if you want to play a game that rewards you for finishing quickle (least amount of turns..)
then perhaps this game isn't for you...

How about playing a nice game of Golf ..
the least number of strokes to complete it is reguarded as the winner

Your not getting OUR point, bro.

Clicking end turn 500 times with one last planet to invade before the game is over is not difficult, and should lower your score, not increase it.

The same would apply to your glorious civilization as well. If you can make the same glorious civilization on turn 7, it is not so easy as making that same glorious civ on turn 800. The score, however, seems to reward clicking "end turn" even when the game is clearly won.

I agree, i personally don't plan to play on anything higher then Beginner, but i think the higher difficulty you play, the higher the points you get.

Cakewalk = Default score of 10,000

Highest Difficulty = Default score of 100,000

That is more including all the bonus points of your stats. (ie. population, techs)

I think it has something of an equilizer for the speed gamers and those that like a thorough game. The idea is that it would theoretically take as much effort to play two six year games as it would one eleven year game (a little less than direct sum in my estimate since later years tend to play slower than beginning of the game due to more stuff to manage). Thus to not punish the people who take their time to win they place a bonus for playing a longer game. Plus there's the issue that it'll likely take just as long to play thos two shorter gams than the longer one.

Is it a perfect system? Not in the least. Personally I feel longer games should get more points than an uber short game, but it should be balanced. Ideally there should be something to start to deduct points if you do not make any progress towards any of the victory conditions after a period of time has elapsed, but this would be difficult to impliment.

I havn't noticed that this is the case ... .. yes while your population is increasing.. or other things are increasing .. yes your score goes up.. I've not seen that when my colonies are at max (thats 100b population BTW on worlds larger than pq 14 at the end of the game after teraforming and builting 12 of the largest farming blocks.. and yes even though your PQ should be able to support more people there is a cap of 100b / planet)

I do agree that if the score goes up IF and when you have completed everythiung and maxed everything techs etc that your score shouldn't go up unless your winning battles against the AI and or taking planets... this even includes waiting on the off chance of new minors poping up.. if you wait that long and then take on the new minors you should be rewarded for the takeover and the building up of that new planet that you've aquired..

If Stardock starts rewarding those who simply finish the game early then whats the use is finishing reserching and mopping up etc... NONE...

likre i say .. if you want vto play a game that rewards quick shortest possible games then go and play gold or something similar...

This IS the last i'm going to say on this.. as i'm getting pissed off by people complaining that they don't like the scoring system...

This isn't new to GC2 .. GC1 suffered from the same critics and complained that they couldn't get the big scores.. the trueth of the matter is.. that EVERYTHING contributes to the scores... INCLUDING the size of Galaxys, Diffictly of play,number of techs researched, populations and economys of planets, and i dare say that if its not already done so ythey'll be incorporating score multipliers for everything new (that wasn't in GC1) like number of habitable planets (because the more planets you colonise the easier it is to get to the huge population bonuses) number of AI's played against, etc.. etc...

At least now they've got away from giving a bonus for making the game last 10 years (GC1 had a bonus for that) , now the bonus us population related.. so if you get your pop up to more that 999,999 Billion then your score jumps and appears to be so for multiples there of...

Its not like other games that you have to simply wipe out your enemys asap ...

I guess you people even like to try to change the rules ans scoring systems og other games too .. like Chess , Draughts, Risk, Monopoly or any other games that you can't compete in ..

Rather than bitching cause I can't get a 1,000,000 point game yet.. i'm trying even harder to do so.. play the games for what trhey are rather than try to change it to what you want... sure complain about bugs.. but this isn't a bug..

In GC1 we had heaps complaining about the high scores.. even after those achieving them gave out tips on how they did it so that all can compete on an equeal field.. all that did was let people tell them that they were using CHEESY tactics to Win... All is Fair in love and war .. thats what this is... The mataverse is a war zone... why shouldn't those who are dedicated cto put in time to play get rewarded the most.. its like an army reservist (only weekend and holiday soldiers) who don't make it their lifes goal to be a full time army ppl but they want all the perks as the ones who do.. It ain't going to happen .. if it does then i'm out of here

I am so very sorry you got angry, lets see if you keep your word and go away like you said you would.


Now back to the topic.

For all the moaning and complaining, no one has defeated this simple logic. Follow me slowly now.

The game was created for us to have fun. Were we to not have fun, we would not buy the game, and the game would not be worth making.

The metaverse is a part of the above mentioned game. It should therefore, be fun to participate in the metaverse.

Clicking end turn repeatedly is not fun.

