I don't know if there's a difficulty modifier or not.

At first I thought score was mostly based on population so in my 12 year game I finished with .02444xxxx population, taking the +20% planet quality trait to make sure I could get the highest pop - finished game w/ 800K score. After winning that I reloaded the game and played out another two or three months (finishing same year) and got an 820K score even though population was going up very slowly at that point. Tried building a bunch of military ships and finishing at same date - got same score.

So then I decided population wasn't a factor. Something else was increasing w/ time - probably the amount of credits generated. So I played out a few other games, finishing at the exact same date each time. Game 1 I had 30913271 treasury (0% taxes) and 27.79B population on last invaded planet for a 828442 score. Game 2 I had a 31510882 treasury (increased taxes) and 22.29B population on last invaded planet for a 829765 score. Game 3 I gave away all my cash to the last AI and ended with 0 in treasury w/ 21.08B on invaded planet for 829435 score. Game 4 I exterminated about 300B citizens on my planets and ended with 31367166 treasury and 24.72B ppl on last invaded planet, for 8293xx score (slightly smaller score than game 3 probably due to lost taxes from that small fragment, otherwise ending treasury would have been the same).

So I'd guess the primary factor on the score is yer econ, population looks like it only plays a part indirectly via taxes... but I'm kinda confused, cause this game I just finished (milking it to 14 years) I was making 10k creds a turn about 1 1/2 years in (250K a turn at the end) and finished with > 110 million treasury & only got 1.07 mil score. I took all econ bonuses and Federalists instead of the pop growth and planet quality stuff. I guess it's possible some military action might figure in, since in game 1 I exterminated 3 or 4 of the AIs (took about 20-30 planets instead of just culture flipping them all). I was expecting a 1.2mil+ score. Maybe there's some sort of penalty applied if you finish in > than a certain # of years. Certainly didn't seem like it up to 12.

But there you have it.... scoring system certainly does need some work though, hah. Faster wins need to be rewarded a whole hell of a lot more.

I re-read those articles, and it looks like certain advantages are hinted at for some civs, but not for others, or at least not very clearly. What is puzzling is that this information doesn't really seem to be readily available anywhere. Maybe it's time for Stardock to spill it's secrets!

Heh, I was wondering how you were getting those insane scores Zevus.

Well, I will certainly never "milk" any scores. I will play the AI on the hardest setting from here on out (just won my first suicidial), and be happy with my scores. I doubt I'll ever break 200k, but that's ok. Slaughtering the AI in the shortest time possible is my goal:)

Anyway, yes, scoring certainly needs to be totally readjusted. I also think it'd be cool to have more postgame stats on the metaverse so people can see things such as: initial bonuses, final bonuses, planets, average time in war, techs traded, political party, etc etc:)

BTW, I think diplomacy needs to be toned down somehow. My last game I had pratically no army the first half of the game and I was never at risk of being attacked due to my diplomacy. Once I had a few techs and some cash to spare I set the whole galaxy at war with each other and kept it that way until I had a large enough army to smash them all one by one.

well, i guess when comparing scores right now you want to compare them vs games of similar length.

incidentally i reloaded that 1.07m game, played out another 5 months (went into the 15th year) and ended with a little over 1.1 mil, so looks like it was still going up around 75k a year or at least an additional 75k for year 15.

I think metaverse needs to display exact end date too instead of just year.. then we could get some of those speed challenges.

Changes that need to be made in scoring system:
1) Reward people who finish early, not people who milk.
2) Reward people who play with harder AI, not people who play on easy.

Until those are fixed, the system is broken, period.

Also, forcing someone to play on larger maps to get better scores is not fair to those with low end machines, or, god forbid, real lives. Find some way to scale the score based on map size.

it is just as difficultto get a "quick" win on a small map as it is on a large map, its just that the term "quick" has a different definitionfor the two game types.

well, regardless of how the score system is designed there will always be a best method of "milking" the best score. right now, the best way just seems to be to continue your game forever. i would love to see someone beat my 12 year gigantic score though (in 12 years or less).

unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a penalty for choosing abundant planets either so anyone not selecting that is at a disadvantage as well. i suspect that having very fast tech might be a benefit too, but i just leave it on normal.

I don't think you can submit on anything faster than normal... I read that somewhere but I could be mistaken.

Your right about milking, but I was using the term specifically towards those who hit end turn 500 more times than necessary because it increases your score when it should in fact decrease your score.

Just finished another game. I wish I had started saving around year 4 or 5 but didn't think of it 'til later. Anyhoo, after completing the game and submitting to the metaverse at end of year 15 I checked the scores if I had won it earlier, all games were won on Dec 29th of their respective years. I also looked at my economy at the time. Population never got above .012500000 (this opposed to near .025000000 in my earlier games when I thought population was key).

