fewer than the max that I noticed. Not sure why there is an issue with rejecting or deleting games now. Thanks for looking into the current parsing issue!
 
is anyone having any issues with the ad hoc query in the hall of fame
i have tried multiple browsers and it seems to be the same issue (at least what i am experiencing)
 

Attachments

  • adhoc.png
    adhoc.png
    150.7 KB · Views: 5
is anyone having any issues with the ad hoc query in the hall of fame
i have tried multiple browsers and it seems to be the same issue (at least what i am experiencing)
Some months back (maybe when they changed the forum's software?) there were some issues created in the ad-hoc query. In fixing those, the ad-hoc query became broken. At that time I had reported it, but (as you know) it's never been corrected.

I haven't followed up on it since then, because I had found a couple of work-arounds, and because nobody else seemed to notice. Thought it might be just my setup. So here are my semi-solutions, and I will also poke those who can more suitably fix this.

The problem seems to be that when one first loads the query, it seems to perform a search, apparently using the starting configuration of no filters being set. It takes a long time for it to complete, and sometimes it even times out. The trick is to start it with SOME filter(s), rather than with the completely empty set. To that end, once I successfully performed an ad-hoc search, I bookmarked that page. Then, when I wanted to query, I would just load that page from my favorites, then set the filters to whatever I wanted.

Then I found different solution that seems much quicker to me. I first go to the Veni Vidi Vici page, then go to ANY of its tabs (Inferno, Machiavelli, etc.). The detail columns on all of those tabs are hyperlinks to an ad-hoc query. Click on one, takes you right to a pre-filtered ad-hoc query. (I right-click to open it in a new tab or window.) I find this a lot quicker than searching through my favorites bar to find that bookmarked page. ONE THING, though, you need to be aware that the pre-started query will include a filter to a single user, you'll need to reset that to "any" (at the very top) along with whatever other filters you're applying.
 
yeah thought smoe thing like that

great workaround though... just figured it out as well like a few minutes ago before reading your post
 
Top Bottom