If you want to do well in the metaverse, you must click end turn repeatedly, even when the game is clearly won. If you don't, you do poorly in the metaverse, and no one wakes up in the morning and says "I want to do poorly today!" Because doing poorly is not fun.

The metaverse score has absolutely nothing to do with skill. Anyone can get population growth and economy growth by clicking end turn repeatedly. My 4 year old does it for me when I have something else to do. NO JOKE.

Now you can call me names, accuse me of being ignorant for having my point of view, but no one has yet to come close to defeating any of the above logic.

Also, I have noticed the devs do actually pay attention to the player base here, and it is possible that some good will come out of this discussion.

and it is possible that some good will come out of this discussion.

It's also possible that something bad could come from it...

Yes, there are some problems with the scoring, and milking is possible - that needs to be changed.
No, we do not want a Civ3/4 style scoring system where the way to get the highest scores is with the early military rush strategy, completely ignoring 90%+ of what is available in the game (and also has nothing to do with skill).

So no system is going to please everyone.

The scoring system just doesn't make sense to me. My last few games have had the same settings and finished in much the same way. Yet, one of these games received a score 3 times that of the rest and I have no idea why. I've played games since getting a 666k score where I finished with more money, likely more developed planets, roughly similar populations, and where I felt I had fought more wars. However, none of these other games have even come close to that score and I don't know why.

I certainly don't feel that there should be that much of a gap between those games on the same general settings. Funnily enough it was the quicker game that has the much higher score.

Magnumaniac... the civ style rush system involves one heck of a lot more skill than letting my 4 year old click end turn for me repeatedly.

I agree that the rush scoring system is not the way to go, but unlike most people, I do not make the assumption that it is the only alternative to the current "click end turn" system.

There is such a thing as balance... its not an easy thing to aquire, but it does exist.

The scoring is broke for sure. I dont think you can "fix" it by scoring more for longer games etc. The point of the game is to dominate the Galaxy, Fairly sure everyone can agree with that. So how you win should not effect your score at all. I know Regardless which way I win safe to say I flexed all my muscles military, diplomatic and influence. How your civilization stacks up to the other races when the smoke clears is what should matter. A simple mulitplier for difficulty and various settings i.e. rare planets make tougher games. Also for metaverse games give the A.I. a give up /end game options. Once your empire is the clear winner your score locks. No milking the game with 1 pet alien colony while ya click end turn.

Is this a cure fix all great idea? nope people will shoot it full of holes but i think its a better start to a working system than whats in place. Anyway my 2 cents.

Almost anything is better than the current setup.

I play games starting with eveyone close. None are willing to ally with you on the first turn - at least that is my experience. I don't think you have enough money on turn one to buy them all either. Perhaps if you only have one alien you might (have to try that and see). After about 5 turns ro so they have all moved from close to friendly, so it takes even more to get them to ally with you. I don't think this strategy is a viable one. If anyone has made this happen, I would like to know the details.

To clarify for people, the metaverse website does not determine the game score, nor does it have anything to do with the score that it receives from the game. This question would be better directed at the game development team.

Isnt it?

#50 by JT Qwerk
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:10 PM


Trolling
Insightful


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
[Cake Walk]
Yes the point is not to win some CHeezy easy victory and get mega points for it. But if you can dominate the galaxy with all the techs maxed out, All your planets developed to the max, and control all the resources in less then 10 years, why should you get less points then someone who does the same, or even less, in 20 years. You are basing your argument on one glich in the programing.

Agree with you JT.

The high score for small galaxy is, at this moment, about 65k, unles I am reading the filters wrong.

I just submitted a game, small universe, score 262k. 4 times as many points as the next "best" score. I'm hoping when I wake up tomorrow, it will be updated for all to see, but here's a link until then: http://metaverse.galciv2.com/index.aspx?g=player&id=2896

Am I 4 times better than anyone else who has played a small universe?

My score would indicate so. (If you argue that having the high score doesn't mean you submitted the best game, then you are by default admitting the scoring system is broken, and I am debating someone who will never get it anyways)

However, the fact that I let my 4 year old push end turn for me all day really should let you know that it was in fact my 4 year old son Joseph who is 4 times better than everyone else.

Still think the scoring system isn't broken? If so, I give up, its worse than debating with a tree.



The sad part is, I could have continued on indefinitely, and not submitted this game. i could have continued letting my 4 year old son Joseph click end turn for weeks on end, finally submitting some ridiculous score like 500 billion points, indicating that my son is like infinitely better than anyone who ever played the game..... because he can press end turn??????

