metaverse scoring

I totally agree with your post, but they said they will do some tweaking to the scores later on. What fun can you have playing beginning multiple times, knowing you are going to win.

Other threads have stated that the Meta is still being tweaked. Might want to go looking for those.

Multipliers on score that you see in Civilization games. Based on both difficulty and time taken. Badly needed imo!

Simple math can be applied to a tweak to MV.

For example:

Cakewalk = Score X 10% (whatever level the AI is forced to play at)
Intelligent = Score X 80% (etc. etc. etc.)

Lets folks earn points at the easy level, plus gives some incentive to move up in difficulty.

I am not saying this should be the only scoring mind you. Just an equation that could solve the problem in this thread.

Really I am not a crook!

W/R
Suralle Straykat
Kat Lord @ Large

Yeah, right now it seems like there's no difficulty modifier whatsoever, so the best way to rack up high score is to just play on Gigantic on easiest difficulty level. I finished two games on Large map and milked them both the exact same way, one was like +2 difficulty levels but score was actually a bit lower.

I suspect that abundant, common, occasional, rare, etc on the options doesnt matter either. So it's better to have a lot more habitable planets. Population seems to be one of the main modifiers right now.

From what I can see, the major contributing factor to a game score is the time taken to complete it. The longer the game lasts the better the score, in some cases as much as 10x the score.
This seems really ill thought out. I could start a game and drag it out for 30 years no problem. But I feel if I completed that same game in 5 years then I have performed much better.
It seems to work in the opposite way than would be logical. Play a game and win in 5 years, low score. Play that exact same game and take 30 years about it, and recieve an amazingly higher score. All it does is promote abusing the mechanics to take as long as possible to win.

nah the length of the game is not increasing your score.

my last game took 30 years (huge map, 9 intelligent AIs). I conquered every single planet and in the same turn when the last enemy planet was taken scored a technological victory. score was lower than for my 20 years cultural conquest game.

they may have changed that in the time between those games already (as they said they are tweaking the metaverse). so at the moment it seems like the longer you need the less points you score.

The reason you srored low was because you took a tech victory. Browse some of the profiles. Leghnt of time matters alot.

I think length of time only matters because the longer it goes, the more farms and population you can grow. As far as I can determine, population is the main factor in yer metaverse score atm.... which is too bad, difficulty should play a much bigger part, and winning faster is actually more "skillful" then the 20 yr Gigantic wins..

BTW, Gigantic, wow, what a headache... why would anyone play on that map?

Not me.

Seems to me, the Metaverse is pointless.
It only encourages people to work things to get the highest score possible and in so doing remove all the fun from the game.

While I agree with your post to some extend Vulcan2, I still think its a great addition and provides that extra bit of depth. But if you really don't like it, well, don't use it

BTW, Gigantic, wow, what a headache... why would anyone play on that map?

obviously because the game lasts longer, and also because it is a lot harder to play on a gigantic map against high AI levels. At small levels you can just as micromanage as the AI can, but on the larger maps you won't, making it all the more difficult

Join the dark side Fuels Chief,

Your icon is way to lilly white

W/R
Suralle Straykat
Kat Lord @ Large

Join the dark side Fuels Chief, Your icon is way to lilly white

And yours is way too blue RED rules with an iron fist

Evil = Easy mode.

Wimps

I'll agree that the metaverse needs some serious work, but I also think that there are no clear answers.

I agree that the reason that longer games get higher scores is because you wind up researching more tech and have a higher population. It was that way in the GC1 Metaverse.

Think about it this way. Which is harder, a Military victory or a Tech victory? If you gave a one or the other answer, you were probably wrong, because it depends very much on other factors. On my usual map, tough/gigantic/9 opponents/everything abundant, I'll have Invention Matrixes before I'm done with the colonization phase, and that's what, 5% of the way to a tech victory? And the first 5% is the hardest part. On the other hand, on smaller maps, if you're getting a tech victory, it's probably because you reached a point that you decided to keep that last colony of that last race around to toy with it.

The expected score for a Miltary victory is currently quite a bit higher than for the other victory types. Which would be fine, if it reflected an actual hard pressed military victory. My last military victory in a gigantic galaxy containing almost 400 colonies consisted of me taking the last 15 or so colonies in a single turn, the rest were obtained through culture flips. Not my idea of a military conquest

My main point is there is no accounting for difficulty level. I have seen a score of over 300,000 for 1 game on a normal diff. Level where i received only 66,000 for a painful level millitary victory. It is not at all like GC1.

obviously because the game lasts longer, and also because it is a lot harder to play on a gigantic map against high AI levels. At small levels you can just as micromanage as the AI can, but on the larger maps you won't, making it all the more difficult

Obviously! Actually, I've found "Gigantic" to be just as easy against higher level AIs. It does last longer, but that doesnt equate to difficulty level.