Year 10 - 802837 score, Econ - ??? (economic boom)
Year 11 - 883207 score, Econ - 305752/turn
Year 12 - 956080 score, Econ - 307561/turn
Year 13 - 1026312 score, Econ - 308398/turn
Year 14 - 1094102 score, Econ - 308615/turn (slightly better than that 14 yr game i submitted!)
Year 15 - 1162680 score, Econ - ??? (economic boom)

As you can see my economy was stagnant, not much growth going on as I had finished nearly all growth around yr 3 or 4. Score changed 80370 from year 10 to 11, 72873 from year 11 to 12, 70232 from year 12 to 13, 67790 from year 13 to 14, and 68578 from year 14 to 15. I suspect the increase from year 14 to 15 is due to two separate events I got about minors colonizing new planet X (which I then took over the next turn, score higher maybe from military action or extra planets)... there does appear to be a diminishing return but it look like it needs to be notched up a bit. Sometime later I might play it out to year 20 or so and see what the scores would have been.

Yes, you can submit scores played with "Fast Tech"

So fast tech would probably make games even easier for high scores... could start developing quicker.

Anyway, I ran that game out to 21 years, in honor of my competition Magnumaniac's 21 yr victory.

Year 16 - 1233927 score, ??? econ
Year 17 - 1295682 score, ??? econ
Year 18 - 1355750 score, 309153/turn econ
Year 19 - 1414242 score, 309266/turn econ
Year 20 - 1471302 score, 309242/turn econ (inexplicably my population was dropping per turn at this point)
Year 21 - 1524670 score, 309227/turn econ

Gain of 71247 for year 15 to 16, which is quite a bit more than my gain from 14 to 15. 61755 for 16 to 17, 60068 for 17 to 18, 58492 for 18 to 59, 57060 for 19 to 20, and 53368 for 20 to 21. I suspect the increase for 15 to 16 was the two new planets I got in year 14 continuing to develop. I actually got two other events for minors colonizing new planet X in these new five years, but I quit those games & reloaded. I guess with those, you wouldn't even experience any drop per year. At this point I dunno if there's even any depreciation, maybe it's some other factor..

See, now thats just Bass Ackwards.

There is no way you should get more points for a game that took 21 years than a game that took 7 years,all other things being equal. Every time you click end turn, it should depreciate your score, not increase it.

Same thing with population. The scoring is backwards. How is it more impressive to conquer galaxy 1.2a with 70 trillion taxpayers than to conquer galaxy 1.2a with 1 trillion people?

Same thing with economy. How is it more impressive to beat the 1.2a galaxy with 700 trillion credits earned than it is to beat galaxy 1.2a with 6 trillion credits earned?

Basically, if you want to see who the best players are in the metaverse, turn the ranking list upside down... the guy with the worst score is likely winning with the least resources.

I have to agree with alot of things said here. A while ago I finished a game in less than 8 years on normal with tech victory. Which is fast and was for me quite difficult to do. I recieved roughly 10.000 points for that one. I also did a game on simple, again a tech victory though this time I took waaaay longer then 8 years and recieved 25.000 points.

Ofcourse I understand this is because my civilization was more developed. But the others were too, so that wasnt anything special or difficult thing to do and I can't really see why that should give me extra points. What rather should give extra score is when I grow stronger then the others civs in a certain field. Not when I just keep up with them but do it for a lenghty time.

If Stardock has to arbitarily decide that one kind of win is "better" than another, more points for a shorter period of time makes the most sense. At least that's a goal to shoot for, winning quicker.

How do you compare the "difficulty" of winning in a tiny galaxy compared to winning in a gigantic galaxy? The Metavers should only rank by galaxy size, so if you win in a Tiny galaxy your score is compared to other games people played in Tiny galaxies.

Wow...

My mistake then.

About the "score study" :

Thanks a lot for all the info you are putting on this topic. This teaches a lot to me, and must also be a good scoring tutorial to other newcomers. I did have a game like one of Zevus, just need to finish my war against one last AI. Never put a rest to the war thing though, with a very incredible population.

About the "debate" about what should be made to the scoring :

I agree about the "turn" thing. Finishing a game in some turns should be more rewardful than finishing a game in more.

I do not agree about the "population" / "economic" / etc things Trespasser. Obvously you were already mad at Stardock scoring system when these ideas came out winning with less population IS a more difficult, but then, would you reward the one who managed a conquest victory without ever researching a weapon ? or the one winning a Diplomatic victory without researching diplomacy techs ?

I understand what you are saying is mainly "try to win and see who wins first", please forget the suggestion about pop and eco things being counted against a player instead of for him. Taht is nonsense, should you blow up your own colonists to have more points ? buy some ship wreckage on all colonies to decrease treasury ?

We want to encourage normal-playing of the game, and reward the best normal-player ; that is someone who develops his civilization well and leads his race to one of four possible victories. We agree on the "should not be a milking thing", and I do not want to encourage some other odd behaviour.

I agree with you about the "race for power" thing ; let all players have their own means to be the first. There can be only one.


Side note: I find very odd that Metaverse games are not more "streamlined", more similar to each other ; should all have about the same parameters, with only your own race and galaxy size changing (and of course randomness of planets to have a new game every time).

DAMMIT only thing I hate more than the drawn out games is the fact I may have to milk em now. GRRRR add to that the stupid fact that military scores are totally busted, some games I just dont get how could any of the ai's I totaly owned get higher military score than me???

