Scorekeeping / HOF Disappointment

[pdxsean]

For me, one of the long-term appeals of previous Civs has always been the HOF. Going for a new high score kept me in many games in the past, finishing them out once they'd gotten slow. I counted on this to be the case with Civ V, but there seems to be a bug in their scorekeeping. I'm not talking about the ridiculous weight they apply to wonders, I'm talking more about how there seems to be no variable applied based on the difficulty level and victory condition.

I've completed four games. I would expect them to score in the following order.

1: Space race victory in 2006, King difficulty
2: Space race victory in 2037, Prince difficulty
3: Diplomatic loss in ~1990, King
4: Domination loss after 80 quick turns, Prince (MP v jobe)

In my two victories, my empires had similar populations and general sizes. Here's how they actually came out in score...



So my King space race victory scores less than the quick loss I took against jobe, or the loss I took against the AI? Huh?

[Fidel]

As a nod to its prominent beta tester, the game takes into account how awesome Jobe is in comparison with the puny AIs. Therefore, being slain by the hand of Jobe is justly ranked higher than defeating AI dimwits.

[Ming]

While I've never been a big fan of the HOF, I have to agree with you. It's now simply based on score and nothing else. You win a conqest game early, and it's worse than winning later. There doesn't seem to be a victory bonus, and no modifications for level or anything.

[pdxsean]

As a nod to its prominent beta tester, the game takes into account how awesome Jobe is in comparison with the puny AIs.

Ha! I like that story. Guess if I want to get a new high score, I'll have to make a point of playing against the beta testers!

[Jaybe]

While I've never been a big fan of the HOF, I have to agree with you. It's now simply based on score and nothing else. You win a conqest game early, and it's worse than winning later. There doesn't seem to be a victory bonus, and no modifications for level or anything.

An early win is no better than a late win?! I am ECSTATIC!!

Another thing I am very pleased with is date game was finished info, along with all the other Settings detail. Though I've never been a big fan of the HOF either.

[Ming]

I do like how it shows the settings... but I just hate seeing one of my first games at a low level, one I just blew through, being ranked the highest while the tough games I've won at Diety are ranked far lower.

[pdxsean]

I do like how it shows the settings... but I just hate seeing one of my first games at a low level, one I just blew through, being ranked the highest while the tough games I've won at Diety are ranked far lower.

Exactly! My best-fought and most rewarding win, where I was a powerhouse economy and a military superpower... it's my lowest score! Because I had a few less wonders? Boo, I say. Boo.

[Snotty]

my housemate topped my prince-king-emperor hall of fame in his first civ game, the tutorial in fact. He certainly wasnt dissapointed with the hall of fame.

[richardnz]

Hmm yes

If you play the game on your own, the Hall of Fame is your measure of success in mastery. Having just completed a game on Emperor and won, I feel cheated that it is my lowest score yet . Perhaps I'm just sad, perhaps the game's the thing but it is disappointing.