Harbourboy
Deity
This new challenge is cool. I should be able to aim for a Noble level EQM eventually, if I can find some time to fill in the slots.
New! Elite Quattromasters Challenge
- Thread starter Denniz
- Start date
BLubmuz
HoF Quattromaster
Good idea, i completely agree on it - give us back fantasy realm.
NOTE: I have removed the adjustors from the EQM page QScores. Otherwise, it is still the same QScore formula as before. This will allow the different levels to compete more evenly within a single level's tables.
I like the idea of having a defined set of games count as your EQM. As it stands right now, you can play 33 Cultural (or insert you favorite victory here) wins to get LoN, then take your favorite leader/map combo and cover each of the other win conditions once.
I don't feel like this removes the cheese, it just personalizes it. So maybe Lexad is submitting conquest games, while jesusin is submitting almost all cultural. (Names picked semi-randomly
). The reason I started the series I did (see my sig) is because I was interested in a set of games that would satisfy the requirements without a lot of repetition.
In my case, no victory condition is repeated more than six times (or less than twice, as painful as time victories are), no map more than twice (there are 17 maps and 33 civs, if I have my list correct), no game speed more than 11 times (again, only 4 marathon games, as those are painful to me.) All this while playing each civilization once.
So, one option would be a min/max to each condition necessary, e.g., no more than six religious victories. Another would be to force you to meet the full requirements in 40 to 50 games. With gauntlets and RoA, 40 is probably too restrictive, and 50 might be a bit too loose, as gauntlets can in some cases overlap requirements with the other conditions.
(Oh, and the "test" q-score thing makes Bindy a sad camper. It makes most of my Q-scores zero. I fully accept being 23rd on a list of 29, for example, but there are six scores below me (and several above me!), all zero.
)
I don't feel like this removes the cheese, it just personalizes it. So maybe Lexad is submitting conquest games, while jesusin is submitting almost all cultural. (Names picked semi-randomly
). The reason I started the series I did (see my sig) is because I was interested in a set of games that would satisfy the requirements without a lot of repetition.In my case, no victory condition is repeated more than six times (or less than twice, as painful as time victories are), no map more than twice (there are 17 maps and 33 civs, if I have my list correct), no game speed more than 11 times (again, only 4 marathon games, as those are painful to me.) All this while playing each civilization once.
So, one option would be a min/max to each condition necessary, e.g., no more than six religious victories. Another would be to force you to meet the full requirements in 40 to 50 games. With gauntlets and RoA, 40 is probably too restrictive, and 50 might be a bit too loose, as gauntlets can in some cases overlap requirements with the other conditions.
(Oh, and the "test" q-score thing makes Bindy a sad camper. It makes most of my Q-scores zero. I fully accept being 23rd on a list of 29, for example, but there are six scores below me (and several above me!), all zero.
)
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Well there goes my major gauntlet tick for EQM then (used Inca in the high scoring gauntlet GMaj16, as did the top 5 and 8 of the 15 entries)
Harbourboy
Deity
I think it is fine if someone like Jesusin (to take the obvious example) submits a load of cultural games, then fills in the other slots with the minimum number of non-culture games. That just shows that there are plenty of different paths that can be taken. I would hate for us to discourage specialists like this, because we can learn so much from someone who has put so much effort into studying one particular aspect of the game.
BLubmuz
HoF Quattromaster
just one "word": bahhhh
At that point it comes down to the point of the title "Quattromaster". To me that's someone who's mastered every facet of the game. We can look at an individual table and say "Wow, look how many slots are taken up by __________!", but the Quattromasters should play every condition well.
The OP has been updated the reflect the EQM rule changes that have been made as a result of feedback from the members of the Hall of Fame.
Rule Changes:
---
No changes relating to balance of EQM entries has been determined as yet. I will continue to search for a good approach to reward a good balance in achieving EQM level status. It will probably be in the form of showing percentages on the status tab and highlighting those that have achieved a balanced EQM status.
Rule Changes:
- Gauntlets are subject to the same restrictions as the other categories.
- QScore adjustors used in QM do no apply to EQM.
- Only games eligible for EQM are used in calculating QScore for EQM.
