Iron Man

What do you think?

Why restrict this to the metaverse? This should be a feature of every game. I'm not sure how this could be implemented, because couldn't someone always copy the autosave file to somewhere else and then copy it back if a decision went badly for the player?

But implementation aside, I think this is a great idea and should be implemented for all games, not just metaverse games.

Why restrict this to the metaverse? This should be a feature of every game.

Yeah, I agree.

because couldn't someone always copy the autosave file to somewhere else and then copy it back if a decision went badly for the player?

Your right. I can think of one way to thwart it, it's not the most elegant solution. Here it is: after each turn have the game submit an encrypted message to the metaverse and save that encrypted message on the save file. When the user goes to load a game, check the message on the save file against the last message that the metaverse received. Any other ideas? maybe do the same thing, but have the encrypted message saved somewhere on the hard drive instead. More hackable, but much more convenient.

That whould test a players true skill and would give some people bragging rights (which I hate).

What about encomberment where it is retricted to five races and all five races are in the same system with a PQ26 planet as homeworld and dread lords in all four corners of the map. Bonus ponits for large maps and below because of space.

Here it is: after each turn have the game submit an encrypted message to the metaverse and save that encrypted message on the save file.

Not all who play the Meta are connected to the Meta when they play.

How many people using a reload strategy?

I only reload a previous save if the game crashed, slightly altering the course of the game if it was an old savegame.

For me, reloading if something did not go the way I wanted it, takes the whole fun out of the game!

For me, reloading if something did not go the way I wanted it, takes the whole fun out of the game!

Agreed. Game crashes, farm and orbital terraformer bug, and missing turn button are the only reasons I reload.

Why restrict this to the metaverse? This should be a feature of every game. I'm not sure how this could be implemented, because couldn't someone always copy the autosave file to somewhere else and then copy it back if a decision went badly for the player?

I've actually got constructive answers to both for once...

The ironman suggestion should be limited to the metaverse because it can be implemented on the honor system in a single player no-care score world. There's no real need for that kind of feature when it is one person playing for himself. And personally, although I try not to revert to previous save-game points, sometimes it is nice to go back after losing and trying to see if you could have made some better decision making. I would not *want* that feature removed. And I know you're going to suggest having the ironman system be in *addition*, but, I think that would be a really pointless non-metaverse feature.

It actually is quite possible, and ***relatively*** simple to implement. All save game options would have to be disabled on the UI. A new autosave hybrid would have to be created that kills the last autosave, and saves the new one with a timestamp (i think it already has a timestamp in the filename). What would be stopping you from copying the file out and moving it back in is this timestamp. All files have an OS attribute of "date last modified." I'm familiar to this in Unix, but not windows, but the functionality is essentially the same. All you would do is write a check on the special "Ironman load" option that ensures the timestamp on the file matches the modified timestamp. If you're worried about a user superhacking this... you could create a log of all the timestamps of saves, that has to have a simultaneous timestamp with the last save. Again, this feature security is superhackable... but anyone with the time/knowlege to write a program to beat it would probably rather beat the game straight-up. Security by obscurity


p.s. I really don't like the idea of repeatedly spamming StarDock each turn. That would increase the web traffic they have to deal with tenfold, if not more.

anyone with the time/knowlege to write a program to beat it would probably rather beat the game straight-up. Security by obscurity

Good idea. And it probably is best to leave the non-metaverse game alone. Going back and trying different things is the best way to quicky test out different strategies.

The one point about this is that you can't save a game in the middle of a turn. Hopefully with my new PC on the way my turns won't take as long as they used to, but I have had many turns that have taken 2 hours.

I think the method nova proposed would work even if save was allowed at arbitrary points like quicksave. I don't think it's intrinsic to the algorithm that it can only save at end turn. What do you think?

[edit] I think this should be in addition to the automatic save at end turn [/edit]

I don't think it's intrinsic to the algorithm that it can only save at end turn. What do you think?

You're absolutely correct. So I amend my statement to say Disable all UI save functionality *except* for being able to press a save button. I don't even think the user should be able to name the file. But, no, it does not matter at what point the game is saved in this instance.

