And actually I would guess that the next "big strat" in the Metaverse is going to be knocking out huge numbers of tiny/rare/maso games. I would guess that with some practice you could learn to knock them out in an hour or two apiece.

well.... I can officially say the scoring is very, very messed up. My Painful/Huge games take me about 4 days of playing (read as 2 hours a day, so 8 hours), where i get about 13-18k points, where i used to get 15-20k (and in my most recent games, i played better than i did in the games i got 20k pionts, yet was still only getting 13k points). Using Vincible's set up on Tiny/Rare/Clustered Maso, it took me 35 minutes to get a starting position with 2 yellow stars. I won in roughly 1.5 hours, getting 7k more points than i did on my latest Painful/Huge game.

The maso game was much, much easier, and required almost no thought at all since the AI was restricted to 1 or 2 planets. On larger maps, Maso gets much harder, so the increase in score i can see. But in my games that are far more challanging and enjoyable, im not getting any reward on the metaverse. The way Maso scoring works, i wouldnt be surprised if we saw a cranking guide out for it within the month.

I wouldn't be surprised either. I bet there are several people who are capable of writing a cranking guide for tiny/rare/maso right now. Heck, you probably could after your one game--all tiny/rare games are very similar (and imho dull after you've done it a couple times, but to each their own). The only variaton is whether or not one of the enemy AIs gets two stars--if they do, you just send all the other AIs to war against them to hold them back, then pick off star systems one by one.
[Message Edited]

yeah, the only problem is the starting position. In my current game, i had to end up giving up (i had 3 yellow stars, and 5 planets) because the stupid altarians ended up getting 6 yellow stars and 11 planets, 2 of them starting at 26 pq (they controlled 3 sectors). As long as you can end up with about 3 planets, and the AI is stuck with 1-2, the game is very very easy. And yes, its very very boring LOL

We have discussed the impact of starting positions in this forum quite a bit in the past. In fact, I believe Frogboy was at one time considering to do something about Ctl-N so that people don't always hit it so often to get optimal starts.

But we've got to remember that only a minority play this game for score and we shouldn't be depriving others of such a time-saving function. Some of us have made suggestions to factor starting positions into the scoring. My suggestion was to consider the total sum of PQ colonized by human against total >PQ15 colonizable PQ. In that way, someone who wins a game with just a PQ16 Earth would get fantastic scores vs someone who colonized 1/2 the planets through a great start.

It's too drastic a change though. Probably better for Galciv 2.

vincible/Rick,

Yeah. Forgot all about Ellestar's walkthru. Yes, that's a v good start for new Maso learners.

Yep your entire post sure is. Try taking a logic class. Better yet. Try taking any class beyond 8th grade. Save the childish idiocy for someone that actually can be swayed by it.

That's a great idea! I have a Cntl-N addiction . . . it's quite sad really but I don't think I could cope without it (especially when I'm crammed into the corner with a penumbered range which I seem to get 40% of the time . . . shez). I prefer a central location even if I don't get as many planets I'd like, it's still a huge advantage in its self.

I don't even remember you doing a criticism? I didn't take it that way. Obviously then, if it was, it is forgotton. NP Oh and I am suddenly hesitant to write such an all out guide given what happens to those that do around here. It's like you're giving away someone's first born or beating their mother or something. But I'll do it anyway cuz it will allow more peeps to compete and stay here rather than go elsewhere.




That took me all of 5 minutes to write. I haven't posted in here since untill about an hour ago. What a moronic argument. Try pulling your head out of your rump next time and get your facts straight. I didn't say "anyone who scores above me must have 24/7 to play." Your loose quote is intellectually dishonest. I have no use for that. Furthermore look at the submission records. Obviosly, anyone that isn't a total moron would conclude they have more time to play than I. Yet you're too lame to figure that out. Perhaps you should have read before you butted in on something you knew nothing about and made yourself look like an idiot.

