New! Elite Quattromasters Challenge

[Jimmy Thunder]

Denniz,

I like what you are thinking about reducing the number of LoN games. If the leaders were grouped into two even groups with one being the least popular (hardest?) and one being the most popular (easiest). For LoN, players would have to submit a game for each of the least popular leaders and any 1/2 of the most popular leaders, thus cutting down the total number of games required by 25%.

Trying to balance out victory conditions is a good idea too.

What about looking at each quatromaster subevent seperately. Split the number of games counting towards that category by the number of possible victory conditions (excluding Time). This gives the expected number of submissions of each victory type if it was split evenly. Then, if the number of games of a certain victory type is greater than, say, 1.5X this number then they start to have a reduced QScore value.

For example:

Someone has 20 games in their LoN so far. There are 6 (or maybe 7?) victory types: conquest/domination/diploUN/diploAP/space/cultural (and maybe vanilla/warlords space?). So a perfect split is 20/6 = 3.3 games. Giving a reasonable margin of 1.5X this number we get 3.3x1.5 = 5 games of each victory type accepted without penalty. So if the player has more than 5 conquest games currently counting towards their LoN, every game after the 5th highest one gets a reduced QScore. e.g reducing the score by 20% for each entry past the accepted number (but having a lower limit so that you never get an absolutley worthless qscore for a game).

 

[cabert]

wow, jimmythunder, this is getting complicated.

I like how the current (beta) EQM is easy to understand, even if long to comply to.

If I understand well, the EQM is here to :
1) distinguish the cheese from the rest. (I like cheese, I'm french) thus all ancient starts for most events, and no Huyna capac.
2) give another sample of all around mastering thus RoA and all ancient starts for LoN
Am I missing something?

To get an idea of 2), you could use statistics, showing that some players specialize in specific VC, and barely submitted a few (cheesy or not) wins for the rest (same thing for the favourite leaders). OK.
But this is just some kind of diagnose, not a solution.
I like the RoA, for this.
I don't see that running for 33 from ancient starts is going for diversity.
I'm already tired, just from thinking of it.
Thus I can very much imagine that for 20 or more of those 33 starts, I will use similar settings, and just get it done.
Maybe removing future and modern starts for LoN would be enough to remove the cheese, without killing diversity?

 

[The-Hawk]

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

I'm not sure what this means? If it means that games we submit today will be allowed in the final version (other than cases where the rules of EQM change) then I think it is OK. I.e. we all understand rules are subject to change and a game that qualifies now may not tomorrow. But if a game played today qualifies under the final rules, I assume it will count?

I suppose there is some risk that a game submitted now may not be allowed later (or would no longer be needed because of a rule change). However, this is a small risk. I, for one, would stick to the non-controversial game conditions for the time being.

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.

I think EQM levels should be broad (all LoN) and hard (no cheese). I agree the place to deal with balance is in the QScore. However, I would not make it too complicated. Not sure I can articulate why, but most/least used ratios feels risky. I.e. may get some weird outcomes.

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.

I think this is very subjective. People have favorite leaders for many reasons. Take a look at the breadth of responses to polls along the lines of "who is the best leader". If you try to measure based on which leaders are showing up on the HOF tables, then you risk the scores being overly influenced by people who play lots of games.

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.

Amen... specialization is about being the best at one condition, and that is what the tables are for. EQM should be about breadth. Some people will argue that they don't want to spend hours and hours playing 33 games to qualify for LoN (and therefore EQM). I would counter-argue that I don't want to spend hours and hours playing 33 games with the same leader and conditions so that I can knock WastinTime or Jesusin out of a specific culture box on the tables (not that I could ).

We are debating limiting LoN to a smaller number of nations so that people who don't want to play lots of games with different leaders can still qualify for EQM. Shouldn't we also limit attempts at any one set of game conditions? This way, people who don't want to play lots of games with the same leader and settings can still qualify for a box on the HOF for fastest victory. E.g. let's limit HOF table submissions to your first three tries. Then I won't need to play lots of games with the same settings to compete for fastest score in one box. Since nobody will be able to optimize their game, my mediocre play can still compete. (PS. I am obviously not serious about this suggestion, just trying to make a point.)