- A "Phantom" Date is added to the average date to compensate for samples too small to calculate a good average date.
---
No changes relating to balance of EQM entries has been determined as yet. I will continue to search for a good approach to reward a good balance in achieving EQM level status. It will probably be in the form of showing percentages on the status tab and highlighting those that have achieved a balanced EQM status.
shyuhe
Deity
Since gauntlets are now subject to EQM restrictions, will we see more high level minors in the future?
We may have to mix up the difficulties little bit between Majors and Minors. We'll have to see what the random gauntlet generator brings us. Has anyone seen my darts?
BLubmuz
HoF Quattromaster
Next update will see me as an EQM for Settler/Chieftain.
I got some 9 games to play for the LoN, and some 3 for the maps to complete the warlord EQM.
But i decided to go for the Noble EQM instead of the warlord.
My reasons:
- Too much luck involved and too many attempts to try to have settlers/workers from the GHs,
- The difficulty is not so harder, but it will be more challenging, adding some fun: too easy to conquer cities with tanks and gunships against Longbows and maces,
- Before starting play for the HoF i could define myself as a Monarch/Emperor player, now i'm definitely not comfortable to this levels, and i must recover.
Another thing i'll do will be to play my games mostly on standard maps, with some diversion to small and large, avoiding tiny and huge (this last one for RL time reasons).
I got some 9 games to play for the LoN, and some 3 for the maps to complete the warlord EQM.
But i decided to go for the Noble EQM instead of the warlord.
My reasons:
- Too much luck involved and too many attempts to try to have settlers/workers from the GHs,
- The difficulty is not so harder, but it will be more challenging, adding some fun: too easy to conquer cities with tanks and gunships against Longbows and maces,
- Before starting play for the HoF i could define myself as a Monarch/Emperor player, now i'm definitely not comfortable to this levels, and i must recover.
Another thing i'll do will be to play my games mostly on standard maps, with some diversion to small and large, avoiding tiny and huge (this last one for RL time reasons).
The-Hawk
Old Original Geezer
Denniz, are Tiny maps really here to stay? 
I've been holding out some hope that we might still see them banned from EQM. Looks like people are climbing up the EQM ranks on the "power" of tiny maps. At some point, the decision will be irreversible (since so many tiny games will have been submitted).
Should I give up and start playing Tiny so that I'm not the last person on the planet to make a high level EQM? Time for me to build a bridge and get over it? Stop complaining and join the masses?
On the other hand... Anyone up for an informal challenge?
I'm thinking we should launch the "NTEQM" challenge. "No Tiny EQM": people who commit to achieving EQM without tiny maps. Joining the challenge means you will be late getting onto the tables. When you finally make it, you will most likely join the EQM ranks with a lower score than people who played tiny maps. But you'll have the satisfaction of having demonstrated an extra measure of "elite" play (and maybe garner a bit of extra respect from your peers).
I've been holding out some hope that we might still see them banned from EQM. Looks like people are climbing up the EQM ranks on the "power" of tiny maps. At some point, the decision will be irreversible (since so many tiny games will have been submitted).
Should I give up and start playing Tiny so that I'm not the last person on the planet to make a high level EQM? Time for me to build a bridge and get over it? Stop complaining and join the masses?
On the other hand... Anyone up for an informal challenge?
I'm thinking we should launch the "NTEQM" challenge. "No Tiny EQM": people who commit to achieving EQM without tiny maps. Joining the challenge means you will be late getting onto the tables. When you finally make it, you will most likely join the EQM ranks with a lower score than people who played tiny maps. But you'll have the satisfaction of having demonstrated an extra measure of "elite" play (and maybe garner a bit of extra respect from your peers).
I only used Tiny maps on Rock of Ages (when they don't count for anything else why bother) and I got to EQM. Does that count for your challenge? Although as I'm only aiming at an end point of Emporer not Deity like I assume you are.
Harbourboy
Deity
Hawk, I have not been using Tiny maps at all, and I am about 14 games away from reaching EQM, so I would be happy to join your challenge, although I suspect that my presence in your ranks would reduce the aura of eliteness somewhat.
Similar threads
- Sticky