[edit] I think this should be in addition to the automatic save at end turn [/edit]

The one point about this is that you can't save a game in the middle of a turn. Hopefully with my new PC on the way my turns won't take as long as they used to, but I have had many turns that have taken 2 hours.

Wow, you're hard core. I absolutely *hate* micromanagement. That's why I stick to tiny or small galaxies. Sure, you can't get as high of a score, but your turns can be short,
and you can finish games in out sitting. I just don't have the patience for maps larger than medium, at least on higher difficulty levels where micromanaging every planet to its fullest potential is a must.

Wow, you're hard core. I absolutely *hate* micromanagement.

I agree with that. But the system should still accommodate the hardcore, which is why I overlooked it as well.

I don't know about suicidal, but obscene is still fairly beatable with only 3 or so major turns of micromanagement per game. One planet building setup phase after colonization, one population management phase after I research Xeno Farming II, and one research conversion phase after most of my Industrial Sectors have been built.

Basically I manage my empire like I would manage the zerg in starcraft to avoid mass micromanagement. Maybe that's why I align with evil .

Wow, you're hard core. I absolutely *hate* micromanagement. That's why I stick to tiny or small galaxies. Sure, you can't get as high of a score, but your turns can be short, and you can finish games in out sitting. I just don't have the patience for maps larger than medium, at least on higher difficulty levels where micromanaging every planet to its fullest potential is a must.

I think I'll see what benefit I get out of my new PC. For example I could literally wait a minute to go from the main screen to the colony list in the civ manager. But I am considering moving down to huge games.

Some of this is style of play and where I think I can best compete. FC for example is a monster at being able to crank out games in a relatively short time but most of his games scored in the mid range. He's since kept up the rate of games while increasing his scores which makes him truly dangerous. Other folks do better at getting a very high score but play much slower. Each method works. I'm afraid that if I played smaller games, they'd still be slower than most folks. Anyway, it's always good to experiment with different styles of play which includes games sizes. I'm also thinking of trying out an entirely different strategy. I might even drop down in difficulty for a game or two in my attempt at mastering it. All of these things change up the game to some extent so that you don't get bored with it just doing the same thing over and over.

FC for example is a monster at being able to crank out games in a relatively short time but most of his games scored in the mid range

Excuse my ignorance as I've only been here a month, but who's FC?

Excuse my ignorance as I've only been here a month, but who's FC?

Sorry, FC is Fuels Chief.

Wow, just had a look at his stats. His gradual rise in points per game is very impressive.

That would be me.

FC for example is a monster at being able to crank out games in a relatively short time but most of his games scored in the mid range. He's since kept up the rate of games while increasing his scores which makes him truly dangerous.

I played the Meta in GC I and after 250ish games burnt out. I made it as high as #3 but the fun was missing. I don't intend to let that happen this time. I play on gigantic obscene now and that is probably where I'll stay. As far as cranking I can average 1 a week inport and 2 to 3 underway. My profile will get erradic though as I can only submit them while inport.

This thread has begun to tie in with Wheels Meta scenerios thread. Both are something that would make the game more interesting and fun.

As far as cranking I can average 1 a week inport and 2 to 3 underway. My profile will get erradic though as I can only submit them while inport.

I can crank out a suicidal tiny galaxy victory in about three hours, hoping to eventually get that down to somewhere between 1 and 2. I do need help with maximizing my score though. Is there any guide out there that can help me?

I can crank out a suicidal tiny galaxy victory in about three hours, hoping to eventually get that down to somewhere between 1 and 2. I do need help with maximizing my score though. Is there any guide out there that can help me?

maximizing score is really just about the legnth of time you maintain high levels in the 4 catagories and the micromanagement involved with it. something as simple as not colonizing a class 10 planet and building an economic resource instead. heavy use of SBs. a 20K RP planet. things like that.

(dang shift key broke)

Any way to access the hard numbers on that stuff?

I refer to those who can use numbers and data mathmagicians. I don't have the knack for it. I know what I wrote above has helped me increase my score but as far as what percentage it increases or buy what points will my score be better if I do this instead of that, I am clusless.

