1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

What to do with EQM?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Hall of Fame Discussion' started by Ozbenno, Jun 19, 2009.

  1. babaBrian

    babaBrian Rock Chalk!

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    145
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Regressing to earlier in the thread, it sounds like there's not much interest in additional pieces of flare to go on the EQM uniform, and that's okay. I (others did, too) threw my best idea that readily came to mind in case it had merit. No worries if it doesn't gain traction.

    However, one relatively harmless suggestion that could come out of it would be to add an ad-hoc like filter to the EQM personal progress page. So if you were curious and thought to yourself "I wonder if I were only counting Normal speed games, how many entries I'd have filled up" you select from a dropdown, click a button and presto.

    I have no strong need for this, but if it is trivial to implement along with whatever changes may be implemented, it couldn't do any harm.

    Just curious, would anybody else find this useful or at least mildly interesting? If not, I'm happy to abandon this idea, too :)
     
  2. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,238
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Since score was originally mentioned in this thread, it has evolved (in my head anyway). I'd like to re-state how Score could work. I believe I've worked it out so no one can feel disenfranchised. No one is going to suddenly lose an event that they have completed. No one's Tiny or Religious games are going to get banned. In fact, my plan will allow unbanning. For me, the main reason to ignore EQM is that many of my HoF games (non-ancient, and yes-Inca) are banned. This makes HoF efforts incompatible with EQM. Even RockofAges is a bad fit for EQM.

    So, we leave EQM alone, don't ban or take away anything, just ADD one thing: A new event. To complete the final event, you will need to achieve a certain score average. To keep it simple, it will be an average of the best score of each pair. 50 is being tossed around as a possible goal.

    So now, people can still acheive EQM the old way. We can even continue to give them the title "Monarch EQM" for example. However, they will still be "1 event away" from top honors. Call it what you want: "Monarch EQM Platinum", "Competitive Monarch EQM", or it could be somewhat like the "badges" idea. Just give them a badge and put them in the top grouping.

    (Static was mentioned as a "deal breaker". If you really want static, fine, you can give the "badge" for completing the Score event once the average score meets the minimum and then never take it away. The player can be listed in the top group even if his score average has dropped below the minimum. I don't see the big deal leaving it dynamic and have people drop back down to "regular EQM".

    UN-BAN
    I'd really like to see non-ancient games un-banned, along with Inca. (leaving only duel banned.)
    Yea, I'm an Inca hater, but I've always lobbied to keep them in EQM. Many of the best HoF games are Inca and they should be included.
    If you think Future Space Race is easier/cheesier than Tiny Religous, think again.
    Ancient/Time is just Ancient Conquest-and then press enter (a lot). Future/Time is actually more challenging and fun! Forcing Ancient/Time games is driving players away from EQM. Just as banning Inca does.

    The side effects of the new Score event (unbannings) should bring more players to EQM (even if they want to ignore the new event and achieve the old milestone) It also sets a goal that legitimizes the whole competition.

    I welcome comments as I have just today worked this out in my head. How did it come out? Was I clear?
     
  3. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,238
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    I see your concern, but this is not true. Let me take a Zero off your example so it's a bit more realistic. If there are 10 games at whatever table entry of people trying to achieve EQM, you're forgetting about the other 20-50 games submitted by other players just goofing around. I submitted a 2050 AD domination game once.

    The point is. All 10 people (or all 100 people in your example) can surpass the minimum score. No one will be excluded.
     
  4. cabert

    cabert Big mouth

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,710
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    Hey, if we un-ban non ancient start, I could become a deity EQM in just a few weeks :)
    I mean I already have a good deal of those... (mostly conquest, a few dominations).
    However I'm currently playing a large immortal normal speed time game from an ancient start, and I'm not totally convinced it's really harder than a late game start.
    I mean, I selected only warmongers, checked agressive AI, used a archipelago map.
    I can tech peacefully while they prepare for war with archers, then crush them with tanks.
    It's not just an idea, it's what I'm doing.
    In the late stage, they finally discovered some techs, and I wasn't really agressive (I still own 6 capitals, because they were filled with wonders) and destroyed no civ, so I'm having a bad time in the end of the game.
    I'm still milllllllles away ahead, and I could probably sue for peace and press enter 90 times and win. I had a crash earlier, and I'm not sure it will be accepted, so I try to avoid further crashes to limit the risk, and thus I play at most 50 turns in a row. It's tedious.
    I played a immortal huge time victory from a future start and I had to stop at least 3 space ships that were launched. And I was agressive in this game!
    So seen from the tension, future start was harder. But it was also very quick, and thus I could try it more than once if needed. There also wasn't a big risk of winning by culture ;). I could have triggered domination though, if I hadn't paid attention.

