Why don't you use this site.

[TractorBoy]

In an effort to understand why so very few players frequent this site, I have a questionnaire!

ELITE PLAYERS

1 - Is vexing so good that he pisses you all off?

2 - You know that you can match vexing, but you can't be bothered to reroll as often as he is prepared to?

3 - You think there is something not quite right about the way this site is run?

I will not mention all the players that range from very good down to good, because that would include most of you!

AVERAGE PLAYERS

1 - Why won't you have a go?

Please could someone give an honest answer, if you do, then the site organisers will have some idea which direction to pursue!

Good gaming to all of you.

 

[Tabarnak]

There are several things that keep away people from playing HoF games.

First of all, vexing has nothing related to this. Some ferocious players are playing on this site and can beat vexing more often than you think(Ribannah, tommynt, etc) and aren't playing HoF games. I'm also thinking about the 2 brothers from vanilla who haven't lost often either. But why?

Personnally i think that the actual rules are the biggest problem. They are kind of unclear for many of us, including me. Several cheats cannot be found and serious players are awared of that.

Some(most?) players are waiting of a serious Mod created by the HoF team. Why it doesn't happen? I don't know. But since that we all know that a 3rd and final expansion will arrive, i'm guessing that this Mod will be seriously counsiderated for once. This Mod should include fixed deals and reduce AI stupidity at accepting every favorable deal you make.

There is also a big problem right now with GnK. Petra and desert starts are litterally OP compared to anything else, reducing a lot of competitive strategies, making the game too ''linear''. I hope that the next expansion will get rid of this particular thing.

 

[Neuro]

There are several things that keep away people from playing HoF games.

First of all, vexing has nothing related to this. Some ferocious players are playing on this site and can beat vexing more often than you think(Ribannah, tommynt, etc) and aren't playing HoF games. I'm also thinking about the 2 brothers from vanilla who haven't lost often either. But why?

Personnally i think that the actual rules are the biggest problem. They are kind of unclear for many of us, including me. Several cheats cannot be found and serious players are awared of that.

Some(most?) players are waiting of a serious Mod created by the HoF team. Why it doesn't happen? I don't know. But since that we all know that a 3rd and final expansion will arrive, i'm guessing that this Mod will be seriously counsiderated for once. This Mod should include fixed deals and reduce AI stupidity at accepting every favorable deal you make.

There is also a big problem right now with GnK. Petra and desert starts are litterally OP compared to anything else, reducing a lot of competitive strategies, making the game too ''linear''. I hope that the next expansion will get rid of this particular thing.

I actually thought about the Petra thing. I believe that if Petra simply raised the default up to 1-1-1, instead of just adding 1-1-1, it would make it more balanced. For example, hills would be 1food 2hammer 1gold, even if on a river. You could add Flood Plains back into the effect, raising them to 2f 1h 1g. Petra would still be a good Wonder, but not as dominating as it is now.

 

[TractorBoy]

First of all, vexing has nothing related to this. Some ferocious players are playing on this site and can beat vexing more often than you think(Ribannah, tommynt, etc) and aren't playing HoF games. I'm also thinking about the 2 brothers from vanilla who haven't lost often either. But why?

Looking at the VANILLA gauntlet results, I can see that you are an exception to what I was highlighting. You pick and choose which games you want to compete in, and you don't seem phased about often being the runner up.
I can also see that some other exceptional players had a little dabble on the VANILLA HOF never to be seen again. The only guy who seriously competed on the VVV was Khrax.

Personnally i think that the actual rules are the biggest problem. They are kind of unclear for many of us, including me. Several cheats cannot be found and serious players are awared of that.

I have seen some of the arguments about the HOF rules, if only some of the top guys could put their grievances to one side and compete, then I am sure this site would be a healthier and more respected place!

Some(most?) players are waiting of a serious Mod created by the HoF team. Why it doesn't happen? I don't know. But since that we all know that a 3rd and final expansion will arrive, i'm guessing that this Mod will be seriously counsiderated for once. This Mod should include fixed deals and reduce AI stupidity at accepting every favorable deal you make.

Interesting!

There is also a big problem right now with GnK. Petra and desert starts are litterally OP compared to anything else, reducing a lot of competitive strategies, making the game too ''linear''. I hope that the next expansion will get rid of this particular thing.

I don't play G&K but even I can see what a problem this is! Most of the victories achieved on the VVV with the use of Petra will stand the test of time!

I assumed that the reason why a CivV addict like yourself didn't get more involved with the HOF is because you are more of a Multiplayer gamer?

