Player(s) scores

Well, the scores for each game are the same. The average is what you get for a total. For example look at Suralle. Lots of games, almost all above normal so a "bonus" in score is probably there. But his ranking is only in the 30's.

Link

Suralles the king of bling though!

As far as players old scores. No we should not delete them if they have been gone forever even. I mean, lets look back at Suralles history with GC.

Got the game when it first hit the shelves in some store. Started playing, deployed to the northern atlantic ocean on a "training exercise" for 6 months. Came back, for about a month, another submarine crew didn't want to "exercise" and cut some of their reactor control cables (or some nonsense like that) and Suralle was back underway for another 3 months. Do we delete Suralles scores because he is out defending his country? No of course not, doesn't even matter what country it is, Suralle is still defending others rights while voluntarily giving up his own.

As for players with less games and higher scores all I can say is that if it wasn't for the bling Suralle would have started over awhile back when player Mayito8888 took over like 2nd or 3rd place due to the fact that for some reason beginner games count for as much as much harder games way back when, plus quite a few of his games are from a version that has not been part of the recalculation. No, Suralle is one of those hard pluggers, the kind of kat everyone wants on their team but not necessarily in charge because he tends to work harder and longer because he feels that everyone is watching. What a paranoid kitty.

Well, good hunting Zerogman.

W/R
Suralle Straykat
Kat Lord of Bling

The total score is (sum of scores)/(square root of number of games submitted). So it's somewhere between a sum and an average. Your score generally increases as you submit more games, but if you submit a really bad one it's possible for it to go down. Cunning system, to my mind.

I, too, would like to understand this. If you look at mine, it is a simple total. The difference, I think, is that I have all 1.11 games and do NOT have any recalc issues with older games or with betas.

I suspect the drop some people saw with posting is that new posts forced an immediate recalculation of their older scores?

As far as players old scores. No we should not delete them if they have been gone forever even. I mean, lets look back at Suralles history with GC.

I wasn't saying delete them, I was just asking if they have been modified with the new scoring system. It's hard to tell if they were or not, but they do seem to be significantly higher then those who are posting scores more recently.

The total score is (sum of scores)/(square root of number of games submitted). So it's somewhere between a sum and an average. Your score generally increases as you submit more games, but if you submit a really bad one it's possible for it to go down. Cunning system, to my mind.

Hmmm... looking at my scores, and following your equation, I should be at 167000'ish, not 211868. As with almost everyone else, my v1.2b1 submission was flagged so I didn't add that game's score, but still calculated my score with it being included in the number of games submitted.

My 16 games, out of 17, that weren't flagged added to a total of 668638 points, and the square of 17 is about 4.123... Obviously, that doesn't give me my listed 211868 that it says I have...

Although, looking at your equation again... it seems to me that a more accurate one, in regards to just my score, would be sum of non-flagged games / (square of total games - (total games / wins) ) Throw in some rounding and you can get within what it says my score should be. I actually think I am trying too hard to figure it out and should just go back to slaughtering the A.I. to get my score up.

Maybe it's just coincidence, but the sum of my non-flagged games divided by pi rounded up to the nearest 100th (3.15), but like I said, it is probably just coincidence...

If it's not coincedence though, then our score is equal to the equation used to find the circumference of a circle. ( Circumference = pi * diameter ) Where the Circumference is the sum of your non-flagged scores and the diameter is your actual score listed. Heh, yeah, I am a nerd.

Does the galaxy size then affect your score. Im thinking it will due to my smaller games being less in total score and the bigger ones I would then think have to give more score. Im also thinking that the difficulty lvl may give a bonus as well. Maybe not though, but would be kinda nice to know.

