Inca Empire filter for the Hall of Fame Tables

[Mylene]

You know Sun Tzu, that was what i was saying and thinking about HoF games ~1-2 years ago.
Peoples like Tachy will remember, and i was bashed for making some (friendly, it's the inet -.-) fun and comments about Inca, HoF games that always looked similar cos of these flaws you just mentioned now too.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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

No wai. First ring of regen (laff no tango 4 me) and branches then get boots of travel and 4x wraith bands gogogogo PRO! Obviously you put points into stats early too.

if i skip this part i'd have no chance.

Not necessarily true. Rusten put down a deity #1 spot and I don't think he used special settings. That said, what you will probably have to do, depending on which spot you want to take, is spam attempts until you get favorable surroundings. Which settings to use isn't exactly rocket science for front table entries, and mapfinder ensures a good capitol lol.

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).

Unfortunately we've probably missed the proverbial boat on this by a few years at least. I wish I were around at start of HoF (didn't get the game until game was a few years old), but as people even back then made sound arguments against the rules that turned up (balanced resource thread itself is an example) I'm not certain I'd have been able to make a difference...but I'd have at least tried to do so.

I think a lot of people in the design phase missed/forgot the perspective of "HoF is not standard settings". No setting on or off should have been assumed, and each allowance/disallowance should have been chosen carefully and with sound reasoning. I can say with certainty that such never happened (otherwise we wouldn't have a ban on balanced resources but somehow allow permanent alliances and huts), and it hurt the competitive environment significantly.

HoF as a true competition was a bit flawed intrinsically. HoF has always mis-claimed what it is. Based on the rules, what it really wants to do is show the best times possible with the maximum amount of luck. It claims it's a competition, but it is one with a *deliberately excessive* un-level playing field.

If you really wanted to get a good, solid ranking on who plays well and maximizing possibilities, the best way would be to generate map and allow as many attempts as players want, with people competing on each map and being ranked there. Obviously you'd trim out whatever RNG elements you could, then allow lots of people to play it and attempt it as many times as they want (still no reload/save scumming). This is probably as pure a competition you could get between players in terms of level playing field and reduced #attempts, short of just matching 2 people up on a mirrored map and letting them go at it .

 

[shakabrade]

Not necessarily true. Rusten put down a deity #1 spot and I don't think he used special settings.

I will add most humble myself to the list. My deity domination is normal Pangaea map played with Hatty with OK start (no gold or lots of food), no BFC horses, with barbs on and Pericles as a first neighbour (Phalanxes against WCs), normal number of AIs, and ancient start. And to make things more humble, it was supposed to be conquest but I failed to control the land limit and added 20 turns on domination because of that. And my first and only HoF attempt. True, I added some hippie AIs. Humble, isn't it.

Now, I give you the recipe to beat that date from first try in HoF style. Classic/medieval start with full number of AIs. Land will get covered in no time. Toroidal Pangaea for smaller map. And decent start with some gold to help with maintenance would be fine. Any Immortal player could do that on deity with no problem.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

If you really wanted to get a good, solid ranking on who plays well and maximizing possibilities, the best way would be to generate map and allow as many attempts as players want, with people competing on each map and being ranked there. Obviously you'd trim out whatever RNG elements you could, then allow lots of people to play it and attempt it as many times as they want (still no reload/save scumming). This is probably as pure a competition you could get between players in terms of level playing field and reduced #attempts, short of just matching 2 people up on a mirrored map and letting them go at it .

This sounds great, except there is no way around prior map knowledge when one plays multiple games on the same start. The only way I can think of making this fair is a means of reveiling the entire map including the location of AI units prior to thr first game. This would eliminate nearly all exploration, since one would know on t0 the entire map and the location of every AI capital. The only thing exploration would reveal is the location of units over time and the location of non-capital cities, including all Barbarian cities.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

...
HoF as a true competition was a bit flawed intrinsically. HoF has always mis-claimed what it is. Based on the rules, what it really wants to do is show the best times possible with the maximum amount of luck. It claims it's a competition, but it is one with a *deliberately excessive* un-level playing field.
...

Sadly, this is very true. I always thought, I'd be able to overcome these inequities, but Inca is one inequity that is hard to overcome. The easiest way is simply playing Inca, but there is very little challenge to spamming Quechuas and overwelling unprepared AI capitals, even on Quick speed. If there is no challenge and risk of failure, it greatly lessens the sense of accomplishment when finishing an uploading the game. When playing a non-Inca Civ, it can be extremely difficult, if not impossible to beat an Inca game that was expertly played. The Inca Civ is so unbalanced that this should not be required and is the motivation for the Inca filter checkbox. Thus players have the choice of comparing all Civs or all Civs minus Inca.

