Inca Empire filter for the Hall of Fame Tables

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Goody huts have been around since at least civ2, i cant remember if civ1 had them.

They ARE part of the game, and have always been.

That doesn't mean the developers must support Tribal Villages in future games of the Civilization series. At least they made them optional in Warlords and Beyond the Sword.

We definitely should force Tribal Villages on for multiplayer games. That's probably main reason they became optional. However, what is good for muliplayer is probably also good for single player too; The AIs haven't complained about Tribal Villages yet.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Goody huts have been around since at least civ2, i cant remember if civ1 had them.

They ARE part of the game, and have always been.

Yes, but civ was not designed solely (or even primarily) for HoF and XOTM. The logical reason they gave us the option to remove these things is that they're bad for competitive settings (and to be fair, the casual player base in this game vastly outnumbers the competitive base)...and there MUST have been some mind paid to competitive settings, since we even have things like mirror maps.

 

[neilmeister]

They probablyt added the ability to remove huts and turn events off due to feedback from gamers.

Or more likely, simply because they could. I doubt any thought of competitve play entered their minds

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

They probablyt added the ability to remove huts and turn events off due to feedback from gamers.

Yes, precisely because multi-player gamers (Human versus Human) players requested it. It is very surprising that these options ("No Tribal Villages" in particular) were not offered in Vanilla Civilization IV, but I suspect that multi-player features were not quite ready for the original release of Civ IV.

Or more likely, simply because they could. I doubt any thought of competitve play entered their minds

No, the multi-player market (otherwise ordinary players) demanded that these options were optional. If your playing buddy popped Bronze Working in turn 0; you'd be unpleasantly surprised by his large Axemen stack much earlier than expected. In general, multi-player groups insist on "No Tribal Villages" and "No Events", because of the random luck involved with these game subsystems.

Civilization IV was definitely designed to make Multi-player competition easier.

I don't understand how its possible that a strategy game was not defined with competitive play in mind. The essential nature of a strategy game is the inherent competitiveness involved. Much effort is expended to ensure game balance which is essential for competitive play.

If game balance is too far off for competitive play, it will also be too far off for causal play. The only difference is casual players may not notice it as much and are unlikely to create test games to measure how far game balance is off.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Unfortunately, this game fails utterly in random map generation for balance. Good MP games like you see in MTDG on this site or PBEMs on Realm's Beyond are pretty much always hand-made by an experienced player to ensure a comparable amount of commerce and a reasonable land/resource distribution. Civ IV by default is quite poor at it, sadly.

You really can't use solely RNG-generated map scripts and get balanced results. It's quite hard to turn all the factors one can imagine into a workable, consistent algorithm...though civ games give the distinct impression that they didn't even try:

A) Dry rice and a bunch of forest
B) 2 Riverside corn, 2 gems, copper nearby, and more land to settle peacefully.

Then, you have how broken Mali is against every non-inca civ in MP. Good luck breaking a skirmisher choke with archers when you have ~10% odds attacking them on FLATLANDS.

Sigh.

 

[shakabrade]

Unfortunately, this game fails utterly in random map generation for balance. Good MP games like you see in MTDG on this site or PBEMs on Realm's Beyond are pretty much always hand-made by an experienced player to ensure a comparable amount of commerce and a reasonable land/resource distribution. Civ IV by default is quite poor at it, sadly.

You really can't use solely RNG-generated map scripts and get balanced results. It's quite hard to turn all the factors one can imagine into a workable, consistent algorithm...though civ games give the distinct impression that they didn't even try:

A) Dry rice and a bunch of forest
B) 2 Riverside corn, 2 gems, copper nearby, and more land to settle peacefully.

Then, you have how broken Mali is against every non-inca civ in MP. Good luck breaking a skirmisher choke with archers when you have ~10% odds attacking them on FLATLANDS.

Sigh.

I, actually, like crappy starts and imbalance. When it gets in my favor, I reroll. What we'd need is probably another map option just like sea level or world wrap. This one would be called ''balanced map'' or something like that for people who want things to be fair. It'd take care of tiles too. For MP, there are maps like Mirror, Wheel or Hub. I am not too much familiar with it but most of the strategy games are played on same couple of maps, aren't they. Random and imbalanced map mystery is what makes this game appealing to me.
It'd be possible to create one map without huts and random events on which all people should play for HoF. That'd be the most fair. Also boring. But that is the solution.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Unfortunately, this game fails utterly in random map generation for balance. Good MP games like you see in MTDG on this site or PBEMs on Realm's Beyond are pretty much always hand-made by an experienced player to ensure a comparable amount of commerce and a reasonable land/resource distribution. Civ IV by default is quite poor at it, sadly.

