Open Letters to Stardock - Please fix the Metaverse

Personally I like the idea of the metaverse. I do not like the aging or the recalculation of the scores.

I see no reason why the metaverse could not just keep the raw game score.

There are several people that have been playing for a long time and you want to keep them. Their scores should reflect that.

There are people playing for the first time and you want to encourage that as well. Perhaps dividing the metaverse into skill levels for score. All skills have their own version of the metaverse which is raw score.

The challenge is to get to the top. I get frustrated when I see new people with 33 games approaching my score when I have played 220 games.

If you compared the raw scores I would be ahead by a lot. I have played consistently for a year barring a few vacations.

The metaverse idea is great.

The metaverse scoring system is flawed. You are losing people because of it.

I really hope that you do not implement the same or even similar scoring method in GC2.

ok... now to fully understand what stardock was after with the metaverse..

1. a place where we can compete and record out scores

2. a way that people arn't greatly disadvantaged because they can only play 1 or 2 games a month while others have northing better to do.

3. a way to reduce players loosing interest in playing the game by playing the game a lot for sayu 1 month and never play it again

4. a way to encourage people to submit at least 1 game in a 30 day period

5. a way to make sure that new players can attain the higher ratings when other older players loose interest in the game and stop submitting

their solution although its not very popular (or so it seems) was the current metaverse scoring system..

If players go into the metaverse and READ , UNDERSTAND and FOLLOW the way that the metaverse works then everything is fine.

I for 1 have tried to follow the best regime to score well in the metaverse with the least amount of burnout
This is Portrayed by my rating being constantly in the top 20 in the metaverse GENERAL ratings (for those of you who want to compete at different recognised skill levels you can and should check your scores on the supplied skill level and or morality lists which stardock has provided).

If you don't submit at least one game in any 30 day period you are penalised which is as it should be ..

If you play a lot of games in a 30 day period you obvously really enjoy the game and have plenty of time.. However why should those who don't have the time be penalised for it

If you stop playing then your scores will (or should go down).. this is one thing that I do feel isn't working properly.. At the moment if you don't submit any more games then your scores remain the same .. until you submit another game until a major metaverse score recalc takes place..
I feel that the metaverse scores should be re-calculated wether you submit a game or not...

I myself have seen players flood the metaverse with games.. and have tried to warn them of the consequences if they can't play approcimatly the same number of games EVERY 30 day period..

Thisa is one reason I try to submit a max of 4 games in any 30 day period (unless i've entered into another 3rd party contest)

For those who want to play according to RAW scores some players have setup an alternate scoring system derived from players submited games here...

All in All the metaverse is a UNIQUE system trying to cater to everyone.. no matter what stardock does they won't please everyone..

My only complaint in the scoring system is that if you stop submitting games that your score remains .. when it should start dropping 30 days after your last submition...

This would encourage people to PLAY the METAVERSE the way it was intended.. NOT the way that they see it should be.. and reward those who do..

If this was fixed then everyone still playing wouldn't see that their scores dropping anywhere near as much in proportion to those not submitting

with this one major bug fixed It'll be a fiar scoring system.. where EVERYONE is Treated the same... which after all is all that really matters..

Using my method of playing an average of 4 games in any 30 day period your games score massivly in comparison.. my rating is a perfect example of this .. Look at the ratio of games i've played compared to my score.. and then look at those who've submitted massivly .. just devide their total score by their number of games..

Those who play the metaverse as such should treat it as any other game.. understand and formulate stratagies to suite the way they play the game.. and change them when they find out from those who know... to the best methods.. and NOT try to fight the metaverse... and then cry foul when things don't go the way that they FEEL that the metaverse should work

Well written Qwerk,

I do not agree with some of your points on playing style. But that is ok. If we were all in agreement there would be no wars ...

You adopted your playing style to suite the Metaverse scoring. That won't suite everyone.

Some people like to play a lot of games for (I hope) the satisfaction and for the "metaverse game".

I feel that players should not have to adjust their style of play to get points and advance in the metaverse.

Nor should I be penalized for playing 30 games in one month 3 months ago and then 10 games on average. Or for not playing any games for 1 or 2 months then playing regularly.

Players that are getting penalized because of these examples are losing interest in the metaverse game and GC.

