My ideal scoring system!

Each map type, including size, abundancy and cluster
tightness is assigned an arbitrary point value.

This is your base score.

This base is modified first by the precentage of
current base PQ you own compared to the beginning base
PQ of the universe counting only systems that start
out as 15+. If massdrivers(or other ground attacks
taht lower PQ) or terror stars are used, these reduce
the base pq of the effected systems with respect to
score. Ie, making the galaxy less habiptal lowers
ur potential score.

This result will result in a precentage, cap it at 100%
just to prevent some obscure bug. Your base score
is modified by this precentage.

You then modify the base score by the square root of
the quantity of the average time of completion on each
map type divided by the time the player actually
completed the game by.

You then modify the score by the difficulty level.

So score would be

Base * Galatic Ownership * sqrt(base time / compeletion time) * difficulty modifier


Base time can be calculated by taking the average
time of every game currently played on the Metaverse.
This can be recalculated every once and awhile(and
all scores modified by the new base) to correct all
the scores. Over time, this correction should
eventually become unneccesary.


Difficulty modifer

Masochistic modifer = 5
Crippling modifier = 3
Painful modifier = 2.5
Tough modifier = 2
challanging = 1.5
normal = 1
beginner = .8
simple = .5
easy = .25
cakewalk = .1

The difficulty could scale between different difficulty levels
depending on how close you are to the next level and the
alignment of the civs.
Such that having 5 incrediable AI's set to pure evil would
be worth 5, and as you step down each alignment and
intelligence, the modifier decreases towards the next lower
level until you actually reach that level.

I could give you the base point value of each map
type, but hey why waste my time on a fantasy.


[Message Edited]

To Staffa:

I agree with the difficulty part (not sure about the numbers, but right numbers can be found). Good point about AI alignment. My major disagreement is ignoring the start position. It is a significant part of difficulty settings. With your formula, playing for metaverse would mean Ctrl-N until nice start. It doesn't consume much time and greatly improves the score. Also your formula encourages gambling, but it's lesser problem. How do you plan to calculate overall score? I'd think that composite max by map would work well considering that it's hard to assign balanced arbitrary values to different maps.

Well, the neat thing about my method is that the
arbitrary values for different maps can be modified
without having any effect on the scores for different
map settings. Large abundant scoring to many points,
modify its base. Currently the dev's are trying
to fix certain odd situtations and screwing everything
else up in the process. Its impossible to balance
such a complicated thing from the start, so make a
system that can easily be adjusted as you go along
without the adjustments screwing everything else up.

As you noticed, I got rid of population, wonders,
strength of economy in their direct effect on the
score. These things indirectly effect score by
helping players win faster/stronger. Using them
as part of the actual scoring process only encourages
tedium of maximizing certain elements of the game beyond
what is usefull for actually winning the game.
Such as building wonders for the sake of having wonders
for score. If the wonder is not worth having for the
sake of the actual posistion you are at in the game, then from a
strategy perspective it does not make sense
to build it. Strategy games are about having trade offs.
When you reward people for making bad strategic decisions,
such as building wonders when its not the best thing
to actually do, then the scoring process interfers
with the strategy process. I find it absurd that
im playing a masochistic game thinking how can I rush
build this wonder, not because I need it to win the game
in fact tryng to rush build it will hurt my game, but
because it will improve my metaverse score. This is
absurd. Score should reflect your strategic skill, and
strategy is about winning competely and quickly.
Anything else is just confusing the issue.

And of course, pop exploding, almost a time honored
tradition in TBS's, the entire civ series rewarded it, bout
time that absurd tedius process was dropped.

Tech, again, if the game is won, why encourage people
to play on, if the tech isnt worth getting for the
sake of winning, it sure as hell shouldnt be worth
getting for the sake of score.

I know you didnt actually ask about those things, but
I felt like talking about them anyway

Now on to what you did mention.

Ctrl-N I have suggested before, and still strongly
believe that making Earth a STATIC pq, ie always 20(
plus any racial bonuses) would eliminate most of the
ctrl-N abuse, and really, it has such a powerful effect
on your early economy, which has such a powerful effect
on your game, that it really should either be static
or effect the scoring process, and the scoring process
is complicated enough.

