Player Ranks???

We can only speculate as Stardock has not been forthcoming with regards to the exact definitions.

My suspicion is overall score. We have seen folks playing different map sizes and difficulties also rise in rank.

Hm, 4k shy of 50k, I might play one more game to see
if 50k is the threshold for rear admiral.

It can't just be overall score, because then you would never see a lower-rated player outrank a higher-rated player.

I'm thinking it's some combination of total points scored and games played.

You just beat me to it, fsk

It seems to have this pattern.

Fleet Captain - 10,000 points with 10 games
Commodore - 20,000 points with 20 games

However, because you don't lose rank when your points go down, we see some Fleet Captains with lower than 10,000 score.

My guess for Rear Admiral :

40,000 points with 40 games (cause 30k/30games doesn't work)
[Message Edited]

Just because I'm bored, here's my guesses for Captains and Commanders.

Captain - 5000pts, 10 games
Commander - 2500pts, 3 games

The overall score seem to be doubling so 40,000pts should be right for Real Admiral. The number of games does not follow a logical sequence though.

(Gripe mode on)

Doesn't this continual score inflation pretty much make medals and ranks a little out of whack unless they eventually get retooled to adjust to this brave, new 1.05 Metaverse? Now getting a 10K score in a single game is common. Even the mediocre players can grab 5K. It is a much different world from when a 1,000 point game was considered the standard to match.

Yes, I agree some upward score adjustment was warranted to make difficulty matter more and to account for the upper level AI being better and a few other things, but not to this magnitude! When people can get 10K on simple (where the AI was dumbed down) for the sake of luring people into trying the beta versions, then that just sends the wrong message in my opinion. My minor league record says it all: initial scores of 50 and then low hundreds going on eventually into scores of thousands and thousands for games of similar circumstances getting extreme score amplification that is totally out of balance with what was adjusted.

(Gripe mode off)

damn 1.05 scores are through the roof

I've only gotten 5k in 1.04 before.
I haven't cared too much about scoring before, so can anyone explain the scoring mechanism?

You're the fourth person to ask this today and this is my third repost. Enjoy!

Difficulty Level:
The base score is based on the intelligence of the various computer players. This makes up the vast majority of the score. There is a slight bonus for playing as the opposite alignment as most of the players for most of the game. It looks at each turn and then looks at how much you are different each turn. But it's a relatively small adustment.

Galaxy Size:
There is a moderate adjustment based on galaxy size. But not much. Gigantic galaxy vs. tiny will be about a 3 to 1 difference in scores if all variables are the same.

Population:
Population is looked at but its value decreases as the game progresses. It is Population P / Turns N ^2. You're actually better off having a pretty good population earlier than having a huge population later and sitting on it. You're not penalized for having long games though, you simply don't get additional points at a certain point. That said, population is a relatively minor part of the scoring. It also takes into account what percentage of the total galactic population you have that turn. That is, your score is then modified by 100% - your percent of the population. So if you have 90% of the galactic population, you're only going to get 10% of the population score that turn.

Technology:
What percentage of the technology tree you have acheived and how fast you get it are added in. A fairly modest bonus but it's still lookeda t.

Economics, Trade Goods, Wonders, etc.
These other things are looked at and a few points added. They won't make that big of a difference (on a 15,000 point score they may add a few hundred points total).

Victory Condition:
Then the victory condition is looked at. The score is multiplied by it. Conquest = 10. Alliance =9. Culture = 8. Technology Victory = 7 (bear in mind that this is partially made up for by having a higher percent of the tech tree completed bonus).

Notes:
You're best scoring scenario is to win but not win too quickly. The system is designed to appeal to the mass majority of players, not the top 10 players. As a result, we want to create a system that rewards people for playing the game as it was designed to be played. That means your best bang for the buck will be games that are medium in length. You get serious diminishing returns. Sitting on 90% of the galaxy for turn after turn is not going to net you more points. You're not penalized either but you're not rewarded for having a huge population if you've got the game wrapped up. On the other hand, win the game in say year 3 due to some specific strategy won't net very good scores because you haven't had time to build up other parts to get multiplied by.

50k alone isnt rear admiral

Staffa, your player record actually says 49477.6 right now. But the Metaverse is reporting it at a bit over 50K. Maybe throwing another one on the pile to make sure both read 50K will do it.

40k with 40 games doesnt work, EBZeroMatrix just passed
that threshold.

Yes, I noticed Staffa. I've just sent my crystal ball into the workshop for some fixing.

Though I'm hoping that 40K, 40games still work but with additional requirement/s like difficulty or map sizes.

maybe doesn't exist??? - yet

Ray, your crystal ball is wrong!! good guess though, I was making the same guess.

This rear admiral thing is either a matter of faith or a don't believe it exists until you see one deal. My position is currently the latter.

True, the higher ranks may not have been implemented yet. We were all stuck with captains for a long time until T-Man implemented some new ranks.