Another question about the scoring

You are hurting yourself if you get bored with the game. Better to submit a lower score to the Metaverse and enjoy the game, than milk a game for points and decide to do something else..

Just my opinion.

The answer is yes, it would increase your score, Robert. You are rewarded score wise for researching techs.

But heed Barry's wise advice.

I'm not worried about being bored by the game. I've been playing steady now for awhile, just recently started submitting the scores. What just don't think its fair to players who are in position to win to be penalized for finishing the game when there hasn't been enough time to finish the tree. I guess this is only a problem only on the tiny maps where games are very quick.

Actually you are in good company Robert.

Both Staffa and myself feel that it takes skill to win quickly and the scoring should reflect that.

In fact, in the first iteration of scoring I'm aware of, your score is divided by the year of victory. Therefore quicker wins are rewarded.

However, I believe SD does not want to encourage rushes so much so that players don't get to play with a lot of the later ships and techs that SD had spent much effort in coding for us. And if speed is overly rewarded, the best rushers will top the Metaverse.

Well, I think Staffa and myself are very good rushers and we still top the Metaverse in this current scoring system but that's besides the point.

Hmmm...I haven't played a map smaller than "Large", so I don't know how quick the games go. But if you are interested in going through the tech tree, you might want to just play with your spending percentage toward research significantly higher than your spending for Military/Social. You might be able to squeak out a few more techs before crushing the other empires!

Robert

I experimented with that and put it in a post elsewhere. I submitted a score without completing the tech tree and it was about 12k. When I went back and researched all the techs and resubmitted, the score was my best one, slightly under 15k. At least in this one circumstance it was 20 to 25% higher from completing the techs. I was just sort of goofing around but as per the above posts, there is a boredom risk if one does this routinely. Keep it fun.

Rick

I also think that "Military Victory" is over-rewarded; the player already benefits from a large set of planets, so IMHO it should be treated like an ascension victory.

Alex


~SDC~

I have a question about scoring, too. I just finished a Gigantic game. I did the tech victory, and it said I had 6500 and some Mpts. I thought that was bad enough for a game that took 11 or 12 days to finish. But to make matters worse, my Metaverse score only went up about 1000 points! Does tech victory suck, or what gives? I could have done the culture victory, which has given me a lot more points, as I was already there, but decided to try tech for once. That's the last time I do that!

You get the poorest scores for tech, followed by cultural then alliance. The highest scores are for military victories.

Your overall Metaverse score is computed based on the summation of your scores divided by sqrt of your number of games. There is also an ageing effect in that your older games are worth less as time goes by.

Thanks, I'll never go for tech again. I've only been playing for around a month, maybe a little more so I don't think they would have degraded that much, would they?

BTW, I just replayed the game from my last save (about a year before the end) and went for Cultural Victory. My Mpts doubled and my Metaverse score went up 2400 points more than it did with the Tech Victory!

The ageing goes by monthly blocks from the day of your last submission. So games >1 month old would be degraded by 5%, >2 months old would be degraded by 10%, the max degradation is 80%.