HoF Rules: Objective Analysis

[TheMeInTeam]

1. Its clearly a cheat, in the sense of my earliest post here.

Yes. IMO this one can be universally applied and doesn't require further discussion; it's merits have been shown.

4. It give the player using it an unfair advantage over other participants in the competition?

Yes, if this advantage is not applied to all players. Tactics/settings that fall under the category of "more games = more lucky outcomes" are prime candidates for this rule because it literally changes the distribution of player rankings w/o changing quality of play, if only a little bit.

The others are too vague and would be difficult even for an objective person to apply evenly/fairly.

If someone can make a convincing case that a particular setting, tactic, etc. can reasonably be expected to generate a particular level of abuse of the AI, or of the spirit of the game

The question remains what is a convincing case. I'd suggest that Martin Alvito made a convincing argument when it comes to the enforcement of the exploit clause (as well as shown that the present exploit clause is too vague and needs expansion/clarity). If we're not willing to wait for rigorous evidence, it's time to look at the actual #'s provided by the game itself. Let me give completely exaggerated examples to illustrate what I mean:

- Say that if you enabled ruins, you had a small chance of popping 10000 gold or 3 social policies from it. Games would turn into who found the most of such ruin in a particular try; only games which found comparable #'s would likely be close

- Say that there is a renaissance SP that gives your capitol a 1000% beaker multiplier (!), but it's at the end of that SP tree. In this case players could run ROI analysis on ancient SP against saving it and taking that one and that one would win every time. For a check like this to work w/o statistics, however, the difference needs to be quite large. Alternatively, someone can run the #'s in an individual game and come up with reasonable ROI estimates for taking a SP sooner vs later. The only way the setting would be ban-able would be for it to create an overwhelming advantage that effectively narrows possible strategy options. It might be possible to do this, however.

Really, however, creating a solid basis for banning an option is very hard. I guess my frustration is that the options are still banned. Aside from the gold exploit which we've analyzed pretty well now, what does banning the other settings do for HoF? How would not banning them have hurt it? Much of the reasoning behind the rules has never been discussed and if this thread proves anything it's that those reasons are not easily apparent at first glance.

So I think we have two questions:

1) What are the criteria that make something bannable?

2) What evidence is required to decide that a particular setting or tactic meets those criteria, and is thus bannable?

These are very good questions. I'd like to hear something from the HoF staff on this as well, since they're the ones who spend time applying them and are at present the ones who know the logic behind the present rule-set for certain.

 

[da_Vinci]

Hmm ... What are the infractions that might make a setting or tactic ban-able?

1. Its clearly a cheat, in the sense of my earliest post here.
2. It violates the spirit of the game (as if there is a consensus on that ... maybe the moderators get to decide that?)
3. It hugely abuses the AI ... taking candy from a baby (again, how huge is huge?)
4. It give the player using it an unfair advantage over other participants in the competition?

The others (2 and 3) are too vague and would be difficult even for an objective person to apply evenly/fairly.

But does that mean they should never be applied? For any item that might meet criterion 2 or 3, there will be some theoretical distribution of opinion on it, ranging from 1% say allow, 99% say ban, to 99% say allow, and 1% say ban. The unevenness is most likely between cases, not within cases. So why couldn't these criteria be applied case by case, recognizing that the application might not be identical in each case. Is that a worse solution than a priori deciding to never apply these criteria?

Why do we have a Supreme Court? It's not for the obvious cases, its for the difficult and controversial ones. Human judgement is likely to be uneven, (although we hope not unfair), but we think that is better than an a priori decision that plaintif is always right, or defendant is always right. If we don't "hear the case", then we must be stuck with an a priori decsion one way or the other.

There is some discussion in the Civ V GOTM forum (under TSG8 after action reports) on the merits or not of research blocking. It's not a 1 or a 4 on my list, it might be a 2 or a 3, depending on opinion.

Does it violate the spirit of the game? Does it make RA's so much more valuable than "plain" RA management that it goes against the game philosophy? Or is it just a way that skillful players play?

Does it hugely abuse the AI? Does it make RA's disproportionately valuable to the human compared to the AI (who is not using research blocking)? Whether RA's themselves are issues for a competition is yet another question (do they introduce randomness, particularly without research blocking?).

If only my criteria 1 or 4 are valid for considering bans, then the discussion of research blocking would be moot. Do we really want issues such as these not to even come to the table? That would seem to be the result of limiting banning criteria to my 1 and 4.

These are very good questions. I'd like to hear something from the HoF staff on this as well, since they're the ones who spend time applying them and are at present the ones who know the logic behind the present rule-set for certain.

I think if nothing else this thread is helping to sharpen the framing of the discussion

dV

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The unevenness is most likely between cases, not within cases.

I'm not sure this is a good assumption...

So why couldn't these criteria be applied case by case, recognizing that the application might not be identical in each case. Is that a worse solution than a priori deciding to never apply these criteria?