    All in all I'd say future is still easier because it takes so very much less time, and thus requires less focus, and you can get away with a sloppy play in some situations. But that is only for time!
    Conquest is a whole lot easier on large maps if you start in the future. You can totally focus on production, leaving commerce in the dust. Better with an organized leader, but it's not necessary.

    Domination is somehow hard to get with a future start. you need to start conquering fast and to have some commerce to pay for your cities. But the conquest part is a piece of cake, and I'm not sure I can make a domination on deity starting earlier.

    for culture and religious, it's quite clear you want to start ancient
    diplo on a late start may be a bit easy too...

    So I can't really say it's clear we should unban future starts.
    But having played a big part of my games with non ancient starts in the last 6 months, I can say there is no advantage in a classical or medieval start. Even renaissance isn't a big help.
    Un-banning those 3 categories just seems right. the rest, well, is arguable.
    I'd say unbanning non acient starts for time victories would be fair, and could result in more entries on those not so desirable tables.

    About incas, I can't see any way to offer a fair score to non inca games in some categories. Thus, with the "score event" you will need to play inca games. A lot.
    Leave them where they are. Yes there are 2 different categories of tables 1 with the incas, and 1 without, and I think it's just fair.

    About the score event, I can see some merit to it.
    There may be an easier way to achieve it, although it's a bit harder for the players :
    what if only the games scoring over 50 were eligible for EQM? Maybe with an exception for gaunlets, and even then I'm not sure.

    Yes some people that are EQM something now would lose the status, but I'm sure they could get it back in a few weeks.

    edit : there is a loophole : some maps aren't very "competitive".
    I mean it's hard to get a high score with ice age or boreal. At least I find it difficult.
     
  5. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,238
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    This was the original "score idea" that popped out. However, we don't want to exclude games with low scores and we don't want to take away completed events. Score changes all the time, so this doesn't work. The new "Score Event" solves all that.

    Regarding your analysis of Un-banning. As you noted, some games may be easier on non-ancient, but are any of them any easier than Tiny/Religious? No. So, it's best to just allow almost everything (so more people will participate). Then the Score Event gives players something specific to aim for to "qualify". The old score in general is used to rank players within the level they have achieved. Score as it is now does not give anyone much incentive to play quality games. The new Score Event should solve that.
     
  6. Miraculix

    Miraculix Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    154
    Are you suggesting that an average score of 150 for Deity EQM is virtually impossible? That is a very bold statement considering the fact that Misotu has already earned 138.3 points on Deity level with a lot of empty slots to fill.

    Regarding the rest of your arguments, I would agree if we were discussing the entry (Settler) level of EQM. I don't mind if anybody can play all the required games for Settler EQM in one hour and earning an average score of 0.1. But we are discussing how to define the top level of an elite competition, and I don't belive that this level needs to be achievable for a huge amount of players. Your arguments seems to be similar to claiming that an Olympic medal should be achievable to everybody, even if they can't afford to exercise more than half an hour a week. But people don't loose interests in sports just because they can't win an olympic medal. Similarly, people who would loose interest in the EQM competition just because they can't reach the very top level, should probably be doing something else in the first place. I also believe that people that devote most of their time to EQM deserves a better EQM title than the occasional player if that results in more and better games played. I don't care if the top level of EQM is named Deity EQM, or Deity EQM class I, or something else as long as it is harder to achieve than today. And I really wouldn't mind if the top level of EQM is only reached by a handful of players during the lifecycle of Civ IV.
     
  7. Miraculix

    Miraculix Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    154
    You don't seem to get my point:
    1) For some tables the best date converges over time so that you will never see the decline in scores you are talking about. One extreme example is the 3835 BC limit for conquest games This limit has already been reached for all dual maps and for Tiny maps on lower levels. For Tiny Conquest games ,the best date seems to be converging for all difficulty levels. This means that if you submit a Tiny Conquest game for 100 points today, the chances are high that the score will remain above 90 points forever. So if we agree that Tiny Conquest is cheesy in the first place, your argument don't apply.
    2) For people who don't care about score, your argument is irrelevant, because if they manage to enter a cheesy table, they would stay there forever and be happy with that.