You really can't use solely RNG-generated map scripts and get balanced results. It's quite hard to turn all the factors one can imagine into a workable, consistent algorithm...though civ games give the distinct impression that they didn't even try:

A) Dry rice and a bunch of forest
B) 2 Riverside corn, 2 gems, copper nearby, and more land to settle peacefully.

Then, you have how broken Mali is against every non-inca civ in MP. Good luck breaking a skirmisher choke with archers when you have ~10% odds attacking them on FLATLANDS.

Sigh.

So the "Balanced Resources" option is no help; I haven't ever tried this option, since it is banned from HoF submissions.

I presume that new map scripts could be written that produce more balanced maps for multi-player games. Civ IV was designed to be modifiable by end users and third parties.

I agree that the developers didn't go far enough in ensuring game balance as they should have. Map generation isn't the only issue. There are still a few exploits that are not allowed for HoF play and a vast number that are. While perfect game balance is not possible, the imbalance that does exist should be easy to overcome by an experienced, good player. That is currently not the case.

The Mali Empire's Skirmisher is one good example of imbalance. I'd guess that it would be banned from multi-player games in the same sense that Inca Empire should be banned from both multi-player and single player games.

I would imagine that the Protective trait is another game element that makes game balance for both multi-player and single player games difficult. In HoF games one can simply omit Protective opponents.

I've heard some players claim that Civilization V is better for multi-player games than single player games, but I don't really believe that. At least there seems to be less variation in map generation than in Civ IV. I don't believe that Civ V has an super-powerful Civ like the Inca Empire in Civ IV.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So the "Balanced Resources" option is no help; I haven't ever tried this option, since it is banned from HoF submissions.

Balanced resources only means strategic resources. It is strictly inferior to spamming games until you have them and the AI doesn't, in the HoF setting. The ban is illogical to the point of being comical .

Somewhat ironically, Inca isn't nearly as powerful in MP as SP. As good as Q are against AI archers, they're actually rather bland against opposing warriors, and humans watching the demo screen can spot a warrior rush of any kind coming a mile away. The travel time means that even non-aggressive civs can easily throw down a couple extra warriors, use defensive terrain to block their chokes, and kill the quechas horribly. Inca is still solid in MP for its traits, defensive usage of Q early on, and good UB. However, it is nothing special...certainly nothing like it is in SP where the AI strictly can't handle it.

The same isn't true for skirmishers though, because there is no resource-less way to handle them and they can come fast enough to prevent you from ever getting a resource...not to mention that they beat all of the classical units cost-for-cost, even on flatlands. The only reason they're not good in high level SP is that the AI's bonuses make the "for cost" aspect irrelevant.

Almost nobody uses protective in MP and for good reason. You could have made a case for it before the 3.19 patch bugged overflow instead of simply removing the bonus from resources/traits on overflow (walls used to be capable of generating 300+ per one built with a few forests).

 

[Manco Capac]

Balanced resources only means strategic resources.

And marble vanishing from the entire map.

 

[NonEuclidean]

Checkbox, plz. I'm nowhere near getting on any leaderboard, but seeing Huayna's smirk on every page really irks me. I do play Quecha rush sometimes, but I'd like a way to compare my other scores conveniently.

But I'm also one of those who'd rather have the option to checkbox anything. I'd volunteer to write the code if I thought anyone would trust a lurker to do it .

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And marble vanishing from the entire map.

Yes, I do forget that also. However, that's not exactly a case for banning it, as it's yet another thing that is weak compared to rng manipulation through game spam <3.

 

[GKey]

The position of HoF stuff : HoF page should contain all results, as it does now is understandable and I agree with it.

What people talk about here is to add futures to this page only to make it more useful. There should be no discrimination for any civ or game setting.

I am for filter with check boxes for each civ and even leader and game setting. That will be very useful and will attract many more people who want make comparisons between top results.

What if I want to check Mongols only? Say, I want compare top results with Genghis versus these with Kublai Khan? What's wrong with that? All results are still there after all.

The only downside of this would be very many more people will visit HoF page more often therefor creating more traffic and pressure on site database. But isn't it the purpose of the HoF page in the first place?

