New! Elite Quattromasters Challenge

[jesusin]

1) Well I like idea of RoA. Modern/Future are easy but classic doesnt give you advantage. It increases different games.

Yes, it increases different games. And that is exactly my point against it. It is not required for normal QM, which emphasizes on quantity. Why should it be required for EQM, which emphasizes on quality????

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.

It sounds so boring
I just don't want to play such a game. For me, avoiding other types of victories is anti-natural. It is just my personal preference, though.

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

I would support the first idea.
I think the second one should not be implemented. 50 out of my 70 submisions are on exactly the same settings: LizzorSalad/Deity/Cultural/Quick/Std. Should I be penalized for trying really hard to get the #1 position?

4) Scoring should really show difference for sizes regarding victory type as you mentioned.

Well, at last something we can completely agree on!

 

[Harbourboy]

Jesusin, on Rock of Ages:

Yes, it increases different games. And that is exactly my point against it. It is not required for normal QM, which emphasizes on quantity. Why should it be required for EQM, which emphasizes on quality????

Because Modern and Future starts demonstrate your mastery of modern units and buildings. Many of you so-called guru Quattromasters wouldn't know a Stealth Bomber if it sneaked up behind you, because you usually sprint your way to victory long before the discovery of gunpowder.

This provides a more interesting challenge, especially for someone like Jesusin, who has rendered Cultural victory to a fine art, but may not usually attempt other types of games that often.

 

[kovacsflo]

Because Modern and Future starts demonstrate your mastery of modern units and buildings. Many of you so-called guru Quattromasters wouldn't know a Stealth Bomber if it sneaked up behind you, because you usually sprint your way to victory long before the discovery of gunpowder.

This provides a more interesting challenge, especially for someone like Jesusin, who has rendered Cultural victory to a fine art, but may not usually attempt other types of games that often.

The problem is that we had to submit so much games for being again QM-s with BtS, RoTM needs just even more submissions. I also have to add that some of the RoTM games can increase normal QM points.

I am wondering will the QM position matter at all for stronger players at the future. Anyway for me LoN will be the biggest problem. I have 22/34 leaders in my normal LoN and just 11 in EQM. The easisest way is a conquest/tiny/prince victory if the map allows a fast game. The disadvantage is that it will only gives a prince EQM, but i aim this because of LoN requirements. If I can, I play at imm/emp/mon difficulties.

FLóri

 

[jesusin]

Jesusin, on Rock of Ages:



Because Modern and Future starts demonstrate your mastery of modern units and buildings. Many of you so-called guru Quattromasters wouldn't know a Stealth Bomber if it sneaked up behind you, because you usually sprint your way to victory long before the discovery of gunpowder.

This provides a more interesting challenge, especially for someone like Jesusin, who has rendered Cultural victory to a fine art, but may not usually attempt other types of games that often.

What IS a Stealth Bomber???

I would agree with all your reasons if we were talking about including RoA in normal QM. But we are talking about EQM, and I don't see it fitting there.

 

[FiveAces]

The easisest way is a conquest/tiny/prince victory if the map allows a fast game. The disadvantage is that it will only gives a prince EQM, but i aim this because of LoN requirements. If I can, I play at imm/emp/mon difficulties.

FLóri

FWIW I played a small quick deity diplo OCC game last night as Ghandi on highlands (both non-ideal). It took 87 minutes. Immortal would have been even faster b/c of the tech rate and I would have gotten Lib first (missed by 2 turns).

Is tiny conquest faster? I'm skeptical, but I've never tried.

 

[kovacsflo]

FWIW I played a small quick deity diplo OCC game last night as Ghandi on highlands (both non-ideal). It took 87 minutes. Immortal would have been even faster b/c of the tech rate and I would have gotten Lib first (missed by 2 turns).

Is tiny conquest faster? I'm skeptical, but I've never tried.

The game I mentioned took only 10-12 minutes. Just settle down on a yellow hill having another yellow hill with a forest, and produce some warriors. Since the 2 AIs will have just one warrior in their city. If you have luck, you can conquer one of them without war: they leave the city undefended for a while at the beginning of the game.