    One of the reason for creating the EQM was the belief that a great number of players were just interested in the QM title and not in improving their scores. As soon as they had had become QM regardless of their score, they would simply loose interest in the competition. If that is true people would also loose interest in the EQM if the Deity level can be achieved with an arbitrary low score. This is the reason why I care.

    To me it seems like some tables are significantly easier than others. The fact that some tables (e.g Deity/Tiny/Marathon/Conquest and Deity/TinyQuick/Religious) are crowded is not a problem but provides strong evidence that these tables are considered easy. You can certainly argue that this is rather due to interest in certain victory conditions and I can never prove that you are wrong, but I really find the huge interest in the Religious victory condition a little suspicious.:)

    This is a differerent form of diversity. You are talking about diversity in sub-events. I was talking about the fact that you can get your EQM status with most of your games being e.g. Tiny Conquest.

    That argument works both ways. Less crowded tables on huge maps seems to be populated by a few elite players. If you are not an elite player, it is probably easier to get 90+ points on e.g. Tiny/Conquest than 20 points on Huge/Conquest. Also, I really believe that getting the #1 spot on Huge/Conquest should be rewarded more than getting the #1 spot on Tiny/Conquest.

    Well, I don't agree. Just sticking to one victory condition should come with a penalty, especially since certain victory conditions seems to be easier than others. Also, why would you object to making the top level more difficult to achieve?

    That player would naturally move from Division 1 to Division 2, which is not uncommon in many forms of competition :)
     
  8. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    Since you love this idea, I suppose nothing anyone can say would dissuade you from it. Un-banning Inca; unthinkable!; a score penalty?: Come back down to earth with the rest us.

    Score in EQM already matters! It's what differentiates who is just barely EQM at a particular level and who truly excels in a range of 0-200.

    You want to exclude everyone with a subcategory average of 50, so anyone who doesn't have 50+ for one game or 100+ for two games in all 72 subcategories will not be allowed to use the title of EQM, although they have won all the requisite games. Mathematically, this could mean that 70-80% of EQM holders could lose their EQM status, not necessarily the 50% that one might expect. It does knock out all three current Deity EQMs; is this the intent of this ill-conceived idea?

    It gets worse, I'll quote Five Aces as he worded it quite well:

    The vast majority of EQM games will necessarily use inferior settings to meet certain EQM requirements regarding Civ being played, map type among other settings of lesser importance with regard to potential Score. However, such a typical EQM game played with suboptimal settings will be compared against numerous games with optimal settings by Players whose goal is being #1 in a subcategory or group of subcategories. It may be difficult for a competent Player to achieve a Score of 50+ versus Players that are using optimal settings. The effect of of using non-optimal settings may knock out 70-80% rather than the expected 50% with the qualifying Score set at 50.

    It might be expected that these two independent effects would each knock out 50% of EQM holders, leaving just 25%. However, if each effect instead knocks out 70%, we would be left with just (1-.70) * (1 -.70) = .09 = 9%. If each effect instead knocks out 80%, we would be left with just (1-.80) * (1 -.80) = .04 = 4%. In reality, I'd don't think things are this bad yet, but the lesser gifted Players are still working on EQM and when they achieve EQM (under the current rules), the qualifying Score could possibly knock out 91-96% of them. I wonder whether there are enough cheesy subcategories to counter-act this effect? Maybe, but a qualifying Score is still a bad idea, at least the way it was originally proposed.

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  9. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    What additional games does one need to play and score for this final event?

    As an additional event held after a Player becomes EQM under the current EQM rules, I have no strong objections to it. However, it does make EQM seem like the Girl/Boy Scouts and once you are an EQM member, you can get merit badges for a particular score in an additional event.

    How can you possibly imply (in other threads) that the Quechua is so over-powering it upsets the balance of the Game and also say that some of the best Games in the HOF used Inca. Inca HOF games are so good, because the Incan Quechua dominates all Civs until they get Copper connected and to a lesser extent until they get Horse connected. They are great HOF games, because the Incan Quechua allows a Quechua rush far earlier than any normal early rush that always requires a Technology and almost always requires a Resource, whereas the Quechua requires neither and can always be built, starting at turn 0! There is absolutely no way Incan games should be allowed in EQM. I'd prefer that Incan games be totally banned from the HOF, but I'd settle for them being filtered out.

    I have no issue with non-Ancient starts. I don't see them as having any advantage over an Ancient start. An Ancient start will potentially always beat a non-Ancient start. So, if someone wants to use non-Ancient for EQM (beyond just Rock of Ages), I'll give my blessings. The only advantage of non-Ancient starts is fewer turns to play for a Time game. An Ancient start Time game should always be better than a non-Ancient start Time game. They are worthless for any other Victory Condition, but could be fun to unlock later era unique units near the beginning of the non-Ancient start game.