 

[TractorBoy]

As a civ fanatic with average intelligence and a very competitive nature, this is how I see the HOF.

1 - Some of the rulings are not exactly perfect, but I do like the fact that we can't cheat or abuse them, and to that end we are all on a level playing field.

2 - I don't have a cat in hells chance of ever picking up a conventional medal on anything other than domination duel, and the only reason they are possible is because the luck factor is extremely high.

3 - I would like to be able to compete on the VVV with other guys of a similar standard to myself, unfortunately the scoring system denotes that only the top three get rewarded and as a consequence there is a huge gulf from the very top and a few places further down.

4 - If an alteration was made to the scoring system whereby more players are rewarded for their efforts then there would be no reason for people like me to resort to playing score games. In my case it became a very unhealthy and time consuming obsession!

A quick summary of what I am trying to say - I like to see competition at the top end and follow the goings on with interest. I am pleased to see that thus far it's really competitive on the G&K. I would like to be able to compete further down the ladder, but I am fully aware that any conventional medal I ever pick up is there for the taking whenever the big guns choose!

If this MOD that Tabarnak mentioned is used by the HOF and we get an influx of extremely good players joining then the Good to average level players will end up with not even a bronze medal.

 

[Salomo]

There are several things that keep away people from playing HoF games.

First of all, vexing has nothing related to this. Some ferocious players are playing on this site and can beat vexing more often than you think(Ribannah, tommynt, etc) and aren't playing HoF games. I'm also thinking about the 2 brothers from vanilla who haven't lost often either. But why?

Personnally i think that the actual rules are the biggest problem. They are kind of unclear for many of us, including me. Several cheats cannot be found and serious players are awared of that.

Some(most?) players are waiting of a serious Mod created by the HoF team. Why it doesn't happen? I don't know. But since that we all know that a 3rd and final expansion will arrive, i'm guessing that this Mod will be seriously counsiderated for once. This Mod should include fixed deals and reduce AI stupidity at accepting every favorable deal you make.

There is also a big problem right now with GnK. Petra and desert starts are litterally OP compared to anything else, reducing a lot of competitive strategies, making the game too ''linear''. I hope that the next expansion will get rid of this particular thing.

I completely agree with this assessment.

TractorBoy's first part adressed to "Elite Players" is not adressed to me, but I do like to joke about vexing being unbeatable and winning everything. Still, the truth is that I enjoy being able to learn from him and having that underdog feeling of competing against a very strong oponent. And the truth also is that he does not win everything - and definetly not by default and without trying.

TractorBoy and anyone else, if you want to know why some very good players do not play HoF, check the Banned Exploits Q&A thread. You willl find some of them discussing/asking about HOF rules that simply make no reasonable sense.

 

[Salomo]

As a civ fanatic with average intelligence and a very competitive nature, this is how I see the HOF.

1 - Some of the rulings are not exactly perfect, but I do like the fact that we can't cheat or abuse them, and to that end we are all on a level playing field.

On cheating: I haven't tested this, but do you seriously believe they can tell whether you replayed part of the game? If they can tell, what do you think is the purpose of the rule asking for a 30 minute minimum duration of the initial session?

On Abusing: Take a look at the banned exploits. Tell me what your interpretation is of what is allowed and what is not and then go read the rest of the Banned Exploits Q&A thread. "Systematically Abusing" leaves a lot of room for people to abuse exploits just a little.
Considering the amount of leeway the judges have in deciding whether it is systematic or not, the judges would actually need to spend a lot more time looking through the various submissions to make a decision than they propbably have available to do so.

Time to take a guess: What do you think how many of the top domination victory submissions use tactics that include making and breaking deals, despite "systematic abuse" of that being disallowed?

Once I figured this out, I stopped playing domination games - though probably there are similar problems with other victory conditions as well.

2 - I don't have a cat in hells chance of ever picking up a conventional medal on anything other than domination duel, and the only reason they are possible is because the luck factor is extremely high.

Then you should study the games of those that make the medals.

A quick summary of what I am trying to say - I like to see competition at the top end and follow the goings on with interest. I am pleased to see that thus far it's really competitive on the G&K. I would like to be able to compete further down the ladder, but I am fully aware that any conventional medal I ever pick up is there for the taking whenever the big guns choose!

If this MOD that Tabarnak mentioned is used by the HOF and we get an influx of extremely good players joining then the Good to average level players will end up with not even a bronze medal.

Who needs a medal? Can't you have fun competing with the likes of me and other casual players that don't have a calculator implanted in their brain or next to them when playing?