Humans are competitive by nature and most people would like to be #1. If someone works really hard to be the best and then another person who comes in and does an ok job, why should that second person have the same score as the hard worker?

That is the problem and why I feel that there should be some changes.


[Message Edited]

Very nice all of you,

my thoughts are very small.. since i dont notice it to my score at all.. since i really dont care .

i dont think players should be penalized for a monthish of absence. Something could have forced them a way for a time. However anything over that i'm all for since lack of games in that time.. its not deserving of them to keep their super high score and go back up when people start catching up finally.

I know it doesnt seem very fair when youve submited 200+ games for this many points and some new guy submits like 60 for just as much.. but thats the new vs. the old :/.

Anyway thats my 2 cents. of course if i really want my idea out all missing points should go into the pirates treasutre chest Arr! (joking.. dont like too much seriousness)

Ok, I have to agree with that there is a problem, but I think it really lies in the ability to lose score due to not submitting a game every 30 days. So here's a couple of ideas. Keep the 30 day block system, but if a block has a score of zero, drop the block. Less score crashing. But not the total solution that some want.

Another idea, expressed earlier is to have the Meta be pure scores. But is that what you really want too? It would be quite a trick for people to get to the top. Greldon has over 20 billion points right now on pure score. Try catching that on pure score starting right now. Have fun. So not a pure solution.

Now we could fix some more of the score problems if we changed the block size. Say if we had 10 or 15 day blocks. And still drop empty blocks. But a block with only one game versus one with 20 or 30 games won't be so radical.

But someone has to come up with a better system. I agree that this one isn't as good as it could be. So I would like idea for GC2. That title should really have that in it.

Focusing on just the most immediate issue due to today's events, the 30 day empty block penality. I can understand penalizing a player once. The problem is that it feels like a reocuring penality that takes months to work out as it travels through the block process.

Overall, I like what the metaverse set out to do. I think it could be refined a little to encourage veterans to stay around. After all, those players who have been around a year or more and are still playing and encouraging others to join are a valueable part of the community, and thereby, valueable to the customer base.

I have never before found such a community of players for a game as I have here. Part of the reason I look forward to more Stardock games is the hope that the metaverse community will be expanded to include other existing or future releases.

First a small reminder for everyone: how metaverse score is calculated:
The player score in the metaverse is based upon each game scores with some tweaks to avoid rewarding too much players that submit lots of games or haven't played for a while.
- When a game is submitted, a splitting is made upon the submitted games since the beginning to fit them in
blocks.
The delimitation of blocks are following:
block 0: 0-30 days
block 1: 31-60 days
block 2: 61-90 days
block 3: 91-120 days
block 4: 121-150 days
block 5: 151-220 days
block 6: 221-290 days
block 7: 291+ days

- For each block, the score of the games in it are added and divided by the square root of the number of games in the block
- There is a aging formula (5% per month for player score) that limits the influence of
old games on the score

So if in a month, I submit a total of 60K raw points, I would be awarded:
- 60K points if I have submitted only one game in the month (average 60K per game)
- 30K points if I have submitted 4 games in the month (average 15K per game)
- 20K points if I have submitted 9 games in the month (average 6.66K per game)
- 15K points if I have submitted 16 games in the month (average 3.25 K per game)

And if I submit only 60K games in the same month, I would be awarded:
- 60K if I submitted only one game in the month
- 120K if I submitted 4 games in the month
- 180K if I submitted 9 games in the month
- 240K if I submitted 16 games in the month
- 300K if I submitted 25 games in the month
- 360K if I submitted 36 games in the month
- 420K if I submitted 49 games in the month



Sorry, some have explained it to me but I still don't understand it: if a block has a score of zero, this means that it has no influence on total score. So I don't why dropping it would prevent great fluctuations.

The problem isn't in the block that has no score. the problem is in the games that were on a previous in two blocks and on a next in the same block. Since the formula divides the raw score by the number of game in a block, it is always better to have games evenly spread on blocks. It leads to a better score.

To be more precise, the problem is the big decrease in score the few submissions before the block is empty, when it lost all of its games and the big increase after, when the empty block gains new games in it


Don't forget that this if this is a penalty at some times due to the fact that submitting games will lead to decrease of metaverse points, when a block lost games and thaht there are a few left, at others time it will lead to increase greater than expected since block with few games will see an increase in their number of games.
So it shouldn't be see as a penalty on the score but as an instability on the score that take some time to be cleaned


This is the main grip about metaverse: when having reached a spot, there isn't any incentive to continue since it is better to do nothing than submitting games. This is particulary true if the submission rate drops in an important way or if some time have passed without any submission.