Ricbayer, Your points are well taken. Agree whole heartedly. No one's going to convince me "love it or leave it" is an open minded, thinking about others and valueing their opinion mindset. It simply isn't. I (I'm not one of the crankers, just defended your right to do it and compete with it) and you and EBZ and some other of the crankers NEVER copped that kind of tude. And I'll help you as much as I can even though you have that Pewter ring painted gold as your logo

Maso does seem like the only way to score big. I think that anyone who says that scoring isn't a big part of why they play is not being completely honest (at least for those of us who are active on the forum.)

Galatic Civilizations is a great game, but there are a lot of great games out there that I only spend a month or so on. What keeps me coming back is the metaverse (particularly the people in my empire) and being able to contribute to an empire keeps my interest level up. If this wasn't the case across the board, they would be a lot more cultural victories (as I also don't believe anyone who says they enjoy spending the last hour or so of a game waiting for planets to flip when it's you've got the other AI's on the ropes...)

I have no problem with the maso scoring, but I do think it strange that the way to get the biggest reward is not to play the game, but to game the mechanics. From what I'm read beating maso sounds more like a chore, than a game. If you can consistently do this, I guess you deserve to be rewarded.

Like Ric, I enjoy playing more casually. I've gradually worked my way up to Tough and Painful and enjoy it - though once I get to Dreadnought or so I know I'll win. With 1.05, I could score 10-11 K and feel like I was contributing to the pirates cause. I do feel marginlized by 1.1. I'd be fine with Maso scoring 3 time normal, if it Crippling and mabye Painful scored a better.

It's fine to argue that Maso is much more difficult, but it's SO difficult because the AI has such a huge advantage that you can't realistically win in a war or by trade.... you basically have to exploit the game mechanics. By this logic, Stardock is being inconsistent. They should have celebrated the GCCG, if (following the logic of 1.1 scoring) the object of the scoring system is to exploit the game mechanics. Since the point of the GCCG was to exploit the game mechanics for maximum point; as Vincible pointed out we're probably not to far from a GCMasoCG.

Before I could contribute a game a week and participate in the forums. Now my game a week doesn't seem as important, though I'll probably hang around for a while longer... At this point, I'd be just as happy with a message board were people in this forum hang out.

The funny thing is that the thing that keeps here IS the METAVERSE. Without the forums, this game stays on the hard drive - but only gets played occassionally.

Anyway, I sure this will blow over... and congrats to the Maso players. I have only managed to win 1 of 3 games I've played on Crippling, so I can only imagine would you have to go through to win... I just hope it's still enough fun to keep the community going.

Regards,
Cypher

You people are too funny.

If you are playing the Metaverse, you are not playing GC "for fun". Tons of threads on that in the past. If you are going to play the Metaverse? Then you play to whatever scores best.

I really don't care about the Metaverse, other then as a tool to submit games to SD so that they have one more point on how people play their games. Why? Because I play like I want to play. I do not allow a scoring system to dictate what size a map to play, what difficulty, and what kind of victory to get to maximize my scores. My submitted profile will prove that to you.

In any TBS game, when you play the top levels, you play the exploits, not the game. Same is true with any computer TBS game. Once you've done it, are you still having fun doing it again and again? If so, have fun. Games are meant for fun.

You guys are welcome to bang away on each other on which is better for scoring the top off the Metaverse... but seeing as SD has repeatily degraded past scores "to make it possible for newer players to compete", is it worth it? How long until SD has all scores over 30 or 60 days drop off your *counted* board, so the new people are only competing against the active scores of the community, and not "Staffa" and "Ray" (who, eventually, moves on to other games)? I feel that it will not be too long...

I see the Metaverse as useless for competition... and I believe most of you arguing it over it will come to have that view as well. If I can score 20K for 2 hours work (and following a Tiny/Maso strategy guide), that means that a few of those interested in score will do that... just to rack up the points. Is 4 games@8 hours scoring 40K really the same as a single Gigantic/Maso map scoring 40K? Which was more difficult? And is max exploiting all the mechanics really that much more valuable then any other form of playing?