If you can't, it's time for you to get a calculator and study how the top guns play... But beware, it can take a lot of fun from the game and the HoF

 

[Moriarte]

On cheating: I haven't tested this, but do you seriously believe they can tell whether you replayed part of the game?

I have. They can.

As of the rest, i mostly agree. There are so many abuse opportunities within hof rules that existence of these rules become unnecessary. Then again, HoF games are more civilised than gotm and they do feel like a good achievement to me. (especially deity)

 

[Peets]

With the current exploit rules:

Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and pillaging or allowing Barbarians or other civs to pillage the resource or trade route to break the deal.
Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)
Repeatedly selling Gold per Turn (GPT) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)
Repeatedly selling Cities and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war so you can take them back. (i.e. low risk, low cost war just retrieve the cities for resale to another civ.)

You always need to do this if you want to beat the best time.
I have seen that in GOTM.

At this moment I find that there is a lot of activity. There are over 100 games submitted every half month. Most people are playing the Gauntlets but if people search the HoF then there are some easy medals to win.

 

[Tabarnak]

I can also see that some other exceptional players had a little dabble on the VANILLA HOF never to be seen again. The only guy who seriously competed on the VVV was Khrax.

Yeah and his brother morgg.

I assumed that the reason why a CivV addict like yourself didn't get more involved with the HOF is because you are more of a Multiplayer gamer?

Yeah...mostly. Same reason for any singleplayer games. You know, in multiplayer you just can't cheat at all

But it's not really about cheats...back to civ4 i was playing a lot more mp as well. It's just a personnal taste. Human civs are fun to beat

 

[Xger]

As a civ fanatic with average intelligence and a very competitive nature, this is how I see the HOF.

2 - I don't have a cat in hells chance of ever picking up a conventional medal on anything other than domination duel, and the only reason they are possible is because the luck factor is extremely high.

These statements seem contradictory. If you are very competitive as you say and imply, you would be working to improve your game until the point you could compete for medals.

 

[Salomo]

With the current exploit rules:

Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and pillaging or allowing Barbarians or other civs to pillage the resource or trade route to break the deal.
Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)
Repeatedly selling Gold per Turn (GPT) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)
Repeatedly selling Cities and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war so you can take them back. (i.e. low risk, low cost war just retrieve the cities for resale to another civ.)

You always need to do this if you want to beat the best time.
I have seen that in GOTM.

You also need to do that to beat the best times in domination games in HoF. At the same time, you need to watch out not to do it "systematically" within the meaning given to it in the anti-exploit rules - whatever that meaning is.

 

[kirbdog]

You also need to do that to beat the best times in domination games in HoF. At the same time, you need to watch out not to do it "systematically" within the meaning given to it in the anti-exploit rules - whatever that meaning is.

They consider it a "phony war" if it doesn't conclude with the capture of the enemy capital; if it does or if it goes on forever, it's fine to take all the AI's gold before DOW. They consider it systematic luxury selling abuse if you use fortresses to replace luxury improvements. I agree that it seems unclear what it would take to draw a bright red line around barbarians/AI breaking luxury deals.

 

[TractorBoy]

Who needs a medal?

Some people do, but believe it or not I couldn't care less about a medal as such.
I play for POINTS on the VVV, unfortunately medals equate to points.

Can't you have fun competing with the likes of me and other casual players that don't have a calculator implanted in their brain or next to them when playing?

This is exactly my point, I do want to compete with the likes of you and others.
Any person who fills out all the categories on the VVV has made a statement of intent. Just the fact that they have bothered to go that far, then they would generally want to find their standing and compete with those around them.

If you can't, it's time for you to get a calculator and study how the top guns play... But beware, it can take a lot of fun from the game and the HoF

I have no intention of ever studying, just the mention of the word brings back terrible memories of school desks and inkwells!

 

[TractorBoy]

These statements seem contradictory. If you are very competitive as you say and imply, you would be working to improve your game until the point you could compete for medals.

I am and always have been a very competitive person from a physical point of view, this does not extend so much to anything involving mathematical perfection. I would not, and probably could not go to the extremes that the top guys go to and I am sure I am not alone!

 

[Xger]

They consider it a "phony war" if it doesn't conclude with the capture of the enemy capital; if it does or if it goes on forever, it's fine to take all the AI's gold before DOW. They consider it systematic luxury selling abuse if you use fortresses to replace luxury improvements. I agree that it seems unclear what it would take to draw a bright red line around barbarians/AI breaking luxury deals.

