TMIT, your arguments appear to be simply another variant of "any exploit I do not like should not be allowed". Its just that your chosen exploit to not like is Huts.
It's not that I consider them exploitative. Or rather, I believe within the framework of a rule set that a player should do whatever he can to compete. I believe this to an extent that I posit (and have in the past, to the point of drawing ire)
that any exploit that isn't explicitly banned should be abused to obtain whatever advantage it can. As some of you may recall, this position was rather...unpopular...on the civ V HoF section. One of the things that makes civ IV HoF so much better is that it DOESN'T do wonky nonsense like ban worker stealing or "abusing AI intelligence", as if that's somehow different from playing at all.
However, not all rules are good for competition, and the ones that dull the impact of the player's decision-making by making #attempts > play quality are an excellent example of bad rules.
I consider huts/events to be settings that add a burden on competitors by forcing them to spam games, since save-scumming is (correctly) illegal, ultimately acheiving similar results to save-scumming. Save scumming is not strategy. Is this burden less than map luck? Yes. Does that mean it deserves a place in the game just because it is "not as bad" as an uncontrollable factor? No.
The fact is, Huts, Inca, PA, No Barbs, No Events.... are all allowed, and I doubt that it is ever going to change.
The fact is, a lot of these things being allowed while others are not allowed is based on an overtly arbitrary and questionable thought process (at least, nobody has demonstrated a logically consistent thought process behind the design of this rule-set, and in the past I've generally been told "this is how we like it, so deal with it"). I wasn't around for the design of HoF rules, and at this point it'd be hard to enforce rules that make finishing over people who have already won using luckbox tactics more difficult.
However, just take a small peek at the rules and you see some flagrant inconsistencies:
1. Things like Inca/attempt spam are allowed; Balanced resources aren't? What was the competitive logic in banning balanced resources? Does that option even provide a competitive advantage in a format where people can submit theoretically infinite attempts? Nope. Not even a little bit.
2. No city flipping from culture: Really? PA abuse for #1 slots is perfectly fine, but we can't have people avoid culture flips! Oh no!
3. No Tech Trades: Again, I don't see a CONSISTENT competitive advantage available from this setting, just as there isn't a consistent competitive advantage from legal settings. Actually, this ban is borderline silly; there are very few scenarios where a competitive player wouldn't finish faster by being able to tech trade. I would have loved to hear someone's explantion as to how this would affect finish times more materially than, say, random personalities (which are legal).
4. Advanced Start: There isn't a setting in the world that would clamp down on map random-ness more than this. It would be an overpowering setting, so I can see why you banned it. Then again, no barbs, Inca usage, and hand-picked leaders are all also overpowering settings. So is the usage of huts. Pretty arbitrary. Perhaps more importantly, this one setting would have allowed HoF to cut down on time AND luck requirements in submissions...not to mention add a unique flavor to a side of the forum that has one.
5. Unrestricted Leaders: What, afraid of Joao of Inca? Inca's already in the game with FIN! Unrestricted opens a large variety of very interesting scenarios. Banning it, compared to current legal settings with a more drastic impact on the game, accomplished what again? Cutting into the "strategy" that ZPV loves perhaps, and not much more.
On the flip side, PAs, "no vassals", "no razing" can all have drastic impacts on the game, as can huts and events being on. Every single one of these can have a larger impact than any of the banned settings I've mentioned with the sole exception of "advanced start".
Perhaps the most aggravating thing about these bans is that HoF could have been significantly more varied and fun had some/all of them be allowed (I'm dubious on advanced start because so many people dislike it for whatever reason, but it's a solid option that reveals far more of a map than standard options and really cuts down on the luck of playing out a map). HoF can't even make gauntlets with unrestricted leaders because it's enforcing a ban on them that it can't logically argue (or, at least never has)!
????? Playing primarily space games this makes no sense. On the mid levels I have a no hut/no RE game or two that are faster than with them on.
Sure, map luck can overpower hut luck. That doesn't mean that theoretically (and multiple times, in practice) hut luck is required for an optimized time on a given map, and due to infinite maps that holds true overall eventually as well.
No huts makes no sense in the context of Civilization.
Nice try, but the premise you're using is flawed. I am arguing against huts based on the purported goal of HoF and to ease the burden on its competitors. You are arguing for something..."because that's how we have always done it".
Those are two extremely different arguments. I'll say more if I see an actual argument.
) use a PA or other shortcuts, but truthfully, the HoF games are mostly skill. Don't think for a minute that someone can come along and pop free Mining and they've got a new #1 on their hands. You'd have a hard time finding a #1 that is owned only because of a lucky hut...like the infamous (urban legend?) free HBR.
capitol and a 3
.
