Suggestions for improving the HOF

[Denniz]

All the official HOF tables are Fastest Finish (i.e. date) by Difficutly, Condition, Map Size and Speed. You will find the scoring has changed quite a bit in Civ4. To score well you have to finish early. No more milk runs. There are a couple threads around if you want the details.

 

[boogaboo]

Still you have 2050 milking as "Time"
They don't score much now but I have my special strategy interest in them.
Just... maximizing a WHOLE game, rather than going and restarting until the enemy is beaten earlIER..

 

[Denniz]

That is an area that hasn't been explored too much with Civ4. It will be interesting to see what kind of scores you can achieve.

 

[boogaboo]

That is an area that hasn't been explored too much with Civ4. It will be interesting to see what kind of scores you can achieve.

So far, in my {duel, settler} settings, hindi is much better
But I'm still learning

 

[cabert]

So far, in my {duel, settler} settings, hindi is much better
But I'm still learning

try huge deity for a change

 

[oyzar]

Hi Dianthus.

What are the chances of getting

Difficulty: Any
Mapsize: Any

... on this page?

It's possible. We actually used to have that, but took it away so that we only show "official" tables, where "official" tables are those that count towards Quattromasters.

So what is the chance of this happening anytime soon? certainly quatromaster is not the main focus of the hof?

 

[Mesix]

I got three words that would make HOF better:

Fall From Heaven!

If someone put together a HOF version of FFH, that would be mint. I would be willing to help in any way that I am able.

...on 2nd thought, this should wait until I finish my MAS in the summer or else my GPA will likely suffer.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I see you still haven't got links to the discussion threads on the gauntlet list page

If Huayna Capac is overpowered what does that make PAs? I wold have won my first Immortal game today if I had turned them on, but I think it makes things too easy. Lost to a Liz culture win I only needed to take 3 of Monty's cities to get a diplo win, but I had no oil until standard ethanol

 

[Misotu]

I don't really agree with you about PAs. I have played a couple of deity games a while back where I won with a PA, but I found it quite tricky and it's probably not a strategy I'd want to play regularly. There are quite a lot of subtleties to a good PA game and I think it would be a pity if it were excluded, since it provides a peaceful alternative to the early rush option at higher levels.

 

[oyzar]

I don't really agree with you about PAs. I have played a couple of deity games a while back where I won with a PA, but I found it quite tricky and it's probably not a strategy I'd want to play regularly. There are quite a lot of subtleties to a good PA game and I think it would be a pity if it were excluded, since it provides a peaceful alternative to the early rush option at higher levels.

There is no denying it makes the game a whole lot easier though.. It is the single option that makes it most easy to win. I'll gladly play quin / quick / occ huge / diety / pa over rome / small / marathon / pangea for example, it is pretty damn easy... Sure there are loads of subtilities in making a good PA game, but so it is in making 1M score, it doesn't mean it is hard to actually win those kind of games though... It is also hard to be competetive in space race on the higher levels without PA...

 

[Misotu]

Winning is one thing, but getting a really good result is another.

Just out of interest, what victory are you going for with your Quin game? I assume conquest or domination since you're making the rome comparison ... but I can't believe you'll get a better result on a quick/huge map with a PA than you would with Rome on marathon/small/pangaea for either of those victory types - just the research time to get to PAs would seem to make that unlikely. (But then, what do I know? ) How interesting. What is the best result you have had at Deity with a PA? How do those results compare to other results on the tables?

It seems to me that the problem with Inca is that they were the obvious choice for pretty much every victory type. I don't think that's true of PAs. Either that or you're much better at PA games than I am!

 

[Misotu]

The thing is - and I don't want to labour the point, but still - I keep seeing posts from people who object to PA as a way of winning. But, really, I need to understand the basic data involved and why these objections seem to be so strong? Why is a PA less admirable, or noteworthy, than an early rush with Praetorians? Seems to me that an early rush is not that hard either ...

 

[Unconquered Sun]

There's a growing gap between what most players consider fairplay and what constitutes fairplay under HOF rules.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Please elaborate.

I just mentioned PAs because I thik that if Inca is disallowed for EQM for being cheesy then PAs are just as bad if not worse.

I'm glad we are seeing more gauntlets with barb requirements which was another of my suggestions.

I don't think we can do anything about mapfinder because therwise we just reward people witth too much time on their hands who are prepared to regenerate over and over.

Personally all my games have barbs on and I don't use mapfinder.

 

[Misotu]

There's a growing gap between what most players consider fairplay and what constitutes fairplay under HOF rules.

You might be right. (How would I know? ) But ... who are "most people", I mean, how are you measuring that? I suppose you could do a poll to establish it, perhaps on other CivIV fora as well as the HoF forum.

What is the gap you're referring to? PAs or other things?

I'm not trying to defend HoF or attack it. I'm just not very convinced by non-specifics, that's all. As it happens, I don't have a problem with PAs but I'm prepared to be convinced ...

@ParadigmShifter: I'm not sure the Incas were excluded because they are cheesy, particularly. A well-played Inca game is a well-played game, after all. I think they were excluded because they are so over-powered in the early game that they smother variety in the choice of civ for pretty much any victory. It's dull to be forced to choose the Incas in order to get a reasonable result.