Probably it is worse. The reason it's worse is that we have hard-set rules for the most extreme cases and there's no way to get the population opinion on every tactic employed on a case by case basis. The approach that Alvito has worked on in this thread is more enforce-able and will cut the worst abuses regardless.

Why do we have a Supreme Court? It's not for the obvious cases, its for the difficult and controversial ones. Human judgement is likely to be uneven, (although we hope not unfair), but we think that is better than an a priori decision that plaintif is always right, or defendant is always right. If we don't "hear the case", then we must be stuck with an a priori decsion one way or the other.

Yes, but HoF resources are limited and the qualifications that makes for a good HoF staff member are not the same that make a good judge on in-game tactics. Supreme court justices are carefully screened/selected (even if that selection is biased by party they are still selected very carefully by their given prop-up party). It's not fair to ask that level of output from the HoF staff. Besides, we have alternatives (including this thread) that have a considerably smaller footprint on the volunteer time they put in.

There is some discussion in the Civ V GOTM forum (under TSG8 after action reports) on the merits or not of research blocking. It's not a 1 or a 4 on my list, it might be a 2 or a 3, depending on opinion.

While not a rule yet, if it has the chance of becoming one it merits discussion in this thread. IMO it would be hard to stick a rule on this; Firaxis has put considerable effort into introducing valid opportunity cost of research agreement blocking and as it stands one has to put some serious research into multiple techs to set it up...meanwhile that %research required for a full block goes up.

It is also something that even the AI benefits to an extent given its uneven tech patterns.

Does it hugely abuse the AI? Does it make RA's disproportionately valuable to the human compared to the AI

This one won't hold up, ever. Units are a disproportionate advantage to the human over the AI also, and the comparison between these two is virtually identical (in each case, the human applies the rules in a more beneficial way than the AI).

And yes, RAs and their element of random-ness are worthy of considering for bans. Actually the reduction in random-ness is a very strong argument in FAVOR of RA tech blocking. IMO the whole RA thing is pretty borked regardless and is essentially an incomplete mechanic, though my opinion isn't particularly useful in this thread. Either way, discussion of RA or no RA is a lot more valid than discussion of tech blocking or not tech blocking.

If only my criteria 1 or 4 are valid for considering bans, then the discussion of research blocking would be moot. Do we really want issues such as these not to even come to the table? That would seem to be the result of limiting banning criteria to my 1 and 4.

Actually RA tech blocking and RA in general draw a lot of attention from #4.

We might also find, through massed game submissions or via someone running the #'s very carefully, that RA tech blocking is an overwhelming advantage. I find banning it rather dubious at best, even more-so from an enforcement standpoint than the gold exploit. Regardless of whether it can be policed, however, the benefits from doing so are not off-kilter compared to abusing the AI at war or in quite a few other ways. To ban it you'd probably need to show that it is.

 

[vexing]

We might also find, through massed game submissions or via someone running the #'s very carefully, that RA tech blocking is an overwhelming advantage.

i can guarantee the top places in the gauntlets will always utilize RA blocking.

 

[Denniz]

On the topic of exploits:

The definition of an exploit is subjective. The criteria I use therefore are subjective. Some of them are:

• Is it a balance problem in the game that the games designers should fix?
• Is it a bug that circumvents the normal play in some significant way?
• Does it force players to adopt a certain strategy in order to be competitive?
  (There is a different between a dominant strategy that most players agree is a good approach vs. one that people object to using because they feel it is an exploit. Said another way, if there is a huge thread out there with people posting about whether or not it is an exploit, then it probably is an exploit.)
• Would anyone let you get away with it in a multiplayer game? (Not the way I would have phrased it before I saw it expressed that way, but it is a more succinct that way to put it. )
• Is significant enough to affect HOF standings? People that find out about it first get all the benefit (i.e. medals). Those the come late to the party don't get a level playing field.

I could go on but the essence was best expressed by the example someone gave about the Supreme Court porn case ruling: “I can’t define it but I know it when I see it.”

It is the responsibility of the HOF Staff to decide what is allowed. We can’t always wait for the statistical analysis or a consensus to form. We have to use our best judgment to protect the integrity of the HOF. I think our track record so far is pretty good:

• The buying of cultural policies has been patched several times now. If you look at the Beta 1 thread, what we were concerned with is mostly fixed.
• The issue of Gold trades and breaking of agreements is a reoccurring theme with Civilization. Civ3 had it. Civ4 seems to have limited such from the start, IIRC. It has always been something that Firaxis has attempted to fix as is a major game balance issue. It is being addressed in Civ5 right now as some have pointed out.

So should we allow “Save Policies”? Possibly. Is one setting likely to dominate the other? We have over 200,000 tables as it is. Splitting Cultural victories into two types is just not practical. If the Cultural experts tell us they can win just as fast either way then we’ll be happy to remove the restriction. Otherwise, why bother if no one will use the one of them if they want to be competitive?