Difficulty and population are two of the biggest contributors to a high score. You get a higher score on larger maps because you can achieve a much higher population. Also with a higher no. of planets you can research much more effectively and achieve a higher research score. You can get many more helpfull tidbits if you join the B. C. Space Orcas. We are an up and coming Empire now in 11th place. Yet another shameless plug. Bye for now TBAY

OK. I do not understand what happened with my metaverse score this last post. I was at ~170K for a total metaverse score. I posted a game just shy of 50K (best score yet). My total metaverse score dropped to ~110K. I don't not have any betas posted, so this is NOT the metaverse recalc issue.

I would really like to understand how the metaverse score is calculated based upon your games scores...

You can get many more helpfull tidbits if you join the B. C. Space Orcas. We are an up and coming Empire now in 11th place. Yet another shameless plug.

Yeah, that was really helpful. "You can get a brand new, shining Viper if you join the Colonial Fleet!" Haha...
Let's hear some of those "helpful tidbits" or go away.

Geckomind. If you go to my original recruiting post (has about 31 replys) on Metaverse talk you will see a lot of strategy info. We also will have a website up soon. The link is in one of Norads' posts within the above thread. I should not have posted this for you as i am not usually so accomodating to people who tell me to "go away". Have fun watching our empire Kick your butt back to the cesspool it came from. Have a nice day. TBAY

I have a theory! At five scores, my total metaverse score was just a straight total. At six, it is exactly half my total. I'm guessing it will remain half my total until reaching eleven games. Then it will go to a third...Mine is easier to see since I have no metaverse recalc stuff.

Anyone who has had games revalued by the metaverse calc will have their scores skewed additionally.

Looking at the top leaders:

Killzone has very few recalced scores in his total. If my theory is correct, his total score will drop significantly with the next game he posts (his eleventh).

Jarru should also take a hit with his next post (eleventh).

Any bets?

Only problem is that there are still some people with scores that don't fit under this set of rules, some of the top ten would have lower point totals...Sigh...

I'm guessing it will remain half my total until reaching eleven games. Then it will go to a third

I just posted my 11th game. Still half of the total score.

Thanks for the info, you are another clear cut no recalc case. If you do hit another score cliff, post at what point...Maybe with enough data points we can extrapolate a formula.

Puzzles like this drive me nuts! They screw with my sense of how a universe should be ordered

I would be since if someone from Stardock would respond with the formula. Perhaps, they are worried players will play to the formula rather than maximize their fun. This is a game after all so maximizing your score should take a backseat to enjoying the game.

I'm playing my first Metaverse game created under v1.0, with level=Painful, a gigantic map, everything abundant (to maximize my habitable planets and hence population), tight clusters (to maximize the effect of EC starbases) and very fast research. This game has been "painful" not because of the difficulty level (which is too easy) but because of the memory problem with large maps under v1.0. Memory usage soon grows to 900MB and I only have 512MB of physical memory, so I have had multiple corrupted game saves when I ran out of virtual memory. I understand things are better under v1.2; are gigantic abundant maps playable under v1.2 with only 512MB (running on WinXP SP2 Home Edition)? Shortly after starting this game I upgraded to v1.11 which caused the explored areas of the map to return to Fog of War; I hope this does not also cause this game to be incorrectly flagged as cheated, especially given how long it has taken me to play it!!!

Looking forward to playing v1.2 (without the first strike advantage) on level Crippling and hopefully without memory issues!

I'm playing my first Metaverse game created under v1.0, with level=Painful, a gigantic map, everything abundant (to maximize my habitable planets and hence population), tight clusters (to maximize the effect of EC starbases) and very fast research. This game has been "painful" not because of the difficulty level (which is too easy) but because of the memory problem with large maps under v1.0. Memory usage soon grows to 900MB and I only have 512MB of physical memory, so I have had multiple corrupted game saves when I ran out of virtual memory.

