Why don't you use this site.

[Xger]

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?

You would likely want score medals then which are just the ranking score you get at the victory screen.

As for the turn around time, I read the question differently than Peets; generally the games go from sumbitted to accepted in a few days, at most a week from my experience. The HoF itself is updated twice a month (generally the 1st and 16th or so) and that is when games are "Published".

 

[Denniz]

Re: VVV Score.

That is one area I would like to improve. I was trying to avoid the memory/system hog that the Civ4 one turned into with the way score is calculated. I ended up with something less than pleasing when it comes to ranking. The biggest resource hog was trying to associate a particular entry to a given sub-category.

The medals were assigned based on minmum participation numbers. It might work if we extended the scale to assign points to non-medal winning entries where there is enough participation. That would involve change the fixed points scale to something more variable. (I.e. a gold with only 6 entries would be worth less that one with 10 entries. but that might allow 4th or 5th place to get points, too.)

I also want to add a factor based on map size and possibly speed like we did for difficulty.

The challenge is to work out something that is fair, make sense, and is simple enough to actual do without dimming the lights when someone pulls up the page.

 

[Mesix]

Re: VVV Score.

That is one area I would like to improve. I was trying to avoid the memory/system hog that the Civ4 one turned into with the way score is calculated. I ended up with something less than pleasing when it comes to ranking. The biggest resource hog was trying to associate a particular entry to a given sub-category.

The medals were assigned based on minmum participation numbers. It might work if we extended the scale to assign points to non-medal winning entries where there is enough participation. That would involve change the fixed points scale to something more variable. (I.e. a gold with only 6 entries would be worth less that one with 10 entries. but that might allow 4th or 5th place to get points, too.)

I also want to add a factor based on map size and possibly speed like we did for difficulty.

The challenge is to work out something that is fair, make sense, and is simple enough to actual do without dimming the lights when someone pulls up the page.

One idea might be to separate points from medals completely. Leave the current system in place of awarding a medal for tables which have 2, 4, and 6 or more entries. List the total medals so that people who compete for medals can see the tally and compare where they stand to where other people stand. For points, all the games for a particular table could be compared and awarded points based on how they compare to the ideal game on the table (similar to the Civ 4 HOF but perhaps simplified). Then players who are interested in points for VVV or in aggregate can compare using this mechanic instead of counting medals. This might also have the benefit of having different scores for each of the VVV events (if only a subset of games are compared for example) instead of the current system which simply displays the medals as points which is the same on every category.

 

[sanabas]

One idea might be to separate points from medals completely. Leave the current system in place of awarding a medal for tables which have 2, 4, and 6 or more entries. List the total medals so that people who compete for medals can see the tally and compare where they stand to where other people stand. For points, all the games for a particular table could be compared and awarded points based on how they compare to the ideal game on the table (similar to the Civ 4 HOF but perhaps simplified). Then players who are interested in points for VVV or in aggregate can compare using this mechanic instead of counting medals. This might also have the benefit of having different scores for each of the VVV events (if only a subset of games are compared for example) instead of the current system which simply displays the medals as points which is the same on every category.

That's more or less what I suggested at the end of last page. I don't think it would be that resource intensive. Particularly if the scores were just calculated once, when doing the update, and only for the specific combinations that hada new entry. Rather than whenever the page got loaded.

The medals were assigned based on minmum participation numbers. It might work if we extended the scale to assign points to non-medal winning entries where there is enough participation. That would involve change the fixed points scale to something more variable. (I.e. a gold with only 6 entries would be worth less that one with 10 entries. but that might allow 4th or 5th place to get points, too.)

Problem with that is it again encourages players to stick to the already full tables, in particular the duel ones. Filling empty tables will add nothing to your score.

 

[kirbdog]

I suppose the sheer amount of time required to compete is a big deterrent. Not only do players have to reroll, but they may also want to play two or three games in order to get a better submission. That could be over 15 hours of gaming for a single entry, easily. That's daunting and can easily lead to burnout.

 

[Xger]

I suppose the sheer amount of time required to compete is a big deterrent. Not only do players have to reroll, but they may also want to play two or three games in order to get a better submission. That could be over 15 hours of gaming for a single entry, easily. That's daunting and can easily lead to burnout.

This is a very valid point. There are some types of games I am only willing to play once every update (time victories, ones aiming for score, and non-domination epic and marathon speed) because they take so long and often end up quite tedious.

Granted this is apparently going to be fixed in the next expansion.

