How to handle version-differences in the HOF

[Lexad]

Actually you are much more likely to find statements by me stating my lacking skills in playing Civ.

Don't see how this makes you the right person to "improve" HoF. And I do not believe

ability to read statistics, and understand the underlying implications

is worth much without knowledge of the game.

Instead of trying to fix something that isn't broken and bring top results down, people should better work on improving their own results to reach some day the top ones. Although having 1500+ cells, it is Hall of Fame, not some call-girl that should be available to everyone.

 

[Thrar]

Instead of trying to fix something that isn't broken and bring top results down, people should better work on improving their own results to reach some day the top ones. Although having 1500+ cells, it is Hall of Fame, not some call-girl that should be available to everyone.

Harshly said, but I agree to your point. And apparently the majority of voters here thinks so, too.

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Arrogantly and insulting said (and apparently caused by an inability to understand relative sentences). Still if a majority can convince the HOF team that no change is necessary, there is no reason to change anything.

Lets all return to the good old times when towarisch Dschugaschwili demonstrated his high skills of derogatory rhetoric by ignoring suggestions, and "winning" discussions with the "insult domination" cossack rush method.

PS: yes, that was an example of this method, though I still have trouble to be as good in its most developed form as more experienced forum members.

 

[Lexad]

I made a parallel with sports world in my previous note so that you could feel better the inappropriability of proposed measures. You admit the lack of game knowledge yourself, still insist on separating Warlords from Vanilla on the basis of great imbalance you perceive - but do you know that in the previous version of HoF-Mod you could win cultural game the same moment you got 3 Great Artists; get infinite cash from a single GM; build everything in a city with one GE? Or slavery bug, fixed in 1.61.005 and until then being perfectly legal? Can you compare these effects with Warlords/Vanilla changes? Should we erase all entries save the last mod version? How does statistics knowledge help here?

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Lexad, exactly those questions are the reason why the OP started this thread. Not everyone of us has the knowledge that you earned by your hard work.

People like me can only suggest what to do against the perceived imbalances suing our non-Civ knowledge. You and other veterans can then point out the shortcomings of that suggestions, and maybe as a result we come to a conclusion what to change (including a 0-change option).

 

[L0B0]

I just want to set something right.

Majority of the voters are for change, one way or other. At the moment 13 votes for no change, and 9+5+3 for change.

Poll should be about change or no change and not about change 1,change 2 ... and no change.

 

[azzaman333]

A majority of those wanting change want the change to be to add a filter on the HoF page so you can compare between X version only or Y version only.

 

[L0B0]

IMO i still see choice 2 and choice 3 as almost the same

 

[Lexad]

I rather see 1 and 2 as the same, changes being cosmetical.

 

[Airny]

Yeah, the idea of a filter supposes that we just take the current data as it is and let everyone use the HoF the way they want.
Also people who don't want a change still won't suffer from a filter. So logic tells me: if you complain abou people who vote for a filter, you are either someone who would have to do the work or you just want to argue.

 

[ori]

I just want to set something right.

Majority of the voters are for change, one way or other. At the moment 13 votes for no change, and 9+5+3 for change.

Poll should be about change or no change and not about change 1,change 2 ... and no change.

IMO i still see choice 2 and choice 3 as almost the same

If I'd seen 2 and 3 as the same (or believed that someone would interpret it as something like this) - I would have voted "no change". The HOF is fine as it is, but I would not mind to have a filter so that people can just compare Vanilla or Warlords games without seeing the other version if they want... Thus:

Yeah, the idea of a filter supposes that we just take the current data as it is and let everyone use the HoF the way they want.
Also people who don't want a change still won't suffer from a filter. So logic tells me: if you complain abou people who vote for a filter, you are either someone who would have to do the work or you just want to argue.

 

[superslug]

The one vote for the last option was me, and I did that purely to spare myself from clicking view results every time I visit this thread. So we're talking about 25 voters, not 26.

That means a minimal majority have voted for #1 (among their multiple votes),
and as indicated by my posts in this thread, is the option I personally favor. This option "wins" for now. Whether it wins through democratic vote, or dictatorial preference....well, that remains a mystery.

The second largest block is #2, which possibly has overlap with #1, possibly not. Out of consideration to that option, at some point in the near future, we'll add an unofficial version filter to the HOF. It'll make it much easier to keep an eye on Warlords versus Vanilla.

