New! Elite Quattromasters Challenge

[The-Hawk]

I realize that the LoN is pretty long but if we accept less than all of them then the ones that are hardest to win with will be the ones left off. They are also the ones most likely to be played as non-ancient starts if we were to allow it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I actually like the idea of long LoN, I like the challenge of the all-expansions QM. I'd hate to see it nerfed.

Jimmy and Wastin', looks to me like you see QM primarily as a way to measure up against other players? As a result, you want it to be easier to qualify and let scoring sort out the ranking. But aren't there better ways to measure yourself against others? I think the best by far is GOTM. Next is gauntlets. Or, simply trying to fill in a box on the HOF main table.

I think quattro should be more about achieving a level of play across all the disciplines. At the elite level, it should take a while and it should be hard. Sure, we can compete for highest scores within a level, but the primary goal is achieving the elite level in the first place. Otherwise this will be like the original QM... a long list of people with no real differentiation. Making QM was simply not enough of a challenge... being a QM was not all that big of an honor.

I'd like to see this sort of like a karate belt. Over time, a person learns the disciplines and advances in belts. However, they can't advance by taking short cuts, they have to learn all the moves. Some day, maybe they make black belt. They will compete and spar against other black belts, but even if they aren't the best black belt, they know they've reached a standard of play that many can't achieve. They also know that everybody who wears a black belt really earned it.

BTW, I just tried my first BtS space colony attempt (Immortal level). First blush, BtS space is much harder than Vanilla or Warlords. The delay between launching and landing, and the ability to take the capital to wreck the spaceship, are big changes. I launched, only to have Vicky culture flip my capital before I completed the journey! Spaceship lost, game over. I would have thought culture flipping a capital was impossible. I assume she must have used some spies. Guess I'd better read up on those.

 

[shyuhe]

Wow. I've never heard of a capital flipping. How did she manage to accumulate so much culture in your capital??? Nearby near-legendary city? I'm also doing an immortal space colony game myself right now but I'm pre-liberalism so I have a ways to go. I may rifle rush to expand a little but I'm not sure I'll need it yet.

 

[FiveAces]

Well after reading the posts above and trying the current deity major, I've changed my views on RoA. Now I think we should let it count for MapQuest and Tempi. (Previously I wanted LoN.)

The most critical points about LoN were 1) in the current major gauntlet, everybody's using Asoka for a Modern conquest coupled with 2) if we allow RoA to count for LoN, everybody will use this for the harder leaders. So now I see how the tank-rush could be used with any leader to easily knock off the LoN requirement and that is not a good thing.

However, I also think WastinTime's point about it being frustrating (i.e. not fun, as opposed to not easy) to submit a bunch of games that can only count for 1 category is valid. Hence, count LoA for MapQuest and Tempi. Mapquest because starting era is not really an advantage (e.g. starting with astronomy does make a continents conquest easier, but not easier than an ancients continents diplo); and Tempi because there's only 4 speeds, the only one some people dislike is marathon, and marathon is going to be all but required for the higher level conqest and domination victories.

Note to mods: If you want to consider reducing the number of games needed for LoN without allowing players to avoid all the bad civs, simply require that all the vanilla civs must be used (with the vanilla leaders), in addition to however many more you want. There's plenty bad ones in there, and they all have to be used for a vanilla-only player anyway.

 

[jesusin]

There are just too many easy ways to win Diety. Why is Ancient Tiny Conquest ok for you? Why is Ancient Space race with Perm Alliances ok for you? Diplo and culture wins are simple on diety, any size map, any leader.

So why pick on RoA and make it such a horrible fit for EQM? If I'm gonna bother to play a game, I'm going to aim for 90 -100 points. Why should I complete 12 RoA games on 12 maps with 12 different leaders...some which could be very challenging, and then get no credit for those leaders/maps. Do you know how hard it is to get twelve 90+ point games? QM is designed well, so a clever player can have a good game count for several slots. EQM is ruined with the RoA restriction. It just feels so wrong. I'm not sure how that is not obvious to everyone. Please, everyone, try to think clearly on this before they ask for a vote.