Anyway, I ran that game out to 21 years, in honor of my competition Magnumaniac's 21 yr victory. Year 21 - 1524670 score, 309227/turn econ

Heh, heh - I guess you had a few more pop than me if you are playing on abundant settings - max pop I've ever got to is .006. That 21 year game was the result of making the mistake of picking occasional stars / planets and "very slow" tech rate - seriously, don't do it. You get twice as many points for tech (compared to normal), but that's only worth about 20K before the victory multiplier anyway (so 50K total on a mil. vic) if you research the whole damned tree yourself - which took a loooooooooong time.

Started an abundant everything game, but it was taking too long between turns after about 4 years so abandoned it.

The way the scoring is at the moment, no-ones going to be able compete unless playing abundant everything on gigantic - and that really is not fun.

ok.. heres a scenerio to test ... set up a norml sized map .. set everyone close to you (relationships).. then get them to ally with you asap.. theoretically you should be able tro finish that game in less then a year... why should that be rewarded ... "You havn't played the game at all .. " so finishing the game quickly isn't the goal.. the goal is to get the most numbewr of techs , fully populated planets, good income, happy people even though your planets are bursting at the seems .. and be the sole surviving race in the galaxy ...

and thats how to get big scores and i think its fair and just ... If you drag your game on and on while nothing is improving except for money then your scores arn't going to still climb..

Call me slow but in my last game I played a huge map and maxed my population.. got all the techs .. got it so that my people were as happy as they could be (with 0 taxes) had a decent sized fleet (all standard ships .. no player designed ones) all i had was about 30 planets at the end of the game played agains 5 AI's on challenging

It toook me 35 years to max everything (pop and techs) when my pop reached its max thats when i attacked the lasdt surviving AI ..

But like i said "I don't think that stardock will reward players for making the game drag on but will reward those who take the game to its maximums" which is how it should be..

I'd really hate it if someone playted a quick game allied victory with everyone starting close diplomatic relations then simply allied to them to get the quick win.. that game should score the minimal for a win cause they havn't PLAYED trhe game

We have had dozens of posts from people guessing how the scoring works. Someone from Stardock needs to explain how the scoring works!!!

If you drag your game on and on while nothing is improving except for money then your scores arn't going to still climb..

That's the main problem though JTQ (how are you doing, by the way ), from Darkhosis' testing and what I've seen in my games, you can do exactly that - just hit "Turn" a few hundred times when the AI is down to it's last remaining planet and watch the score steadily increase even though nothing is changing with regards to population / military / tech - only your treasury is increasing. You might think that this will only give a small boost according to the economic part of the score, but the society and military scores do also increase with time of their own accord.

I totally agree with your "build a thriving empire to score well" approach though, and have always hated the fact that the Civ3/4 military rush for quickest conquest victory gave the best scores by ignoring empire development and research completely. So I generally like the way GC2 is scoring games, but there needs to be a balance point where a stagnant empire does not increase score just through time.

Some good points are brought up about quick victories not always being impressive, but scoring multipliers can fix some and simple counters can fix the others.

In the example where you start with everyone being best buddies and then go for an alliance on turn 1, giving a multiplier of -50% per race that starts the game as "friendly" to you ends that strategy real fast.

In the example of killing your people to get a better score, if it doesn't already it should keep track of how many people are born, not how many you end up with.

In the example of buying useless things to reduce your cash, it should (and I think it does) base the score on credits earned, not credits you have at end game.

Balancing the scores for different galaxy sizes would be much, much more difficult, and has already been mentioned, should probably just be listed under different meta-verses.

Yes, that would be cool... a tiny metaverse, small, medium.. all the way to gigantic.

That would be very cool.

Hmm I always play Gigantic on very slow tech :/ I guess I'll try very fast tech next time!

Ok here is a thought, what if you found a race with very weak soldiering compared to your, you build gazillion transports and you kept giving away one planet and conquering it over and over and over. How woudl that impact your score? Mostly interested because the "Soldiers Killed In Battle" is very vague. I usually end up getting lower number than AI and I always wondered if the game is calculating that correctly?

For the scoring - I doubt Stardock'll tell us how it works... its more of something for us to figure out on our own.

With the economy - it calculates it based upon the average for your race... so as time goes on your average normally increases (thus making a higher score).

I don't understand either why long games should yield more points. I just won a challenging game with a political victory in just under 5 years of gameplay. So if I'd had have dragged the game, I'd have had more points ? I don't see the point really ...
Looking at the charts, the strategy for high scoring seems to be "gigantic map" (understandable), "very evil" (less understandable), conquest and long games (don't understand this at all)

arghhhh...
i just explainmed ...
why do people think that short games should score more
please read my message above...

if my theory is correct i could finish a game in about 2 to 5 turns... and that certianly isn't what i call playing the game... and should not be rewarded because you havn'tr maxed your population.. researched all techs .. created max trade routes.. extended ytour influence or flexed your military might ..

The idea is to build an empiere .. a civilization.. not just end the game as quickly as you can