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. Mesix

    Mesix One of Porg

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,358
    Location:
    Ahch-To
    Different people seem to dislike different things about how the HOF and EQM works. Some people don't like to play the required Time Victory game(s). Others think that Marathon games are cheesy. Others feel that Religious Victories make achieving EQM easier than it should be.

    What annoys me the most is having Vanila games required and campared against BTS games that have a different set of dates for the turns played. I think that playes who use the outadated beta version of the game that we like to call Vanila so that they can get earlier finish dates against an easier AI to achieve the coveted 100% in the HOF tables are just as guilty of cheese as players who play several tiny, religious, or marathon speed games. Lobying to make those high scoring Vanila games somehow more important is even cheesier IMHO.

    My suggestion is to ban Vanila and Warlords games from EQM to make a truely even playing field. BTS has been out for a long time now. It is the complete version of the game and should be the version of choice for EQM games.

    edit: At the very least, there should be a BTS section added to the current Vanlia+Warlonds and All Expansions. The BTS section would eliminate the need to play a Vanila SS game and populate the HOF tables only with games where players used the up to date version of the game...a.k.a. BTS. Ideally the HOF abd EQM tables would default to BTS and requre a user to change the drop down filter to display Vanila and/or Warlords games.
     
  2. Miraculix

    Miraculix Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    154
    I have to say that you are really making strong accusations about my (and other peoples) motivation for participating in this discussion, and I totally resent those accusations. Please don't discourge peoples honest effort to suggest improvements to the EQM competition (upon requst by the administrators), by discrediting their motives like you just did.

    First of all, when the EQM competition was announced, I seem to recall a statement that the rules were subject to change. In particular, I believe a possible future change of rules that would discourage people from using only a few victory conditions or map types was mentioned specifically. Maybe Denniz can confirm this. Second, if you were able to examine my HOF games over the last few months, you would discover that I have been focused on improving my EQM Emperor scores rather than rushing towards an earliest possible Deity EQM title. Last, if you read my posts carefully, you will see that my motivation is not to strip people of their titles but to encourage people to continue improving their score and to avoid the easier tables. I really don't care if the EQM Deity title is redefined, or whether it is refined by introducing badges, sub-dividing into Divisions or providing gold/silver/bronze medals (which you seem to support BTW). Personally I wouldn't mind a rulechange that stripped me of my Emperor EQM title if the rules are improved, but I also understand people who wants to defend their title in this thread. If that is a major concern then by all means, let's go for refining the current titles rather than redefining them.

    I believe most of the discussion uses Deity EQM as an example, rather than being exclusively on the Deity level. Most suggestions to change things in this thread would affect not only the Deity level, but also all other levels. Also, as mentioned above, this discussion is not about stripping the title from people but to reward people that achieve high scores and avoids the easier tables. And are you really suggesting that people can suggest changes that apply only to their current EQM level and below?
     
  3. Ozbenno

    Ozbenno Fly Fly Away Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    11,438
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    First priority for us at the moment is the new MOD. We're letting this bubble along until that is out so we can assess any new views, I'd still say we're likely to leave things as they are but maybe make a few small changes.
     
  4. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    Are you, perhaps, over-reacting to my statements above?

    I must point out that I made no accusation against any particular person in this discussion thread or outside of it.

    I was just expressing an honest opinion/assumption about the possible motivations of some people in this discussion. I stand by the statement I made. Sadly, not everyone is an altruist like you, who puts the group before himself.

    Let's be frank. This thread was started 9 days after the second person was inducted into Deity EQM. The timing is too close to be a coincidence. It seems reasonable to question the motivations of people who want to change EQM now. Why weren't these changes suggested months earlier?

    I also don't believe that any one needs to defend their motivations in this discussion. They are of course welcome to volunteer them as you have.

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  5. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,234
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    I'm losing respect for you STW. This thread was started by the staff because they perceive EQM needs "fixing". If it has anything to do with 9 days after new Deity EQMs, then it's the STAFF that is disappointed in how the path to EQM is not what they intended/hoped for. I gave up on it long ago as it does not fit my play style. I could care less how many are Deity EQM. I'm here supporting the staff: trying to make EQM fun and competitive. I put a lot of effort into the original discussion when it was created. However, right now it doesn't attract me and I'm putting out my ideas that might get me interested in it. Sore losers? I don't get that feeling from anyone posting here, and you're embarrassing yourself with these personal attacks.
     
  6. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    I have not personally attacked anyone. I just want some answers to questions I posed.

