High scorers: how do they do that?

Browsing through the first page of Metaverse I've noticed many amazing results like Tough Medium 13K, Cripple Large 15K, Simple Large 12K. How do they do that? I thought I was doing well dominating the large galaxy against all incredible by mid nineties. I tried cultural win in 2197 - 10K. Submit? No, thanks. I've spent 2 more years in final war conquering everybody. Finished in 2199 with 14K. Ouch! Is it that on simler difficulty one can finish well before 2190 and get a big bonus for that or am I missing something else?
522 views 16 replies
Reply #1 Top
AS long as the exact scoring algorithm is not known (with figures), you can only guess. I'd like points awarded for difficulty only, but that's not the way it is... Since trade goods, techs, population all factor in, it's probably way easier to get these bigger on lower level difficulty than on maso, and the difficulty factor doesn't outweight that properly.
Reply #2 Top
Time is not a factor in your score, at all.

High score results from high population and tecnology.

As you can see, even a fairly low difficulty can
obtain through massive population the same score as
a much more difficult game, but lower pop game.

This is something I have been pointing out for weeks,
and while it is better then it was before, the same
problem still exists and I wouldnt hold my breath
looking for it to be fixed.

If you want to get to number 1 on the metaverse, watch
KseAli, he will have it within a week.

That is sergey, he first started over, getting rid
of the massive dead weight all the games prior to 1.05
represent.

He will then achieve near total domination on crippling
difficulty, building all wonders, fully colonizing
all planets and researching all techs before
ending the game with a fairly massive population.

There is pretty much nothing I can do to stop him
without also ditching my name and playing on crippling.

And the sad thing, the game massively rewards playing
games that are over. KseAli will spend about 70%
of his turns playing a game that is essentially over
with only one AI left cornered on some system while
he finishes poping and teching. Why this extremely
boring behaviour is being rewarded with much higher
scores, I dunno, I guess they think only a few people
will do it, and thats those guys sickness.

Of course, the reality is its the systems sickness
and its only more pronounced at the top, it will effect
pretty much everyone to some extent.




Reply #3 Top
As for me, where I have been is as important as where I am going. I am proud of my record, even with my mediocre accomplishments and my old version disadvantage, so I would never go as far as reinventing myself to get rid of an unfair disadvantage on the Metaverse, but some experienced player had to do it to re-create the super noob syndrome. Good luck on your quest, KseAli.
Reply #4 Top
I would almost agree with Staffa except to say that I think the benefits of rewarding pop, tech, etc. is not going to affect the little guy like he claims. Unfortunately for the top ranked, we are in a position of milking or being happy with wherever we are. I'm happy to just be in the top 25 and would get bored silly the way Sergey plays. So, he can have the top spot.

But, for those 50-3000 players, these factors are what lets them look at a score and think, "hey, not too bad :)"
Reply #5 Top
Cept that they are actually better, cause many of those
they are comparing themselves too will have milked
their score.

Reply #6 Top
There is a difference between idiots destroying a
system and a system that destroys itself.

You can ignore idiots, you cant compete and enjoy a
system that rewards boring behaviour.

And to not point out the obvious, I cared

[Message Edited]
Reply #7 Top
#2 by Veteran Staffa - 6/14/2003 6:50:20 PM :

"Time is not a factor in your score, at all.
High score results from high population and tecnology."

I've had get nearly to the final frontier. I think I was researching Beyond Human when I won. Actually I thought I would have to take tech win, but my culture aggression worked out faster than I expected. It was large abundant and I had virtualy all habitable planet plus few 12-14 stretched to 15 in strategical places. There was a bunch of 30+ planets with population in 30-50 range, so population was pretty large. How much population can you have on one planet?
Admittedly I've missed out most of early trade goods and wonders.

#2 by Veteran Staffa - 6/14/2003 6:50:20 PM :
"If you want to get to number 1 on the metaverse, watch
KseAli, he will have it within a week."
It rather looks that he will get there tomorrow:)

I'm starting to wonder if it's a valid strategy to write app that analyses the screen and generates mouse clicks and have some rudimentary AI sufficient to win on beginner and then run it on gigantic abundant 24*7.
I think it should be able to produce few hundred games per day. Now, who knows how much totally milked gigantic abundant beginner worths? ;->
Reply #8 Top
KseAli will spend about 70%of his turns playing a game that is essentially overwith only one AI left cornered on some system whilehe finishes poping and teching.
End of quote


It is shame for you Staffa. You know that my last game was over in 2210 and you clearly undestand that in such case I cant spend 70% of my turns playing the game essentially over.
Reply #9 Top
Well, my apologizies then, I took your end date and
applied my finish date too it. My last gigantic game
I had entire galatic domination in 2194.

Reply #10 Top
And btw, I didnt kill a single ship that game, thats
through the supposedly 'slow' cultural flipping
technique.
Reply #11 Top
I'm tired with this discussion. The truth is:
if your goal is to get gold medal my strategy is just more effective. You are right I can get gold medal in a week or faster, but I dont want to waste my time to really playing all these similar games.

You talk that my way is silly and playing this way is not interesting. I agree, I lost interest, because I found only two main strategies to win any particular game - 1. "fast" agressive and 2 "slow" diplomatic. In both cases the game essentially is won somewhere in 2190-2100. After that you have a choice to finish game and get relatively small score, or continue and get better score. It seems to me, that you also play very similar games and soon also will be bored.

I'll stop playing at least until expansion. From time to time I'm going to visit forum, just to check may be somebody will discover some new strategy, or may be scoring system will be changed. So, dont worry, I'm not going take your medal.

PS. I already talk once, that I think that you play this game better than me, and certainly you and may be RayChua are currently the best players.
Reply #12 Top
Chuckle KseAli, you should read the end of the
G.R.O.S.S. thread, its kinda ironic :)
Reply #13 Top
"#12 by Citizen KseAli - 6/14/2003 8:46:19 PM "

"I lost interest, because I found only two main strategies to win any particular game - 1. "fast" agressive and 2 "slow" diplomatic."

Yep, that's pretty expected, because if you're not diplomatic enough to survive, you've to be powerful and given AI bonuses the only way to be powerful is to be aggressive. Besides, GalCiv doesn't provide much variety in aggressiveness. Without AI having bonuses the game would be sort of won from the start, so it's kind of deadend and I feel that the game is wearing out.
Reply #14 Top
I have read, its really ironic. So, you also bored. It was good time when I was trying to steal medal from you. Good luck Staffa. It seems that you also prefer single player games.
Reply #16 Top
I think I read somewhere by Frogboy that the metaverse takes into account the following when calculating a metaverse score:

Trade Goods Completed
Wonders Completed
Number of Techs Researched
Your alignment versus the alignments of others
Your tax intake
Victory Type
Difficulty
Map Size (Gigantic 3-1 advantage over tiny)
Finish Time
Population

Now my understanding is that if you take way too long or too short of time, your score won't be as good as you would get if you finished somewhere in the medium time range band. The population thing only works to a point, and that military conquest victories get the most generous multipliers. So that accounts for part of the difference.

It could well be that the people who did well on the medium maps had pretty efficient games or set the races to all opposite alignments (which in turn can boost a score). There's lots of ways that could've happened.