Well trying to recruit the emperor of a new empire is aiming a bit high. LOL

You could join mine though, like the spirit.

couslee, actually I was going to join yours before I joined Illuminati. I had my own empire called tactical providence. Couldn't break into 10th place with 3 people so I disbanded my empire and joined Illuminati. I like to see a samll empire take down big boys. LOL

But anyway if you ever change your mind about joining an empire, you are seriously more than welcome.

makes me curious what made you decide against mine (the positive VS negative list for each)

Wonder what a Gallup Poll would cost to run on all the empire members. lol

post #23 from EBZeroMatrix's got a point. He may said it roughly but the man's got a point.



Frogboy I don't intend to offend you but you shouldn't have said that. I got a busy life, as matter of fact I bet everyone's got busy lives no matter what you do. You didn't have to point that out that you are busy. We are all squizing tiny little bit of our time attend in this forum.

Couslee, well I was moding the game and saw Nand's improvement mod. So I just selected Illuminati instead. Since I belong to Illuminati, I want this empire to be more active with more members. So I ask people around just like any recruiters from all the other empire.

Gotcha. I can see where a mod would have a pull factor. I don't use them myself, nor would I be comfortable with mods in the empire. But I figure don't ask, don't tell LOL. I am military aligned. Was not questioning your recruitment efforts.

I pitch mine here and there, but I don't even have five games in yet, so not pushing it. Besides, I kinda wanted to see if the story line would bring in any on it's own merit.
[Message Edited]

Hanging out in the forum is something that I enjoy doing and part of my job as project manager.

But being at EBZero's beck and call to remove anomolous scores from his personal metaverse account is pushing it. That is the specific issue we're dealing with here.

Some people have unreasonable expectations of support. Heck, I'm happy when a tech support person emails me back. Yet you have people here ticked off that we're not willing to continually edit their metaverse accounts when they get anomolous scores even after they've been told how they are happening.

Here's a tip: If you're good at the game, don't play at "Beginner". It makes it pretty obvious what the goal in the submission is. Anyoen reading this is certainly free to play at any difficulty level they want, but at the same time, don't expect us to come running and edit people's metaverse accounts because the system detected an anomolous score.

Play the game, not the metaverse.

I'm sorry but I have zero sympathy for people playing at the easiest level purely to crank up their metaverse score.

~SDC~

Well, from all the numbers I have crunched, I think I can weigh in here. Most people seem to be going for harder games in an effort to play above normal level. The problem is that lower level games have been found to score very competively overall in relation to harder difficulty games. This leads to the temptation of going for the quick and easy route to crank scores. Obviously, the powers-that-be disapprove of such a tactic.

I get the impression that the Masters of the Meta do not want to scare off newer players by giving them low scores for easy games, but there has to be (in my opinion) a real difference in scores according to not only map size, but difficulty. In no way should the Little League players be scoring in the same ballpark as the Major Leagues. If this change alone were implemented, cranking in the EBZ fashion (or older style it was based of of) may still occur, but it would score less so it would be more feasable to play a harder level, and thus be exploited less.

I know it has been stated that the Metaverse does not measure skill and should not be taken as a measure of skill according to the powers-that-be, but that argument seems to weaken considerably into becoming an excuse for not fixing scoring by difficulty when taking the current circumstances into account. Please, just make cakewalk mean cakewalk scores and the "new improved +50% maso" mean maso, and so forth scaled appropriately all along the difficulty scale. My 4K culture bombs on a tough/medium map should mean more than some beginner/tiny 10K military victory. That is just common sense in my opinion. Of course, I realize that I do not know what goes into programming all of this and I am not the expert. The Keepers of the Meta are the experts. I am just a lay person who has been through a lot of numbers picking out patterns, and I do not like the pattern I am seeing in regards to scoring difficulty.

EBZ,
Brad has stated from the outset that he wants people to play the game not the metaverse. The problem is that many people are very very competitive and can't resist trying everything possible to get high scores. Your guide is excellent for helping players win their first few games and get scores, but when players just use it to crank out scores then people are playing the Metaverse. People playing the metaverse makes it un-desireable for other players to join the metaverse community. Look at all the threads dealing with this topic! We need to keep all players interested in joining the metaverse community and part of this is showing them how to win games, but also trying not to make playing the metaverse more important than playing the game.