Finally, on the rule relating to undiscovered or future exploits: “New exploits will occur or be discovered over time. Use of a potential exploit should be verified the HOF Staff before use.” It is fairly simple. If you find something that people are likely to consider an exploit, you should let us know about it so we can tell you up front whether we will accept it. (We promise to keep your strategy a secret if we don't think it is an exploit.) It avoids the need to remove games that have been accepted under false pretenses. It doesn’t matter if you consider it an exploit. Ask yourself the questions from above. Then think about how you would feel if someone grabbed all the top spots before you using it.

BTW, if there are sections of the rules that you think are poorly phrased or could otherwise be improved, please feel free to suggest alternatives. Do just complain about it. Help us fix it. We're not proud. We'll use it. Believe me.

 

[DaveMcW]

We have over 200,000 tables as it is. Splitting Cultural victories into two types is just not practical. If the Cultural experts tell us they can win just as fast either way then we’ll be happy to remove the restriction. Otherwise, why bother if no one will use the one of them if they want to be competitive?

200,000 tables is just silly. Civ4 HOF only had 22,000 submissions.

The only tables that matter to me are the ones you can reach in 2 clicks from the homepage. And I am not motivated to compete for those because they reward Marathon too much.

 

[Ozbenno]

The only tables that matter to me are the ones you can reach in 2 clicks from the homepage. And I am not motivated to compete for those because they reward Marathon too much.

The way the tables are arranged in Civ 5 are a bit different. The tables that have the most entries (most competition) are the ones that are shown first in the tables, not necessarily the best times. At the moment, these are dominated by quick games.

 

[MadDjinn]

random interjections -

RA blocking:

This is as designed. You know it's as designed since there used to be a 25% minimum beaker investment to prevent the RA from a tech which is now around 33% after the latest patch. If they really didn't like the concept, they would have put it at a much higher level or changed the mechanic. They didn't.

Gold -
I'm hoping the gold for pillage/war declaration concept is done for the discussions as well, since it's too obviously exploitive. for evidence go see my Napoleon/Deity game on Youtube where I fleece Alex before killing him.

Effectively though, until the dev. switch AIs preference to be gpt for lux, rather than straight gold, it's a problem. Also, there's no - negative lux count - possible as an option. I wouldn't mind seeing the trade agreement stay, but you wouldn't collect on it while the lux isn't there. This would also require that straight gold trades would have to be changed to 'gpt' trades. (300g over 30 turns = 10g/turn transferred)

As per SP saving:

I don't think it's just 2 VCs that benefit from SP saving vs. not. Tech VC also benefits as you can safely pick up some cultural CS allies early game and just wait for Renaissance to spend the SPs.

(Domination could conceivably follow the same logic if you wanted to wait for Industrial era)

The real abuse for SP saving has been patched already. (city razing down to capital for spending cheap SPs after using mass cities for culture production) So what it comes down to is the question of SP saved til Cristo or used. From the data, (prior posting by vexxing I think - but basically more than enough to gain a few free SPs) it would appear that the real question is:

Does it take more skill to save policies for a late spending spree, or to choose SPs as you go? If you favour skill over a recipe, then the following is it:

The answer to this question would lead to SP saving being banned as it's fairly obvious that higher skilled players will figure out good SP paths tied to well timed era changes and effective economy control based upon their specific map/AIs/etc. Less that top players would find a recipe (take x specific SPs and then save until hitting Cristo) and just follow it for an easy game.

I doubt a numerical approach would show too much difference there, so I'd suggest that it's a matter of finding that better players get the better scores rather than having to deal with 'luck'.

As per barbs/no barbs:

No Barbs generates games where you don't have to defend yourself or worry about launching settlers all over the map in the early game. This can ensure that various buildings/economy growth/city locations all happen faster than when there are barbs on the map. (the barbs won't come by and burn your improvements down)

The downside to no barbs = no early cash and a few CS quests. (though the higher the diff. level, the less often this happens due to the AI clearing barbs) Another downside is that the barbs won't bother the AI as much.

so... Yeah, this one is fairly subjective, but I'd say it's consistent with the 'default' options for the Game and frankly, there's still a long list of things that can mess with a game so aiming for the 'default' settings right now isn't such a bad thing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It is the responsibility of the HOF Staff to decide what is allowed. We can’t always wait for the statistical analysis or a consensus to form. We have to use our best judgment to protect the integrity of the HOF. I think our track record so far is pretty good:

That judgment, while possibly lacking in idealistic information, should still be based on something relatively obvious. The gold exploit is a lot more obvious than balanced resources, for example!

Civ IV track record is pretty good but I'm disappointed with V's rules/approach to rules hence this thread.

Does it force players to adopt a certain strategy in order to be competitive?

IMO you could do w/o this one. Over time the strategies that can still be competitive for a best finish time are going to narrow by necessity. Rather than this, a better way to look at it would be "does the setting significantly reduce the number of in-game options/decision points for the player?" If you insist on subjectivity here we should limit it as much as possible.

Anyway none of those criteria apply to barbs or random personalities, although random personalities is somewhat nit-picking it does merit some reasoning for actually being banned (particularly because I'm struggling to imagine how it would significantly influence outcomes in a positive manner).