 

[Peets]

Granted this is apparently going to be fixed in the next expansion.

It is? What have you read?

 

[Xger]

It is? What have you read?

They've said that the next expansion will (hopefully) flesh out the latter 3rd of the game, and there should be less of the just clicking Next Turn until victory.

 

[sanabas]

This is a very valid point. There are some types of games I am only willing to play once every update (time victories, ones aiming for score, and non-domination epic and marathon speed) because they take so long and often end up quite tedious.

Granted this is apparently going to be fixed in the next expansion.

Nothing that says you have to play lots of marathon games. With what I suggested, there'd be no change for what it takes to qualify for VVV, nor for medal counts. It's just that overall score in each category would be biased towards those playing a large number of varied games, rather than the current bias towards those who play a lot of duel & domination games, because those are the places that allow you to get medals.

Looking at the G&K section of the hof right now, the breakdown of potential gold & silver medals, if you beat the existing best/2nd best time is:

Culture: 9 gold(8 of them a result of the 2 any leader culture gauntlets of the past few months), 26 silver (14 from the 2 gauntlets)

Diplo: 2 gold, 7 silver

Science: 5 gold, 9 silver

Time: 0 gold, 4 silver

Domination: 9 gold, 21 silver

That's an argument for more 'any leader' gauntlets, anyway.

By map size, it's

Huge 1 gold, 2 silver

Large 5 gold, 10 silver (4 gold, 8 silver from the most recent gauntlet)

Duel 5 gold, 19 silver.


Go back to Vanilla, and there are 82 opportunities for Duel gold, 1 opportunity for a huge gold, 2 for large.

2 chances for time gold, 13 for diplo, 91 for domination.

19 chances for marathon gold (17 of them duel/dom, 1 tiny/dom, 1 small/settler/cult), 79 for quick. There are 15 more chances for silver on marathon, but again 12 of them are duel/dom.

The current scoring setup doesn't encourage a wide range of games, it doesn't encourage filling empty tables, it encourages domination and/or duel games. Anyone who likes playing large/huge or epic/marathon will have minimal chances to improve their score.

 

[Xger]

One thing to also keep in mind is there are some people whose computers just plain cannot handle huge maps, would it be fair to them if variety matters but they cannot do some?

A point system that I believe would be easy to implement: Flip the placement numbers. So if there are 20 entries, 1st would get 20 points, 4th would get 17, 20th would get 1 and so on. Then scalars could be applied based on difficulty, speed, and map size as desired. It wouldn't even necessarily need to get rid of the medals.

 

[sanabas]

One thing to also keep in mind is there are some people whose computers just plain cannot handle huge maps, would it be fair to them if variety matters but they cannot do some?

If they simply can't do a huge map, then they already can't qualify for VVV anyway.

 

[glory7]

I submitted several games for HoF (only deity, except 2 gauntlets that I got 4th both time ), and I have participated GotM for more than 10 games now, so I think I can bring up some issues that stopped me from playing HoF and play only GotM and DC. Some of them will be very similar with Tabarnak's point.

1. Rules are not clear: I am not saying anything like this should be allowed, this should be banned, this feels like cheat, etc. It's just not clear at all. Moriarte, Maxym, and I had a short discussion at gotm57 after action thread about HoF rules and it seems that we had different 'HoF rules'.

For example, what I understood was that one cannot DoW and peace if one did have any lump sum gold deal, unless one takes AI's cap or half of AI's cities. Maxym said that he allows one lump sum gold deal break to be allowed (for example, to rush buy worker at the beginning) as the rule prohibits doing that "repeatedly". Moriarte says one can DoW without lump sum deal and get good peace deal continuosly and this is basically similar to lump sum trick and so-called tommynt style aggressive play. Then Tabarnak says it's not allowed.

At this point, I am not sure what's going on - clearly, I followed the most strict version and no wonder my submissions got accepted. But on the other hand, I could have done better if I could use some of those tactics.

I believe that it's safe to assume that those 4 players mentioned above (including myself) are fairly competitive players. The fact that such players interpret rules differently means that rules are just not clear enough. I personally prefer to have rules to allow everything except barb/self pilliage thing (as this one does not get diplo penalty and risk), but I won't argue for it here. My point is that, as long as we have clear rules or mods such as Tabarnak's suggestion, more people will participate.

2. Re-rolling for the best start: especially for lower level difficulty games, there's no chance to compete unless you get a great starting position. Lots of desert hills, next to mountain, marble, etc. More than that, if one does not get good ruins (early culture, pop, tech) one has to reroll. If you miss GL/Petra, no need to continue.

