Metaverse: I like new scoring!

I can see the future. Every game submitted to the Metaverse is going to be a Tiny map. No more Gigantic games. And then the hysteria will start about the injustice of scoring small maps too high.

Gigantic maps still give more points. But instead of it being 30 to 1, it's more like 3 to 1.

Posted by Christopher Packer:


It's a thin rope to walk. It will give true score whores an easier time of things, on the other hand, it frees merely competitive people to play what they actually enjoy and still be in the running.

Yep, in my opinion smaller maps are MUCH more tactical and the effects of your choices are immediate. Milking games for points appears to happily be a thing of the past. Scoring 3:1 seems cool to me, although I'm sure some players can churn out several Tiny maps each day.

As a gigantic map player, I support the 3-1 ratio, so
no whining about map size from me. I am a tad concerned that
its only a 6 to 1 ratio between masochistic and
beginner though. So some small whining anyway

I'll live though

[Message Edited]

That wasn't whining from you Staffa. You are always thoughtful and almost always calm. Have you noted the ANZAC chook raffle is a goer?

My position is that it is nearly impossible to balance out the map size scoring and that we ought to rank the smaller maps, medium maps, and larger maps seperately.

You are always going to hurt one relative to the other. In this instance, I think possibly it's gone a bit too far on the size correction. As to difficulty, If the trade goods tweak had remained as it was, I'd agree with Staffa. Now that it's back, I'd say It looks pretty good as is.

Why should an hours work get you 1/3 as many points as about 10 hours work given the same difficulty.? I'm using my timeframe here. For most, I'd say it's even more difference. Oh well. I'll just submit smaller sizes. hehe.

Gigantic maps still give more points. But instead of it being 30 to 1, it's more like 3 to 1.


I agree that 30-1 is way to0 steep. But I think 3 to one is gonna prove to be a bit shallow. 10-1 on size and 15-1 on difficulty would be cool to try and see what happens.

In my 2 submitted games I don't see map size as an important factor at all and that was under 1.03!

On a huge map I got a score of slightly more than on a medium one. However I did much better in the Huge one (i could win in any way I wanted but did so by aliance) in the medium one i was only 3rd in power but could somehow convince all survivers to ally with me.

I'll try to win a 1.04 game now and see how scoring has changed...

Or did it also changed for older games? (I've noticed that Staffas highscore dropped a lot...)

I apparently became a benefector with the metaverse retooling because I went from 36 to I'm guessing 30 right now. I should be able to go up a few more ranks after my current game.

I'm going to attempt a couple tiny maps here in the coming days and see how well I do

games played before 1.04 were just reduced in score,
not recalculated, 1.035 was cut in half, previous
versions even more.

New tiny/small games played ON 1.04 will score
much better.

I support the 3-1 ratio because there is no way
with the square root function that someone playing
pure tiny can easily pass someone who plays gigantic,
and someone who plays gigantic can play tiny without
hurting their score much.

If the scores were purely additive, then yes, it
would be easier to play pure tiny and get to the top,
cause its a much faster game, but its not.

Question. If I finish a game now on 1.035, will the score be calculated the new way or the old? Essentially I'm just curious if it would be better to go tech or military.

(I'm in the middle of what looks like it's going to be my first maso win! Taking forever, giant map. It was one of the most fun games I've ever played on a TBS game.)

I assume you have not updated to 1.04 yet, redshift. It would be computed based on the old 1.035 way. From my experience, it gets somewhat halved once you post it. A tech win gets you most points in 1.035.

Yes, gigantic games can be quite epic and fun. Takes a heck of long time though.
[Message Edited]

Yeah, I started the game on 1.035 and I want to finish before I upgrade (not sure what would happen if I upgrade in the middle). I'll upgrade as soon as I finish (this weekend hopefully), and probably have to drop back down in difficulty (I barely stayed alive in the first half of this one).