I think in this particular case the reasoning is pretty simple: don't sell your luxes if you know it will be pillaged (a barb is standing on it). The reason for the "systematic" abuse is that if I sell a lux and a barb moves in 8 turns later and I don't have the immediate respone to kill it, that's not abuse, whereas if I leave a barb camp up next to it and let the barbs continually pillage it that would be abuse.

I am and always have been a very competitive person from a physical point of view, this does not extend so much to anything involving mathematical perfection. I would not, and probably could not go to the extremes that the top guys go to and I am sure I am not alone!

I would then say you are not "very competitive" when it comes to CiV and the HoF.

 

[Elz Majesto]

As an average player and relative nobody on this forum I can tell you this:

I have no clue what the rules are for the HOF Submission. I have read the rules, and maybe im just dense, but how many save files do I need to submit?

What is the scoring mechanism used?

What is the turn around time from submission to acceptance or not?

Is restarting location over and over until I get a decent start acceptable?

Why is their 17 pages worth of conversation on the FAQ's sticky thread, but the information I seek to find so daunting to find?

Look, all I want to do is play CIV, and the fact that the HOF exist is a huge blessing, but please if you want more people to play make the information accessible. In its current nature, its a bit muddled, and if it wasn't for the huge support from the people on the site, it might be hard to find.


And no, I dont mind that their are some top comp that take home the prize all the time, thats just how competition works. Jordan has 5-6 rings, Ewing has 0, Jeter has a couple and Cal Ripken has zilch. Actually sorry those are bad comparisons! More like Tiger and Federer, less team sporty.

 

[Peets]

As an average player and relative nobody on this forum I can tell you this:

I have no clue what the rules are for the HOF Submission. I have read the rules, and maybe im just dense, but how many save files do I need to submit?

Welcome Elz Majesto
When you submit a game it is explained there.
At the HOF site itself, there is a sub category explained how you have to submit.
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ5/rules.php?show=submit

What is the scoring mechanism used?

Which one do you prefer too?
For score medals? Or the medals?

What is the turn around time from submission to acceptance or not?

Around 1/3 and around 2/3 of your game.

Is restarting location over and over until I get a decent start acceptable?

Yes

Why is their 17 pages worth of conversation on the FAQ's sticky thread, but the information I seek to find so daunting to find?

Look, all I want to do is play CIV, and the fact that the HOF exist is a huge blessing, but please if you want more people to play make the information accessible. In its current nature, its a bit muddled, and if it wasn't for the huge support from the people on the site, it might be hard to find.

Hmmm, we'll see if we can make the information more available.

 

[Elz Majesto]

Welcome Elz Majesto
When you submit a game it is explained there.
At the HOF site itself, there is a sub category explained how you have to submit.
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ5/rules.php?show=submit



Which one do you prefer too?
For score medals? Or the medals?



Around 1/3 and around 2/3 of your game.


Yes



Hmmm, we'll see if we can make the information more available.

Thank you Peets!

I prefer my games drawn out till the information age or future era tech. Will that help answer the "Which Medal" question?

 

[sanabas]

Around 1/3 and around 2/3 of your game.

Think you answered an entirely different question there.

Turn around time from submission to acceptqnce is entirely dependent on when a staff member checks the games, can be anything from 30 minutes after you submit to a few days, and they're published twice a month, on roughly 1st & 16th.




As for the rules, I think the biggest problem is sytematically taking all an AI's gold with gpt/lux, declaring war and taking their capital, using the cash to buy more units, then doing the same for all the others. Unfortunately, that exploit is completely legal, and is required for any competitive domination time. A game mechanism not allowing you to declare war if it would break a deal, or one that caused all AIs to not make gpt deals with you after the first time you break one with a DoW, both things that have been part of earlier civ games, would fix it.

I'm not a fan of the scoring system, but I also don't care too much about my score. Will sometimes play a ame to get a medal, will sometimes not bother. The biggest problem I see is that for someone who is focused on more medals/higher score, there's no incentive for them to fill empty tables, which helps contribute to the huge number of duel/domination or duel/score games. In erxtreme cases, there's also a disincentive to submit a non-winning game, as it makes someone else's score higher. I think previous systems are better, whether average position of your best x games in each VVV sub-category, or 1st place gets 100, and the others get (score/1st place score) x 100, or (1st place turns/turns) x 100, and again average the best x games, while weighting the scores in favour of harder levels/bigger maps. With x different for each category, so it might be best 12 for VCs, best 15 for speeds, best 8 for difficulty, best 3 for map type, and best 2 for civ, which gives 60-68 games that would count for each part for those who really want to maximise their score. Incentive to fill an empty table then, plus incentive to play more games/harder levels/bigger maps/more varied settings.