Join the Apolyton Empire!

Ellestar · May 1, 2003, 18:07

Well i won second game on Gigantic/Masochistic and guess what? It shows me a score 0. First victory score was 28.000 but i wanted something more. So i just colonized every 10+ planet. After that, game started to crash to desctop ... every other turn ... like in the first time. So i just tried to send a score - it was 40.000. Good enouth - others gained 36.000 and 38.000.

Well i waited something like that... After numerous messages about this...

P.S. I deleted all files in GalCiv directory and reinstalled it from archive prior to starting a game, so i'm pretty sure that game files are ok.

The Templar · May 1, 2003, 18:16

Originally posted by Ellestar
Well i won second game on Gigantic/Masochistic and guess what? It shows me a score 0.
Well i waited something like that...

P.S. I deleted all files in GalCiv directory and reinstalled it from archive prior to starting a game, so i'm pretty sure that game files are ok.

Did you "register your player"? It's a text link on the metaverse page - make sure the name you enter is the same as the alias you use when uploading to the metaverse.

It took a few games not showing up an frustration, before I even noticed the link. Once I registered my player, all of my previously submitted scores appeared.

Ellestar · May 1, 2003, 18:22

I'm reading forums and know about this problem. So i re-registered my player for metaverse and only then hit 'submit' button.

Game showed - difficulty anomalous, score of 0. Game thinks that i'm cheating. Well, with that number of crushes, it's not surprisingly for me that game corrupts data (in save file or in memory) and thinks that i'm cheated.

Felch · May 1, 2003, 19:14

So the Metaverse only works if you have no mods? Sounds fair.

Harry Seldon · May 1, 2003, 20:49

It's supposed to work if you have approved mods. Stardock's QAing some and will post them as Metaverse friendly when they finish.

Norin · May 1, 2003, 21:59

The Metaverse will work if you have mods although I'm not sure where the line between approved and unapproved mods is drawn.

MichaeltheGreat · May 1, 2003, 22:32

Joined up, I'll be submitting a couple of scores soon.

Master Marcus · May 2, 2003, 09:02

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
It's supposed to work if you have approved mods. Stardock's QAing some and will post them as Metaverse friendly when they finish.

I'm curious to see if that shall work for previous games impossible to submit so far because actually using some library mods that may come eventually approved, or are we condemned to start new games after deleting and reinstall.

Pyrkaige · May 2, 2003, 23:55

The Apolyton Empire just broke 100,000 points in the Metaverse. With the closest competitor under 70k, we're really sweeping the place.

Congrats to everyone who's put in games so far!

Norin · May 3, 2003, 00:29

Yeah Imperia lost a bunch of points with the Metaverse score tweaking. Makes it harder for us to keep up when we don't have a large amount of people submitting scores.

Ellestar · May 3, 2003, 06:58

Sorry guys now win on Gigantic/Masochistic worth only 3734 points.

Edit: Good news! My first game score sent to metaverse. 2754 points.

Jamski · May 3, 2003, 13:59

My first score sent to metaverse 167

Not so hot, I suppose?

-Jam

LDiCesare · May 3, 2003, 15:46

Has anyone figured the formula for the scores? I played Large map just to see if I'd get more points, but it seems you have to go the "play boring game" way to get points...

Pyrkaige · May 3, 2003, 17:01

The Metaverse scoring formula has been tweaked recently, and eventually all the games already in the Metaverse will be re-calculated based on that. The larger sized games will individually always give higher scores when placed against a comparable difficulty level smaller sized game. Since they take more time to play, that pretty much makes sense. The recent changes have made it so that finishing sooner tends to boost your score, though, so it definitely encourages people to play smart and fast, instead of taking forever and milking the score.

Personally, I like playing large maps (although not Gigantic, that's a bit too large) so that doesn't feel tedious to me at all. But you really have to just play the sort of game you enjoy; the Metaverse is just a nice addition to get a feel for how your games stack on up. No scoring system is perfect, though, and if it's not fun for you to play a way that makes higher scores... it's not worth it, imo.

LDiCesare · May 4, 2003, 07:55

I understand the map size part of the formula, and agree that it is sensible. What bothers me is the ai, the difficulty is not much taken into account. That borders silly from my point of view. Look for people who have won on masochistic in the first ten players. There aren't so many. There is even one who didn't get harder than normal.
I prefer small maps to big ones, and the metaverse is interesting in part because it allows Brad to look at strategies we use. But winning with a pitiful score will probably not bring his attention to your new strategy, so the ai will not improve. That is my biggest problem. Now, on tiny maps, strategy is very different from what it is on bigger maps (even small). And a small-medium map strategy is different from a huge/gigantic map (because range doesn't matter as much, because you meet aliens faster, because ship catapults aren't needed, etc.). I'd like the score to reflect the strategy used, which means the harder the ai the better the score. Currently, based on my games, I can't really see how much weight difficulty has, but it seems largely irrelevant, particularly on bigger maps where the other factors are most important and cause more variability in the score.

yin26 · May 5, 2003, 08:37

If my files will transfer correctly from home to work (this has been a problem the last two tries), I'll be submitting a Huge map victory in Crippling. The score was a bit over 5,400.