As for the rest, what ever, your never gonna stop
people from screwing with the system and if people
want to hit ctrl n tell their fingers turn blue
getting that perfect start, more power to them, as
long as each individual game is fair, I dont care.

The reason I dont care is because any solution that
stops this is both artificial(like using the number of
times ctrl n is used to effect the score), or to
complicated that it just presents more problems
then solutions(note the current situtation we are in)

Overall scores, I do believe that the current system
for accumulating the overall scores is abit odd
but I had just assumed keep it. It does have the
advantage of being fairly simple, I would get rid of
the decay value though, whats the point of it, if people
who continue to play can not remove people who have
stopped playing, then um, to bad, not like games
played more recently are a better demonstration of
skill, quite the opposite in fact, as games played
equally well months ago actually demonstrate more
innovative skill then games played more recently.

And yea, im all for encouraging gambling.

[Message Edited]

#28 by Veteran Staffa - 6/10/2003 9:37:56 AM :

"Ctrl-N I have suggested before, and still strongly
believe that making Earth a STATIC pq, ie always 20(
plus any racial bonuses) would eliminate most of the
ctrl-N abuse, and really, it has such a powerful effect
on your early economy, which has such a powerful effect
on your game"

On medium+ maps PQ of Earth matters very little comparing to proximity of other good planets. On tiny/small PQ of Earth isn't that important either. On tiny maso 2 planet start is almost certain win, while one planet start is difficult even if PQ is good. In particular the problem is if you don't have minor race nearby. Then by the time you get to Impulse drive you've stored good part of frigate in your production, but you can't build it because lack of technology and you can't build transport either without losing 3/4 of frigate. So it costs quite a few turns. With 2 planets there's no such a problem. Worse planet has about right stored production for transport.

#28 by Veteran Staffa - 6/10/2003 9:37:56 AM :

"that it really should either be static or effect the scoring process, and the scoring process is complicated enough."

Because of above notes I believe it should affest the score. In terms of complicated calculations I'd choose total of PQ/power(distance,k) for all planets that are nearer to you than to other race. Difficulty coefficient would be ratio of your total towars average total for all major races. This is something very easy to do in the program.

Staffa:
"Overall scores, I do believe that the current system
for accumulating the overall scores is abit odd
but I had just assumed keep it."

This method present a big problem. You play a game with all your skill, thinking out and carefully planning every move and score 10000. I play sloppy without thinking much and finish the equal game later scoring 8000. Then I quickly play another (equally sloppy game) and score another 8000. Now I have around 11500 against your 10000 which doesn't really make sense.

Staffa:
"And yea, im all for encouraging gambling."
That's good when losses are counted. Then you have to gamble playing on averages meaning that if the gamble that increases your score by 10% but may cost you a game if it fails has to be 90% good to worth taking it. But in offline games without fear or loss, 20% gambling is good. If it fails you start a new game. If it pays off you proceed to high score. I would assume that to win is the primary goal, while doing it quickly and efficiently is secondary. IMHO risking a game that you can safely win to get a victory 2 years sooner instead is not a display of expert skill.

About accumulating, when you have a better method
to propose, I will comment on it, but until then
its either this or nothing.

About the rest, let me think on it abit, gonna fire
off some saved games to frogboy.

The simplest is to accumulate only across different settings. Two maso/gigantic counts the same as highest of them, but maso/tiny adds the score to maso/gigantic. This way one can not inflate the score by repeating the same things again and again, but can increase it by proving his skills in other settings. Tiny and gigantic play very differently.

Basically I suggest the overall score = total of max score for each map size (maybe planet rarity should be taken into account too).

An interesting suggestion alexti, but you still run into
the problem of allowing people to achieve the perfect
set of games, something which frogboy is against,
though I certantly think its worthwhile

#32 by Veteran Staffa - 6/11/2003 9:22:18 AM :

"An interesting suggestion alexti, but you still run into the problem of allowing people to achieve the perfect set of games"

Usually the more you play the better you do it, so in most cases one will be able to improve their older scores. It's especially true for newer and less experienced player, while top players may find it harder and harder to do improvements.

My own suggestion has another flaw though. As updates to GalCiv are released, certain scores may become unbeatable due to AI improvement (or beefing up AI). Then some kind of adjustment coefficient would be needed making things more and more complicated.