Humm... first, young grasshopper, you must allow the spirit of fun to dwell in your heart, and not mind wasting a bit of time trying out new fun things.

If you retire, who will recruit all the newbies to the Fellowship of the Ring?

You are just doing this to start a new alias and see how fast you can be #1 on the MV again, aren't you?

Qui-Gon Jinn ,
What your suggesting is not viable... Unless you make it that every tine you play the game that something gets sent to the metaverse.. IE: no save games.. and even if you quit a game it records your current score..

Which will definatly be a big putoff

the Ctl-N isn't a cheat.. its simply so that you don't have to quit the game and start it all over again.. IE: go through the intro and setup,reace,galaxy size etc

The Game Can't tell if you've played any further when you go back to a saved game.. however there is a game out there that does do save game management.. IE: when you load a saved game it deletes it.. so you can't easily go back to it.. (It is always possible though to copy the save file elsewhere then copy it back again if you run into problems.. so its a useless deterant)

I believe that the scoring should be such that if you play a game of masso then you should be rewarded.. however it shouldn't be such a big difference in score that it would be impossible for those not playing the other levels can't catch up..

The problem no (as it stands)
is that the metaverse (not individual players but empires)
even with the the way its calculated.. it would be better if i give you an example.. (individual scores are fine.. i am only concerned about how it scores for the empires)

There is no way that anyone can play enough low level games to catch up on soneone who plays say 4 masso games in 30 days
scoring up to 60k / game

my Calculations and suggestion for changes to make it fair for all empires Folloe: NOTE.. this Doesn't Change the individuals score.. just the Empires score

Masso
Score AV 60,000.00
games 4.00 the number of games
Total score 240,000.00
Divider 2.00
Final score 120,000.00

Normal
Score AV 10,000.00
games 144.00
Total score 1,440,000.00
Divider 12.00
Final score 120,000.00

As you can see the player at the lower level has to actually play 140 more games not 6 times which is what stardock appeared to be after in their original suggestion of how they wanted the scoring system to work.
what I'm suggesting is that it should look more like this to achieve the end results

Normal
Score AV 10,000.00
games 24.00
Total score 240,000.00
Divider 2.00 SQRT(games played / difficulty level)
Final score 120,000.00 Total Score / Divider

Masso still scoring 6 times the normal.
A player playing the normal level has to play 6 times as many games to achieve the same result (not 36 times as they would have to currently.

Difficulty level (where 1 is the hardest)

Masso 1
Crippiling 2
Painfull 3
Tough 4
Challenging 5
Normal 6
Beginner 7
Simple 8
Easy 9
Cakewalk 10

This way The empires scores are truly relative to the level and quantity of games played

the full equation for calcumating would be:

Total Score from Games played on Masso / Block divider*(SQRT(Number of games played at Masso level in Block/Difficulty level) + Total Score from Games played on Challenging / Block divider*(SQRT(Number of games played at Challenging in Block/Difficulty level) +
Etc.. for all levels

What do you all think... (i'm especially interested in Frogboys Thoughts on the subject.. Its taken quite a while to think and work it all out).. I believe that this should solve the scoring Debate and it'll be fair for everyone.. and not undermine the Empire's scores..

We will still recruit. The FOTR is not just about empire competition. And I'm the only one retiring so others can still compete.



Why didn't I think of it? I mean, I get to play the Metaverse all over again. Whoopee!

~SDC~

No Ray... you've earned where you are... Stay Ray Stay

Would people feel the current scoring of Maso was fair if all AIs in Maso games got a +50 diplo bonus (this in turn should thwart the tech trading frenzy)? How about if the +60% diplo pick was removed? The +60% diplo pick seems essential to beating Maso, right?

In a broader sense, is there any set of AI benefits that would make skeptics agree that Maso is hard enough to make the current scoring fair (assuming tthe AI's use of starbases is improved)?

If so, does it follow that all AIs in Crippling should get +30 diplo and Painful get +10?

Not essential. Quite helpful though.



There are already enough people who are banging their heads against the wall trying to beat the level. It might be better to introduce a new, harder level. That was one thing I was disappointed not to see in the expansion pack.

No, I've never used any diplo bonus. I take production bonuses and build a military rating up as a deterence.

Retiring from playing all together, or just from the carrousel ring folks?

(blatent recruitment pitch withheld)

My main concern isn't about the individuals score.. but with the empires score.. I think that with my proposal will fix the empires scoring.. Then with extra filters to sort scores based on Difficulty level thats all thet would be required..

The Game itself doesn't need to change at all

bluesteel, you should prob make a totally new post. I doubt anyone from SD would read this one past the flame wars.

Since the wizards are all gathered here and Ray opened the door, what would you tweak to create a level above Maso, assuming the AI as as good as Maso and the only difference is bonuses?

Cap each bonus (diplo, production, etc) at 100%? 150%? Once two civs have a tech, everyone else gets it automatically (except for the human) or some other method of killing tech trading?

Retiring from submitting games to the Metaverse. I'll still be active in the Fellowship and the forum.
I will submit games if those prove helpful to Stardock but I wouldn't be playing for score.

~SDC~

I have managed to work my way up to tenth on v1.05. I enjoy playing Normal. I try several strategies including some cheese and sometimes I win easy sometimes I win hard. I enjoy the game at this level.

I have played crippling a few times and won more than I lost. I find that to win I have to use cheese. I have played MASO twice and lost. I think that I could win now with cheese but to me that is not much fun. I like to think that I am a very good strategy gamer but if I have to resort to exploiting the game mechanics to post a win with a high score, there is no fun in it.