I've been through several cycles of Metaverse score inflation and reduction. We will see more such. Is it worth all this pissing on each other about something that SD will change in a couple of months? Over whether the Metaverse is ranking you 50th or 5th? We don't play the same games, so the ranking and points is meaningless. You want to see how well you know the game and can better exploit it versus someone else, generate a game, save it off, and offer it up for competitions... otherwise, you cannot tell. Ray might be using the +2% PQ anomalies (in the Library). Obi may be using the +100% PQ Terraforming (in the Library). Ellestar may be playing with a modded setup that gives Stellar Cartography and +99 Sensors. (I'm not saying anyone is... just pointing out how easy it is for people to customize things, and the fact that the Metaverse doesn't catch the subtler changes... and sometimes mistakes legitimate non-mods as mods.)

Arguing about what encourages people to stay in the community is one thing, and a few legitimate points have been raised. But the majority of this thread isn't about what is better for the GC community. It seems to be about who likes who and who doesn't. Cannot you people take that foreplay to a more private exchange, or leave the GC boards out of it? And concentrate on the points of how to encourage people to play, stay, and participate?

I also think the idea is a good one. It wouldn't even have to replace the current overall chart. It could probably work like the 'evil', 'neutral' and 'good' filters. Of course, I realise that even implementing such a feature would take time that stardock may or may not have. They have to prioritise the time they devote to the development of this community.

As for the scoring issue. As a beginner/normal player who is trying to break my way into challenging, I am concerned about upgrading to 1.1 when apparently my scores will be lower if I do? I have no problem with maso players getting higher scores, but I see no incentive to upgrade to a version that will reward me less, just because I haven't reached the top level yet.

Well, you can already sort by size, right? So isn't that the equivalent of "fly", "light", "middle", and "heavy"? After all, a tiny takes little time, a huge takes a few days (well, for me, anyways). Or would the "heaviness" of your class be determined by the average difficulty level you play at?

Anton, you shouldn't be afraid of stepping up to 1.10A. However, if your pointage you are getting is important to you, you could always archive off your current 1.05, go up to 1.10A, and give that a try. If the game score is too low, just don't submit it, and go back to your 1.05.

I dunno, I'm still new to 1.05, well to GalCiv in general really. I am enjoying it as it is. Theres probably a thread for this somewhere but what exactly is the plus side to 1.10A? Everything I've heard suggests that it makes my gaming style harder to play. High Maintenance on star bases and maintenance on constructors. I could probably handle that I usually have a massive surplus in economy from having a tiny warfleet. And I could always decommision/sell star bases I no longer need. Lower scores for lower difficulties. Not a major issue if the upgrade has other benefits but still a con rather than a pro. What exactly are the pro sides meant to be? For a non-maso player that is?

Well, the AI is still as bad at using starbases in 1.10A as 1.05, so the 10 StarBase cost means that the AI that goes SB wasting (that's all of them), kill themselves. So you end up with one to two less AI empires to worry you. They are just wasting all their money trying to pay for thier Star Bases. End result, the game is easier, and the AI develop slower.

Tech is supposed to be faster. Haven't noticed it yet in my games. I run my tech fast, but I'm not getting my war machine ready fast enough and keep getting culture dominance before the frigate and transports reach my enemies.

There are more events, and more anomalies. If you aren't using the Library Anomaly Mods, that's useful. More variety in a straight GC installation.

Other then that... the game will have lots of Space Sharks running about. Isn't a big deal, once you understand how to play with them. Another tool making it easier on you, actually, as the AI will waste tons of its ship resources trying to kill them, but it won't manage it 95% of the time, as it doesn't hit them hard enough.

Some new techs. Nothing impressive that I've noticed so far.