Any way to access the hard numbers on that stuff?

You want to have as high a pop as possible for as long as possible. Same with tech spending, military rating and economy. By hard numbers I'm not quite sure what you want. Basically I would take the hard numbers to be how high can you actually get pop, economy, military might and tech spending. This is going to vary a lot based on size of galaxy, number and type of mining resources and how early you can get them. For economy I've gotten an average of about 2500 bc per planet per week with 6 econ resources and the economic properity event. For research FC got a 20K RP per week planet with 6 research resources. I've had a 11K per week planet with 4 research resources, I've also had 80K RP per week from 32 research planets. As far as military might I've had 4,000 huge hull battleships each with 16 BHE's along with 3 military resources. There's really not much you can do with population anymore since v1.2 but I maintain 19B on most of my planets.

However, all of this is based on a gigantic map. On smaller maps you should be able to achieve the same kind of per planet performance but everything will be scaled back by the number of resources (and number of planets). The best way to get "hard" numbers is to compare with folks that play the same size map as you. The biggest part of being able to do something is just knowing it can be done. If you know so and so got a military score of X with 1000 BHE battleships and 2 military resources you can pretty much figure out how to duplicate it. One point about tech score is that you need to keep on spending on research even after the tech tree is complete, though maybe on a smaller map you might not ever complete it.

Clearly, you're going to get more points on the bigger game that you play. You essentially want to maximize the area under the 4 curves: pop, tech, military and economy. That's really all there is to it.

As to how many ships over what length of time relates to how high a military score, I certainly don't know and I don't think there's anyone that does know the exact details on scoring. I think these are tightly held Stardock state secrets. Scoring you really play by experience and comparison with what other people have done. That's really about as much "hard" advice as there is to give. Hope it helps though.

Well that explains a lot!

On my last game I had the got the lowest amount of military points out of all the races, because I stockpiled my money and bought a whole bunch of ships at the very end of the game and wiped everyone out in a couple of turns. It seems that my strategy is good for winning, but not so much for scoring points.

One last question, do you think it would be worthwhile to conquer all but one planet of the galaxy, develop my newly conquered planets, and then take out the last planet afterwards? Or would I end up losing more points by prolonging the length of the game? Also, on the same note, do your points diminish each turn, or each year?

do you think it would be worthwhile to conquer all but one planet of the galaxy

I have tried this on 2 different occasions and it does not seem to work for me. The Civ will just surrender thus ending the game.

The way I have found to go about it is leave the weakest Civ, then exploit for points. I grow tired of this and usually just end the game. I like to see how fast I can conquer the others instead of completely overpowering them 15 years after I should have.

By the way, I do like the whole Iron Man thing. Would be good for the Metaverse.

One last question, do you think it would be worthwhile to conquer all but one planet of the galaxy

That's called milking the game and is a bit cheesy at least, not to say that it isn't done on occasion.

From what I've heard, it can help but it's only worthwhile if you still have significant growth in at least a couple of categories. Even then it gets to diminishing returns very quickly. If you still have a lot of pop to grow or if you haven't finished building out your planets then it's probably worth it in points.

It's hard not to do this to some extent but what I mostly do is allow myself to finish out the year that I'm in when I get to the point that can immediately win. I try to end the game right on Dec 22nd. Some people would consider even this cheese, but I don't find it unreasonable. Much beyond this I would consider cheese, plus it really doesn't get you that much. If you want to hit the turn button for another year for 5K in points, then knock yourself out.

What you can do that isn't cheese is to plan your strategy to maximize points long term over the course of the game. This is not only not cheese, it's far more effective at getting a high score.

As I mentioned before, the score seems based on the area under the aforementioned curves (the integral). So if you play the game without regard for score and get to the point that you’re about to win and then start doing things to increase your score while milking the game, this really only results in high values in the appropriate curve right at the very end of the game. If instead you base your strategy around getting large values in the appropriate curve as early as possible, not only does it build a bigger score, it actually helps you win.