I am not happy with Stardocks new scoring system and I refuse to play MASO (which I do not find enjoyable) to compete and get a high score for my Empire. Since v1.1 came out I have found that my typical game score is about 10% to 20% higher than v1.05.

I will continue to play GC my way but stop posting to the Metaverse which has become a joke in my opinion.

For those of you who do not share my opinion please enjoy the Metaverse and this game. The Game is very good. and Stardock are good people.

Ray, why stop submitting your games to the MV? It's not there for points or competition. It's there so SD can see how we play, and make all sorts of interesting decisions... like how to IMPROVE the AI. Or that a game feature (like the PQ+15%) is just too powerful. By not submitting to the MV, you are not contributing to the further advance of the GalCiv AI.

Play the games that you like for fun, and submit them. Just don't pay attention to the MV scoring debates. Or the fact it ranks you #1... for OVERALL score.

Interesting question. I think the easiest thing to do would be a simple trading nerf, so that no AI will ever accept a bribe to go to war with another AI (similar to the current cash trading nerf). Then greatly increase their cultural resistance stat--not so much that they're unflippable like the minors, but enough that just buying up influence resources isn't enough to win. Greatly increase their pop growth stat (or maybe increase their starting population), to make those early game invasions much more difficult. And obviously any additional stat buffs will increase the difficulty.

Why not just add cultural resist techs instead? And have them research them?

You want the game to play SMARTER, not be pushing a bb through molasses with your nose, right? So instead of looking at stacking up a bigger hill for you to overcome (and therefore force you to use even more extreme strategy/mechanisms exploits), you just improve the AI? I know that's asking for a lot, but the AI in GC is much better then most other AI already, so I have high hopes it can be improved...

Like how about the AI does mass strikes on you with AMM?

Of course, I'm a dumb average joe player, so what do I know?

Wow, don't get me started on improvements to AI intelligence I'd want to see. I answered the way I did because Librarian specified no changes to the AI.

Anyway, I'm not optimistic that we'll see any more major improvements to the AI. There are many well-known ways to abuse the AI, and Stardock hasn't fixed them. Don't get me wrong, they've made a great game and had great support, but it seems their emphasis these days does not lie in the direction of improving the AI.

So, to level up beyond Maso, without AI improvements (I missed that, my apologies), you just take more penalties and leave everything else alone then. Same effect isn't it? Steeper hill, more important to be most efficent in what you do?

Sort of. One of the things that makes Maso hard is that the trading system is different--the AIs will never give you any money. This simple rule change eliminates a crutch which many players depend on, and forces people to take an entirely new approach to quite a few aspects of the game. So it's not just that you're forced to be more efficient--it forces you to do entirely new things, not just to do the same old things only better.

The intent of my suggestions was to come up with things that would change the game in that way, things that would render certain old strategies impossible without making the hill too much steeper, as you put it.

The focus of the next Galciv patch would be AI improvements, so rejoice!

I've made a number of suggestions to toughen the AI in my Galciv blog. Some of exploit fixes, which may or may not be closed because I believe Brad is of the opinion that these cheese-fighting battles are never over and probably a waste of time.

As to AI improvements, I like to see:
1) AI to recognise value of resources, esp military
2) AIs to use AMMs and Terror Stars more effectively
3) AI to stage ships more effectively before war, esp transports
4) AI to employ cultural SB attack and defend well against them
5) AIs to defend planets properly with battlehammers and capital ships
6) AIs not to be taken in so easier by bribes
7) AIs to purchase prudently and not go so quickly into debt
8) AIs to estimate chance of success before attacking (whey waste a frigate on a dread?)

I have more but I will leave that to the blog page.

~SDC~

You have a point, SP. I'll probably just play for fun and submit without maxing score. Thanks for reminding me about the other purpose of the Metaverse.

~SDC~

Do keep at it until you reach fleet admiral though!

Paul.

~SDC~

Yes, I will, Paul. I will hit Fleet Admiral then I'll surrender the Ring.

~SDC~

I think that increasing the points value for maso is a good thing because I play casually and find it silly that a scoring system reward lower difficulty games more. There ARE casual maso players. They should be rewarded for playing that level. The casual gamer will never make it to the top anyway because there are people who play the MV, not the game, no matter what the rules are.
Qui Gon Jinn, as far as protecting stuff and preventing reloaded games etc., there are many games with that pattern, in particular RPGs (nethack, diablo2). Note that CTD is not a problem in nethack since there is a recovery option. Nothing prevents the player from 'scave scumming' (moving the files by hand). The only protection against that is to play on a server like diablo2's battle.net. I submit games easily one week after playing them and don't want to be connected when I play so that is not a solution.

Ray,

AIs should also consider it a hostile act to park constructors near their starbases. It reeks of "I'm waiting for your enemy to take it out so I can steal it later". In fact, once a resource has been taken by the ai, it should consider it his own and make demands on anyone else who takes it afterwards.

Also, the whole diplomacy stuff should be changed rather than capping stuff/changing figures. Selling techs would be better made if you could make bids, where everyone can buy or sell, so you can't buy one tech for 1000bc and sell it to all other races for a profit (in terms of techs, war declarations, etc.). The diplomacy aspect would be diminished, but at least the ai could cope with it. Leave one on one meetings for declaring war and peace, extorsion and maybe planet trading.
Also, increase the value of espionnage by allowing people with good spies to know that race X paid race Y to declare war on race Z.
And let the ai pay another civ in order to declare war, rather than say 'you should do something about the Drengins', let them start an offer.

Ray,
I have to admit that I feel the same. Gain the highest rank and then sit back and let others have some time at the top. It would be nice if there was a way to remove your score from displaying after that.

Paul.

~SDC~