And, no, I micromanage just as much on Gigantic as on Tiny. That's probably why it's a headache, but it doesnt make it any harder.

I have seen a score of over 300,000 for 1 game on a normal diff. Level

That game was actually played at "Suicidal" (as were all the others in my profile apart from the first 2). It is the Metaverse that is not reporting difficulty properly.

Join the dark side Fuels Chief, Your icon is way to lilly white W/R Suralle Straykat Kat Lord @ Large

Hmmm. Don't make me break out my Popeye Avatar. Best to leave my Magician of Black Chaos alone before the cat gets skinned.

They're going to recalculate all the scores. They still have all the data they used to score your game, so don't worry about it. You will be rewarded in due time

It alao seems to be using the same as it was in GC1
TotalScore = Sum of all games in a period divided by the square root of the games played in that period
(period time not yet known but in GC1 it was 30 days)

the time period for the 10*multiplier seems to be 10 years

maybe i should reword that .. its not a bonus if you finish the game after 10 years.. but a penalty if you finish it quicker

So the Metaverse side of the scorring seems to be the same as it was in GC1 so far..

so summising on those facts..

games will probaly fall into 30 day blocks.. and decrease by a % for each aged block (eg: current block no drop.. 30-60 days block could say loose x% 60-90 dfay block would loose 2*x%) just like they did in GC1

and yes the type of victory alsop comes into it.. so if you get a military win (no AI's left except you) then you'll score the highest of all the types

Dificulty level does come into it to.. so you are rewarded for playing the harder levels even though it may not look like it in the games that end within the first 10 years (i could be wrong about that time frame but it seems logical according to the scores i've seen)

Hope this helps.. until someone can work it out more precicely..

and If Stardock decides to keep this method.. if not rest assured they will do a full metaverse score recalculation.. as that DO keep all the data that has been submitted

---

JT Qwerk emperor of
Star Fleet (NG) empire..
To read our recruitment message goto the Star Fleet Recruitment Center

By the way: When and how often are the empire scores updated? It seems that it takes aseveral times until played games are added to the Empire score..

Please be careful. Some people here wrote that difficulty level had no influence on game score. It is wrong, and seeing such information prevented me at first from being interested in the Metaverse thingy. I hate to be demotivated because of a false information... I am sure you too.

Some information for other readers not to be demotivated regarding Metaverse because of this difficulty thing:
1. The first post of this thread dates from the end of last month ; after the official release of GalCiv2, but before some updates ; I do not know if this has some importance, but this could.
2. At some point difficulty rating of games wasn't displayed properly. This bug could also be connected to point number 1.
3. Difficulty rating does have an impact on the final score. Fact is, galaxy size does have more impact than game difficulty.


As it seems you are dubious about the fact that galaxy size has more impact than game difficulty. Well, I can agree with you. But as it was said there is no direct answer.

What I must say is that score doesn't really depend on galaxy size, it depends on number of habitable planets (which is somewhat linked to it, one could say). Of course this means you have more population, research, etc.

Does that sound odd? Do not take this score regarding to population, research and so on ; please think a little more.

If a player launches a game with 10 habitable planets, he just has to colonize 2 or 3 of them (which is done in less than 10 turns), and then conquer the same number, then he would be sure to achieve victory.

If a player launches a game with 100 habitable planets, he has to colonize 12 to 20 of them, and then conquer two times more planets before being sure to achieve victory.

The time you spend on a game is proportional to the number of habitable planets. It is OBVISOULY normal that a game with 100 planets, which also needs more time, gives you more than 10 times the score required to conquer ten planets! I should give more than 50 times this score, because playing short games is much more easier (I mean, according to time spent, to time avalaible in a week etc) than playing impressively long games.

A Huge Galaxy has 256 sectors and a Large one has 144 sectors. This means 78 % more sectors in a Huge Galaxy. The other player scored 4,33 times your score, which means 433 % of your score, with only 78% more sectors... and an inferior difficulty level. Hmm. Yes, that deserves some inquiry.

Maybe was the displayed difficulty bugged, as it seems to have been for many other games?
Maybe were the calculation rules changed since?

EDIT: And please note that you had a Tech victory ; the other player had a military victory. This does a lot to change the final score according to many players.

Can someone explain in a clear and comprehensive post how score is really calculated?