Conclusion?: Playing on big maps like that was horribly, terribly boring. If scoring continues in this same 'bigger map = bigger challenge = bigger score' I'll have to stop submitting scores.

Jamski · May 5, 2003, 09:25

Its a bit backwards at the moment Yin. Noone can win a tiny map against genius AI without a very lucky start. Or can they?

-Jam

bonscott · May 5, 2003, 09:50

Does it really matter in the end if you don't get as high a score on a smaller map? I don't really care what my score is. So long as I had fun playing it.

yin26 · May 5, 2003, 10:15

War of Art:

I does seem a bit backward to me. I like the smaller maps for a number of reasons, but one of which is the fact that the AI tends to be strongest in the early game, so you don't have the breathing room that a large map gives you to start outproducing the AI. On small maps, you also have to optimize each early turn, perhaps even to lease some materials, just to secure a decent start. Very fun stuff.

I've beaten Genius AIs on smaller maps with an 'O.K.' start of 4 planets. I have *not* beaten it when I only start with 2 planets, though. I should say, however, that in that particular game it was really fun to see the AI leverage its power against me. In other lesser games, with such a bad start you'd either a) still win or b) have *no* chance of staying competitive no matter what you do.

In that game, I didn't stay competitive, but the AI did respond well to my efforts just to stay alive: I allied with the Yor, who also had a bad start, maxed trade to look like a good guy to keep around, etc. It was very satisfying how I was allowed to live until it was clear that I was just a pest (I went total Evil) to the Good Guys...

yin26 · May 5, 2003, 10:16

bonscott :

Exacly right. It just would be nice if the Metaverse thing were made more encompassing, which I think it is in phases...

Fried-Psitalon · May 5, 2003, 10:42

Yin-

Thing is, if small map scores were made roughly the same as huge map scores, what would be the point of playing larger maps for score? It takes me a LOT longer to play a gigantic map than a small one.... so there should be a larger score involved. You could probably play 6 or 7 small map games in the time it takes me to play 1 gigantic.

yin26 · May 5, 2003, 11:05

Perhaps scores should be listed by map size? But time invested shouldn't be a factor in the score itself, IMO.

Harry Seldon · May 5, 2003, 11:17

I think intelligence should play a larger role in scoring. I tentatively agree that a larger map should get a large score because it will encourage people to play but I also feel like a small/crippling game should rate a higher score than a gigantic/normal game.

Master Marcus · May 5, 2003, 11:42

I think Brad and his team have already changed the scoring toward the right direction: the last game I've submitted - a short one on a MEDIUM map ( I was impatient to see if I was still able to submit after my very long game corrupted ), a v 1.03, has a 2k score ( with v1.02 or lower before the changes, that would be no more than 500 ) next to a longer one on a larger map which scored less. So it is possible to score high on smaller maps now.

yin26 · May 6, 2003, 09:37

5,643 points (Crippling, Huge map) won't register. Ah, well. Let's see if it gets sorted out.

Anyway, it was a massively boring game after I already had it in the bag. The key is to have a high military rating and to setup trade routes (3-4 at least) with the guy most likely to attack you ... this way he won't!

I will say in defence of GC, though, that at least it was boring for a logical reason. That is, the AIs behaved logically for the most part, though for my money, I think the other 4 civs should have ganged up on me the moment I took out 1 AI.

As it stands, it's simply too easy to keep the civs fighting each other...

Ellestar · May 6, 2003, 10:46

yin26
Try to update game to latest path.

Master Marcus · May 6, 2003, 10:59

Originally posted by yin26
5,643 points (Crippling, Huge map) won't register. Ah, well. Let's see if it gets sorted out.

Just curious, do you know WHY it can't be registered ???? ( I have one too, it may be corrupted in some way I don't know why ). I have the latest update.

yin26 · May 6, 2003, 11:00

Lots of folks (even those with latest incremental patch -- the latest standalone isn't up yet at 1.03A) are complaining about this. Nobody has any ideas that I've seen.

Jamski · May 6, 2003, 11:11

My latest score didn't register - but it was only 300ish so I'm not complaining too much

How do you get 5,000 ?

-Jam

yin26 · May 6, 2003, 11:25

It's really about map size from what I can see, although I understand that is going to change in the future with previous scores adjusted, etc.

In this particular game, it was Huge Map with Crippling AI. All I did was tech whore (let me know if that is an unclear term), make sure AIs were fighting each other at all points in the game, and establish trade routes with the most power AIs so that they would be less inclined to go after me. It was all very methodic and, quite frankly, dull.

I do understand, though, that 1.03A has closed some of the trade loopholes that made it so easy to make huge sums from tech whoring. How this effects my cheese play I'll have to see when the standalone is ready.