It is fairly simple. If you find something that people are likely to consider an exploit, you should let us know about it so we can tell you up front whether we will accept it.

This isn't simple at all. I would, for example, use RA tech blocking and not think twice, yet many consider that exploitative. Things like "take 1000 gold then declare" and "farm xp from barb galleys infinitely" may ALSO be considered exploits, but without coming up with them as examples this thread I wouldn't have a second thought doing them; not only can the AI benefit from these things, it does on occasion! However I guarantee you will find people who call each an exploit. That is why this rule is vague and needs to be reworked.

BTW, if there are sections of the rules that you think are poorly phrased or could otherwise be improved, please feel free to suggest alternatives. Do just complain about it. Help us fix it. We're not proud. We'll use it. Believe me.

I'll get to that, and if I don't others will probably. I intend to let this thread run further, however, because arrogant as I am I do realize that my opinions are not divine and are subject to error or things I didn't even consider. Any proposed rule changes will be a lot more rigorous if they have the weight of the subforum's best debaters on each side behind them.

I'm hoping the gold for pillage/war declaration concept is done for the discussions as well

Pillaging is closed in that M. Alvito has adequately demonstrated just how overpowering it can be. War declarations are NOT closed. In order to break a lump sum agreement via a war declaration, you have to pay some very real costs. You take a diplo hit, you need the military hardware to back it up, it interferes with RA, and it hinders a future source of income. That is NOT a small cost. What you did in that let's play is situational. Unlike pillaging resources used for gold trades, it is *not* something that is even consistently a beneficial idea to execute. Beyond that, the AI can do it and does on occasion, making it completely different from self-pillage. Similar to above, I would use it w/o question and probably risk getting my submission rejected for it because it seems not even a tiny shred different to me than RA tech blocking or even general war abuse.

Effectively though, until the dev. switch AIs preference to be gpt for lux, rather than straight gold, it's a problem. Also, there's no - negative lux count - possible as an option. I wouldn't mind seeing the trade agreement stay, but you wouldn't collect on it while the lux isn't there. This would also require that straight gold trades would have to be changed to 'gpt' trades. (300g over 30 turns = 10g/turn transferred)

If the devs had any sense they'd allow the trade recipient to keep the resource no matter what happens on the side of the one providing it in the case of a lump sum deal. If you paid a lump sum, just hand-wave this workaround by saying that they bought 30 turns worth when the deal was made with that lump sum. That, or just go back to IV's brute force method of making lump sum trades for per-turn things (or vice versa) literally impossible with the AI. Anything's better than this.

The answer to this question would lead to SP saving being banned as it's fairly obvious that higher skilled players will figure out good SP paths tied to well timed era changes and effective economy control based upon their specific map/AIs/etc. Less that top players would find a recipe (take x specific SPs and then save until hitting Cristo) and just follow it for an easy game.

In both cases, however, a recipe would never match a top player's adaptation because the map nuances would cause variance. Surely you realize this. The real question is whether there is more skill, diverse gameplay, etc in planning ahead for SP or in planning out precise routes/timings in storing. IMO in practice the actual skill application is similar; if you bother with the planning down to a turn level you're going to use the same mental faculties. SP storing will give consistently better results because it's more versatile, but does it actually reduce skill required to outplay other top submissions given that they have it also? That I doubt.

In thinking about it, this rule is more of a push than I initially considered. Really it's just a matter of preference I suppose. Allowing it essentially forces players to use it, while disallowing it does the opposite is what you're saying. I'm not going to argue with this one further; it seems the community prefers it off and leaving it off does not add random-ness or harm HoF play. If anyone else wants to continue the argument in favor of SP storing then you're welcome to do so of course!

so... Yeah, this one is fairly subjective, but I'd say it's consistent with the 'default' options for the Game and frankly, there's still a long list of things that can mess with a game so aiming for the 'default' settings right now isn't such a bad thing.

I have to disagree here w/ the barbs. Barbs on adds a significant random factor to the game as compared to barbs off...I find that rather hard to refute. Given that, we have very material incentive to force players to play with them off rather than on; barbs can be gamed (see galley example above), luck farmed via game spam, etc. While this is less of a factor on high difficulties, it isn't a non-factor. Also, HoF doesn't just post best times for high difficulties, but rather for all difficulties. Luck farming barbs will get increasingly obnoxious when competing at lower difficulties, and for what purpose? This is one of the few failings of civ IV HoF; top settler-warlord wins abused lucky huts copiously. Was that skillful? Did rolling maps until you popped 9 settlers really demonstrate a player's skill as opposed to patience when it came to settler HoF space wins? I think it would be difficult to make that case, and it is difficult to make a case in favor of barbs and ruins (not to mention natural wonders) in civ V.

Similarly, I fail to see merit in the balanced resources ban, especially in light of what it does. It seems rather that such should be the HoF standard so that people don't just wind up game spamming to replicate that advantage (or worse, re-roll until convenient AI lack it).