Now my deity space victory PA game (I played Liz) was on the HoF table for about a nanosecond before it was knocked out - and soundly - by an early rush game. And guess which Civ did the rushing? Yup. The Incas The PA game was a win, but not good enough to be on the board ...

I agree with you about having some Gauntlets with barbs on, it makes a change and I'm all for that. But I have to say I'm glad I don't have to play with them on all the time. I get fed up with having to deal with them ...

 

[Ozbenno]

There's a growing gap between what most players consider fairplay and what constitutes fairplay under HOF rules.

It is hard to suggest what needs to be improved without more specifics as to what you think the problems are .

I've got no problems with PAs. It still takes good playing and especially good tactics and diplomacy to be in a position to win the game.

I also had a deity PA-driven Space Race game #1 in the tables for a millisecond (a bit longer than Misotu ) before it was knocked out by an early rush game.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

You might be right. (How would I know? ) But ... who are "most people", I mean, how are you measuring that? I suppose you could do a poll to establish it, perhaps on other CivIV fora as well as the HoF forum.

I'm establishing it based on HoF related comments on the most populous CIV board (that's Strategy&Tips by a long shot - excluding the mods board). Polling the HoF board seems a waste of time, you barely have any activity.

What is the gap you're referring to? PAs or other things?

I'm not trying to defend HoF or attack it. I'm just not very convinced by non-specifics, that's all. As it happens, I don't have a problem with PAs but I'm prepared to be convinced ...

I hope I'm not seen as maliciously attacking the HoF either because I respect the efforts of moderators who support it.

It's pointless to draw lines in the sand between PAs, Inca, Rome, chariot UUs, gems, corns, no barbarians, marathon, handpicked opponents, etc. Fact is, a very sizable chunk of civfanatics is not interested in the HoF because of its "cheat-ish" rules.

 

[Ozbenno]

I'm establishing it based on HoF related comments on the most populous CIV board (that's Strategy&Tips by a long shot - excluding the mods board). Polling the HoF board seems a waste of time, you barely have any activity.

The two boards often have the same people making the same comments about the same strategy issues but you are correct that the HoF forum is a smaller forum. You can use strategies from either board. You will find some of the best strategy discussions in the gauntlet threads on the HOF forum if you take the time.

I hope I'm not seen as maliciously attacking the HoF either because I respect the efforts of moderators who support it.

All criticisms are taken on board

It's pointless to draw lines in the sand between PAs, Inca, Rome, chariot UUs, gems, corns, no barbarians, marathon, handpicked opponents, etc. Fact is, a very sizable chunk of civfanatics is not interested in the HoF because of its "cheat-ish" rules.

The main HOF tables do not draw any lines at all. The no-inca rule for EQM was beacause every table on the higher levels were purely Inca. People can (and do) still submit games using Inca and they are accepted and put on the tables.

I'm still not clear what are "cheatish" rules. Games detailed on the strategy board are open to reloads and replays, which are not allowed here, doesn't mean they are "cheatish" rules applying there BTW.

The different forums at CFC are not in competition to each other, you should use them together, taking the good points from all of them, don't view them as opposed to each other as they aren't.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

The two boards often have the same people making the same comments about the same strategy issues but you are correct that the HoF forum is a smaller forum. You can use strategies from either board. You will find some of the best strategy discussions in the gauntlet threads on the HOF forum if you take the time.

It would take less time IF THERE WERE LINKS TO THE GAUNTLET DISCUSSION THREADS ON THE LIST PAGE OF THE GAUNTLET SECTION OF THE HOF SITE.

The main HOF tables do not draw any lines at all. The no-inca rule for EQM was beacause every table on the higher levels were purely Inca. People can (and do) still submit games using Inca and they are accepted and put on the tables.

I'm still not clear what are "cheatish" rules. Games detailed on the strategy board are open to reloads and replays, which are not allowed here, doesn't mean they are "cheatish" rules applying there BTW.

The different forums at CFC are not in competition to each other, you should use them together, taking the good points from all of them, don't view them as opposed to each other as they aren't.

You can do what I do too and play all my games with the HoF mod on just to try and fill up the QM/EQM board, it's a handy way to kep track of what game types you are missing out on. I just play "normal" games i.e. random opponents, barbs, etc., even in gauntlets. I'm not trying for the best score (and playing gauntlets thiis virtually guarantess a lower score since there is extra competition), but the gauntlets are fun and the strategy discussions are good.

 

[Misotu]

It would take less time IF THERE WERE LINKS TO THE GAUNTLET DISCUSSION THREADS ON THE LIST PAGE OF THE GAUNTLET SECTION OF THE HOF SITE.

This is true - I've often caught myself looking for that link and then remembering that I have to do it manually. But it's only a small point - the capitals make you sound quite cross about it, which I'm sure you're not

I saw that you had played the recent Sitting Bull Major with barbs on ... that has to qualify as one of the most masochistic exercises I've seen on the boards recently (with the possible exception of my current Time game Now in its sixth week, or something ridiculous. Why? Why do I do this to myself?)