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  10. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    Misotu needs only 3 games (6 games for full slots) in 2 events to complete Deity EQM. She has 13 games or 14 games (including a 2nd G-minor) more games to complete slots that currently have a single game. She could easily be our 4th Deity EQM by the next update.

    A Score of 138.3 with 19-20 Games still missing is awesome!

    EQM is a means of rewarding competent Players. It is more like a qualifier for going to the Olypics. It is not at all a competition where there is a single Winner, unless one is looking for the best Deity EQM Score.

    There are more than a handful of competent Deity Players, so I would be against new EQM rules that effectively restrict Deity EQM to a handful of players or so.

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  11. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,238
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    The other thread has turned it's focus to marathon speed...the real problem. Laying off the Inca (for now.)
     
  12. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,238
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    None! Isn't that great. Once all the other events are complete, a player could instantaneously complete the Score event if the avg score is high enough. Otherwise, the player can work to improve his lower scores and eventually achieve the top level of EQM. It's exactly what we hope/expect the QM players do after getting QM. However, as we know, many abandon QM and do not work on improving their score. This gives them a reason to continue EQM...by making it clear that they are "1 event away" from the finish line.

    STW, you had a good list of issues with the original score idea. Have they all been addressed with the new Score Event?
     
  13. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    It is only feasible to Win a game in 11 turns with Quechuas and Inca is banned, thus this point has no validity.

    Tiny Conquest is not at all cheesy. There are 31 non-Incan entries in Deity Tiny Conquest according to this Ad-Hoc Query:

    http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/adhoc_query.php?show=summ&condition[]=1&difficulty[]=9&mapSize[]=2&civ=-1&maptype=-1&era=-1&exp=0&pubID=86&exclinca=on&submit=Go

    I received an EQM score of 87.7 for the fourth non-Incan position in this table. It wasn't a particularly difficult game, but I'm confident that I fairly earned those 87.7 points. When someone beats this game in the future, I expect that my EQM Score will drop a few points as it should.

    If someone's 100 point EQM game is beaten, one would expect it to drop. Depending on how badly beaten, it could drop just a few points or ten or more. If it is continually beaten, it will eventually go below 90 and keep going down as better games are submitted. There's no logical reason for such a game to be stuck at 90 EQM points when better games are submitted.

    They are deluding themselves if they really think that score doesn't matter. Very few players will be overly impressed by a Deity EQM Score of say less than 50 on its scale of 0-200. I'm not bothered by an EQM Score of anywhere between 0-50. Why are you? If you are, just keep playing EQM until your EQM Score is high enough for your ego. It all comes down to that, doesn't it? Why drag everyone else down based on your own high expectations? I'm happy you have high expectations for EQM, but please don't foist them onto everyone else.

    Nonsense, the current Deity EQM holders have scores of 61.9, 52.6 and 52.1. These scores would be even higher if slots with a single game were not averaged with a 0 score game. These three players have many dozens of single game slots and their Scores would be much higher if they filled them all up. I don't know whether these three players plan to improve their Score. I image they might, especially after Misotu joins them with a Score somewhat close to 150.

    Who doesn't like a quick game, at least occasionally. A Religious Game can be very quick when one is not concerned about getting an early Win date. I see no problem with that.

    There's already enough Diversity in EQM already as I already explained. At least it was enough when the EQM rules were agreed upon many months ago. It seems to me that there are a few sore losers who are upset about being beat to Deity EQM by some Players they perhaps didn't perceive as being capable of claiming Deity EQM before themselves. Now, the sore losers want to change the EQM rules that they agreed to months ago. Right or wrong, that's how this discussion looks to me.

    Don't forget Speeds. There's a ripe juicy, Deity Tiny Conquest Quick slot waiting to be grabbed!

    I don't want Deity EQM to become more difficult, because my current estimate for completion is somewhere between 3 and 6 years. Maybe, I'm taking Score too seriously!

    EQM is "proof" (evidence) that a Player is competent at a particular difficulty level. Some are more competent than others as indicated by their Score.

    I'm interested in only a few of the eight Victory Conditions (excluding Score). Why force players to play games they don't especially like to play.

    There should be no penalty for playing mostly one Victory Condition as long as current EQM rules are satisfied.

    Well, you can give merit badges and take them away for all I care. I'll be happy with EQM at a particular difficulty level and my EQM Score on that level.

