Mythor,
I should point out that I have NOT submitted such games to the metaverse! Having being involved in testing this game for about 15 months (since the original alpha) it's my job to locate these problems and post them. Please don't just assume that because I've found a weakness i'm exploiting it. Look at my scores and you'll realise that I also play tiny universes and submit those as well.

I have been pointing out these problems with the Metaverse since the gamma stage and I'm sure Pat and Brad will get around to closing these problems down.

Paul.

~SDC~

Maybe there could be away to decrease the points you earn based on the differential between you and the next closest AI. I'm not sure if this would work, I'm just brainstorming, but what if there was a good point bonus for the first 'tech level' you are ahead, but then the additional bonus for tech decrease the further ahead you get. You still get additional points, but fewer than you would now. As the other AIs catch up, this could be recalculated (although it would probably only be calculated once, at the end of the game).

Just a thought...

-Dave

~SDC~

Solitair,
My apologies if you're not actually doing what you said. After you said it, I checked your scores and your last two scores looked mighty suspicious when coupled with your statement.

Like I said, I'm not trying to "get you in trouble" or anything, but what you described is clearly a loophole and something I thought was going to be jumped on to keep the Metaverse "clean" from people exploiting it. While you may not be doing so, if you've spotted the problem, others may have as well... :notsure:

~SDC~

Dragging out a game to get more points is an obvious piece of cheese (even if it would be... a drag), but I do agree that Solitair should be punished. I suggest we divvy up his points and distribute them to to all the players nicknamed "Captain Bizarre". It's cruel, but fair.

I like:

Separating scores according to map size, difficulty level, and victory condition. That way Huge, Normal, Cultural Conquests are only compared to Huge, Normal, Cultural Conquests. However, that's a whole bunch of different bowling leagues to track. (map sizes x difficulty levels x victory conditions)

Scaling the score according to "turns to victory" based on the best ratio submitted? SD would have to keep a running tab on this, though.

Comparison of cumulative scores and top 3 scores per player - this would reduce the perceived disparity between those who can play lots of games and those who don't have the extra time.

Some form of collusion whereby I would receive 1 point from every game submitted. I would then examine that point to see whether it was a "valid" point before adding it to my score.

End transmission.

~SDC~

I just finished a hard fought game on "normal" (I'm really not very good, but I'm getting better) and got a score of around 500-700 points. I browsed around the Metaverse and I saw some people posting scores well over a 1000 by winning "challenging" games. When I see those scores, I'm impressed. I have yet to win a challanging game and so I commend those who have succeeded against brighter AI opponents.

On the other hand, I was much less impressed by people who posted scores near 2000 for winning "simple" games in gigantic galaxies. I'm totally confident that I could win a "simple" game in a gigantic galaxy (the dumbing down of the lower level AIs is very noticable) ... It would definately take me a while but if I put in the hours necissary to win a simple game in a gigantic galaxy and then ran up the score for a while after the game was (for all practical purposes) over, then I bet I could get a big score posted. This seems to me to be a problem.

In my opinion, the difficulty of the game and the number of turns required to win should be the major factors in determining score. I like the idea of having a fixed value for each difficulty/galaxy-size combination and then scaling that score based on number of turns required to win. (For instance, decide that a win of a Normal game in a Medium galaxy is worth 500 points and a Challanging game in a Medium galaxy is worth 1000 points and then scale those values based number of turns required to win) ... Actually, it's probably a good idea if victory type is taken into account somehow because Tech Victories tend to take longer than alliance victories, but that's a minor issue.

One other feature I don't like about the current scoring system is that it seems to heavily reward players who play in galaxies where habitable planets are "abundant". It has not been my experience that the game is more challanging with "abundant" worlds and therefore it seems to me that the scoring system should assign you the same number of points even if you play in a galaxy where habitable worlds are "occassional". (This means, that total population should not be a major factor in score).

In any case, that's just my two cents on the scoring system,
- Matt Lepinski :->

~SDC~

Just my opinion.

I think that the only way to reasonably compare two games, one better and one worse, is to take into account only
-galaxy size
-difficulty level
-number of turns it took to win
(-maybe starting position?)

All other things are inessential. The objective of the game is to win, isn't it? No matter whether you have 10 or 1000 planets as far as you have won. Makes sense to me.

I scored 700+ points on a small map with all sub-normal intelligence AIs. I had 1.2 trillion people between 14-16 planets. All tech researched/morale at 90% and approval at about the same.

~SDC~

Mythor,

The trick Solitair posted is nothing new to gaming. The same thing has been done since the days of Warcraft and Civilization. Plus, if he was really abusing the system, do you think he's so dumb as to post it on an open forum? Come on now, dont be pointing fingers before you get all the facts.

~SDC~

I think Matt brings up a very good point about the frequency of good planets. Perhaps there should be a sliding scale where the base score decreases as good planet frequency increases. I still think that diff. level should be the greatest factor in determinig score (still sore form my vistory against all genius in a gigantic galaxy that was only worht 1100 points! )

Just so that we know that we aren't spitting into the wind here, are you guys (Stardock) interested in changing/refining the current scoring methods? I hope so, but would like to know that it is on the list so that we don't waste time bitching about it

-Dave

~SDC~

You might be.

I played a game for tech win and dragged it out for as long as possible - I only got into two wars (one with the Torians, Arceans, and Altairians, and one later with the Arceans) and didn't actually wipe out any race (the Torians surrendered to the Drengin, the Altairians succumbed culturally and militarily to the Drengin, and the Yor surrendered to me) except for one minor race in a convenient spot when I wanted to see how terror stars worked (which also started my second war with the Arceans).