    Let me explain why I made the intentionally provocative comment about "Sore Losers":

    Extreme (and in a very real sense, draconian) changes were proposed for EQM in post #2. One of the most extreme changes was restricting Map Size from Tiny-Huge to Standard-Huge or just Standard. The other extreme change was placing a minimum (2) and maximum (6 or 8) on the number of each Victory Condition used for League of Nations and Map Quest. It was also proposed that each speed must be used a minimum of 4 and maximum of 10 times within both the League of Nations and Map Quest (if I understood correctly). Another draconian change was the requirement of the Barbarian setting for all EQM games. The other two changes were not that major, but still rather controversial.

    I was immediately struck by the timing of this post, being just a few days after the second person inducted into the Deity EQM, the ultimate level of EQM achievement. Is there or is there not a connection? The answer seems obvious; there is a connection.

    So, let repeat my question quoted above:

    Let's be frank. This thread was started 9 days after the second person was inducted into Deity EQM. The timing is too close to be a coincidence. It seems reasonable to question the motivations of people who want to change EQM now. Why weren't these changes suggested months earlier?


    I don't recall seeing this question being answered anywhere in this thread. I'm still waiting for an answer from someone who can explain it (well).

    If anyone can, please just answer my question.

    Finally, I used the provocative phrase "Sore Losers", because this question had been alluded to several times in this thread, but no one seemed willing to answer/resolve it. I got frustrated by the lack of frankness in this discussion regarding the relationship of recent Deity EQMs and these EQM rule changes, came to my own conclusion about it and expressed it using provocative terminology. I probably would have gotten less hostile responses had I used less provocative terminology, but my statements were honestly given and I stand by them.

    Sincerely,

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  7. Denniz

    Denniz Where's my breakfast? Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    11,092
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas
    People, we need to tone things down a bit.

    This thread was started due to a half serious comment I made about restricting Religious Victory for EQM. Like myself, I am sure that many people had noticed the recent flood of Small, Deity, Religious victories appearing on the HOF Updates as Uncletrhill, Mesix and now babaBrian have achieved Deity EQM status. The spirit of EQM was no cheesy victories like in QM where a lot of the games on the road to QM where Duel, Conquests victories using the Inca. (I know because I did it myself. ;) ) Everyone is just reacting to that. Ozbenno asked me how serious I was and offered to start this thread. I said go ahead hoping Unclethill and Mesix would agree to the change. Anyway, dumb move on my part. I apologize for trying to use peer pressure like that.

    Okay, that ship has sailed. 3 people have achieved Deity EQM status. They have every right to be proud of it and want to keep it. Deal with it.

    ________________________________

    Methos built a summary page for EQM a while ago to show EQM across difficlties. It's performance was pretty slow so I was working a database solution to store the pre-calculated list. That solution will also allow us to do one thing I have intended to do for a long time. We will be able to put percentages on the status page and add a user dropdown so folks could see the composition of victories. We get those changes ready as soon as the new release of the HOF Mod is finished.

    ________________________________

    There have been several suggestions about additional challenges or awards. I kind of like the idea of an EQM Super Gauntlet with a number of predefined challenging games to complete. (In this case, using a different sense of the word gauntlet. ;) ) I don't know how we would incorporate it into EQM yet. Maybe as an alternate path to EQM status or special addon rank.

    Let's persue that. What should the games be? Anyone know someone who can create some artwork for it?
     
  8. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    I'd promote some of the older more enjoyable gauntlets to uber-gauntlet status, maybe we could have a poll?

    I liked GMajor36 a lot (monarch cultural pangaea vs. warmongers), even if it was marathon :(
     
  9. WastinTime

    WastinTime Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,234
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    I answered your question. No one cares about EQM, so no suggestions to fix it were being made. The staff initiated this discussion as Denniz described.
     
  10. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    In which post did you do this? I must have missed it.

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  11. Sun Tzu Wu

    Sun Tzu Wu Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,920
    Thank you Denniz!

    This is the answer regarding motivation for the EQM changes that I have been looking for in this thread.

    I apologize for any provocative comments I've made. I'm now convinced that the proposed EQM changes were a genuine attempt to improve EQM as opposed to way of disenfranchising recent HOF Deity EQM winners and others who are well on their way to Deity EQM. I especially liked the following comment by Denniz:

    I agree 1000%.

    Sincerely,

    Sun Tzu Wu
     
  12. Mesix

    Mesix One of Porg

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,358
    Location:
    Ahch-To
    While it is true that the Religious VC was the method of choice for a quick path to Deity EQM, banning such a method would have changed little. We chose to spam Religious Victories because G-Minor 70 was running when we started our Deity push and it was a good fit. We simply continued to use what worked. If Religious VC had been deemed cheesy and banned, we would have just found another way to achieve Deity EQM.