I would not water down EQM to satisfy people who don't want to play a breadth of games. I would not water down HOF tables to satisfy people who want to "own a box" without being willing to play a ton of games to optimize their game. Two different challenges with two different objective. They may well appeal to a different set of people... but I suspect many people will have an eye on both.

 

[FiveAces]

When considering the favorite leaders bear in mind a bunch of traits were changed between Vanilla and Warlords (and a couple in BTS, I think) - that will definitely skew an all-inclusive analysis.

 

[jesusin]

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

Does this mean that EQM QScore means nothing at all?

Example: Player A has a lot more EQM Qscore in Conquest/Std/Deity, because he has the fastest submission. Then player B plays Huaya and easily beats the date. Player B has not improved his EQM Qscore, since Huaya doesn't count. But he has knocked down Player A EQM Qscore.

 

[Denniz]

Does this mean that EQM QScore means nothing at all?

Example: Player A has a lot more EQM Qscore in Conquest/Std/Deity, because he has the fastest submission. Then player B plays Huaya and easily beats the date. Player B has not improved his EQM Qscore, since Huaya doesn't count. But he has knocked down Player A EQM Qscore.

The scenario you raise is a concern. There is also the matter of players being able to submit a poor finish to elavate their score by throwing off the average. Let's try to address that as part of the QScore disscussion rather than here, though.

 

[cabert]

I think the EQM isn't going to improve your overall score, really...
Is it a problem? Not IMHO.

 

[WastinTime]

Does this mean that EQM QScore means nothing at all?

Example: Player A has a lot more EQM Qscore in Conquest/Std/Deity, because he has the fastest submission. Then player B plays Huaya and easily beats the date. Player B has not improved his EQM Qscore, since Huaya doesn't count. But he has knocked down Player A EQM Qscore.

Taking Capac finishes out of the scoring would be nice, but maybe it's too complicated for the staff. At least you know this and you can play for Normal/Quick Speed Conquest. I don't think Capac can compete as well on faster speeds. (I'm not sure I can compete on huge/Quick conquest either though.)

 

[WastinTime]

An important point came up over in the QScore thread abount EQM gauntlet.

If Modern/Future starts are cheesy, then why allow them to fill the one and only gauntlet requirement with cheese? On the rare occasion that we run a non-ancient gauntlet (happens to be now), you will not be able to get your EQM requirement with it. The Gauntlet event is not owned by EQM. It can do whatever it wants to, but if it violates the EQM cheese filter, then it doesn't count!

For example, Future Space Race is easy/cheesy, but it is actually quite fun and would make for a fun gauntlet. Competition for the top spots was fierce until Ancient starts came along and finally beat them. This should NOT fill the EQM gauntlet requirement.

 

[playshogi]

In another thread it was proposed to limit players to qualify for EQM by playing all games at 1 level and on 1 map size (standard). If you do that, you limit players to just 28 tables (7 victory conditions * 4 speeds). So to maximize your score you have to spread your (39 minimum games * 2) over 28 tables to avoid knocking your own scores down. Therefore, if you are playing for highest overall score, this system would be self-balancing.

 

[Harbourboy]

Can we keep things simple, please. Some of the threads at the moment are doing my head in. All I need to know is to get QM, I have to win a variety of games. To get EQM, I have to win a variety of games at a certain level.

 

[WastinTime]

Can we keep things simple, please. Some of the threads at the moment are doing my head in. All I need to know is to get QM, I have to win a variety of games. To get EQM, I have to win a variety of games at a certain level.

Amen.
Ban a couple more "easy" game options and we're done.

 

[playshogi]

Another idea is to only allow the games that qualify for LON to fill in the rest of the slots in QM. You could revive Inca, then, because you can only use each civ twice. You could play a civ more than twice, but then you might knock yourself out of some other category! This would encourage (force) players to think about using which civ for which of the other conditions they want to fill. Gauntlet games would be an exception, in that, it would not have to be used for LON to fill in other slots in QM.

Just to be clear, for a game to qualify for map quest, RoA, tempi, or machiavelli, it must also be in your LON, or Gauntlet squares.

 

[Miraculix]

There is also the matter of players being able to submit a poor finish to elavate their score by throwing off the average. Let's try to address that as part of the QScore disscussion rather than here, though.