1 warrior can be beaten by 2 another, having some skills or using 3 warriors make it less risky, but don't wait too much, their second defending produced unit will be an archer most of the times.

This tactic won't work above prince of course. However fast conquest without incas by that tactic can work on bigger maps, small and standard. I tried this just at tiny.

Flóri

 

[kovacsflo]

To the HoF staff: There are several really good rseults with Incas at the HoF table.

If I submit a conquest without the incas, having worst result as them but better than everyone else not using incas either, then how many EQM baseqscore points will i have, 100, 10?

Flóri

 

[Dracandross]

50 out of my 70 submisions are on exactly the same settings: LizzorSalad/Deity/Cultural/Quick/Std. Should I be penalized for trying really hard to get the #1 position?

Well if you play deity/culture/quick/std all games are about similar so that should not count for huge amounts of qscore. In my opinion its quite cheesy to play on same settings that you master so well. (not that changing speed really makes difference as theres no wars anyway but still...)

Mostly its problematic on games you can duplicate time (30 points for prince/conq/duel or future space race for x points. Not that 30 points is much but still its way too easy 30 pts for all nations for example)

-D

 

[kovacsflo]

I used to do similar for a while: just SS with Qin shi imm/huge and large/inland sea. After QM appeared, I started to become more and more powerful in other types, but SS still remained my onlyone really strong side.

Flóri

 

[Harbourboy]

I would agree with all your reasons if we were talking about including RoA in normal QM. But we are talking about EQM, and I don't see it fitting there.

In hindsight, I think they would have included RoA in normal QM, but one of the over-riding principles of this overhaul has been that they wouldn't be taking any old QM titles off anybody, so that means not tampering with the original V+W QM designation.

I am supportive of the new structure, because I think that it SHOULD take a long time to reach this goal. It shouldn't be something you can knock off in one week.

 

[Denniz]

To the HoF staff: There are several really good rseults with Incas at the HoF table.

If I submit a conquest without the incas, having worst result as them but better than everyone else not using incas either, then how many EQM baseqscore points will i have, 100, 10?

Flóri

We didn't alter the QScore calculation beyond fixing it for the month/year thing. Everyone competing is using the same tables so it shouldn't matter. Some tables are going to be more favorble than the others. The problem with trying to calculate the QScore based on a filtered table data (ie. excluding cheese) is that we are just not setup to an display the entire HOF based on the EQM filters. It is already confusing enough.

 

[jesusin]

I am supportive of the new structure, because I think that it SHOULD take a long time to reach this goal. It shouldn't be something you can knock off in one week.

We have very different views here.
I think that it should take zero new submissions to Moonsinger, The Hawk or WastinTime (to name only 3 of them) to reach EQM. They are already QM and I think we all agree they are the Elite here.

 

[Harbourboy]

Then they have nothing to aim for. They have specifically tailored their previous efforts in order to meet certain very well defined objectives. And done that very well. Now there are some new objectives, which gives them something harder and more rewarding to aim for, which they should be happy about.

Now we get to see how good Moonsinger can be with a Musketeer rush, or some such other tactic that we have never before. And we will all learn something valuable from seeing that sort of mastery at work.

 

[FiveAces]

Well said.

 

[kovacsflo]

We didn't alter the QScore calculation beyond fixing it for the month/year thing. Everyone competing is using the same tables so it shouldn't matter. Some tables are going to be more favorble than the others. The problem with trying to calculate the QScore based on a filtered table data (ie. excluding cheese) is that we are just not setup to an display the entire HOF based on the EQM filters. It is already confusing enough.

I'm not sure I understood what you wrote, and I think not just because of my mother tongue is not English

So, does Huayna exclusions effect the EQM score, or will EQM scores based on non-Huayna submissions?

It could be a good possibility for having good EQM results if there is just Huayna submissions in a sub-event.

Flóri

 

[Denniz]

All games on the table count. There is only one version of QScore for both QM and EQM.