I recently noticed that the poll for this thread now favors having an Inca checkbox. Since the checkbox is required by the players in favor and the players against need change nothing to continue seeing the HoF tables with Inca, the Inca checkbox should be provided. The Pro group gets want they want and the Con group can still see the Civ IV HoF tables with Inca by default.

Thus, I respectfully request that the HoF staff agreed that an Inca checkbox for the Civ IV HoF is a idea worthy of reconsideration. How and whether to actually implement it is a seperate issue.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This sounds great, except there is no way around prior map knowledge when one plays multiple games on the same start. The only way I can think of making this fair is a means of reveiling the entire map including the location of AI units prior to thr first game. This would eliminate nearly all exploration, since one would know on t0 the entire map and the location of every AI capital.

There would be no point to hiding that information for sure. It wouldn't be very much like a "standard" civ game, but then again that wasn't the theory behind HoF competition in the first place. Prior knowledge would be there for certain; in fact it would be implied that absolutely everyone has it, thereby eliminating its advantage when it comes to beating other people playing the map.

I gave it some thought and voted in favor of the checkbox just now, but even so, none of that matters since HoF isn't exactly a democracy . They can still do what they want. We could open up our own competitions, if it were fruitful/fun...otherwise we have to accept what is from a competitive standpoint an inferior ruleset but also appreciate the work the staff puts in.

 

[Denniz]

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

Playing the same map and comparing is the GOTM's thing. For us to do it would be redundant.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Playing the same map and comparing is the GOTM's thing. For us to do it would be redundant.

xOTM (GOTM, WOTM, & BOTM) has a different scoring system and different goals than Civ IV HoF, so playing the same map for the HoF (illegal under rules) would still be very different from xOTM.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Firmlife]

Not sure how relevant this is, but in the little I've been playing I've been fooling around with Religious Deity games on smaller maps.

I have to say, I'm no master of Inca, but I managed to tie one of WastinTime's #1 entries with them without popping anything from a hut. This is after repeated attempts using other leaders and not even getting close. Currently trying to follow that off-the-cuff game up with a more serious attempt to get a really nice time before submitting (say three to four turns earlier), but my play is very sporadic right now.

I was surprised to see the biggest difference is that you can grow your capital population so much faster and get to two commerce tiles very fast because you never have to build workers. I suppose in hindsight this should be obvious, but my first Inca game I still went worker first. With Inca I often get my first worker 10-15 turns sooner from stealing than from building (on Epic).

In some ways it is actually more interesting. I now have to get BW so much earlier because I can actually chop so early. And, of course, there is actually war now, rather than straight tech and build. But the idea that Religious games are now either Inca or bust is amusing, let me put it that way.

And let me add that I have the utmost respect for WastinTime, I don't mean any of this as a put-down. I could never innovate strategies with the success he and a few others have. I just hope I can add something in imitation.

 

[WastinTime]

Welcome to the dark side Firmlife!
I agree that Inca games are, as you wrote, "actually more interesting" (once you get over the fact that they are better than the other civs, you realize they are quite fun to play). After all, many people enjoy Prince level and below where you can walk into the neighbor's empty capital. It's not quite that easy to get a 2nd capital with Inca, on higher levels, but at least you have a shot at it.

Worker stealing is not exclusive to the Inca. This fact alone might give you a fighting chance if you want to switch back to using other leaders. Certainly on Quick or Normal speed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Playing the same map and comparing is the GOTM's thing. For us to do it would be redundant.

XOTM only allows 1 attempt. HoF allows infinite attempts, but a convoluting factor of luck is intrinsic to HoF: you can't possibly judge the quality of a map for an optimized finish from a starting position.

If you were to instead remove the "competitive" focus from HoF, then the silly rule set and tremendous luck-reliance/#attempt=dobetter setup currently used makes more sense. HoF seems like it tries to do both things:

1. Demonstrate what's possible with min-maxing + attempt spam/"game scumming and
2. Somehow still assert this as a skill-based competition.

What I proposed is better than both XOTM and current HoF from a "skillful play wins" competitive perspective, as you could be very competitive on 1st/2nd attempt and the RNG factors that would necessitate dozens (or more) attempts to get "lucky" are minimized. It would be very different from any current format.

Anyway, more than a few of the current HoF rules are not justifiable from a logical/competitive standpoint. This format instead awards luck/attempt spam and has some correlation with play ability, though on the standard tables Inca does indeed trivialize it.