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  14. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    WastinTime, I find your idea acceptable now, since it doesn't limit anything under the current rules. However, no unbanning please. We just need to agree on the Score thresholds that will be rewarded. Perhaps, Bronze for 50-99.9, Silver for 100-149.9, Gold for 150-199.9 and Platinum for a perfect 200.

    Defined in this way, the EQM would truly be a never ending competition, even at the Platinum level ... Some people will play games just to take down the current holder of Deity EQM Platinum, assuming anyone is ever able to achieve it (for a presumably short time).

    I still view this idea as a merit badge system, but it seems that it would actually improve the competence of Play and I'm always for that.

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  15. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,238
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Thanks for your support STW.

    You don't seem to mind people playing Tiny/religious Tiny/conquest, etc. Why are you against un-banning non-ancient starts? It fits sooo much better with RoA if we un-ban those.
     
  16. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    You're welcome!

    I'm against lifting the ban on Inca. I have no issue with non-Ancient starts as you can see in the final paragraph of post #109:

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8226966&postcount=109

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  17. unclethrill

    unclethrill Why am I up right now?

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,237
    Location:
    Germany
    This discussion seems to center on the fact that 3 people have found a way to achieve Deity EQM within the rules that were set forth. Everyone seems to think that it is just ridiculously easy to get there. If it is so easy then why are there only 3 people and why has it taken a couple years for anyone to break into it.

    How about I make a bold suggestion? Everyone that has attained Deity EQM has a vote on how to change the system. That should be a big problem, right? It is sooo easy to do under the current rules! How about it? Go ahead and knock out 50 or 60 Deity games and then you have a vote on how to strip the title from yourself and everyone else.
     
  18. berserks01

    berserks01 Obviously Very Confused

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,727
    Location:
    MA
    Doh!!! Didn't mean for my rambling to be used against me like that :sad:

    Good one, WT.

    Yup, that's how I read it having played with you before.

    Finally a suggestion that is worth looking into ... ;)
     
  19. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    I agree 100%. Let me just quote something I wrote in a long, recent post (that got buried as a result) that's relevant to the above ...

    I should have said "about two years ago" instead of "months ago", but I wasn't sure when the EQM rules were set in Stone.

    I guess the EQM rules were set in paper with a lead pencil and a huge eraser! I should have known better.

    I think the current EQM rules are just fine as they are. If some Players want to add some additional merit badges to the EQM system, that's OK with me as along as the current EQM system also remains intact exactly as it was agreed upon some two years ago. That way people that have acheived EQM or are still working on it won't be upset by changes in the EQM rules, causing vast hours of Civ4 playing to be in vain (wasted).

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  20. babaBrian

    babaBrian Rock Chalk!

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    145
    Location:
    Kansas City
    There's been some really good discussions here the last few days. I think we would all agree that we are dealing with pros and cons, not rights and wrongs. So there are definitely valid reasons for both changing and not changing. However, Ozbenno posted earlier that the staff is inclined to leave EQM be, but was open to something new.

    Ozbenno, do you know if the "is inclinded to" has settled to "has decided to"?

    I don't want to label any topics as moot because all the opinions have been helpful, informative, and entertaining even. However, if we are :deadhorse:, then perhaps if we got a definitive "ruling" then we can re-direct our clubs at a real live cavalry unit, i.e. the "something new" part.


    One interesting suggestion that recently came up was, instead of removing people from EQM for low scores, to categorize the EQM scores - I believe it was something like 0-50 bronze, 50-100 silver, 100-175 gold, 175-200 platinum.

    To me this seems like a valid suggestion for an addition, and doesn't really change any of the rules or scoring of the original EQM. I think it is a variation on the merit badges, essentially further quantifying / categorizing a set of EQM players.

    I'm not discouraging anybody from giving their opinions on why EQM should change; however, perhaps for my own benefit, I would like to recap the proposals for additions so far, as that may be what we have left to discuss if the staff sticks a fork in the current EQM rules and calls it done:

    1. Nothing (no additions)
    2. Distinguishing certain ranges of EQM scores (e.g. bronze, silver, etc.)
    3. Add Challenger events (collections of gauntlet-like games)
    4. Add merit badges (map sizes, speeds, VCs, Always war, ... and could include challenger events)
    5. Make an entirely new UQM (ultra QM) that has bars raised from EQM
    6. Other previous suggestions I'm forgetting???
    7. Other new suggestions???

    There doesn't have to be a single winner here. Some could co-exist.
     

Share This Page