I would suggest two possible changes to metaverse scoring to help this.

1) Score gets set once ANY victory condition is reached even if that condition is disabled! You can play to your hearts content (using any style you like), amass huge sums of money, huge populations, max out research, build every building and wonder, but your score was set the moment you reached the first victory condition (whether cultural, technology or military).

2) Law of diminishing returns on difficulty. Initial players should be able to get high scores on easy levels, but once they've submitted a few wins the scoring should drop and they should be encouraged to move up a level. Maybe the 1st three wins on easy should get the current scouring and then the score gradually drop to x%. A clear warning telling players that congratulations, you've now submitted 3 wins on x level, future scores on this level will be lower, time to move on to higher level. Obviously this should stop at something like intelligent level. Players should never feel they have to play maso to get scores.

Paul.

~SDC~

The diminishing returns idea makes a lot of sense to me.

Alex


~SDC~

That seems reasonable - perhaps the submission system can advise WHY the score was penalized - feedback is important if you want to encourage players onto higher levels.

Based on my experiences playing with 1.05 and 1.09 you may need to loosen the criteria a bit though - GCCG doesn't generally break 1.05!

Alex


~SDC~

Well, it seems every place you go there's got to be some kind of war going on. I played a GCCG game, finished today, my score was ok. Well, it was almost GCCG. I did build constructors and freighters and starbases. And I went to war just to finish the damn thing. Boring, boring, boring. If ya'll want to to "play" formula games against unworthy opponents, be my guest. And as for everyone who says "Please change the scoring, but please don't change my score," what are you afraid of. If you've been playing decent games, then your score would probably go UP ! Of course, if you are playing lots of beginner games just to increase your score, it might go down a tad.

Being that I know absolutely NOTHING about programming, I'll stick in my 2 centavos here. Mayhaps it would be possible to have a sliding scale not only for the type of game, but for how many submissions a player has made, so that a person who is new to the game can get good scores on a beginning level, but a person who has been playing the game for a while begins to see diminishing returns for easier games.

I also think the diminishing returns once you've submitted a particular number of games at a certain level is a good idea.
New players get some nice scores at easy levels to kickstart their account and encourage them to take part in the galciv community. Then they are encouraged to move up a level.
More experienced players can drop back a few levels for fun, but also with the knowledge that they can't churn out lots of high scores.
I also agree that the diminishing returns rule shouldn't apply above Intelligent. As the majority of players are happy playing at that level.
A combination of that, plus the new score weighting in the xpack would provide a nice balance.
- new players get some nice scores at the start so they don't feel overwhelmed.
- players are rewarded for playing at the higher difficulty levels.
- and if someone really is dedicated enough to churn out scores with diminishing returns, then they still can if they want to but less effectively than now.

I for one.. played over 12 games before my first win.. and that i only got after reading the forums.. I had been using that same old stratagu where you built uop your colonies to a sufficiant level of stability prior to expanding again. This never worked in galCiv.. It was a hard lesson to learn.. expand asap or die in the process...

I believe to be fair.. that if a player is only playing on beginner then his scores should remain the same.. however if they win at a higher level then go back and play again at the lower level then their scores should be penalized lets say by 1% / game that they've played at the lower level..

The problem is located in the way Metaverse score points, if Metaverse will count each and every single point that you eranerd during the game, people will not try to cheese the scores, you finish your game you win with 5800 points and you only get 500 added into your total score and into the score of your team, that is cheese, very cheese, that forces you to play many games at easier levels to help your team to get higher scores, it is not he player the problem, it is the way of scoring the game what is the problem, give to each player what they earned by many hours of playing the game, was not that the goal of the creators of this game, to have people play the game? or just create a game for the heck of it? Change the way the games are scored in Metaverse and people will not try to find a cheese way to improve their personal and team's scores, that is it period, bottom line.

