Retroactively upgrading 1.044 version scores to 1.05.

Yep, have you read KseAli's post "To Frogboy about overall score calculation"? A player indicated he did this. Seems to make the Metaverse a REALLY BIG joke.

Thanks Packer, didn't notice that before. The player I was refering to specifically fully admitted to doing it in that forum and I can't blame him. Heck if I had my save games from those past 1.044 games I might do it too.

Sigh:( , what a bloody mess this all is....perhaps we would all be better off deleting all posts with the words metaverse scoring from the forum and wash our hands of it. This is just a game right...we don't get any special prizes for being tops in the metaverse???? Does it really matter that much?

I say, let the metaverse do what it was intended to do, and that is to serve as a tool to better the AI and keep the game challenging. Frogboy and the rest of the team, keep up the good work, screw the score whiners.

I dont see the metaverse as *that* big of a mess. I've been submitting my scores pretty much since the start of the game, and I do have several scores from the old days that pull down my overall metaverse score, but I'm still comfortably in the top ten and somehow making 4th place. No mods. Not of this cheese involving reloading a chain of pre 1.04 games or the like. So it *is* possible to hold your own up there.

Then again using the 1.05 games I seem to be averaging about 4000 points more than you are, part of it being I'm imagining a larger map. One thing that makes a difference in my games is that I chase after trade goods and wonders religiously. I think on the last game I submitted, I pretty much ran the table on most of the trade goods except for diplo translators. The rush buys are a bit more painful, so its making me time them alot more carefully.

I suppose one solution that could be instituted (and I know this will be unpopular) is have saved games become incompatible with newer versions to prevent the scenario you're citing. But people hate that (and in some ways I wouldn't blame them), so it likely wont happen

Thanks Packer, didn't notice that before. The player I was refering to specifically fully admitted to doing it in that forum and I can't blame him. Heck if I had my save games from those past 1.044 games I might do it too.

Sigh:( , what a bloody mess this all is....perhaps we would all be better off deleting all posts with the words metaverse scoring from the forum and wash our hands of it. This is just a game right...we don't get any special prizes for being tops in the metaverse???? Does it really matter that much?


Unfortunately, too many are under the delusion that the metaverse actually measures (or should) measure skill. Couple that with the delusion that The way I play is the most skillful and thus should be scored as such on the part of some, and the delusion that winning at a game proves you are somehow better than someone else (totally laughable) and you get tons of peeps in hot debates on scoring. But just look at little league. Look at youth hockey. Too many these days live vicariously through others. Is it any surprise they also live vicariously through a video game?



It does not and cannot measure skill as by definition, we don't play each other, luck plays an important role in this game, and we don't even play the same board. Metaverse matters not at all.

Unfortunately as well, the moment we find ourselves on a ladder system, we instinctly would want to believe that the reason why some folks are ranked above us is because they are better than us (in skill). It may never have been the intention but that's human nature for you.

Would anyone happily accept a #1 player who has played 100 calkwalk gigantic games? That is of course an extreme example but I could certainly see a newbie reaching the top in the current system simply by playing normal difficulty ones.

Maybe it is Brad's intention all along to get all of us so sick of the scoring issue such that we could all just concentrate on the most important part of all this - the game.

By the way, answering the original question of this thread, I got the impression that we could go and update our 1.044 scores with 1.05 from T-Man's post below.

I admittedly upgraded my Gigantic. It was from the totally bogus version that only a few of us got that was producing negative scores due to a totally unintended problem with the Gigantic scoring method I thought it reasonable. Had I had access to the good 1.044 at the time, I would have done it with that. I also think that if you got the second corrected 1.044, it's probably a Grey area as to whether to do it.

I think that's the point for many of the 'oldtimers'. The ladder is not (and getting less so) an indication of skill. It's a shame, because the ladder could (and should?) have been. I made a joke a while ago about scoring games: 3, 2, 1. Perhaps a simplified scoring system would have kept better players interested in the Metaverse for longer. Others will no doubt say that most players will get bored and move on to other games anyway. Oh well, there are so many ways one can look at the issue. Everyone is right when talking about their own experience I suppose.

