Announcement Looking For Insight: Hall of Fame Guidelines

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Looking For Insight: Hall of Fame Guidelines

      Ikariam.com Community,

      We have been around for over 2 years now and we've seen a lot of changes. The biggest thing that has changed in those two years would undoubtedly have to be the combat. With all these changes the guidelines for the Hall of Fame sections no longer seem to hold much meaning or validity.

      So, we are asking for your thoughts and ideas on how to determine what is Hall of Fame worthy.

      A few points about whatever new guidelines there are:
      :gold: Must be fairly simple to compute what is a HoF battle (ie no Square Roots of the second factorial prime blah blah)
      :gold: Ideally, should consider player's score / number of participants
      :gold: We are open to different categories, but they must make sense
      :gold: Just saying do what .de, .org, .whatever do doesn't really fit the bill, we are our own community and we need our own guidelines

      So, post your ideas and comments about it here. Please remember that just telling someone their idea is stupid is not constructive. If you don't like it say why and suggest possible solutions to the deficiencies you stated. Also, just saying "Great Idea" doesn't tell us WHY it's so great, so provide some good feedback there also.

      Thank you,

      Ikariam.com Team
    • I think the Hall of Fame, at least for the current version of combat, should be based on time rather then damage. Or consider both time and damage. Since any fight between 2 players doesn't go more then about 6 rounds now, and large scale battles between multiple players can go on for days, I think time is the larger factor.

      (added)
      Catagories could be:
      1 vrs 1 lasting 5+ rounds
      overwhelming victories (example: you swapped steam giants and the enemy took 50k damage while you only took 1k)
      1 day battles
      2 day battles
      3+ day battles.


      My buildings guide -- My 0 Military Defense Guide
      * @Lissala slaps ImperialUser around a bit with a large trout

      The post was edited 1 time, last by ImperialUser ().

    • In my opinion, a hall of fame battle should be a new record, either in the total number of rounds, total number of participants, or total loot by all attackers. The current record CR (or top 3) in each of those categories should be stickied until it's supplanted.
    • I suggest a scoreboard with links to top 3 threads:
      -Total Damage
      -Total Damage/Participants
      -Most Participants
      -Most Rounds
      -Total Damage/Rounds
      -Total Loot
    • Interesting idea Bedevere!

      I'd like to see the HoF be used for great battles and be difficult but not impossible to get into.

      Let's get rid of the current legend/king/squire/etc and current damage minimums, and instead have just these four types of hall of fame battles:


      MINIMUM GUIDELINES TO QUALIFY FOR THE HALL OF FAME

      Beginning 1v1
      All combatants have less than 300,000 total score, and the battle is a 1v1 and has a combined damage of at least 100,000 not including loot

      Beginning group battle
      All combatants have less than 300,000 total score, and the battle is not a 1v1 and has a combined damage of at least 400,000 not including loot
      Advanced 1v1
      If it's a 1v1 among advanced players and there's a combined damage of at least 400,000 not including loot

      Advanced group battle
      If it's a group battle among advanced players and there's a combined damage of at least 1,000,000 not including loot

      The damage must be from a single CR although the poster is encouraged to tell the story behind the battle and post multiple CRs if they're all part of the story.

      Let's also add this rule: All CRs must be real and must be posted in their entirety with no editing or censoring.
    • I think that a high score posting would be a nice addition to .com. A general .com wide high score as well as sever specific ones would be nice. I just spent about 10 minutes looking for the biggest battle on .com, and I don't know what other people think, but I consider that to be very interesting information, and a high score system would make that easily available.

      I'm not sure how feasible this next idea is, but would it be possible to add a "largest skirmish" category? Rather than a single battle it would be for a single military action. ex. right now I am engaged in a 580+ round battle, but there is another battle on the same island that is over 750 rounds and I lost track of how many sea battles we've had. Would it be possible to put a bunch of battles like this together to make a larger overview of the action on and around that island? I know some CRs would be lost due to people not posting, but the CRs that were posted could be gathered together by players and made into a skirmish after it was all over. Just a thought, I know it would have problems, but I am just wondering if you think. I just thought it would be nice to have an entire skirmish in one post/thread. If this is not really a HoF thing, then maybe there could be guidelines for setting this sort of thing up in another section, since the HoF currently discourages posting multiple battles, and the diplomacy section CR only threads discourage discussion.

      Hope that helps.
    • I'll just polish up what people have stated so far, I think the HoF should have three different categories.

      1.) Records, each thread must have a date, and the record beaten attached to it. E.g... May 20th, 2010-59 Participants in one battle! Or May 20th, 2010-27,939,939 Damage delt.

      A screenshot and a formated CR must be posted with each record battle.