That's it as far as I've seen in-game. The Strat forum may already have a detailed listing of differences. I haven't checked there to see.

Although I have to note that I dropped a difficulty level, to get used to the changes. Next game, I'll go back to my Normal and see if their are any changes that show up at that level. Just to let you know.
[Message Edited]

I half agree with you. While i do want to play the metaverse, in 1.05 i could play the metaverse AND play the game for fun. Now its one or the other.... that just doesnt seem right. I could care less if they put maso scores up to 10x normal scores, but they shouldnt lower the scoring output of other difficulty levels. I shouldnt have to play my games that i enjoy 3x better (read as have less fun, while still getting a lower reward) than i usually do just to get a score thats 5k less than what they were previously. On a side note:

Is there a place where i can re DL 1.05 to keep playing that? Cause i really dont want to keep playing 1.10.

Wow. Just read this entire thread in one sitting. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

To those who complain that maso players have a scoring advantage: Yes, they do. I know there is maso cheese too, but hey, News Flash: It's harder -- that's why you're complaining about it instead of playing it. Is it fair that Tiger Woods is rated as a better golfer than me just because he plays better on harder courses? Yes, yes it is. (I could be him at my local putt-putt golf course, I swear!)

To help lessen (but not eliminate) game cranking: ctrl-n should be kept, but moved in with the cheat codes to make the game non-submittable.

The metaverse should also reject games that are "re-loads", that is, going back to an old save (say, after you've explored a bit of the galaxy and know where the good planets are). I have a couple of ideas how this could be done, but don't want to go into details here.

These changes would make maso less frequent, truely worth the scoring bonus, and bring balance back to the metaverse.

well.... on the smaller maps, i can say maso is certainly EASIER than my huge/painful games.... yet im getting 7k more even though i can do it in about 1/5 of the time. Of course, if they implement the Ctr+N thing like you want, it certainly would make it much harder on maso, since starting position is a lot of the game on smaller maps.

Well, people can always return to the main menu and re-gen. I feel a starting location scoring factor would be better.



How do you resolve CTDs? Would I not be able to submit if I fall foul of one and reload?



It's easier because of specific strats such as the alpha strike which can't be performed as effectively when the AIs have numerous planets on big maps.

~SDC~

Oh please. Ctr+N is not a cheat. It is a tool to allow people to play the game how they like. If someone wants to take the time to hit Ctr+N until they get 2 yellow stars in there home sector, let them. They paid their money like you and me... why cramp their style? For someone that WANTS to tiny/maso pump, they will just quit to main and start again... its just takes them longer, and if they are after Metaverse points rather then simple fun, then they'll do it.

As for as the reload goes... Hard Drives are huge. I could zip up the whole GalCiv tree, play on for a while, then restore over the top of the played GalCiv, and there isn't any serious way of catching THAT, other then storing stuff in the Registry. And you'd have to store the GUID of each game played into the Registry... eventually crashing out the entire OS when the Reg gets too bloated. That does not sound like you are making friends. And that is beatable by just cleaning your registry, or at least, saving the GalCiv reg node when you zip the directory.

Why are you trying to make the game more difficult for other people? Because you are playing the MetaVerse, and not GalCiv. And that is just silly... In version 1.11, SD might degrade all older game scores to 1 pt, to because they decide they over-inflated scores too much lately. We just don't know. And even if they don't, if RL intrudes on you for 2 weeks, you are going to loose your place in the MetaVerse. Whoopsie!

Sounds like a lot of bother to me. Are you sure its worth that much worry trying to keep other people from having fun so that your metaverse score is more secure from the score pumpers? Or you just want some competition against other humans? If so, you should be asking for MP in GalCiv2, so you can truly compete against other humans.

Just my opinion of course. Your mileage and game setup will vary

I wouldn't punish all re-loads. Only reloads after the game has been played beyond the turn that the reload represents. Like a save a game on turn 1, go and explore the galaxy for several turns, and then go back to my saved game on turn 1 and now have unnatural knowledge of the universe.