I'm not being argumentative here:
Actually merely having an additive score would lead to more churning out games at easy levels not fewer. Think about this example a 10,ooo easy churner vs a 25,ooo difficult score getter.

Additive (your system) It takes 3 games for the churner to surpass the bomber. 30,000 to 25,000. No Brainer. The Churner dominates. much more in your proposal than even now.

Current system,
churner, bomber
10,000
14,142
17,320
20,000
22,360
24,494
26,457 25000

Your system
churner bomber
10,ooo
20,000
30,000 25,000

Under your system, it would take the churner only 3 games to catch the bomber's 1 game. In the current system it would take 7 (assuming all came in one month of submission) You see how going additive as you suggest would encourage the churning more not less?

Continueing on
current
Churner
30,000 (after 9 games.

proposed additive
churner bomber
40,000
50,000 50,000

You see now that the churner's 5 games is equal to the bombers 2. Whereas, under the current system, we're up to only 30k with the churner's 9th game. Rather than continue with a lengthy list because knowing the sqrt function it's gonna be a high number. Solving for x.where x is number of games played for the churner 50,000= 10,000x/ sqrt x to find the # of games. 25 if my algebra is correct. Checking. 250k in 25 games divide by sqrt 25. Yuppers correct. So under the current system it takes 25 churned 10k games to equal 2 power bombs. Under your system it would take only 5. (assuming they were all within a one month window. So you see your system (a purely additive one where all score add's to your score) would encourage and reward churning, even more than the current one.







[Message Edited]

Alex a good point. 1.09=quick tech tree. If you want to discourage the churning as Frogboy seems to want to, why accelerate the tech tree? Note I'm not whining because the 1.09 boys can crank em out faster. I didn't pay my bux 30. I deal with the disadvantage of 1.05. Just saying if you wan't to discourage that, why accelerate the tech tree and make it easier.

Actually that is my statement Gerakken. I don't know that the powers that be ever said it in all fairness to them. To quote it more accurately.

"We must first get it out of our heads that this metaverse measures (or even can for that matter) skill.
A game where
1. We do not play each other
2. We do not have to submit all games. (esp losses)
3. We don't even play the same boards
Cannot (under any scoring system) measure relative skill.

I would add to that given current circumstances. Heavy scoring games is a skill.
Heavy difficulty games is a skill.
Lots of games fast is also a skill.

It is arrogant to presume that one should be judged more skillful than the other. They are different skills. And the beauty of this meta, is all 3 can be used to get to the top!!!. I love that. Makes it interesting rather than boring.


Contrary to your stated opinion, It is not being used as a crutch not to score difficulty higher and never has been. On the contrary, the contrapose (based on the arrogant false premise I outlined above has been used as a crutch to justify tweaking the game to score higher at higher difficulties.

Now I am of the op that there is a problem on scoring maso. It should be fixed to make it a reward to play that level and to get it back in line with expectations. But I would assert maybe it's scoring low because we haven't figured out how to milk it yet.... Soon as we do, it may score better. Untill that time it may need a bit of a boost. I have no prob with that.

Just to sum up Gerakken, no where have I used that as an excuse not to change the system. Nor is the argument any weaker if it is used as such. Your logic is faulty.

On the contray, the flimsy argument that we should reward "Skill" however the arguer defines it is often used as a flimsy excuse to get one's way. Any argument that comes forth on those lines will be exposed for what it is. Very flimsy. Whether it comes from any of the 3 types of players outlined above.


Oh and my meta scoring principles... What I want... Opinion, not fact... Not based on logic, not any more logical than the next guys... Not trying to logically justify what cannot be logically justified.

Where I am coming from. Participation and fun: That's my primary concern. I actually thought the scoring system was more fun when I was way down on the list starting out. I had the disadvantage that I couldn't build up pop (due to puter) and everyone else could. All I want to see is a meta where the beginner and the expert alike can come play and have fun. Where one isn't locked into a style of play to score. Where it doesn't degenerate into a list of uber players. ripping up high skill levels with cheese and playing 24/7. There are those kind of ladders all over. And I have dominated many of them. But they always degenerate into 4 or 5 uber geeks and the rest just give it up. I just don't want that. (Not saying what I want is right or better It's Just what I want. It's no more logically defendable than anyone else's wants.

to that end. I've already logically established that none of these are logically defenseable. If someone wants the diametrical opposite, that's what they want.

