boogaboo
Josef Popper 4ever
NO!!!!Dianthus said:You'll have to wait for the next update. Of course, you could improve every single one of your many #1's just to beat me.
How many entries have you actually beaten me?
HOF Update: New Website
- Thread starter superslug
- Start date
How many entries have you actually beaten me?
Only one, I'm just not going to tell you which one!boogaboo said:NO!!!!
How many entries have you actually beaten me?
boogaboo
Josef Popper 4ever
Dianthus said:Only one, I'm just not going to tell you which one!
OK. I will take that challenge!
It seems like I'm suddenly (and finally) under attack
Great job on giving everyone a new goal to shoot for. The staff has done an outstanding job encouraging more participation in the Hall.
I have a minor carp on the way the histographic ranking is scored for the Quartermasters challenge: the score that appears on the histographic list seems to be based on an individuals best in terms of ranking on any individual table instead of absolute points, but the score for the Quartermasters challenge is based on absolute points for the score on the histographic table.
For example, Emans histographic score is 1871 because that is #1 on the Tiny Chieftain table. His Quartermasters challenge histographic quartile is 10.00 because the 1871 is the lowest histographic score on the list. However, he also has a histographic score of 34924 (#5 Huge Emperor). Effectively, his Quartermasters challenge score is reduced because he filled a Tiny slot. Zerksees is also negatively affected, and there may be others.
I think you have 2 better options:
1) base the Quartermasters challenge rank on highest absolute histographic score. This rewards the people who spend the enormous amount of time necessary to milk a huge map on a difficult level but seems to be a little inconsistent with the other quartiles.
2) base the Quartermasters challenge rank on best ranking in any histographic table.
I definitely prefer #2 mainly because the thought of milking a huge map makes me nauseated, but that way also encourages people to fill empty slots.
Thanks for all your hard work.
I have a minor carp on the way the histographic ranking is scored for the Quartermasters challenge: the score that appears on the histographic list seems to be based on an individuals best in terms of ranking on any individual table instead of absolute points, but the score for the Quartermasters challenge is based on absolute points for the score on the histographic table.
For example, Emans histographic score is 1871 because that is #1 on the Tiny Chieftain table. His Quartermasters challenge histographic quartile is 10.00 because the 1871 is the lowest histographic score on the list. However, he also has a histographic score of 34924 (#5 Huge Emperor). Effectively, his Quartermasters challenge score is reduced because he filled a Tiny slot. Zerksees is also negatively affected, and there may be others.
I think you have 2 better options:
1) base the Quartermasters challenge rank on highest absolute histographic score. This rewards the people who spend the enormous amount of time necessary to milk a huge map on a difficult level but seems to be a little inconsistent with the other quartiles.
2) base the Quartermasters challenge rank on best ranking in any histographic table.
I definitely prefer #2 mainly because the thought of milking a huge map makes me nauseated, but that way also encourages people to fill empty slots.
Thanks for all your hard work.
This is how I thought it was implemented, it is supposed to be the highest Firaxis 2050 score each player has, which EMan's would be just under 35,000 on Monarch I believe.Chamnix said:
It is true that this quartile is different from the others, but the very nature of the games are different.
Thank you for catching this.
zerksees
in remission
Has anyone noticed this: The scores are not always shown in what I think is the proper order. For example, set the condition to 20K culture and the mapsize to any. Under warlord, my score of 4457 shows as number seven on the list, yet it is the highest score in that category. I had noticed in the old HOF and never mentioned it.
Is this is a problem or am I missing something?
Is this is a problem or am I missing something?
All conditions except score are sorted by win-date, not score
Suggestion, do away with the submission time from rankings. Show them as ties, and place them as such. Whether you can display them all is another matter, but you could display what you can then output some text such as "and 5 more ties".
Consider what it will be like once Civ4 comes out.
Consider what it will be like once Civ4 comes out.
boogaboo
Josef Popper 4ever
Stop that civ4 sh1t until it comes out (I don't believe it will be this year)
Civ3 will last forever, as civ2 is still very active.
Civ3 will last forever, as civ2 is still very active.
