High Scores

[SCG]

quote: Originally posted by kcbob on 09-12-2000 08:20 AM ARRGH! I left my list at home! The truth is out! I'm a closet Oakland Raiders fan. )

heh, and living in KC That is almost like when i was living in Houston, going to the Oilers games and rooting for the Steelers (I'm back in Steeler Country now - now if the front office can just decide whether they want to reward loyalty or to build a winner instead of trying to do both and ultimately doing neither, we may finally turn things back around...)

As for trying to have a high score from each level on the Hall of Fame file, i used to do that too Only problem was I got too good at diety and I kept having to delete the file and reload my best from lower levels I guess if i ever played a game to completion instead of just reducing all the civs to just their capital so i could trade my lower level scores would approach my 400-500%ish diety quitting scores. Then again my diety scores would go higher as well

------------------
April Cantor: Sire, in order to expand further we must first gain favor of the King

SCG: darn, I've never really got the hang of that tribute thing, guess it will be a long time until i make prince

*goes off and starts gifting gold and techs*

[kcbob]

quote: Originally posted by SCG on 09-12-2000 08:54 AM heh, and living in KC That is almost like when i was living in Houston, going to the Oilers games and rooting for the Steelers

Let me clarify. I'm a Chiefs fan first. Then I'm an AFC West fan. And finally I'm an AFC fan.

Okay, high scores. I've got them with me today. Now that I think about it, though, maybe I shouldn't post them. Compared to others, these might look pretty sick.

1.King....2841...227%
2.King....2577...206%
3.Prince..3393...203%
4.King....2489...199%
5.Emperor.1788...178%
6.Deity...1060...137%

Pretty sad, huh?

------------------
Frodo lives!

Better dead than "Red"... or green... or blue... or yellow... or orange... or purple... or white.

[Chainsaw]

I wouldn´t say sad.. I would say conqueror style.
What do you need a score for if the wholr world is YOURS?

[Scouse Gits]

Just out of curiosity - I had a look at my 'Hall of Fame' here at work (shhhhh!).[list=1][*]Deity conquest 475BC 170%[*]King conquest 1500 88%[*]Deity OCC 1934 47%[*]Deity OCC 1853 45%[*]Deity OCC 1962 44%[/list=a]You think you have problems!!

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"
[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited September 15, 2000).]

[kcbob]

quote: Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 09-13-2000 11:28 AM Just out of curiosity - I had a look at my 'Hall of Fame' here at work (shhhhh!).[list=1][*]Deity conquest 475BC 170%[*]Deity OCC 1500 88%[*]Deity OCC 1934 47%[*]Deity OCC 1853 45%[*]Deity OCC 1962 44%[/list=a]You think you have problems!!

Yikes!

How do I say this tactfully? Nah, I'd better not say it. Although I should point out that the numbers before the percentages in my list were point scores, not years.

------------------
Frodo lives!

Better dead than "Red"... or green... or blue... or yellow... or orange... or purple... or white.

[smilo]

Can't agree on this one. The get to the really high scores, your game needs to be crisp from the first turn on, just like in OCC games. Getting a score around 1500% can be very amusing cause you can get it without any food caravan swapping, the difference with OCC games is that you have to keep track of many more things, which is THE REAL civ spirit. To beat the high score, yep there you're right that is a rather boring hobby.

quote: Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 08-31-2000 03:00 PM The actual scores or percentages the game awards are of little interest to most people. To achieve a massive score is more a measure of mundane accountancy/management skills, rather than playing an enjoyable game in a winning way! Now dates are different! These show how good you really are in all areas of Civ. Players on this site have conquered the world in the BC years. Landings have been made on AC pre 1100 (Arii) and pre 1600 (Dave V) Paul is the current OCC champion (only actual games count for records - not scenarios) and I believe he has landed around 1500. There are many OCC fans who will give the exact date. The score is irrelevant - but the date shows how fast you can conquer or land a spaceship. ---------- SG (2)

[Chainsaw]

The real civ spirit. That´s my opinion, too. OK, I have never played MP, but my first self-made strategy which led to victory was expansionist, and although it takes long to finish (on larger maps), it has stayed my favourite. It´s so much fun to see your empire grow, then to build up your assault force and sweep the world with your hi-tec-army. I just love that.
The best games are the ones with technically equal neighbors, where you have to combine air-, sea- and land units to beat them.