Anyway, I recorded it on the metaverse. When I last looked (yesterday) I was ranked 71st for my two *very easy* games that I recorded, the latter being a very long game on a large map.

It seems to me that if I could get that kind of score for games that I literally couldn't lose unless I chose to, that something is a bit off.

~SDC~

Do people getting the REALLY high scores change the planet frequency to Many perhaps? even on large maps with 3/4 control of the map im only hitting 500bn pop. just a thought..

~SDC~

"Come on now, dont be pointing fingers before you get all the facts."

The way he worded it sounded like he was in fact doing it, not just theorising. He since said that he's not actually doing that, he was only making a point. As you would see, if you'd read the whole thread, we'd already sorted that out.
Don't be pointing fingers if you don't look at the facts right in front of you.


As for the difficulty level factor... I just played two gigantic games. One on Masochistic, which I lost, and one on Cakewalk, which I won.
The Cakewalk one netted me a little under double the points of the Masochistic game, despite it being a very convincing win compared to an absolute thrashing at the hands of the AI.
Difficulty is obviously important when it comes to points, so that's a good thing I guess...

~SDC~

Nirvana, on my high score game, I had the frequency set to highest possible, and had +15% planet quality bonus. I also played for far longer than I needed to in order to reach the tech win. At lower difficulties, it's just easier to culturally dominate everyone (and impossible not to unless you turn it off).

I don't remember what I did on my first recorded game (tiny, too easy to worry about), but the other one on the large map was set to scarce habitable worlds with tight clusters, and I again took the +15% quality bonus.

I actually intended to turn off the cultural and tech wins, because cultural wins tend to end the game before I'm really done with it (I wanted to get back to conquering the Drengin and the Yor, and try to get the Torians and the Arceans to ally). Still, I think population has a lot to do with it.

~SDC~

Thanks Phaedyme, i normally get bored when i reach the stage where im so far ahead i have won, but i find the whole mopping up of civs tedious, so i just go for cultural victory.

Still cant beat 5 Bright AI's just yet, but im working on it. Guess next game ill focus less on getting massive amounts of kills and more on population.

that said i have fun in my games so its not a massive concern.

~SDC~

Is it the fun you have playing a game or the the score in the metaverse that really counts?? If I have had some hours of fun and my score is zero who cares? I don't - you might use 'cheese tactics' or not - it's still just a game. Enjoy it like I did since I signed up for Drengin Net about 6 months ago. I am in computer bussines now for more than 20 years - but never had an experiance like with Stardock. Dedicated customer focus, great support and somebody that really seems to care (Brad, Cary...). But still it's only a game. So just enjoy playing and relaxing.

~SDC~

The faster you win, the better.

Brad, is the speed of victory the most influential part of scoring? I just don;t see how someone can get 5000 for an easy game, when I play against all intelligent or genius and get 1700 and 1100 respectively. I think the difficulty level of the game should be the most important.

I see the metaverse as a way for elite players to put up high scores, beginning players to put up low scores, and so on... I do NOT see the merit in a system that rewards people for setting the planet frequency on abundant with fool AIs, and then creaming them. i got a lot more personal pleasure from beating the AIs on Genius, and having it not be an easy victory, than I would from spending 20-30 hours on a non-challenging game. I feel that the scores should reflect this. People playing on cakewalk or normal settings should not, under any circumstance, be able to accrue as many points as people playing painful games.

I love the game, and will play it regardless, but if the scoring doesn;t change, there will be no reason for me to participate in the Metaverse part of it. Is this an issue that will change, or are we wasting our time debating it?

-Dave

Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a a$$hole, but I am very frustrated by this.

~SDC~

Brad, if you check out my record, you'll see a tech victory and two cultural victories. The cultural victories played fairly quickly (the one on large took about 4 hours). The tech victory took about two days, because it takes *forever* to get to the top of the tech tree if you're also trying to maintain your military and build the wonders and such, and the tech victory scored the highest. Of course, I also conquered most of the galaxy that I didn't bother to colonize and played the two strongest AI empires off against one another so they'd leave me alone.

Of course, this was on a fairly low difficulty level, but the end result was that the longest game I've played scored about 6x the points the other two games did. Maybe I got lots of points for destroying ships, conquering planets (culturally and militarily) and researching all available techs. I don't know. :notsure:

~SDC~

Also, what is the calculation that tranforms my Score (in points) to my metaverse score (in mpts)? This is displayed in the overview portion of my Endgame screens.

-Dave

~SDC~

I always play with rare planet frequency. I just don't like end games on gigantic galaxies where I have hundreds of planet to pklplay with. As you can see from my scores, it is possible to get >5000 points with rare frequency.

I personally think that the frequency of planets should really be a personal preference and should not really affect the score. Is a game played with rare any harder or easier than a game played with abundant? I don't think so. How you remove the added population / production / military from the final score I don't know.

Paul.

~SDC~

It at least doesn't seem like faster = higher score, or at least it's not as big of a factor as population. My latest game didn't register the first time I submitted it to the Metaverse, so I went back in to my last auto save, reloaded and tried to finish it off again.

Since I had won by cultural victory, I wound up having to wait an extra 10 turns or so for the culture to kick back up, but instead I ended up absorbing the last couple of planets through rebellion. So the game took 10-12 turns longer than the first one, had about +100Bil more people from the extra turns and planets and wound up scoring 2900 as opposed to 2500 for the first game.

Glad to hear that speed is a factor, but looks like it's being drowned out by population.

~SDC~

I've noticed that also, the last game I won my population wasn't that great as I had a culture victory before I could absorb any AI planets and get the extra population growth.

~SDC~

I will not let this post die!!!! Please change the scoring!!!

-Dave

~SDC~