1. Difficulty should be rewarded. I think given everything else equal, If player A does the exact same thing as B, but A plays harder ai difficulty, A should score more. (again there is no logical justification for this, It doesn't indicate greater skill relative to another player, I just think, however, that playing more difficult ai's should be rewarded. It's what I want. just my opinion) Does it mean, however, that if A plays just a level above B, B dominates while A just squeek's by A should score more. Hmmm That's tougher now. Clearly not IMO because I submit to you a system where A always scores higher than B for difficulty no matter the relative quality of win would soon become boring. And indeed, such a system could be done far easier. 10 for a win on maso, 9 for crip,,, etc. But for me, that would be boredom in the extreme. I like finding many different ways to skin the cat and helping others do the same. Again. I should get no more respect merely because I can play on a higher level and bomb 25k than you get because you cannot. Difficulty should be encouraged, but not required to climb in the rankings.
2. Size should be rewarded. It takes longer to complete bigger maps. I think the extra time deserves extra points. Should it override difficulty? I don't think there is logical proof either way. It's a matter of want. I think sometimes for example Pain Gig vs Maso tiny, Size probably should override difficulty and at the other, difficulty should override size ie a maso tiny should score more than say a gigantic cakewalk. But that's my op.
3. # of turns should be penalized. Person A who does exactly the same thing as B in fewer turns should score higher. It does not follow, however, that scorching the place fast should outscore a full domination of tech and build. It shouldn't IMO. But there should be a reward for fewer turns. A mild one...
4. Building and stuff should be rewarded.
a. empire development should also be rewarded
b. Dominant conquests should be rewarded more than just barely winning.


5. All these should result in a fairly balanced score system where
a: There are numerous ways to the top.
b: Newbies are encouraged
c: It doesn't just degenerate into me and Ray Chua going at it on Maso or Crippling, or Painful or what have you.


Again this is what I want. It isn't based on the arrogant argument that anything is more skillful, right, or even desireable than the next. It's what I would like to see.



I think as soon as we get it out of our heads that this meta can or even should measure skill, the better off we will all be and the more fun we will have. And I will continue to rail against any arrogant and illogical assumptions to the contrary. Remember, your wants are simply your want's. Don't try to logically justify what cannot be logically justified. You'll fare much better in the fun department and so will everyone. And Frogboy is genuinely trying to change the system to suit everyone's needs. Where I take issue is the singling out of a certain style for complaints of Cheese or that shouldn't score as high as me... Blah blah blah.
Thx everyone for reading.

Now I'm gonna go have some fun.... Ok I'm delaying mowing the yard on a day off Pffft. Hmmm Ya know I haven't played Jet moto on the playstation in awhile and it is hot.... Maybe the lawn can wait........Hmmmm....

Gal Civ is not our only product.  There's also Object Desktop and all the associated products.  There's developers to pay, marketing expenses, etc, etc, etc.  Everything is bugeted based on how much money it brings into the company.  And more than that, there's also the time it takes to do anything.  Even if money wasn't consideration, time is.

That's just not reasonable.  Brad can't only worry about Gal Civ, the metaverse and these forums, and that's what he's saying. He has to worry about Object Desktop, WinCustomize, and a million other things. How many companies do you know where the CEO of the company actually responds directly to comments made by his customers?  That's Brad, taking away time from his busy schedule when he could be playing with his kids.  Or heck, getting a few more hours of sleep a night. 

The reason that we don't notify people when the anomalous flag is set is because then cheaters could take advantage of that and submit bogus scores.

