As for repetition, of course it can't replace skill. A skilled game will beat an unskilled repetition-based one almost all of the time.
Of course that's true, but HoF is littered with fairly-to-very skilled players. In the "very skilled" tier, the differences aren't very large, so small things can swing outcomes. Note that I personally am not competing well with that tier virtually ever, but I still wish for a level field with as much noise reduction (in-game that is) as possible while playing, and I want the person who played best to win. If I do pull the occasional win out of the butt, I don't want it hollowed by chance.
the one low-odds strategy of mapfinding a good map takes away many of the awesome things we've seen people do in the HoF.
I'm not sure which side you're arguing with this statement. Do these things make a huge difference or not? In the same post you're telling me that skill will overcome it all, while at the same time telling me that these things have a large enough impact on games to completely change their dynamic.
xTOM, a venue for demostrating skill? You have got to be joking. One map; one attempt. That may demonstrate conservative play like beeline Liberalism and rush with Cuirassiers. They are also usually run at less demanding difficulty levels. It is hardly the venue to develop new strategies and skillfully implement them in a game.
Despite the notable limitations, it is still the best venue for PvCPU skill. And that's saying a lot unfortunately...but you just can't beat the "same map" facet. Much of the in-game stuff can be manipulated...so while luck can screw you in XOTM, it's far less likely to do so than in any one game of HoF.
Again, if you really want a pure skill game in civ, the only choice is to play a balanced MP map. At that point only pure RNG battle outcomes can swing things, and that's only a significant factor very early.
You don't support other setting bans because the HoF could have been more varied...
You support a ban on something that ZPV stated gave more variety and fun to his game.
Actually, I didn't really vouch much support for anything. I pointed those things out to demonstrate that HoF rules are inconsistent and don't make much sense.
My own personal preference, if you care, would be:
- a ban on huts/events, and other game settings that require repeated attempts to get lucky and succeed. HoF doesn't need that noise.
- a ban on PA (even though using them has been central to some of my success) - too easy to win games while basically doing NOTHING. Literally nothing.
- completely indifferent to no tech trades, as I seriously don't think it would matter.
- unrestricted allowed (in years of play I've yet to see material evidence of unrestricted combos doing anything that Inca can't right now. I don't think any exists.)
- Inca allowed for general tables (I understand why STW wants a filter for them. It's boring. But, from a competitive sense they're the strongest. I wouldn't single them out alone for filtering though).
- Indifferent to barbs
It is you who appears to be walking both sides of the street.
Not really, no. I have always been very for player's choices determining outcomes and very against settings that allow #attempts to provide increasingly significant advantages. Unless you can demonstrate that one of the rules I was arguing for would add a component of luck to the game? If so I will pull my support for whatever rule that is.
When breaking down the banned settings, I was largely just pointing out the sillyness of "it's how we've done it so it probably won't change". It's interesting that no matter how much the logic of rules gets questioned or how little evidence for them exists, they'll stay the way they are forever. As HoF has pointed out, that is definitely you guys' prerogative, but now and then I for some reason feel the need to point out that the rules can in fact be better than they are.
The final hole I can poke in your argument is that huts/events technically force more #attempts with the same settings. Is that *more* variability, or less? Functionally, when these settings are allowed the chance of benefit and ability to dump drawback games means that if you are truly shooting for #1, you put them on consistently. I don't see a variability advantage there.