Agreed. The term "cheat codes" is not meant to imply the player is cheating. This is just a generic term that the devs chose to group some special option under. Call it "Special options" if you like that term better. In any case ctrl-n can be abused to crank out high-scores and unbalance the metaverse, which is what this thread is about.


Yes it is. So is designing and coding a game like GalCiv. But I'm glad someone bothered. My suggestions wouldn't be a bother to someone just playing a game and submitting it -- they would see no difference. It would only make it harder to crank mindless games.



I agree that there is no foolproof method for enforcing this. The idea is to make it hard enough for people to circumvent the safeguards so that it will be less prevolent, while at the same time, not impacting those who are playing "legitimate" (please don't flame me for using this terminology) strategies.


edit: spelling errors
[Message Edited]

Jinn, don't worry, I won't.

But the Cnt+N is there because a few Star Dockians use it themselves when playing GalCiv. I have used it myself, seeing that I got totally hosed by the RNG or I seriously screwed up my start because I got distracted. It's there so you can restart without having to go through the additional clicking and save time. Good Human Interface Design.

If you are really upset that someone can pump their score by Maso/Tiny game, then you should complain (the suggestion about taking into account starting postion as in easy/uncontested PQ count, especially home sector, affecting the final score seems to be this community's real desired solution to fix this). But don't spend so much time trying to figure out how one of the Metaverse Point Obsessed is getting one over you. First off, because there are not many doing that. Second off, you are talking about Star Dock using a LOT of one or more of their coders' time to prevent a situation that is going to happen rarely to never. Is that really going to help you feel better and enjoy the game more? Or how about a few bug fixes instead? Or even some new in game features and improvements?

Star Dock does not have infinite resources. Are you just ruminating for fun, or seriously suggesting this? If you are just ruminating, then have fun and more power to you (and please, continue to ruminate!). But if you are serious, I have to ask you... would that change make the game more enjoyable for you?

That's the deal with the MetaVerse. You can play your GalCiv and have fun, or you can play the MetaVerse. But the MetaVerse is not meant to be played. It's meant to be a honeypot of how people PLAY GalCiv, so that StarDock can see what strategies people are using to win, and what exploits people are over-using that may need to be addressed (and thereby, improving the game mechanics, which hopefully will create a better game play). People that get caught up in scoring the highest on the MetaVerse are doing themselves and the community a dis-service, as they are only PLAYING in that fashion to maximize their MV score. This loads up the MV with "false" data... unless Star Dock has PURPOSELY changed the scoring to favor those kinds of games they want more of. I don't think they've done that in the recent scoring changes, but I could be mistaken.

My Metaverse history isn't even a good Hall of Fame for myself now. Because it doesn't stay consistant in how it marks things, or what it has recorded. So the only value I see submitting my games to the Metaverse is as another data point of a game played for fun, rather then a game played just for Metaverse score. What do you see the Metaverse as? Your standing in this little community?

No worries, Star Pilot. I think we agree much more than we disagree. I'm not upset, nor do I wish to complain. Far from it. I'm simply observing and posting my thoughts. This is just an intellectual excerise for me. Some problems are ultimately unsolvable, yet worthwhile to speculate about.

Cool. I'm a champion of playing the game for fun. And I was, even when I ranked quite highly for an "average joe" player (thanks to a fortunate awarding of points that favored my preferred play style over all others). My favored message on MetaVerse scoring gripes is "Just wait, Star Dock will change it soon enough."

There are always solutions. Sometimes you just got to know what the problem is. And sometimes, you cannot or will not implement the solutions, for whatever reason. Have fun ruminating! May you find much joy in your thinking and mental amusements!

Champion? How do I go about getting that championship from you?

Seriously, so will I once I retire in the near future.

~SDC~