If you're running out of memory, you should up your virtual memory then. Also, making it a static cache can stop the lag when windows would readjust the caches size. If you do know how to adjust the size of it, set it to a "Custom" size and just set the max and min to the same number. For 512MB of physical memory, I suggest 1280 MB. (Or 2.5x Physical memory). Here is a chart on my preferences for the ratio of RAM : Virtual Memory

RAM Virtual Memory
512MB or less 2.5x RAM
above 512MB 2.0x RAM
1.5GB or more* 1.5x RAM
3.0GB to 4.0GB 1.0x RAM (I don't think it's possible to have any more RAM than 4.0GB)

* - (By the time you get this much, you probably have a custom comp. and a good idea of what you think is good!)

Looking forward to playing v1.2 (without the first strike advantage) on level Crippling and hopefully without memory issues!

Heh, the new combat system is a lot more difficult, but also a lot more fair! Fleets with larger numbers tend to last longer in my opinion. I am playing with v1.2b2 on masochistic and it's a lot harder, but much more fun for some reason!

Geckomind. If you go to my original recruiting post (has about 31 replys) on Metaverse talk you will see a lot of strategy info. We also will have a website up soon. The link is in one of Norads' posts within the above thread. I should not have posted this for you as i am not usually so accomodating to people who tell me to "go away". Have fun watching our empire Kick your butt back to the cesspool it came from. Have a nice day. TBAY

I was refering to the piece of "advice" you gave. I am certainly not a good player, but we have one or two guys in the fleet that would wipe the celestial floor with your type. You're right, you should not have posted that or anything else. As another fleet member said: "the greatest waste of bandwith ever".

If you want to make me angry, you gotta get up a bit earlier, mate... As for your empire: I will not have sleepless nights if you overtake us. Just remember: Killer whales go "splat" in space. Vacuum isn't good for marine mammals...

Have a nice day!

Geckomind. You were the first to critisize me for absolutely no reason. I am not angry. You obviously are. I have been able to read kids like you for years. I will cintinue to post recruiting messages anywhere I please. You are not the forum warden. Nobody died and made you king. Have a nice day TBAY

Mascrinthus,

My laptop only has 512. (Desktop is much better thankfully). Zerogman's advice is sound and will help (but with your config, you might have to up the numbers a bit). Here are a few more things.

If you turn off all the background nebula/stars etc. it helps the game speed tremendously by not using nearly so much memory.

Zoom the main screen out until you get just the 2D icons before hitting end turn.

Turning off the mods in the options will help the game load time tremendously as well (even if you aren't using mods!).

Not sure if you'll have enough resources for the game you are in, but this will help.

I am not angry. You obviously are.

Hahaha.... I just love it when people tell me I'm angry. I'll be angry if England kicks us out of the World Cup. Short of that, don't worry about me.

If you do hit another score cliff, post at what point...Maybe with enough data points we can extrapolate a formula.

It looks like 12 is a magic number. I just posted my 12th game and my metaverse score is only 49.67% of my total score of all my games. Through game 11 it was an even 50%.

I don't understand the scoring system at all. I just posted my latest game, my best game ever in terms of points. But instead of going up my metaverse score actually went down! What kind of a system punishes players for doing well?

phtmsabr It seems that as soon as you reach game 6 your total for all games is divided by 2. In the galciv 1 metaverse they used to divide the total of all your scores by the square root of the number of games you have played. This looks like a similar setup but it seems to be calculated every 5 or six games. I have played 27 games and my metaverse score is about 1/3 of my total for all games. Don't despair. it is the same for all of us. The cream still rises to the top, (as long as they finish the recalc and Knock the 2 pretenders out of the top 10.) Bye for now, TBAY. Hey why not join the BC Space Orcas. We have risen from 21st to 6th place in the last 2 weeks and we are gaining on the top 3.

12th game and my metaverse score is only 49.67%

At 13 games I am now at 49.53% of my total score.

After game 17, I was at a score of 249806...

After game 18, I am still at a score of 249806...

The difference? The sum of my scores dropped dramattically!

After game 17, score was about 30% of total (total around 830000)

After game 18, score is now about 40% of total (total is 625430)

What gives?