Stardock Forums
Everything is find. But how do I check which bonuspak I have?
Just won (alliance) incredible on rare tiny 2.7k. It was close but quick battle. Before, this kind of victory would net about 200 points. Seeing that Staffa's win on gigantic brought him 6K I guess the difference from the galaxy size is much smaller now. Well done, Stardock! :)
Stardock Forums
I suggest to make challenge consist of several games. Each one of highest difficulty with bad starting position, so it will be hard to win. The more often one wins the better he will be rated. We may have one game per week then for example. And I don't see reason to forbid people to play and submit older games.
#11 by Veteran Code Monkey - 5/28/2003 11:32:25 PM (To Staffa): "You figured out that it was possible to push to this to the extreme of using this strat to avoid spending hardly anything on research, leaving your econ for military and social spending. *That* is not intuitive." Well, trying to specialize your empire (in trade good manufacturing or in starship manufacturing) seems to be pretty reasonable strategy and the fact that AI doesn't recognize it allowing human player to tri
Stardock Forums
My main dislike for this kind of competition is that instead of playing to win the game one have to play to maximize the score (whatever method is used to calculate it). Therefore I was suggesting to share difficult games, where the victory is not guaranteed by itself and one has to put efforts just to win somehow.
Aging of the scores is a good concepts, but one should not forget that score count should age too :) So if one's 1000 point game is reduced by half, total count of games should be also reduced [by 0.5 games for example]
Few more thoughts: - I believe value of trade goods is quite reasonable, what isn't good is the ability to buy. In big galaxies it's always to buy the good right after one gets the tech, because lease payments are negligible while the benefits are big (from the good itself plus its trade value). Having to actually build will sort of dampen effect of the technology leadership, making one to slow down research to build the trade good, thus allowing others to have a run for another good. -
Stardock Forums
I would assume that sharing of games is allowed. Saved game is kind of document you can create with a word processor. You need to license word processor, but you own the documents you've created with it. And anyway, what would be the point for Stardock to claim ownership on the saved games? I would think shared save game couldn't be posted to Metaverse, because it must have unique game ID to prevent people from posting the same game several times, but for suggested purpose it would be e
#72 by Avatar Frogboy - 5/26/2003 7:44:04 PM "Both of you are getting dreadnoughts (ID = 14) very fast. So you must be trading for all the techs in between." Does your list show technologies that have been purchased? If it's only researched technologies, getting dreads 11 or 12 is not that fast. I always research Communication, Universal Translator, Diplomacy myself, but then the next tech I usually research is Battleships (sometimes I have to research Interstellar T
The simple way to compare skills without Metaverse is to play the same games. If you find himself in a poor position at the start at high difficulty save your game before doing anything and share savegame with others :) Personally I would be interested to play the same games as other players. Maybe we can get it organized somehow? Currently I have my last game saved from the start: Incredible, tiny/rare, poor start with one planet.
On tiny it's hard to have one step-by-step strategy you can always follow. I have sort of key points and I improvise in between. Ability picks: always luck, plus some combination of PQ, economy, morale and diplomacy bonuses. I tried various combinations of them and didn't notice big difference. Expansion: don't lease anything, your income is not going to be large (especially on rare) and payments would take a big chunk out of it. Playing on rare pay attention to the evil/good c
#3 by Veteran Code Monkey - 5/24/2003 10:14:44 PM "I lose more on Tiny maps because of the greater effects of starting position. Still, I don't think it's actually harder as no amount of skill is going to change the outcome when one race gets 7 systems while everyone else is sitting on 1 or 2" 7 systems on tiny? I've never seen it. In most cases the luckiest civ gets 2-3 system with 3-5 planets in total. I always take luck, which seems to guarantee a minimum of 2 planets or very good h
What do you think is the hardest galaxy size to play on vs incredible AI? Strangely, my impression is that it's medium. On gigantic and huge winning seems to be easy unless you start in remote corner. Just out-expand AI while letting core worlds build up some military in the latter stages of expansion phase. I had more difficulties with Tiny/Small, because initial benefits of AI are big and conflicts start before human player's better starbase and fleet management comes into play. Thoug
#9 by Avatar Frogboy - 5/23/2003 9:56:02 PM " I'm sorry but we're not going to devote development time to this kind of thing. The amount of time it would take to keep people from wrecking the game for themselves could be spent putting in features and enhancements that 99% of players would enjoy." At the present time you're probably right, but in a few months, many casual players will either start to play more competitively or switch to other games and the community built around Me
Ellestar: " To alexti Interesting idea, but it will be hard to balance standart difficulty vs. starting location modifier to the metaverse score. " I don't think it's very difficult. First step is to introduce separate difficulty ratings for AI level and for starting location. Let's normalize them to [0;100] range, where 100 is most difficult. Then let's define score as aX+bY where X is AI difficulty and Y is starting location difficulty. After releasing the game with a=b=1 som
Stardock Forums
= Good luck getting an incredible ai give you a penny (except a few minors). They still give a good package of non-military techs for trade goods.
Stardock Forums
= Good luck getting an incredible ai give you a penny (except a few minors). They still give a good package of non-military techs for trade goods.
Stardock Forums
Ryan Clifton: "I've read a number of threads and talked to some other people who play the game and it appears that a lot of people are coming to the same conclusion: There is a tightly defined formula for winning Gal Civ. This formula is esentially, 1) expand like crazy 2) research straight to dreadnaught 3) build up military to at least par with the next strongest civ 4) sit back and wait for tech or culture victory" I disagree. Your statement more or less tr
Ellestar: "I mean that with worse respawn you need to do more to win, so you'll spend more your time for this victory. Also, any loss = one win less. So, less games played in the same amount of real time (say, a week) and lesser overall score." I didn't mention it but I was assuming that the total score is not the total of all games played, but rather total of a few (5 or something like that) best games. Idea is to make pointless playing game after game using the same strategy on th
Good idea, I will certainly run if it's small or tiny, but not sure if I can find time for Large/Huge.
Legend: // alexti (me) > Ellestar = Staffa //The main reason for my position is that any other scoring usually makes one path better than another thus making everybody who wants to score high follow the certain path ignoring much of the depth of the game. To eliminate this problem and allow the player to chooce any path he wishes it is necessary to remove dependency of score from the any parameters at the end of the game.// >This is wrong because then will be most effici
I've already posted my comments on scoring once, but after reading this discussion I want to state them again in a more refined shape. My point of view is that the score should be awarded according to the difficulty of the game and should not depend on how the victory has been achieved. Basically, there're 2 major factors affecting the difficulty: AI level and the start position relatively to the start positions of other races. Galaxy size and planet frequency also have some impact. The
Mirror forum to stardock.games.galciv. News client can take care about the rest :)
IMHO, the easiest counter-milkng solution for Metaverse is only take in the account the difficulty and starting positions (of human and AI players). Then everybody can follow their own path to the victory. The worse the start one won from, the higher score he'd get, no matter what path he's chosen. Alex.
I am against setting a hard limit on number of starbases per sector. If you start in a remote corner with nowhere to go, you're already in trouble vs high level AI. (AI that started in similar position also has hard time). In this case strategies to survive are limited and building starbases is one of them. Global limit per race is fine, actually I think it will help to limit runaway victories, when whoever got best starting position wins. Another reason I like global limit is to reduce microman