Default is not always the best choice in a competitive format. I think we can reasonably demonstrate a consistent advantage that can only be derived from luck farming for some settings, and THOSE are settings which are definitely valid ban targets.

 

[vexing]

RA blocking:

This is as designed. You know it's as designed since there used to be a 25% minimum beaker investment to prevent the RA from a tech which is now around 33% after the latest patch. If they really didn't like the concept, they would have put it at a much higher level or changed the mechanic. They didn't.

if they intended research agreements to be guided down specific paths via blocking, why make them random at all? i'd assume the blocking code was put in so people wouldn't get the tech they're currently working on. until you show me a developer quote saying they intended RA guiding, i'm not going to believe that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

if they intended research agreements to be guided down specific paths via blocking, why make them random at all? i'd assume the blocking code was put in so people wouldn't get the tech they're currently working on. until you show me a developer quote saying they intended RA guiding, i'm not going to believe that.

Do you think people who know the answer to this can legally give this?

Let's put it this way: RA tech blocking has an opportunity cost, and the developers increased it, demonstrating awareness of the issue.

However, they did not increase it significantly, they increased it by 8%. They could just as easily made it 50% or 75%. After all, people can always just time it so a tech they are researching isn't one of the RA possibilities!

They didn't do that though. They made a very marginal change to the rule; surely you can see some implications in that. Rather than assuming that they didn't intend for people to use this any longer, the more probable conclusion given their handling of the mechanic is that they're aware of it and only wanted to tweak its ROI.

You could argue that they're incompetent and didn't address the problem (certainly the apostolic palace provides some historical basis for this conclusion!), but IMO it's really not HoF's duty to remake the game because Firaxis didn't balance it . Going strictly by their patch history with this mechanic it is unreasonable to assume that RA tech blocking goes against designer intent; it's simply too obvious they are 1) aware of it and 2) chose not to gimp it badly.

 

[MadDjinn]

This isn't simple at all. I would, for example, use RA tech blocking and not think twice, yet many consider that exploitative. Things like "take 1000 gold then declare" and "farm xp from barb galleys infinitely" may ALSO be considered exploits, but without coming up with them as examples this thread I wouldn't have a second thought doing them; not only can the AI benefit from these things, it does on occasion! However I guarantee you will find people who call each an exploit. That is why this rule is vague and needs to be reworked.

You get no more than 30XP from barb fighting, so it's not really that useful. Sitting beside a CS and letting it attack you forever could be considered as such, but what are you really exploiting? Sure the AI does it sometimes, but it's been pointed out the to dev as something to fix. (AI behaviour problem due to the unit eventually getting killed in most cases)

The AI will never ask for cash then declare war. The most it will do is backstab you on a research agreement. Not exactly the same since it's not transferring funds from on player to another. Frankly... Given how overly "cheaty" the AI is on Deity, I take the concept of taking their gold pre-war (on that turn, not the gold/lux exploit) as something to balance things for the humans.

Oh, and don't assume people who post in threads calling something an exploit = the thing being an exploit. I've seen way too many 'threads' by less than informed people, who find people who just disagree with the developers, making claims of 'witch craft' and looking for a pitchfork.

Pillaging is closed in that M. Alvito has adequately demonstrated just how overpowering it can be. War declarations are NOT closed. In order to break a lump sum agreement via a war declaration, you have to pay some very real costs. You take a diplo hit, you need the military hardware to back it up, it interferes with RA, and it hinders a future source of income. That is NOT a small cost. What you did in that let's play is situational. Unlike pillaging resources used for gold trades, it is *not* something that is even consistently a beneficial idea to execute. Beyond that, the AI can do it and does on occasion, making it completely different from self-pillage. Similar to above, I would use it w/o question and probably risk getting my submission rejected for it because it seems not even a tiny shred different to me than RA tech blocking or even general war abuse.

Ok, as long as we're at that point. I don't consider it too much of a problem, but I'm sure people might consider fleecing 10k from an AI before you kill them as an 'exploit'.

In both cases, however, a recipe would never match a top player's adaptation because the map nuances would cause variance. Surely you realize this. The real question is whether there is more skill, diverse gameplay, etc in planning ahead for SP or in planning out precise routes/timings in storing. IMO in practice the actual skill application is similar; if you bother with the planning down to a turn level you're going to use the same mental faculties. SP storing will give consistently better results because it's more versatile, but does it actually reduce skill required to outplay other top submissions given that they have it also? That I doubt.

The recipe = SP saving; Martin or someone else would just do the math and figure out what SPs to take before saving and what to do in general until the end. Sure, there will be a few turns difference between better players following the recipe and normal players, but it'll still be the same. Why bother at that point?

No SP saving = getting timing down and dealing with the map/other civs. It definitely requires far more skill, especially when things go a little wrong.

Sure you'll use the same mental faculties, but one actually uses them more than the other. Again though, these things aren't compatible game wise. No SP saving requires a full game plan, SP saving requires getting the CR by a certain date.