Some have pointed that it difficult for newbie to see their progression with all inactive players that don't submit any more. It could be nice if an alternative ranking was available, which take in account only people that have submitted a games in the last 30 days (or 40, 50 ..). It would be an active ranking. We can maybe have 2 rankings in our profile: 1 active ranking and 1 overall ranking. But by default, the metaverse should display active ranking.

The only thing that is unfair is that if you stop playing that your scores dont decrease and age the same as active players.. If this were fixed then the metaverse would be a lot fairer.. eg: those players who have retired will remain at that score untill major metaverse recalc.. which is wrong.. they should decrease according \as if they were submitting a null game every 30 day period since their last submition..

as for other scoring methods there is nothing stopping people from doing like some have already done and create their own Alternate metaverse scoring system utalizing RAW scores or any other method which they'd like to use.. Because someone has done this it proves that it is possible.. All you'd need to do then is put a link to your site with your alternate scoring system into the forums.. and then get people to visit and use your link to view your great new scoring system..

So in the end what i'm saying is that if you don't like the current metaverse's scoring system then make up your own and try speaking to those who have made the RAW metaverse scores and maybe they'll help you make your own or even inpliment it for you..

Since I am behind you in metaverse ranking with only 40 games, I will react as if the sentence was aimed at me.
Comparing 220 games to 40 games is a bit silly: the setting for each game differs. How many games is worth a 1.51 tiny map compared to a 1.21 gigantic map? What is the greater achievement: to play lots of games when you can spend lots of time behind a computer (and play more games if the computer is a fast one) or to try to submit regularly games when you can play at best 2 hours each day on a slow computer?
You just can't compare the number. And any comparison/ranking has its own flaws. So you must better accept them since you can't have a perfect system. And since people have different interests in GalCiv, it means you can't have a system that is perfect for everyone. Requirements from different persons can be incompatible.

I like the idea that metaverse is biased toward casual players. Because any die-hard fans are first casual player. And what is the interest for a gaming company (at least as I understand it): to have die-hard fans AND to have casual players that will be interested in future releases.


Wrong: climbing the metaverse ladder is a game by itself. And as with any game, the trick is to find the more efficient way to do it. So if people want to climb the metaverse ladder, they will adjust their style of play with how metaverse react. Since in AP you can get the 60K cap with an alliance win under certain settings, why bother to spend time to achieve a military win since this time could be better used to play and submit another alliance win?


Metaverse game and GC are two different things: you aren't required to submit games to metaverse when finishing GC. You could always play a game on a different settin gand not submitting it since you know it will adversly impact your score. People who lost interest in GC since they lost interest in metaverse are missing something. Or they have been burned by the metaverse and can't see GC without metaverse lenses.

While I do agree with some of your statements here there is some problems with both of our conclusions.

Stardock kept changing the scoring system for the game. Sometimes drastically. This too has had a great effect on the Metaverse game.

For the most part I have played 10 - 15 games per month (there was a short time when I was layed off that I played more) I have been playing for over a year. If the scoring system had not changed I guess my points about the 220 versus 40 games would carry more weight.



I will agree with that statement. I like GC for what it is first. I like the metaverse idea except that it is flawed.

Some of the changes in the game itself have contributed greatly to the metaverse problem.

I do not think that Stardock intended to have the alliance victory condition under MASO/large and up to be played out in 1/2 to 1 hour and give 60K scores.
Once this happened and people now could rush play the game allowing faster 60K submissions to play the Metaverse game everything changed. After this happened Stardock could not change the scoring system back or balance it out. If they did no one would ever use the new version of GC.


[Message Edited]

Agree. But it is also an incentive to get the latest version since it scores more than older.

True, but for me the incentive was to get the new versions for the bug fixes and new features. If they never changed the scoring I doubt if anyone would have cared at the time.