I'm not saying the quick game is the be all and end all.
I'm suggesting some happy medium, where you get rewarded for building a civilization, but penalized for clicking end turn for 43 years. I am amazed that anyone thinks clicking end turn for 43 years is a legit way to get a great score.

Yeah, you shouldnt continue to rack up points by just being stagnant. I'm pretty surprised someone hasnt taken a gigantic game out to 30+ years just to get the highest score on the metaverse.

I'd probably do it myself just to highlight the problems with the scoring, get some 3 mil score or something on a 40 yr game... but I've got Oblivion to win so no time for Galciv 2 lately. I guess one stopgap could be just to cap the economic score gains after year 8 or something.

I disagree with your stuff about how winning with a lesser economy is a "better" win, you should be able to dominate all aspects of a game and that includes having a good economy.. but, yes, your score shouldnt go up every turn when nothing is happening except treasury is increasing.

i've noticed the scoring to be a product of how LARGE your values are & how LONG you've had those values. an 'area under curve' type effect.

it's extremely challenging to fairly "score" a game of this type. as an alternative i suggest goals scoring. like highest aggregate military str, fastest ship, highest economy, quickest game, etc.

Well, I feel guilty for submitting it, but if it gets the developers to fix the problem that will help ease my guilt.

http://metaverse.galciv2.com/index.aspx?g=topscores&m=0

Well the Devs are claiming that 95% of us can't beat Suicidal in this 1.1 Beta 2 patch. I have beaten it. Yet my SCORE doesn't reflect this. You wouldn't know I'm in the "5%" that can defeat it. Actually I'm fairly confident I'm the first or one of them. I'm sure only 1% or less have beaten Suicidal in the 1.1 Beta 2 so far. So why shouldn't my score reflect that I'm in this "95%" that can beat Suicidal?

The scoring in the metaverse IS completely broken. I have only submitted one game, because after submitting it I looked at my score compared to others I could see that the scoring was totally unrelated to how well you played the game. I played it fairly soon after getting the game, it was a game that I totally dominated in a small galaxy on tough setting --- I scored 10,000 points for a 3 year victory. When I saw other scores being several hundred thousand for people playing in a huge universe on cakewalk, it was obvious that the scores were totally uncorrelated with how well you play the game. There is no way ANY game on cakewalk should get a higher score than ANY win on Suicidal, but not only can someone get a higher score on cakewalk, they could get a score that is many multiples of the one that played on Suicidal. So the real problem is taking the Metaverse seriously, it is currently a joke.

If I were designing it, you would get points for each of the categories currently making up the score, social, military (which by the way, also seems broken, I can kill ten times the number of ships that I lose, but get a smaller score than a computer computer that has the exact opposite situation),etc., that gets the scores increasing based on all these, but then the following penalties should be applied:

1) Difficulty level (a HUGE penalty, like cakewalk maybe getting 5% of the value of a suicidal victory)
2) Total number of habitable planets (since larger galaxies lead to all other values going up, this brings them back to something comparable)
3) Small number of opponents --- if you play against nine opponents, your score is full value, otherwise you get penalized based on the number you are playing against
4) Enabling options that help you win, like tech trading, no fog of war, etc.

Frogboy mentions in the othe topic about this that the scoring system will be fixed. YAY
he doesnt say how or when, but thats fine with me. Its enough to know that they are aware of the problem and intend to fix it.

AW Trespasser, you are sounding off at JTQwerk for no reason, how about backing off and acting a bit more civil, he was trying to help you and you are acting like an ass with your comments. With Galciv1 the scoring changed numberous times and we did not have the people acting like asses as you are here and in another thread.

There is no need to get hot over anything when you take someone wrong. He is getting upset due to your attitude he is being fine in my eyes. Seems you want things one certain way and not listening to a thing anyone else is telling you.

Nice job making the forums a mess for new people.

I agree with Admiral Bridgehead. I currently don't care about the metaverse because of how crappy my scores have been and I refuse to draw out games.

Link

To summarize

5 yrs, large, tough, tech victory, very good - 9375
4 yrs, medium, normal, culture victory, very good - 10,277
4 yrs, medium, normal, military victory, chaotic evil - 15,935
3 yrs, small, crippling, culture victory, pond scum (???) - 9140
4 yrs, small, crippling, culture victory, nuetral - 13,793

My highest difficulty game is the lowest scoring, my normal military the highest, and the culture victory that took one year longer scored 4000 more points.

I figured I'd get high scores for finishing fast, guess not.