Don't forget, if you take EQM seriously, you need 2 scores for each RoA, that's 14 games, not 7. (12 non-ancient games)

If people want to fill requirements with easy games, you can't stop them. The scores will indicate the best games/players.

I agree, Tiny maps should have been cut too.

I would also be nice if Huge and Large (maybe even standard size too) scored the same. Almost every game I play has to be on Huge just for the score. This was the biggest mistake they made in designing QM...until RoA came along. Scores should be about competition between players, not map sizes. Standard Diety games should be able to get 100 points. Is it too late to revive that discussion?

I am with WastinTime here. (I agree with everyting but Timy maps, undecided there).

My points:
- RoA just doesn't fit with the rest. Either allow its games to count for LoN or, better still, eliminate RoA altogether. It was even a requirement for QM.
- Is time a victory condition? Have you won when the clock says it is 2050AD and you have been unable to meet any of the victory requirements? I don't think that's a victory at all.
- Once advanced starts, Incas and Duel are out, there is a certain amount of quality on the games. Let everybody fulfill the requirements. The EQM is not something you get and forget, the important thing is the ranking. You will need to be better than anyone else to get good scores.
- Requiring to play all leaders is ok. But it is so boring and time consuming that I will find a cheese way to get it done. Future conquest is a way. If this is out, Conquest tiny is another way. If you take tiny out, I'll play Space-Deity-Huge-Quick-with PA on. It's always the same. Cheese, easy ways to do it quick and brainless. Same for Time, just play an incomplete tiny conquest and press ENTER till your thumb hurts. Is this reflecting any skills on my part? No. Accordingly, the EQM status should not have any honour or recognition attached to it. Now, being one of the three best EQMs... that's something indeed!
- Huge, Large and Std are equally difficult for Culture, Space and Diplo. Let's reflect this fact into the score formula.

 

[kovacsflo]

- Huge, Large and Std are equally difficult for Culture, Space and Diplo. Let's reflect this fact into the score formula.

It is a difficult point of view. I think space (more tech trading partners) and culture (more free lands) are easier in bigger maps, it is strange that you get more QM points from a huge SS victory than doing it without a bunch of trading partners and cottages.

All other victory types becomes harder with the size of the map. Diplo was mentioned, but I'm not agree with that, with the addition that dom and conq victories are effected by size more.

Flóri

 

[FiveAces]

Diplo is easier on std than huge/large. You can regularly OCC std with Liz and a pretty decent starting location. You cannot regularly OCC the larger sizes - if at all (EDIT: I'm thinking on Deity, obviously you can huge OCC diplo on the lower diffs). Although I wouldn't complain if they all counted the same

 

[kovacsflo]

Diplo is easier on std than huge/large. You can regularly OCC std with Liz and a pretty decent starting location. You cannot regularly OCC the larger sizes - if at all (EDIT: I'm thinking on Deity, obviously you can huge OCC diplo on the lower diffs). Although I wouldn't complain if they all counted the same

I can't understand the advantage of OCC in diplo games. OCC dramatically decreases the effect of self voting, right?

About counting, difficulty of conq and dom games are quite linear to map size, but this is practically reverse linear to other victory type. The most important that we should use different counting modes by victory type.

Flóri

 

[FiveAces]

I can't understand the advantage of OCC in diplo games. OCC dramatically decreases the effect of self voting, right?

About counting, difficulty of conq and dom games are quite linear to map size, but this is practically reverse linear to other victory type. The most important that we should use different counting modes by victory type.