 

[Manco Capac]

The only downside of this would be very many more people will visit HoF page more often therefor creating more traffic and pressure on site database. But isn't it the purpose of the HoF page in the first place?

Uh? What people? To me, HoF is dying little by little.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Uh? What people? To me, HoF is dying little by little.

More like civ IV is, as it's quite old now.

Reading over this thread again, I'd still be interested in the reasoning for banning some settings and allowing others .

 

[Manco Capac]

True, CIV is slightly dying, but HoF is in a very steep cliff. At least, S&T subforums have new joining members I see every week. For HoF, I have seen very little updates. And the common people are now busy (partly my fault with Kaku SGOTM).

The reasonings are now buried in old members like Methos who are now converted in CiV. Surprisingly, I saw PoM recently in the "cover" thread. Miss the old days when I was a lurker.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I used to look at the Civ IV Hall of Fame page every update, but after the response I got in this thread, I finally realized that set of allowed and disallowed settings and the insistence that Inca be included (no checkbox) just killed all the enthusaism I had for it (HoF).

Even though Inca is banned in the HoF Gauntlets and HoF Challenges, I can't get excited about it, because of the allowed/disallowed settings issues, raised mainly by TheMeInTeam.

Inca is just the last straw that (metaphoricly) broke my back (enthusaism). The HoF just isn't the same anymore.

As Tachywaxon points out the Strategy and Tips forum is many times more active than the Civ IV HoF forums. Nearly all the threads opened on the Civ IV HoF forums are standard recurring Update post, Gauntlet an Challenge posts; rarely anything more. Its really quite here.

Just to be clear, I respect the HoF Staff's decision. I just don't like playing Inca that much; not many players do.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I saw PoM recently in the "cover" thread.

Priestess of the Moon?

No wait, that was another game. Yeah, he brings back memories .

I must admit, much of what got me into HoF Challenge Series was the heavy discussion in it, but now the participation is a bit dwindled.

 

[GKey]

Priestess of the Moon?

No wait, that was another game...

It is PotM. Boots first?! L2P noob!!!!

 

[Mylene]

I used to look at the Civ IV Hall of Fame page every update, but after the response I got in this thread, I finally realized that set of allowed and disallowed settings and the insistence that Inca be included (no checkbox) just killed all the enthusaism I had for it (HoF).

Even though Inca is banned in the HoF Gauntlets and HoF Challenges, I can't get excited about it, because of the allowed/disallowed settings issues, raised mainly by TheMeInTeam.

Inca is just the last straw that (metaphoricly) broke my back (enthusaism). The HoF just isn't the same anymore.

As Tachywaxon points out the Strategy and Tips forum is many times more active than the Civ IV HoF forums. Nearly all the threads opened on the Civ IV HoF forums are standard recurring Update post, Gauntlet an Challenge posts; rarely anything more. Its really quite here.

Just to be clear, I respect the HoF Staff's decision. I just don't like playing Inca that much; not many players do.

Sun Tzu Wu

I would be more interested in HoF if there was challenges where everybody plays the same map.
Players like comparing their games, and look how successful sgotms are.
And maybe it's just me, but brain storming for hours or maybe even days about what settings i pick, knowing if i skip this part i'd have no chance..too much work for all but the most hardcore i guess

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I would be more interested in HoF if there was challenges where everybody plays the same map.
Players like comparing their games, and look how successful sgotms are.
And maybe it's just me, but brain storming for hours or maybe even days about what settings i pick, knowing if i skip this part i'd have no chance..too much work for all but the most hardcore i guess

Unfortunately, players playing on the same map in the Civ IV HoF will never happen. I merely tried to get a checkbox to filter out Inca games, had persuasive arguments for doing so, but according to HoF staff, the HoF table is "set in stone" (no changes will ever be agreed to), even though few people seem to remember why. It really didn't matter what the poll attached to this thread showed.

Why is Inca allowed? Why are Tribal Villages allowed? Why are Events allowed? So players with less skill can leverage these unnecessary random or unbalanced game elements to beat the best game of a better player. The reason that they make the game more interesting may be true for the less competive players, but competitive players will leverage these game elements to win earlier than their skill alone will take them.

For example, starting in the Classical Era and getting Horseback Riding from a Tribal Village in the first few turns of play is just plain broken, yet such a game is permitted in the Civ IV HoF Tables. There is no justification to allow this, except that it is legal according to the current Civ IV HoF Rules. These Rules need to changed or participation will suffer (actually is suffering).

Sun Tzu Wu