      After the a record is beat, the thread should be locked ,but not deleted :). Don't want to ruin our history now do we? Current top participant/damage total/round total battles should be stored in this section with a modified title to go along with the new idea.

      2.) As Celia suggested, a beginner section, players below 300k points would post their battles here with the guidelines she posted.

      3.) Again as Celia suggested :P, an advanced section.

      I think overall this could keep the HoF uncluttered from pointless CRs. We don't really need the King/legend/count things since most people don't use them correctly anyway.
    • I give a crap. Celia your suggestion has my vote. I think that its a logical suggestion because then we can look at certain players and note the difference between what some players consider as "Hall of Fame" worthy compared to others. We can dig through the poo, and find just what we're lookin for...that diamond in the rough. :)
    • I think the most important criterion to determine if a combat is Hall of Fame worthy in the current version is the number of rounds. That should be sufficient and it's very simple. There could be 4 categories:

      * 15-40 rounds (only for 1v1 fights)

      * 41-80 rounds

      * 81-150 rounds

      * 151+ rounds


      There could be another category about most loot, where there could be posted battles with 100k+ total loot.

      -Sig made by CheckMate-
    • Celia wrote:


      MINIMUM GUIDELINES TO QUALIFY FOR THE HALL OF FAME

      Beginning 1v1
      All combatants have less than 300,000 total score, and the battle is a 1v1 and has a combined damage of at least 100,000 not including loot

      Beginning group battle
      All combatants have less than 300,000 total score, and the battle is not a 1v1 and has a combined damage of at least 400,000 not including loot
      Advanced 1v1
      If it's a 1v1 among advanced players and there's a combined damage of at least 400,000 not including loot

      Advanced group battle
      If it's a group battle among advanced players and there's a combined damage of at least 1,000,000 not including loot

      The damage must be from a single CR although the poster is encouraged to tell the story behind the battle and post multiple CRs if they're all part of the story.

      Let's also add this rule: All CRs must be real and must be posted in their entirety with no editing or censoring.


      I think this is a great idea here but I would increase it to 150,000 not including loot for the Beginning 1 vs 1. Far too many times we have players posting total damage at 105,000 and people say that isn't special in that thread.
    • I don't think total score makes a difference, I've got 250k players beating 2 million players.

      I don't think anyone above X score should get in, I think you should have to beat the previous high score to take the spot (or maybe make it a top 5 or something).

      I don't like time as a factor, it's too easy to intentionally draw a battle out indefinitely.

      All this discussion means nothing since the CR system is broken. The report it spits out doesn't jibe with reality as far as total units or damage done. I don't see how we can have a system of ranking the highest incorrect CR. It's like giving a trophy to the guy who exploits the most bugs.
    • iniquity wrote:

      I don't think total score makes a difference, I've got 250k players beating 2 million players.

      I don't think anyone above X score should get in, I think you should have to beat the previous high score to take the spot (or maybe make it a top 5 or something).

      I don't like time as a factor, it's too easy to intentionally draw a battle out indefinitely.

      All this discussion means nothing since the CR system is broken. The report it spits out doesn't jibe with reality as far as total units or damage done. I don't see how we can have a system of ranking the highest incorrect CR. It's like giving a trophy to the guy who exploits the most bugs.


      Hit the nail on the head. Maybe if GF were to make CRs display correctly, then something could be implemented.
    • I disagree with a couple of things that have been said. It's a hall of fame, not a hall of records. Good battles can happen more than once in a server. Also, while the flank damage is usually big, it is also usually even for both sides. Which means it's not as relevant to calculate compared to other slots in the battlefield. I have no issue with it being left off.

      I agree with the idea about total score. I think the main HoF categories should be damage, time, and number of players. That being said, I think we should establish a guideline for a 1-v-1, and then multiply it over the number of participants. A 2-v-3, for example, will have 2.5x the damage requirement of a 1-v-1. And so on. It makes it fairly simple, as we set the standard for 1-v-1, then extrapolate through. The damage requirement should be proportional to the players involved.

      In my opinion, length of battle doesn't matter as much. With the limited field, the amount of damage usually indicates this. If you want to add it as a side note, i think that's fine, but using it, in addition to damage, is in my opinion, redundant.

      I also think, though, that the HoF should take into account island and island cluster campaigns in addition to single battles. The combat system prefers big, drawn out battles, where a whole island is involved, blockades and occupations are set and broken, and people jockey for position. Something like this should be a full narration of the combat leading up to, simultaneous with, and the clean up involved after, a big battle. For that, you can have a straight up system that doesn't involve a player count. Alliances fighting alliances should be on relatively equal ground. Could even be a war thing, although some (most) conflicts may or may not be in a war setting.

      my 2 cents.

      EDIT: Eureka moment after clicking submit. :P

      Sig by Puck, Avatar by JuniorB

      The post was edited 2 times, last by nowhale ().