[Smash]

How did you get 88% in an OCC game?

[Scouse Gits]

Smash - damn good catch - you don't! Seems I can't read! See my revised post.
Sorry folks

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"

[Scouse Gits]

The game score mainly reflects population. Compare these two results. Both played on LARGE random maps in 2.42/Deity/Hordes.

a) Conquest in 1520 (could have been much better without re-starting civs!)
Population 17.8 million - Score 2230

b) AC landing in 1520.
Population 9.7 million - Score 783

The second one was a far better game - but only received about a third of the score.

--------------
SG (2)
[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited September 15, 2000).]

[SCG]

quote: Originally posted by Smash on 09-14-2000 11:32 PM How did you get 88% in an OCC game?

if it were a slightly different question: How would instead of how did, i could give an answer

Ribannah seems to come pretty close to 88% in a lot of his games when he spends the post-launch years buying all the remaining wonders - throw in increasing your passenger list and maybe a few future techs and it should be no problem to get way past 88%

too bad the scoring system does such a poor job representing how the game actually went

------------------
April Cantor: Sire, in order to expand further we must first gain favor of the King

SCG: darn, I've never really got the hang of that tribute thing, guess it will be a long time until i make prince

*goes off and starts gifting gold and techs*

[Sten Sture]

I was fiddlin' around with ToT rules.txt the other day and was surprised to find that you can change the way the scoring is done. I made it 0 points per population head, -5 for each soldier killed, -200 for backstabing, 50 for wonders and big points for AC. I think I had negative points by the time I quit for the evening - got a chuckle out of it though!

[smilo]

Scoute gits,

Why is the second game much better than the first, or why should the first game be better than the second ? Try getting the score of the first game and still land in 1520, that's what is civ is all about.

About OCC : it's fun, it's fast but it does not reflect jedi-level control of the game. To many luck factors influence OCC games. Look at the scores brought forward by several people, the same players have hugely differenciated scores, depending on how well the game went (read : on how much lucky factors where present). By their speedy nature OCC games allow to try many times over in a relative short time span compared to fully fledged games. Ok it shows a cunningness in several areas of the game, but certainly not master skill in the whole concept.

OK I hear you coming, why don't I have the high score in OCC games than, well honestly speaking I'm not atracted to OCC games. I tried them, finished somewhere in the 1800, but I never actually found them attractive enough to try over and over again to get a really good score. Why : the luck factor, it is just too big :
+ Start in an area with low amount of resources, too bad, start over
+ Barbarians kick your but every 5 turns : too bad, start over
+ Not enough goody huts nearby : boem, youre done
+ Your goodie hunt chaser runs into the cartagenians : back to start
+ ... ... ...

No, OCC is not for me.

[Scouse Gits]

Smilo - The first game should have finished hundreds of years before it did - but I hadn't checked the box to stop re-starting civs.

The second game was better, as you have to go through most of the tech tree to build/land a spaceship. To launch in 1510 means several centuries of a tech per turn. This requires a continuous stream of caravans being delivered to cities on different continents that hopefully demand most of the goods provided.

For large world conquest you can forget about science once you have a decent army of offensive units - around Leadership/Tactics. You then switch your economy to earn money and bribe/swamp anything left. The score means little. The measure of efficient play is how fast you can achieve your goal. If you want a huge score then construct the largest spaceship possible and land it in the 21st Century, after building 200+ cities as well as keeping track of a mountain of freight. Large world games are long enough as it is - without having to play them for most of the 21st Century.
-----------
SG (2)