CariElf, thanks for your response, I agree with you that very few CEO will take the time to answer to their customers, don't get the impression that people want to complain about everything, I think that GalCiv is an excellent game, and I think that we all, or most of us we just want to help to make this game the better game ever created, that is the reason behind many people questions and suggestions and requests, we all are trying to imput our small grain of sand to make this game better, I know that some people are not in agreement with everything, but it is hard to please each one of the players, so again don't consider our rquests like selfish demands, but just as desires to improve this great game.

ps: I still don't agree with the score system

I hope everyone will please read the newest installment of Fellowship News.

http://home.earthlink.net/~nascarfanatic/fellowshipnewslog/

This edition isn't about the Fellowship at all, but the state of the Metaverse.

I'm not sure if you (Frogboy, Carielf, etc) are aware of these things since they're discussed primarily in empire threads, but it's stuff you probably ought to know.

The incentive to play below your level exists even more strongly at the opposite end of the difficulty scale as well. Maso is so hard that anyone who's beaten maso a few times can beat crippling in their sleep (to use the infamous phrase) but hardly anyone plays maso, partly because of the totally inadequate Metaverse reward for playing at that level. Even players who can beat maso regularly often don't bother--it's at least twice the effort and the reward is something like ten percent.

Anyway, the way you have the Metaverse set up, *everyone* at the top adjusts the way they play somewhat to some extent to maximize their score. Myself, back when I could play regularly, I would pause in my conquest just before final victory and finish the tech tree, because it's really quick and easy and makes a huge difference in score. I would also turn off all other victory conditions besides military, because they're so hugely penalized. Some people go further out of their way than I did, some people don't. EBZ is just an extreme case of something that everyone (everyone near the top, anyway) does. Look how few non-military victories have been submitted.

When you design a scoring sysem, you have to keep in mind that it's not just an evaluation system. It's also an incentive system. As things are now, the system encourages people to do things that are (in my opinion) not fun--like completing the tech tree, or denying themselves a cultural victory and clicking "next turn" until all alien planets flip so you get a military victory instead, or playing games way below their level (going from maso to crippling for some, or down to cranking out beginner games for others). Now granted, any scoring system will do this to some extent--if you eliminated the tech tree bonus and trade good bonus you'd see the builders and diplomats complaining since the game would reward quick military rushes.

Anyway, I don't really have any advice on how you *should* score games--it's up to you--but those are the current irritations about the way you currently do score games. If you were already aware of them then sorry for wasting your time.

And thanks for the wonderful video game, Stardock, I've enjoyed it immensely.

I personally think Brad should go play with his kids and go to sleep. I don't think he should give up any of his family time for us if indeed that is going on. They are much much more important than us... I'd be totally arrogant to presume otherwse. I got a license agreement with the softwere not an ownership agreement on Brad. Too many, I know think differently.

But Cari, I think the poster just meant that he knows Brad is busy. We all do. But we all are busy too, Not just Brad.

I don't know whether I've said it before but I think you guys have given better support than any other company out there. My issue is not with the suggestion that
A: EBZ should post a warning not to overdo money untill the glitch is fixed or
B: Assuming the glitch isn't a glitch and needs to be there to catch cheating , warning people to lower their money.
c: Not correcting anomolous scores in the future because of that, now that we all know what is going on.
No problems whatsoever with any of that nor anything that saves you guys time (you're already helping us out alot, maybe too much)

My big issue is the singling out of a technique (one that if you look at my scores I don't use) for scorn of cheese. I just don't think it was warranted. I proved we all, to the extent we can, use one or another various forms of cheese and frogboy just blew it off. Partly probably due to his state of angriness last night. But cheese is the human advantage. We don't have linear if-then-else thinking like a puter. And to single out one group is well unfair.

And please note: I don't use that technique and I still think it unfair that was singled out for Well that's just cheesy.

And one of the things I like about this metaverse is that there are many many ways to skin the cat. Keeps it interesting. It would stink if it degenerated into just two big Bombers like Ray and Me (Rest assured I'd be submitting maso's if they were rewarded disproportionately high) duking it out. Borrringggg.
I know others would like to see that. But if that happens it will be Ray duking it out with Ray. I'll be gone. I've dominated 10-15 other ladders like that. That kind of ladder ceases to be fun for me fast.

Thanks Cari... And Thank Brad too.