I have to disagree here w/ the barbs. Barbs on adds a significant random factor to the game as compared to barbs off...I find that rather hard to refute. Given that, we have very material incentive to force players to play with them off rather than on; barbs can be gamed (see galley example above), luck farmed via game spam, etc. While this is less of a factor on high difficulties, it isn't a non-factor. Also, HoF doesn't just post best times for high difficulties, but rather for all difficulties. Luck farming barbs will get increasingly obnoxious when competing at lower difficulties, and for what purpose? This is one of the few failings of civ IV HoF; top settler-warlord wins abused lucky huts copiously. Was that skillful? Did rolling maps until you popped 9 settlers really demonstrate a player's skill as opposed to patience when it came to settler HoF space wins? I think it would be difficult to make that case, and it is difficult to make a case in favor of barbs and ruins (not to mention natural wonders) in civ V.

Yes there's randomness with barbs on, but it's the same with CSs on or AIs on. If all of the CSs were randomly beside you and you found them first, you get 30g * X CSs. if the AI gets there first, you get 15g * X CSs. that's a fair amount early on.

The HoF posts are separated by diff level, speed, etc etc so you shouldn't bother comparing settler to Deity on barb effects.

As well, in this case, I don't care if someone wasted a lot of time on settler/marathon/blah de blah. It's not a challenge, so not worth worrying about. It's not even a puzzle to consider.

And frankly... The whole effect of random is built into the HoF. Since we all use our own maps there's no real comparison possible. So re rolling maps happens if you want that top score -2 turns.

About the only thing totally random that might be considered not an exploit but a bannable annoyance is Skilldorado. But maybe that's the 'upgrade 1' DLC... never really sure on that.

Default is not always the best choice in a competitive format. I think we can reasonably demonstrate a consistent advantage that can only be derived from luck farming for some settings, and THOSE are settings which are definitely valid ban targets.

For a truly competitive format, letting players use their own maps isn't the best choice. That will come later when MP works and player generated maps can be used for tournaments.


edit:

@ vexing:

The sheer unadulterated fact that the code exists to allow it and has been adjusted, not rebuilt, is the clearest statement of developer intent on the RA blocking feature.

I dislike it when people default to waiting on the developers to tell them the obvious when their argument fails.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

es there's randomness with barbs on, but it's the same with CSs on or AIs on. If all of the CSs were randomly beside you and you found them first, you get 30g * X CSs. if the AI gets there first, you get 15g * X CSs. that's a fair amount early on.

This philosophical argument annoys me. Basically the premise is "if there's other random-ness in the game, there's no point in eliminating additional random-ness". In a competitive setting (and HoF *is* competitive, hence the tables), that argument is rather distasteful; additional random-ness cheapens the position of the top positions. While that's never eliminated setting a goal to keep it as low as possible is prudent.

The HoF posts are separated by diff level, speed, etc etc so you shouldn't bother comparing settler to Deity on barb effects.

Unless the setting is only banned on certain levels, we absolutely have to make this comparison.

As well, in this case, I don't care if someone wasted a lot of time on settler/marathon/blah de blah. It's not a challenge, so not worth worrying about. It's not even a puzzle to consider.

If you think that finishing ahead of the best submissions at ANY difficulty is "not a challenge", you are naive. In HoF games are reasonably rigged to be easy to beat the AI, since the goal is best finish time/highest score. The real challenge has always been winning ahead of other HUMAN players. If you don't believe me, try to win a BC settler space race in civ IV or pick the best finish time on a low-to-mid difficulty in HoF in civ V after it's been out a while and see how easy it is to hold a top spot there.

And frankly... The whole effect of random is built into the HoF. Since we all use our own maps there's no real comparison possible. So re rolling maps happens if you want that top score -2 turns.

Yes, and HoF has taken clear efforts to minimize the impact of that random factor also. I'll use HoF mapfinder as a perfect example of that effort; you can reroll for any start you want while sleeping/away and play it later. Any effort that minimizes "more attempts > more skill" is good for HoF, both to help legit rankings and to reduce the tedium involved in trying to do well.

bout the only thing totally random that might be considered not an exploit but a bannable annoyance is Skilldorado. But maybe that's the 'upgrade 1' DLC... never really sure on that.

If skilldorado is allowed, good maps will involve finding it.

However, while not every slot in the HoF will be ultracompetitive, the ones that are really sought after will come down to a matter of turns. The less amount of chance factors needed to decide that the better. I don't want x to beat y because he happened to pop 3 culture ruins that time while y only got 1 or 2. In truly competitive slots, that's exactly what is going to happen.

For a truly competitive format, letting players use their own maps isn't the best choice. That will come later when MP works and player generated maps can be used for tournaments.

XOTM uses the same map for all and is well regulated (using same mod as HoF historically). However, maps in HoF are generally rolled to be as ideal as possible (the only way to ensure a level playing field in this format) and thus not as different as you might expect...especially if we can get the ban on "balanced resources" lifted.