    Unclethrill and I made a decision that we would achieve Deity EQM in as short of a time as possible. Prior to that, we had both achieved Monarch level, and were chipping away at a few higher level games each update. As engineers, it is our job to find the best solution to a problem. If religious VC were banned, we would have chosen a different method with the same results. Maybe it would have been PA games, Marathon/Tiny/Conquest games, or UN Victories. Whatever method we had used to complete the majority of the 33 civs for the League of Nations would have stood out just as our Religious VC games did. Maybe we would be talking about a different cheesy victory if that were the case.

    The bottom line is that we decided that we would complete Deity EQM in a limited amount of time. We had a defined set of rules to follow and about a month to play the required games before we both had classes scheduled that would take up our free time. Whatever rules are defined, we would follow the path of least resistance. The concept was quantity before quality. We decided to submit the required games at any score possible in the short run with plans to follow up with higher scoring quality games later on. In a few weeks when we are again between classes, expect to see several more Deity level submissions from both of us.

    ...and Happy 4th of July!!!
     
  13. Robert_Marshall

    Robert_Marshall Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    64
    As someone who is not likely to achieve EQM at ANY level, it definitely seemed like a bit of sour grapes to me. That doesn't mean that is what it was, but it definitely had that smell. I have played since CIV first came out, but have never put any effort into the tables. I have recently taken an interest in the tables. I am now starting to pay attention to what slots I need to fill (A LOT) and trying to improve the slots I have. If I EVER fill my slots I will not be in the top 10 at any level be it Settler or Deity. I would think that being near the top of the table in Deity would BE the reward. As I said this opinion comes from somebody that my never fill in all my slots, but if I do it is pretty clear that someone with a higher score and especially a significantly higher score and ranking is superior to me. I definitely like the way it is set up now and how it can change dynamically as somebody bests the score of previous games.

    As a minor player in the grand scheme of the tables, that is the only change I would like to see.

    Makes sense to me. I learned A LOT from the discussion during G-Minor 70 and was able to get my first Religious win (never tried them before the gauntlet) and my first Deity win. I learned a lot from the eventual top finishers that I think are going to improve all my games, not just the Religious ones. I have played A LOT or religous games since that gauntlet. It was a new way for me to play and I saw an opportunity to actually SHOW UP on some of the tables. :)

    The suggestion to unban non-Ancient starts sounds interesting to me, but I don't know enough about the mechanics of the game to comment on the implications of that.

    I say congratulations to the people who got there first and eventually kudos to the ones that beat their scores. Once there are more scores I certianly will be more impressed the higher rather than first.
     
  14. babaBrian

    babaBrian Rock Chalk!

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    145
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Congratulations on your solid Religious dates. You left me in the dust with those :)
     
  15. AutomatedTeller

    AutomatedTeller Frequent poster

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,540
    Location:
    Medford, MA
    Well, if you can get the QM, you can get the EQM at some level - I mean, if you get your QM with AA era starts, all you need is 5 settler games with different ERA starts and you have your settler EQM. Really not hard.

    For what it's worth, I think that getting a Deity EQM is an accomplishment - even with "cheesy religious victories", you still have to win 30 deity games on a variety of maps with a variety of starts and civilizations. It's an achievement.

    To me, a better answer than artificial restrictions is to change the QScore and thus the ranking - I dunno how hard it is to do it, but at least for QM, QScores are adjusted for barbs and mapsizes. Why not add in an adjustment for speed and map type? Ie, conquest for continents is worth more than conquest for big and small which is worth more than conquest for pangea.

    I mean, then the players who take the "less cheesy" way will end up with higher scores than the "cheesy" ones.
     
  16. cabert

    cabert Big mouth

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,710
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    playing conquest on continents is not "non cheesy".
    It's masochistic.
     
  17. AutomatedTeller

    AutomatedTeller Frequent poster

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,540
    Location:
    Medford, MA
    btw - bear in mind that I will never, ever, ever get a Deity EQM. Ever.

    I've tried several times to win a stupid immortal tiny conquest game on immortal with rome and my praets keep dying on the rafts of archers the AI makes.

    So, take my opinion for what it's worth ;)
     
  18. cabert

    cabert Big mouth

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,710
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    :confused:
    anyone can do a tiny deity conquest with rome!
    don't forget the power of the chop...
     
  19. AutomatedTeller

    AutomatedTeller Frequent poster

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,540
    Location:
    Medford, MA
    well, I keep screwing it up - sending in my praets piecemeal ;) oh - and once letting my great general medic chariot get out ahead... where it got whacked by an axe...

    I'll figure it out ;)
     
  20. shyuhe

    shyuhe Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    Unless you get the bugged continents map that is a pangaea. It happens very rarely. This may have only been an issue in warlords too.
     

Share This Page