Flóri

Yes, the disadvantage is OCC dramatically decreases the effect of self-voting. But if you get all the other AI's (apart from your rival, of course) to vote for you, then as long as the rival doesn't have IIRC >33.3% of the total pop, you still win. Definitely doable with peaceful opponents. The advantage is you don't have the min cities requirement for Oxford - a BIG deal on deity, and you don't have to spend hammers/growth on settlers going to second-class city sites since the good ones are already taken. Plus it plays faster since there's only 1 city to manage.

I don't think your second statement holds for deity. The AI expand so fast and get such huge tech/prod bonuses that limiting their potential space at the expense of yours works to your advantage.

 

[kovacsflo]

Yes, the disadvantage is OCC dramatically decreases the effect of self-voting. But if you get all the other AI's (apart from your rival, of course) to vote for you, then as long as the rival doesn't have IIRC >33.3% of the total pop, you still win. Definitely doable with peaceful opponents. The advantage is you don't have the min cities requirement for Oxford - a BIG deal on deity, and you don't have to spend hammers/growth on settlers going to second-class city sites since the good ones are already taken. Plus it plays faster since there's only 1 city to manage.

I don't think your second statement holds for deity. The AI expand so fast and get such huge tech/prod bonuses that limiting their potential space at the expense of yours works to your advantage.

Now I can better understand the advantage of OCC to deity (but not to all other diffs!!!). What's more, there is an additional advantage: without OCC you can have a -1 or -2 diplo penalty because of some of your neighbours.

That's why reading this forum can be useful, I wouldn't realize these things from myself! Thanks for the tips, Aces!

And how do you choose your leader to use with OCC deity diplo games?

Lizzy is the best isn't she?

 

[FiveAces]

Liz is the best since you get more shots at the GE pop, though that's controllable to some extent and on std or large map you can buy the UN in one turn instead. But any Fin will do for a decent time.

On the slower speeds the AI will settle much closer to you early on so you will get culture pressure - either be Creative to keep your land and risk close borders tension or accept having fewer tiles to work.

One more tip - if you enable PA's from the start, a failed diplo can easily turn into a successful space race.

And to keep this on topic - one thing I'm not clear on about the EQM is how the RoA will be scored. Will it be treated like LoN where the leader (i.e. the RoA era) is inconsequential to the scoring? And therefore Future starts will be scored against Ancient starts and we will have an entire subcategory of super-low QM scores? Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just going to be odd to look at WastinTime's ranking and see 180 180 180 35 180 180 etc.

 

[cabert]

Wow. I've never heard of a capital flipping. How did she manage to accumulate so much culture in your capital??? Nearby near-legendary city? I'm also doing an immortal space colony game myself right now but I'm pre-liberalism so I have a ways to go. I may rifle rush to expand a little but I'm not sure I'll need it yet.

Well, I already flipped capitals (not sure I need the s), but outside BtS I'm pretty sure your capital will never flip because the AIs don't go for cultural in warlords or vanilla.

If a few deity cities run 100% culture into your capital, I guess you will flose it.

 

[shyuhe]

I had a rather bizarre HOF game today. I was playing for a space colony win but I ended up with diplo I got into a PA in BTS but it turns out the AI loves going for culture now. I had to declare war with my PA buddy to keep him from going culture. As a result, his research was terrible. He kept on swapping between 100% culture and 60% science - the wars were making him skizo. I ended up having to abandon space colony and the map was big & small so I couldn't readily do domination. Thus... diplo

 

[cabert]

I had a rather bizarre HOF game today. I was playing for a space colony win but I ended up with diplo I got into a PA in BTS but it turns out the AI loves going for culture now. I had to declare war with my PA buddy to keep him from going culture. As a result, his research was terrible. He kept on swapping between 100% culture and 60% science - the wars were making him skizo. I ended up having to abandon space colony and the map was big & small so I couldn't readily do domination. Thus... diplo

Who was the ally?
I have the feeling some AIs will go for cultural more often than others.

and if your PA partner goes cultural, why don't you let him?