 

[MadDjinn]

This philosophical argument annoys me. Basically the premise is "if there's other random-ness in the game, there's no point in eliminating additional random-ness". In a competitive setting (and HoF *is* competitive, hence the tables), that argument is rather distasteful; additional random-ness cheapens the position of the top positions. While that's never eliminated setting a goal to keep it as low as possible is prudent.

Sorry, it was late and my point was more about the comparable level of influence the randomness of barbs has on the outcome, rather that just about more randomness. I don't believe that they'll have sufficient influence except in corner cases.

So in your arguments, you're expecting more top scores to include the best starting outcome? (which would include skilldorado and close CSs + decent start location for lux/strat. resources) Given that, the barbs being on would just add more to that concept where people will reroll until something good happens.

*Corner cases = Songhai, Ottoman, Germans and special map/speed/settings to cover a single table.

Unless the setting is only banned on certain levels, we absolutely have to make this comparison.

Except the each condition has it's own table. My understanding is that a settler and Deity wins won't be directly compared so the effect of barbs on each won't translate into settler wins having table positions where deity wins would be. If not the case, then ok.

If you think that finishing ahead of the best submissions at ANY difficulty is "not a challenge", you are naive. In HoF games are reasonably rigged to be easy to beat the AI, since the goal is best finish time/highest score. The real challenge has always been winning ahead of other HUMAN players. If you don't believe me, try to win a BC settler space race in civ IV or pick the best finish time on a low-to-mid difficulty in HoF in civ V after it's been out a while and see how easy it is to hold a top spot there.

That was more of an off the cuff comment. Yes beating out another set of people for a specific set of criteria can be challenging, but my specific example was more about a setting that just isn't interesting to me to challenge due to how easy it is and for exactly the reason that any and all randomness going to the players favour will determine the better score. (this includes distance to the AIs) Since every map is rerolled until it's found, rather than being given as a set map and then everyone figures out the puzzle, it's less 'challenging' to me.

If skilldorado is allowed, good maps will involve finding it.

However, while not every slot in the HoF will be ultracompetitive, the ones that are really sought after will come down to a matter of turns. The less amount of chance factors needed to decide that the better. I don't want x to beat y because he happened to pop 3 culture ruins that time while y only got 1 or 2. In truly competitive slots, that's exactly what is going to happen.

If it's allowed, then all maps will involve finding it right beside you. 500g right away = win on most settings. (1000g for Spain)

Every slot will be competitive eventually. People will move on from one to another looking for an easier setup to get the medals. (especially once top scores are all 1-2 turns from each other or down to points totals less that 100 difference on the same turn) And so yes. Ruins will matter. Getting 2 maps vs. getting a pop + culture/gold/upgraded unit will matter. That setting might benefit from being turned off for competitive reasoning as there's no downside to ruins. There are downsides to barbs.

XOTM uses the same map for all and is well regulated (using same mod as HoF historically). However, maps in HoF are generally rolled to be as ideal as possible (the only way to ensure a level playing field in this format) and thus not as different as you might expect...especially if we can get the ban on "balanced resources" lifted.

On this point, if you're looking for competition comparables, then you have to de-random the maps. Else you accept that there is some level of randomness allowed in the HoF that will differentiate between the top few times/scores.

 

[tommynt]

Well this thread is lacking the "why huts?" question.

U call HOF a competition and say yourself that a main part of any competition is same chances for every1. Huts just dont fit into competitions ....

Every good player will agree to above statement .....

Another thing that bothered me is land ....
- on one hand u dont allow replaying of maps
- on other hand you dont provide same/balanced maps
- land is in civ same/more important then skill (dependes on settings ..)
- restarting 100 times aint fun

I dont know the perfect solution - but the four points above just dont fit - to do good u have to restart maps loads and loads of times to get something decent and even then another player might have even better land/huts.

I see 3 solutions:
a) provide maps
b) allow replaying of own maps (half hour thing in between game should still be active to make relaoding fights and stuff impossible)
c) let us play the random maps from others - if some1 did do good on some map it mgith be interesting if some1 else does even better

with neither of these time (for restarting) is more important then skill

 

[Max M.]

tommynt

Not arguing about land/huts importance etc., but I wonder how is "allow replaying of own maps" related to all that? If the land is poor then there's no point to replay it, but if the land is good you also would get significant "map knowledge" advantage (which is ...).

time (for restarting) is more important then skill

Oh, come on That's quite insulting exaggeration (Unless you mean you actually did replay a few maps from current G-Minor/Major tops and finished faster
OK, seriously speaking, rerolling is a problem (we have to live with until we have something like "mapfinder" which is not going to come any time soon) but I suspect many people complaining about it usually overestimate this significantly. Yet again take a look at current HoF tops maps - there're no magic uberlands - just pretty much standard "decent" maps you can get without "100 restarts" (don't say you can't afford to spend half an hour to get a map you will be playing in for next 2..10 hours). Well, either way - if it's still something you can't afford - that's sad - but it this is unlikely to be changed without some serious C5 SDK/Tools breakthrough.
(Btw. why I don't see your games in C5 GOTM competitions? - it would suit that "map is everything" preference just perfect).