 

[Denniz]

A few of thoughts:

1. I am thinking that we should declare the EQM as BETA while we work out any changes.

2. The whole cheese discussion has been about adding balance to the EQM. The whole premise of the QM and EQM has been to recognize players that have mastered all the aspects of Civ4. That is what drives the quantity aspect of things. Maybe the way to promote balance is to use the ratio of least/most used Civs, Maps, Victory Conditions, Speeds, etc. to modify the QScores. In other words it you play 100 games and 50 of those are conquest and you only 2 are time victories than your QScore would be 2/50 of the total. I don't know if that would be by event or some composite from all events.

3. Maybe a solution to the LoN quantity issue is to classify the Civs/leaders by difficulty to use. Maybe by VC. We could require a lower total as long as all the tough civs are used or at least some portion.

Don't freak out, now. I am just trying to think outside the box. Although, you might hurt my feel if you are too obvious when you tell me they are stupidimpractical.
(cough, RoA, cough )

 

[ParadigmShifter]

How many people are going to have time victories though Denniz? After this months major gauntlet, I don't want to try it again in a hurry.

EDIT: It would also unfairly penalise great players such as Jesusin who strive to get the "perfect" deity cultural win and aren't keen on other victory types. Alos people trying to knock off HOF #1 slots too in their favoured victory condition. It would be biased in favour of people like me who are only trying for 1 tick in each box whilst going for regular QM.

EDIT2: #3 suggestion sounds reasonable enough but there would be so much controversy about it (which leaders are easy etc.) I don't think it is practical.

 

[shyuhe]

Making EQM beta for the time being sounds like a great idea. I think we're having some good discussions about how to re-work some of the aspects of the HOF to better distinguish quality from quantity.

So was RoA added to encourage play with late game UU civs? Many of the late game UU civs are played regardless because they have pretty good traits. I think it's the mid-game UU civs with mediocre traits that see the least action. Would it be possible to compile the number of games played with each leader or would that be too much work? Or maybe what leader occupies the top 10 slots in each HOF entry (looking at only the top slot will be distorted by HC). I think it may give a good indication of who gets played and who doesn't and also help us determine if there are civs that are truly "harder" to play for HOF purposes.

 

[Denniz]

How many people are going to have time victories though Denniz? After this months major gauntlet, I don't want to try it again in a hurry.

EDIT: It would also unfairly penalise great players such as Jesusin who strive to get the "perfect" deity cultural win and aren't keen on other victory types. Alos people trying to knock off HOF #1 slots too in their favoured victory condition. It would be biased in favour of people like me who are only trying for 1 tick in each box whilst going for regular QM.

EDIT2: #3 suggestion sounds reasonable enough but there would be so much controversy about it (which leaders are easy etc.) I don't think it is practical.

Players that specialize in certain victory conditions show up in the normal HOF. I don't of those guys as being penalized. QM is about mastering all the aspects of Civ4. That is the answer to your question about time victories, too. What's a reasonable balance of victory conditions that show mastery of Civ4?

Making EQM beta for the time being sounds like a great idea. I think we're having some good discussions about how to re-work some of the aspects of the HOF to better distinguish quality from quantity.

So was RoA added to encourage play with late game UU civs? Many of the late game UU civs are played regardless because they have pretty good traits. I think it's the mid-game UU civs with mediocre traits that see the least action. Would it be possible to compile the number of games played with each leader or would that be too much work? Or maybe what leader occupies the top 10 slots in each HOF entry (looking at only the top slot will be distorted by HC). I think it may give a good indication of who gets played and who doesn't and also help us determine if there are civs that are truly "harder" to play for HOF purposes.

The RoA was added to explore an aspect of the game not used as much and to compensate for removing eras from the rest of the categories. I bet that very few games have been played for any starts but Ancient, Modern and Future. The fact that different UUs become viable in different eras is a useful bonus.

I will see about compiling some statistics about leaders. I think that grouping the leaders into the most and least used would provide a pretty good indication of which are the worst. Or at least which one don't need to be required.