I think the discussion so far has generally been positive. Good points being made by experienced players from their point of view and how they would like to see the game played. Of course, everyone plays the game differently, as is true with almost all games. Sometimes they are played in ways not foreseen by the maker/designer of the game. This is not a weakness, but a relfection of the creativity of the players as a whole as insights are shared on what works well and what doesn't. Without the Metaverse to bring people together, it is doubtful that such sharing would take place. As was mentioned somewhere recently, the forum would most likely end up being just a place where people posted questions and no one answered. It is the community that has made this forum and game different.

I would like to posit again the idea that the Metaverse be treated like a game, with levels one can progressively attain. As in a game likde Diciples II, your character progresses in levels with experience. If you quit playing for a while and come back, your character has not lost levels, you pick up where you left off. Progressively higher levels could require more experence than the level below and could relfect certain types of milestones be met, such as requireing a certain number of military wins, culture wins, etc. Of, it could just be a simple raw score with more and more score required to advance to the next level. No one complains in these games that some one elses character is at a higher level than his is. Why? Because he knows what it takes to get there and he can invest the effort or not.
[Message Edited]

Weyrleader, you are being wasted on the guardians. In your heart and by your actions you are a Diplomat!

Good points though! This discusion on another board/forum would be a flame war!

Every Great Empire needs The Best Diplomat! So we do, thats Weyrleader!

i've been mulling on the scoring system, and was wondering whether it might be possible to base a scoring system on the game variable of 'internal ranking' ie the longer you are not 'top dog' in the game, the higher the score if you win it. This could then apply to all levels, and would result in a game won by a good struggle against superior postioned AI's being rewarded with more points than a game where the player gained superior position early on in the game through whatever means (cranking, cheesing, strategy etc etc) and then just played it out.

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA etc

Good feedback.

Thank you, please let us know if you would like us to formulate a formal proposal that includes the best of these and we will see if we can reach consensus.

cheers,
Weyrleader

I'm basically with Qwerk on this one.
I think there's only a couple of dozen players with hundreds of games who are suffering badly from decreasing scores, and we should remember that the vast majority of people who bought GalCiv either don't mind the way the metaverse works or don't care about it at all.

If I was asked to come up with a quick fix... I'd:
(1) Abolish or drastically raise the score cap. This would mean that AP metaverse players would again be rewarded for playing longer conquest games.
(2) Either frequently update the score decay for every player (so when someone submitted a decent game they would only ever see their score go up), or just abolish it - does it really matter if inactive players stay visible? It would still be possible to overtake them, especially if the score cap was abolished.

hey I do understand what you guys are complaining about.. as my score just took another drop from 94000+ to 77000+ now thats a lot more than a 60k drop.. (why do you guys think that I havn't been able to cross that magig 100,000 every time i get close my 2 bad months of non playing catches up with me..

But thats the nature of the metaverse... and I've really got no one to blame but myself... and yes i've been trying to find a bug in the metaverse scroing system but to no avail..

However it looks like what I've asked for has come to pass... it would appear that NOW the metaverse IS recalcing my scores on a daily basis (unless the metaverse has just undergone a major metaverse recalc) which is to my detriment.. but it is a lot fairer than it was before as it does and will effect EVERYONE .. whether they've submitted a game or not... It appears that Stardock IS listining...

I'm not complaining.. just pointing out to those that may think that its not effecting me that in fact it does...

(It gives me more incentive to not to miss another 30day block with no games as they are cumulative.. and yes it does hurt...

Keep up the Good Work Stardock

can someone please check my score to see if it is correct.. or if there has been a glitch in the metaverse.. As I can't see (can't spot that itsa effected anyone else... i'm probably wrong... again)

thanks in Advance

remember the metaverse is not a tdy place..
its cruel and harsh just like the coldness of space...
it doesn't care wether you win or loose...

and

that you cannot change the laws of physics just because you don't like them... LOL

J.T., others have also seen recent drops. Icho dropped 10K points, but Major Dallas did not, hence MD rose in the ranksings without submitting a game since 16 June. Theoden has seen a drop, Naqmire recently droped about 10K. So, as usual, some see it and some don't.

So does it look like Stardock is now recalcing the metaverse Daily.. like i suggested .. or is it just a once off again..

The folks that took a hit had scores reaching back to 7/2003. Major Dallas just started in 4/2004. Maybe scores reaching max age trip off the recalc?

I thought that they had fixed that.... and weren't dropping scores after a year anymore