I'm not bored of the game, yet. I'm bored of playing the game for the Metaverse. I don't think I have ever played so many single player games for a TBS from start to end in 17 years of gaming.

I'm still looking forward to the expansion pack. But will not be getting Drengin.net to get betas though.

I think I have made too many 'lamentation' posts (as Pontius puts it). Time to move on.

I upgraded every game I had as well. I had hoped that doing such a thing would highlight why all scores should get recalculated every time they alter the scoring formula (I'm not complaining that it added several thousand to my score in the process ).

Their resistance to doing this puzzles me, but the bottom line is that I'll be holding onto my victories from this point out in case such a situation arises in the future. It's just very weird that Stardock says,
"No, we're not going to recalculate everyone's scores because we don't think these old scores should be worth as much..."
"Oh, you've got your save games, well you can go ahead and get yours recalculated"

I think that's the point for many of the 'oldtimers'. The ladder is not (and getting less so) an indication of skill.

See that's the problem Chris. It by definition cannot be an idication of skill because we cannot play each other. And what's the definition of skill? It's highly subjective. And some around here just cannot see that.

I upgraded every game I had as well. I had hoped that doing such a thing would highlight why all scores should get recalculated every time they alter the scoring formula (I'm not complaining that it added several thousand to my score in the process ).

Their resistance to doing this puzzles me, but the bottom line is that I'll be holding onto my victories from this point out in case such a situation arises in the future. It's just very weird that Stardock says,
"No, we're not going to recalculate everyone's scores because we don't think these old scores should be worth as much..."
"Oh, you've got your save games, well you can go ahead and get yours recalculated"


CM, I interpreted that to mean the 1.044 (broken ie the one that produced negative scores) version only. But it wasn't well thought out, or well explained.

PBP, you can always upgrade a game once until they freeze the version from my experience. Early on, I often wound up resubmitting when I discovered that choosing a different victory netted me a higher score. When I was doing the resubmit, I tried every game I still had for whatever reason. A 1.035 that I hadn't already submitted more than once was among the 1.05 recalcs I got. OTOH, my 1.031 that I had was not accepted (but I may have already submitted that game more than once so it might even be possible to recalc *all* your games if you had the saves to do so).

I don't see why the heck not. It's not like 1.05 is dramtically harder, and that the higher scores are due to the increased difficulty. I thought the plan was to rescore things eventually anyway. I actually suggested this to someone in my empire who submitted a 1.04 game just a couple of days ago.

One of the things that I find most bizarre about this issue is the hypocrisy from Stardock.

We get told to stop taking the metaverse so seriously and just play/enjoy the game.

We get told that they won't do the recalc because it's not right to give these higher scores to older, allegedly easier games.

So, which is it? Is the metaverse supposed to just be a fun "competition", in which case, hey, do the recalc because it keeps people on the same footing. Or is the metaverse supposed to be some serious reflection of our performance in the game, in which case, well, I don't even want to go into the landmine field of taking that stance

I see this game as Friendly Competition... like back in the day when you used to play Super Mario Bros. and see who could go the longest without dying or who would have the highest score at the end but you didn't get all pissy when someone did better than you cause it was all fun no matter what. GalCiv and the Metaverse should be a reflection not of "who-is-better-than-whom" but instead should reflect people finding new/better routes to victory, beating your best score, and knowing who had a really good game and learning how to make your game better... in order to further every player's experience of the game. Otherwise The Metaverse is just a bulletin board in order to make people feel better and gloat. Do the recalc... it won't affect me in anyway cause i've only been playing for the past week but the recalc might make everyone else feel better because their scores will acurately portray their skill level. It kinda makes me think of taking two test, one out of 50 points and one out of 100 points but instead of doubling the earlier 50pt test the teacher averages it in at the low number and effectively you get a bad grade when in actuality you got a very good grade (i don't know why that image popped into my head ::shrug:: ).

~SDC~