 

[vexing]

Going strictly by their patch history with this mechanic it is unreasonable to assume that RA tech blocking goes against designer intent; it's simply too obvious they are 1) aware of it and 2) chose not to gimp it badly.

i am not arguing for or against any RA restrictions in HoF games; at this point saying no blocking would make all the currently submitted games pretty untouchable.

i meant original intent. those points are obvious, however they're not proof they purposefully added the counter intuitive mechanic of RA blocking, which rewards players for researching part of the techs they don't want. also keep in mind that any "fix" should probably not hurt casual players who don't block (like removing the blocking mechanic entirely would), and they seem to have limited developer time available, so tweaks of the current rules are more expected than overhauls of the system.

anyway, the game still isn't finished, so i expect further tweaks to continue addressing the brokenness RAs.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Except the each condition has it's own table. My understanding is that a settler and Deity wins won't be directly compared so the effect of barbs on each won't translate into settler wins having table positions where deity wins would be. If not the case, then ok.

My point is that the ban exists for all levels, and as such we have to look at its impact for each.

That was more of an off the cuff comment. Yes beating out another set of people for a specific set of criteria can be challenging, but my specific example was more about a setting that just isn't interesting to me to challenge due to how easy it is and for exactly the reason that any and all randomness going to the players favour will determine the better score. (this includes distance to the AIs) Since every map is rerolled until it's found, rather than being given as a set map and then everyone figures out the puzzle, it's less 'challenging' to me.

Once you hit a certain skill level all HoF games are reasonably expected to be won (gauntlets which restrict choices to make it easy aside). In this, all difficulty levels are comparable, because in each the challenge for the top spot is never the AI, but the humans against which you compete. Your own personal interest might steer you away from going settler/mara space (it certainly does for me), but I've seen things I know I wouldn't accomplish w/o night perfect play from winning submissions there.

If it's allowed, then all maps will involve finding it right beside you. 500g right away = win on most settings. (1000g for Spain)

Every slot will be competitive eventually. People will move on from one to another looking for an easier setup to get the medals. (especially once top scores are all 1-2 turns from each other or down to points totals less that 100 difference on the same turn) And so yes. Ruins will matter. Getting 2 maps vs. getting a pop + culture/gold/upgraded unit will matter. That setting might benefit from being turned off for competitive reasoning as there's no downside to ruins. There are downsides to barbs.

The downsides, like the upsides, are random however. Any true downside (as in barbs wind up hurting rather than helping) will swiftly and soundly get filtered out through game spam, much like skilldorado and whatever else. I'd like to see as many of these things axed from the game as possible in *competitive* formats.

On this point, if you're looking for competition comparables, then you have to de-random the maps. Else you accept that there is some level of randomness allowed in the HoF that will differentiate between the top few times/scores.

Of course I accept it, I'm not blind. My point is that due to the game design a minimum level of random impact is a necessary evil for HoF; it does not mean that HoF should embrace that evil and increase its influence! Why add noise, especially things that are obvious noise?

Well this thread is lacking the "why huts?" question.

Yes it is. Huts definitely deserve discussion for being banned. It's almost silly that they're in the game especially compared to some of the other rules. Spamming maps until every hut (ruin) is an ideal outcome isn't an "exploit"?

a) provide maps

Mapfinder isn't out for civ V yet IIRC but it does a close approximation of this.

c) is very very interesting; literally allowing each player to play a submission once as if it were an XOTM game would do a lot to level the playing field. Nobody would EVER be able to claim a top spot was held by luck, because each person would have one shot at that map also. IMO you should make a new thread about this idea, for it has a lot of potential in making HoF the most versatile/strongest competitive format.

anyway, the game still isn't finished, so i expect further tweaks to continue addressing the brokenness RAs.

So do I, but I would appreciate if they made sure the game works in general, first. I literally can't recall the last time I played a civ game where the UI didn't screw me somehow; even in civ IV units can move before you give them orders on a turn, even if you are explicitly trying to interrupt this...Madjinns hope for MP competition telling us something in V is literally impossible until 1) MP functions and 2) they decide to remove the incentive to double move every turn possible.

 

[MadDjinn]

If anyone isn't entirely clear on the gold war exploit (if it is one), then check this vid out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utUTuXuIdWQ&feature=channel_video_title

Minute 13 I sell the one gold lux twice in one turn. I gain plenty of cash from it. Granted, I did it because I was about to declare war on the chinese, and the gold just happened to pop just before it so I was able to soak their cash on hand before declaring war.

Is that an exploit?

 

[vexing]

the trouble with the gotm or playing a pregenerated random map is the ease of cheating; as far as i know there's no easy way to see if the player opened the map, played through it completely using firetuner to reveal it, then played it multiple times until perfecting the outcome for the map. i'm sure people would abuse that. granted i am cynical.