(once you get over the fact that they are better than the other civs, you realize they are quite fun to play).

This is a matter of opinion so I can't refute it directly. However, it's pretty hard to deny that the "optimal" way to play Inca (IE abuse the UU come hell or high water) sees WAY less variance than any other civ in existence. Why adapt when you can just spam your starting unit and rely on it taking care of the entire early game for you? Maybe that is fun for some people (people found the FAMAS fun in Black Ops so why not)...but it has less depth and is bad for competition (everyone functionally having to do the same thing weakens the decision making process as a factor in outcomes).

 

[iggymnrr]

XOTM only allows 1 attempt. HoF allows infinite attempts

This is not true. Both allow only one attempt and both allow infinite attempts. The difference is the number of people allowed to play each map and the speed at which the next map can be played, monthly versus mapfinder. A person playing his/her second XOTM is doing the same thing as a person moving on to the next map using mapfinder. All starting saves in the HoF are saved. Perhaps you should be arguing that everyone should be allowed to have one chance to play the map too.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is not true. Both allow only one attempt and both allow infinite attempts.

XOTM is 1 attempt, 1 map. HoF is infinite attempts, but only 1 per map.

I am proposing infinite attempts on a single map. While this would be very different from standard civ play (more like a scenario), it would easily indicate play ability as the likelihood of extreme luck outcomes influencing the winner under such a setting is necessarily reduced heavily and controlled settings lend themselves towards variety in play too (Inca wouldn't be the only competitive, indeed even Toku of Germany or some such could have been competitive in theory, on his one map ).

One chance = more luck = more time investment in attempting #games does better. Infinite attempts on the same map does not yank luck factor entirely, but it severely dampens it.

 

[iggymnrr]

XOTM is 1 attempt, 1 map. HoF is infinite attempts, but only 1 per map.

XOTM is infinite attempts, but only 1 attempt per month. Recognition is for that 1 map. There is no collection of all XTOMs to tally long term results. Who holds the fastest immortal conquest in the history of XTOMs? It is the best kept secret in town. If the HoF were run like the XTOM, a person could wait years before a large, epic speed, noble, rain forest map to play. And then that person would discover that somebody else had tampered with the map before offering it for public consumption.

Game spam begins with the 2nd game. This means that the next XTOM is just more spam. It will always be spam.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

XOTM is infinite attempts, but only 1 attempt per month. Recognition is for that 1 map.

Contradicting your own argument is amusing. If recognition is only for that 1 map, then any given competition for a ranking slot is 1 attempt, 1 map. Your attempts on future maps do not influence the outcome on the current map. 1 attempt, 1 map.

Aside from (wrongly) mincing words though, was there a point you were trying to make? You don't seem to have addressed what I actually proposed whatsoever.

 

[iggymnrr]

Contradicting your own argument is amusing. If recognition is only for that 1 map, then any given competition for a ranking slot is 1 attempt, 1 map. Your attempts on future maps do not influence the outcome on the current map. 1 attempt, 1 map.

Aside from (wrongly) mincing words though, was there a point you were trying to make? You don't seem to have addressed what I actually proposed whatsoever.

The XOTM works like this: take a deck of cards, shuffle and deal. Have every one play that same hand. Next month repeat. There are an infinite number of hands. This month lets say you had the best "immortal" hand. Big deal. What is one hand? There is no assembled collection of records to base an HoF around. But if one were assembled it would be the same thing about which you complain: an infinite number of attempts being made at the rate of one per month. What you are finding objectionable is the assembling of a collection of records.

The HoF works like this: take a deck of cards, shuffle and deal. Let only one person play that hand. Repeat as often as desired. There are an infinite number of hands. There is an assembled collection of records call the HoF. The starting saves are all accessible. If everyone were allowed to make one attempt at each save, when convenient, the result would be the XOTM except at a faster rate.

So what is the difference between picking which hand to play? Whether it is for the HoF or the XTOM matters not. If one chooses not to play after looking at the start or playing a few turns, he/she moves on to the next one.

 

[shakabrade]

@iggymnrr

If we had right to play only one game a month, you'd be right.

 

[iggymnrr]

2. Somehow still assert this as a skill-based competition.

The developers have said that RNG will be a part of the game. I don't necessarily agree with the assumption that Civ is a game of skill. A person can view each map is like a bingo card. Multiple bingo cards can be played simultaneously. Could you point out where the HoF asserts it is a skill based competition? Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you that the HoF should incorporate ideas from the XOTM: starts that begin with an artillery unit, an extra settler over in the new world on a terra, etc.