I thought this issue was taken care of by allowing only the best game for each player to count towards the average of a certain table. I thought this has been implemented from the early days of QM?

 

[Misotu]

Wow! So I go away for a few months and then think ... aaaahhh .... ... time to return to Civ ... and GOOD GRIEF! So much change, and so many complex suggestions.

I've read a few threads and I think the new Elite stuff is really good although I'm quite shocked to see (by their absence) how many cheesy future space games I played at higher difficulty levels. The HoF staff have obviously put *huge* amounts of effort into thinking this through (I really hope you guys are also working on something that makes you some dosh in RL )

I think, on the whole, I *really* agree with The-Hawk in his considered comments all the way through the thread and reproduce a bit here:

I would not water down EQM to satisfy people who don't want to play a breadth of games. I would not water down HOF tables to satisfy people who want to "own a box" without being willing to play a ton of games to optimize their game. Two different challenges with two different objective. They may well appeal to a different set of people... but I suspect many people will have an eye on both.

I really think this is right, and I think this is probably where the design came from. HoF slots for the specialists, Gauntlets/GotM for the one-on-one challengers. And EQM for the broad-based devotees who like to play a lot of games - and maybe like an extra reason to try that unappealing leader/map type/victory condition?

I'm up for it

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Hmm, saw the announcement about balance being introduced for EQM. http://forums.civfanatics.com/announcement.php?f=166&a=499

I don't think balance of play speeds should apply to the quicker games (quick/normal), because Epic and Marathon take an age to play. They aren't so bad if you get a fast win via conquest or domination, but isn't that what the balancing thing is supposed to be about anyway?

My only marathon game is excluded from EQM since it was Inca anyway (the high scoring GMajor challenge, which allowed Inca, so the only strat as marathon/Inca really). I will play at least one more marathon game, but don't count on me submitting more marathon games to balance my number of normal speed games.

I submitted my first Epic win yesterday, that was 36 hours of gameplay even though about 2 hours at the end was just pressing enter, building more tanks, waiting for the space parts to be available to build. That was a big time commitment as well. It's alot more reasonable than marathon though which has twice as many turns I believe.

My Inca marathon game was 45hrs of gameplay and it took a week to finish playing the game. I can knock out a normal speed game in 1 or 2 days though.

So, please don't penalise mainly normal speed players just because people overuse marathon to get the earliest dates.

EDIT: How about this for balancing the speed... score the games based on relative speed, so

quick is 2/3
normal is 1
epic is 1.5
marathon is 3

Average the games speed balance score (so mine would be - including the EQM excluded games [marathon Inca and duel map Liz space gauntlet])

2xQuick = 1.33
7xNormal = 7
1xEpic = 1.5
1xMarathon = 3

Total: 12.83. Average (11 games) = 1.16

I'd say a balance rating between 1 and 2 should be allowed. I know lots of people prefer epic speed, and many have a preferred speed which they play most games at (for me, it is normal speed).

 

[FiveAces]

I agree that whatever the balancing restriction is for speed it should be more relaxed than for VC, map type, etc.

 

[WastinTime]

I feel this balance thing will crash and burn. I'll let you guys sort out the details and we'll see how it plays out. good luck.

So now that we'll have a balancer, can't we let the RoA games count for everything else. Just the top 2 games for EQM in each era. So only 2 future and 2 modern will ever get used. I feel this is the #1 un-fun thing that will keep me from persuing eQM status.

 

[cabert]

I feel this balance thing will crash and burn. I'll let you guys sort out the details and we'll see how it plays out. good luck.

So now that we'll have a balancer, can't we let the RoA games count for everything else. Just the top 2 games for EQM in each era. So only 2 future and 2 modern will ever get used. I feel this is the #1 un-fun thing that will keep me from persuing eQM status.

do you ever let go?

I think RoA games up to modern (non included) should count for maps and lon at least.

 

[pholtz]

Just wondering what people would think about including the ( some of the ?)banned maps in the Map Quest for the Elite Challange. But as in the RoA, games with the previuosly banned maps would be good for those maps only. In this way we could see what people could do with maps banned because they are too advantageous for normal play.