Option #3 is not something I'm at all keen on. It means doubling the HOF tables, and even as a moderator, I'm not in a position to be cavalier with Thunderfall's server space.

The fourth option is always a distant possibility, but I'm more likely to sink a whole patch off the tables than come up with a multiplier. Such a multiplier would be by nature subjective, whereas a purge might be heartless but it's honest.

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Honest decision. ^^

 

[superslug]

Although having 1500+ cells, it is Hall of Fame, not some call-girl that should be available to everyone.

Even when the tables fill up, the Quattromaster's Challenge will still be open to everyone since it's requisite games don't have to be on the HOF tables, just in the database. So yes, the HOF is available to everyone.

When I started in HOF-III, there were only 60 slots (cells). Just 60. Granted, there were really good games in those positions, but because the tables were so tight, very few of us tried to get in there. It made for a great musuem, but a boring playing environment.

The phrase "hall of fame" is somewhat misleading for here in some ways. Halls of Fame tend to be for those who made contributions to their fields two decades ago, athletes who are retired and in Civilization itself, record games that are over.

Here on the other hand, the HOF is a current active playing environment. Yes, great games on the tables are a fundamental element of it, but more important to me is seeing a bunch of players constantly striving to higher levels of success. That's the greatness I see in the HOF: the struggles, the competition, the learning and most of all the fun.

This isn't just a place for great players, this is a place for any rules-abiding player who wants to come and be among greatness. In the process, some become great themselves. The rest of us just get to hang out (myself included).

 

[Lexad]

Cuz we kinda do not expect CivIV last 100+ years as a popular sport

 

[KMadCandy]

The second largest block is #2, which possibly has overlap with #1, possibly not. Out of consideration to that option, at some point in the near future, we'll add an unofficial version filter to the HOF. It'll make it much easier to keep an eye on Warlords versus Vanilla.

i voted #2 with the thinking that if it's too much work for the HoF staff, then it'll turn into #1. so yup my vote at least is overlap, and definitely wasn't trying to create more work.

 

[KMadCandy]

Cuz we kinda do not expect CivIV last 100+ years as a popular sport

well time's up in 2050 ain't it?

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Simple question:

would it be much more work to design this unofficial filter in a way that you couldn't just only select by expansion, but also by major patch? Something like Vanilla 1.0 vs. Vanilla 1.1 ? With no differentiation between patches as default, but the choice for those interested as possibility?

 

[Miraculix]

Yeah, the idea of a filter supposes that we just take the current data as it is and let everyone use the HoF the way they want.
Also people who don't want a change still won't suffer from a filter. So logic tells me: if you complain abou people who vote for a filter, you are either someone who would have to do the work or you just want to argue.

I totally agree. Why vote for #1 if #2 just adds more possibilities and doesn't hurt anyone? (I am assuming #2 will be implemented as a Warlord/Vanilla/Any choice.)

Recently, there has been several proposals to modify HoF according to a 'see-what-you-like principle' both in this thread and in other threads. I really don't understand why people oppose to suggestions along these lines, since there is always an option to continue using/viewing HoF/Quattromasters as it appears today.

The second largest block is #2, which possibly has overlap with #1, possibly not. Out of consideration to that option, at some point in the near future, we'll add an unofficial version filter to the HOF. It'll make it much easier to keep an eye on Warlords versus Vanilla.

I am very happy to hear that. I am not sure why the filter needs to be unofficial, but I really don't care, since I assume viewing pure Vanilla tables or pure Warlords tables are just as easy whether the filter is unofficial or not.

 

[CliftonBazaar]

I like the tables the way they are; and out of the 22 Diety wins on Warlords I have 4 of them

I don't like the fact that most of the wins on Diety are with Hyuana doing a quecha rush at the start of the game - but that's how I got my first Diety victory.

Take a closer look at my 4 Diety wins and Hyuana doesn't show up (Mao, Saladin, Alexanda and Cyrus).
So Diety can be won with others.

Bottom line - I think a Quecha rush is cheesy and shouldn't be in the HOF. BUT, all my victories were with a 'Modern' start which other people find cheesy - so where do you draw the line of what goes into the HOF and what doesn't? You simply can't, you need to make one rule and stick to it.

My vote - no change.