For me, this is just too much. I believe that rerolling lots of times for the best possible start and ruins is just complete waste of time. That's why I play gotm, and I think the number of games submitted for gotm and that of gauntlet show that there are lots of people who just don't like to reroll and want to compete and compare their games with the same condition, in particular the same starting position.

 

[kirbdog]

That's why I play gotm, and I think the number of games submitted for gotm and that of gauntlet show that there are lots of people who just don't like to reroll and want to compete and compare their games with the same condition, in particular the same starting position.

Yes. I'd play more games like these if they were available, as it is fun to compare notes after playing the same start. It may not be a great platform for competition, but I never really thought of Civilization as a competitive game before finding this forum.

 

[Mesix]

One thing to also keep in mind is there are some people whose computers just plain cannot handle huge maps, would it be fair to them if variety matters but they cannot do some?

A point system that I believe would be easy to implement: Flip the placement numbers. So if there are 20 entries, 1st would get 20 points, 4th would get 17, 20th would get 1 and so on. Then scalars could be applied based on difficulty, speed, and map size as desired. It wouldn't even necessarily need to get rid of the medals.

I would not be in favor of something so linear. I like how the Civ 4 HOF worked better. Let me use an example of 10 entries to illustrate my point.

1. Turn 180
2. Turn 184
3. Turn 185
4. Turn 187
5. Turn 197
6. Turn 204
7. Turn 235
8. Turn 240
9. Turn 244
10. Turn 294

In this example there is a tight group of entries in the top 4, then a couple close entries, then it tapers off a bit, and finally the last place finish is more than 100 turns later.

A point system which captures how close you are to the winning entry would be better IMHO. Simply rewarding a fixed number of points for each place does not reflect how well you finished.

 

[Xger]

I would not be in favor of something so linear. I like how the Civ 4 HOF worked better. Let me use an example of 10 entries to illustrate my point.

1. Turn 180
2. Turn 184
3. Turn 185
4. Turn 187
5. Turn 197
6. Turn 204
7. Turn 235
8. Turn 240
9. Turn 244
10. Turn 294

In this example there is a tight group of entries in the top 4, then a couple close entries, then it tapers off a bit, and finally the last place finish is more than 100 turns later.

A point system which captures how close you are to the winning entry would be better IMHO. Simply rewarding a fixed number of points for each place does not reflect how well you finished.

An interesting point. Would you suggest something similar for the score half of the HoF?

 

[TractorBoy]

If they simply can't do a huge map, then they already can't qualify for VVV anyway.

For the purpose of a VVV submission you could try playing on Settler/ Marathon and obtaining a very quick domination victory, this would take up very little memory and wouldn't take more than a couple of hours.

 

[TractorBoy]

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

Rather than listing a detailed explanation of all the reasons why I don't like playing some types of games, I have simply stated that I am not clever enough to do so. I am sorry that the humility that I have shown in this thread is not good enough for you, I can't for the life of me understand why you want me to come out with some sort of an admission that I made an incorrect personal statement!

 

[sanabas]

For the purpose of a VVV submission you could try playing on Settler/ Marathon and obtaining a very quick domination victory, this would take up very little memory and wouldn't take more than a couple of hours.

Sure.

And for the purpose of what I suggested, you could do the same.

An interesting point. Would you suggest something similar for the score half of the HoF?

I would. score as a percentage of best score, and best time in number of turns as a % of your time in # of turns:

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.

 

[Mesix]

In any event, I wouldn't favor changing the scoring method for the current tables (e.g. Vanilla and G&K). This would be unfair to the players who have spend many hours playing games to get into the rankings.

What I would favor is a better system for the upcoming Brave New World expansion. Perhaps there could be a period of weeks/months after the expansion comes out where the HOF staff finds a good scoring metric before allowing entries.

 

[Xger]

In any event, I wouldn't favor changing the scoring method for the current tables (e.g. Vanilla and G&K). This would be unfair to the players who have spend many hours playing games to get into the rankings.

What I would favor is a better system for the upcoming Brave New World expansion. Perhaps there could be a period of weeks/months after the expansion comes out where the HOF staff finds a good scoring metric before allowing entries.

While I think a new system would be best timed for BNW, I personally think it should be ready to go before BNW, so that the lag between BNW releasing and HoF accepting is as small as possible. I personally wanted G&K HoF ready sooner than it was.