Sandman2003
Prince
I know that feeling.Chamnix said:
It will be interesting to see what choices us 'quick-finish types' make when it comes to histographic to complete the quartermasters challenge.
YES, however....as it stands, boogaboo is technically #2 on Tiny, Warlord.....although he apparently doesn't accept that, judging from his signature!LulThyme said:
boogaboo
Josef Popper 4ever
EMan said:YES, however....as it stands, boogaboo is technically #2 on Tiny, Warlord.....although he apparently doesn't accept that, judjing from his signature!
I do consider myself (and others) to have a mutual #1, since score and date are the same.
I don't accept someone being better just because he did it first.
I'd vote like that in a poll..
But, you can view things your way!
@boogaboo: FYI, we DO actually AGREE on this point!
There are still a number of huge slots open, but I suspect we'll start seeing more tiny/small milking just so people can get the Histo requirement out of the way. What I figure will be the tough choice for the "finishers" will be what game to use a Huge map for in order to finish Pentathlon.Sandman2003 said:
I figured you'd all agree. I personally feel slighted because when last I played tiny wasn't even allowed, all that waste effort on small maps.
I have another suggestion, only one score per list. And failing that, *definately* only one score thats only one score per list. Tied with yourself seems obsessive.
I have another suggestion, only one score per list. And failing that, *definately* only one score thats only one score per list. Tied with yourself seems obsessive.
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't like ties. Ties are evil. When I go to work, weddings, funerals, formal dates, nice concerts, parties. I'm always putting on a tie! Everytime I'm doing something where I should be at my best to savor the moment, I have to choke off the blood supply to my head with that evil piece of cloth around my neck and I-boogaboo said:
<Dianthus taps on bosses shoulder, whispering-"Not that kind of tie!">
Uh, ummm. Oh, tie games! That's different, but I don't like those either. I obviously do think the first person that accomplishes something deserves more credit. Let me put it this way: who was the first person in space? A lot of people can answer Yuri Gagarin off the top of their head. Now, who was the fifth person in space? The seventh? You'd have to look it up.
Which lists are you talking about? The HOF tables or QC tables? If the HOF, you think two games per player is too much?Smirk said:I have another suggestion, only one score per list. And failing that, *definately* only one score thats only one score per list. Tied with yourself seems obsessive.
I was talking about the fast finish lists, but I guess it applies to all. Actually the situation was mainly for the problematic fast conquests which seem to get a lot of interest and can become extremely static with the way they are setup currently. (That is, first submitted on a tie is best, and the almost sheer impossiblity of besting the fast times. I say almost, because they can be beat but its splitting hairs in a literal sense, as we'll perhaps see next update.)
Its my opinion (not to slight anyone's efforts) but I'd rather see the most recent tie top the list of ties, if anything at least this will reward new players and create a reason for them to play and submit. Although dealing with flip flopping perhaps would be an issue. (By flip flopping I mean I am reasonably sure I can get a different map fast conquest at 3650 for chieftain in a few hours. Resubmitting one of those every month would ensure I have a fresh score on top, but this likely doesn't add much to the HOF.)
At the risk of unbalancing the 10 scores per list, I think showing all ties would be the best solution, or maybe just allow a top 20 or 100 to be selected. So one could see all the ties, some there is no way to see currently.
Its my opinion (not to slight anyone's efforts) but I'd rather see the most recent tie top the list of ties, if anything at least this will reward new players and create a reason for them to play and submit. Although dealing with flip flopping perhaps would be an issue. (By flip flopping I mean I am reasonably sure I can get a different map fast conquest at 3650 for chieftain in a few hours. Resubmitting one of those every month would ensure I have a fresh score on top, but this likely doesn't add much to the HOF.)
At the risk of unbalancing the 10 scores per list, I think showing all ties would be the best solution, or maybe just allow a top 20 or 100 to be selected. So one could see all the ties, some there is no way to see currently.
Sandman2003
Prince
Very true! To get the histo out of the way milk a smaller map - style points could come later with a huge milk.superslug said:
As far as huge maps go, I can gurantee you that the "finishers" will not look for 100K as that option, though!
I might check to see if my huge emperor conquest qualifies to fill that slot, since there is a 4000bc save test facility (assuming I still have that save).