 

[shyuhe]

My ally was Gandhi. I was playing for a space colony game. It would have ended in the 1800's and I can finish a culture game much sooner than that going culture on my own. Apparently teching electricity/radio first made Gandhi want to go culture because he had first shot at all the culture wonders (and he's programmed to love culture too).

 

[The-Hawk]

Interesting... in my game, my capital was fairly close to the AI capital (come to think of it, maybe it was Liz instead of Vicky, I don't remember). Her capital had gone legendary a while back. Ghandi also had a legendary city. Ghandi and Vicky (Liz) had formed a PA. This raises a question... if two civs are in a PA, do you get a culture win if you have three legendary cities between you? I wonder how close they were to a culture victory?

 

[Ozbenno]

This raises a question... if two civs are in a PA, do you get a culture win if you have three legendary cities between you? I wonder how close they were to a culture victory?

I think that's right, 3 legendary cities between you.

 

[shyuhe]

That should work. Isn't that how the gauntlet went recently with the OCC culture win? I think you had to form a PA and convince your buddy to go culture as well.

I just thought it was funny that I had to thwart my partner's plans because they were... unexpected

 

[Harbourboy]

This raises a question... if two civs are in a PA, do you get a culture win if you have three legendary cities between you?

It must be, because we did that recent gauntlet with the One City Challenge cultural win. A OCC cultural win relies on you somehow engineering your PA partner to culture up two of his cities.

 

[Dracandross]

I am with WastinTime here. (I agree with everyting but Timy maps, undecided there).

My points:
- RoA just doesn't fit with the rest. Either allow its games to count for LoN or, better still, eliminate RoA altogether. It was even a requirement for QM.
- Is time a victory condition? Have you won when the clock says it is 2050AD and you have been unable to meet any of the victory requirements? I don't think that's a victory at all.
- Once advanced starts, Incas and Duel are out, there is a certain amount of quality on the games. Let everybody fulfill the requirements. The EQM is not something you get and forget, the important thing is the ranking. You will need to be better than anyone else to get good scores.
- Requiring to play all leaders is ok. But it is so boring and time consuming that I will find a cheese way to get it done. Future conquest is a way. If this is out, Conquest tiny is another way. If you take tiny out, I'll play Space-Deity-Huge-Quick-with PA on. It's always the same. Cheese, easy ways to do it quick and brainless. Same for Time, just play an incomplete tiny conquest and press ENTER till your thumb hurts. Is this reflecting any skills on my part? No. Accordingly, the EQM status should not have any honour or recognition attached to it. Now, being one of the three best EQMs... that's something indeed!
- Huge, Large and Std are equally difficult for Culture, Space and Diplo. Let's reflect this fact into the score formula.

1) Well I like idea of RoA. Modern/Future are easy but classic doesnt give you advantage. It increases different games.
2) You should not think time is victory but test of micromanagement to get highest score without winning in any other way. And there is lots of ways to mess that while doing 300-1200 rounds.
3) Your points getting cheesy wins for most games is right. I suggested while ago that we should have
- a lot more points for harder&bigger barbarians and way less for huge/settler as barbs are not even a small menace in that (compared to fact it doubles you score and on huge&deity its just 11% increase)
- get lower score if you have more than 2 submits on that particular setting, so you couldnt rush all games for same settings. That way games would spread alot more and then other players would lower your scores. Still you can do it with diff settings but that increases competititon in all settings and that lowers scores for worse dates
4) Scoring should really show difference for sizes regarding victory type as you mentioned.

-D

 

[FiveAces]

Interesting thought, but I don't agree with a formulative scoring penalty for multiple submissions on same settings. Using your suggestion of 2, if I hold the top 3 in a single table, why should the third one be penalized? Also, IIRC the way the QM scores work, there is already a defacto penalty for multiple submissions of "cheese" games with the same settings (assuming different dates) - each game submitted is either below the average date and therefore won't get a large Qscore or is above the average date, raising the average, and lowering the Qscores of all games below it.