First off, I couldn't have done this without the inspiration of the Metaverse League and Wyndstar in particular. Kudos to the master!Now to the matter at hand.I finally did it. A year zero win! Granted, it was only against 1 AI and on challenging (my current level) but I'm certain that 'tough' wouldn't have been much harder. On the other hand, it was my first attempt at an 'all-labs' and 'lease instead of buy' approach, so I consider myself proud that I could do it at all.Here is the link to the character, as a proof: http://metaverse.galciv2.com/index.aspx?g=player&id=14517For all of you, who like me thought that year zero wins are nigh impossible: Try it! Read the posts about it! It is difficult, requires constant micromanagement, but I found it incredibly rewarding to see that victory screen after 25 - 30 turns. Not the way I'd like to play constantly, but as a change of pace, it's a incredible challenge.And of course, once you've accomplished your first 'Year Zero', post here and rejoice!As an edit, I now include the current top score.Attention new players! Do not be frightened by these scores! Playing a ZYW is actually really easy, and getting a score close to 30000 points takes just a few tries. These games are usually finished in less than 20 minutes, so have at it. Try the tiny ZYWs first, I find them easier and you might get the unique chance to beat players like neilo or Wyndstar.Current ZYW record holders:'expert' ZYW - Gigantic
1) 198450 points - MottiKhan
2) 119000 points - Kzinti Patriarch
3) 109500 points - neilo 'classic' ZYW - Tiny
1) 56700points - MottiKhan
2) 40600 points - Kzinti Patriarch / Magnumaniac3) 38850 points - Wyndstar
Oh so you think you know what I'm thinking what you're thinking what I'm thinking? Think again oh pretentious one!
Sentient species taste better...
It's been said that an ounce of pretention is worth a pound of sure.
I see no reason to make any changes whatsoever. Why does the method matter. The whole premise is to achieve a win in year zero. How is not important.
When all this started the way Wyndstar first layed it all out is far different to what Piznit and myself then perfected. I then made more changes.
KP and Mag entered the game and yet even more changes were made. Then we moved to Gigantics and same thing happened.
I bet that not one of us is doing the same thing we did to get 80K on a gigantic then what we do now to get 115K.
Motti has just develeoped a better, different method, same as we all have been for over a year.
All we need is Classic (tiny) and Giga's. Any further changes are in the face of all other tweaks, develeopments and imporvements that have come previously.
I was under the impression this thread was the "win as fast as possible" thread. At least, that's how it started.
If it has evolved into "get as much done before the game calls it year 1", or something equivalent, then that's fine, but I personally would distinguish between the two.
The part that I don't understand is the idea that calling it something else or placing it in its own category takes something away from you, and why people jumped my case over it.
Not really. It started as a win in the year zero. But you can personally distinguish whatever you'd like. It's a free board, somewhat.
No thats not how it started at all. It just happens to be that the best scores on tiny ZYW's are the fastest finish, or at least was so at the time this all started.
When i coined the Term ZYW, which was along time before this thread too mind you, Piznit and i were getting wins around may/june .It progressed from there.
The term ZYW simply means a win in year zero, as it always has.
Since you noticed it before i may as well just it out now. Since i have been pissy with the GC forums for a while now i have to ask.
SS, why do you care what the term is or hows it's measured. You don't play them, hows this affect you?
Not being an asshole to you mate, but i fail to see why you are arguing the point.
No, but I was going to.
If there was a competition centered around tech victories in year zero, would you place them in the same category as the classical tiny/gigantic we have now? Maybe you would; I'm not so sure I would. The multiplier is different-there's simply no way to make up for that much loss.
I see this as much (although obviously not exactly) the same kind of thing.
If you're going to argue against another category for what truly is a different type of game, then why even have the tiny category anymore-especially if people are going to use the new gigantic strategy on it to crush the former scores, since the tiny scores were up so as not to scare off newcomers to the idea?
You don't have to take it out on me.
You need some practice on that not being an asshole thing, mate.
I'm arguing the point because that's how I am. I like things specific, I like things black and white, probably because my life has always been shades of gray.
And I feel that credit should be given where it is due-but no more than that.
-
In any case, it was merely a suggestion, and since everyone and their brother has not only disagreed with me but practically disowned me for even making it, added to the fact that I don't and at this point probably won't play ZYWs, I suppose it shouldn't matter to me one way or the other what those of you who play them call them.
Have fun.
FFS mate. I'm not taking anything out on anybody, i made it clear that with the mood im in the nicities are just not there and i was telling it like it was.
I meant no offense to you, as i tired to make clear, i was not trying to be an asshole.
IF you wan't to take my comments to heart instead of being mature about it, as i would normally expect fo you, especially with my prefacing the comments as such then that is your call.
Can't say i understand the comment "And I feel that credit should be given where it is due-but no more than that."
Who is not getting their due credit?
Be prepared for brutally honest rebutals from me though, but again not to offend.
Actually, SS, the gigantic map I played is a military victory, same as the other gigantic ZYWs. I don't think a tech victory can be done and fail to see the reference. Please understand that to me, you're just talking in circles. It's pretty hard for me to grasp what you're saying, other than you want to separate my game from the others.
Changing the rules in midstream would be in very bad form. The rules are simple. Win a game in year 0. There are two map sizes to play. But a ZWY can be won on any size map. Perhaps those can be added.
Bottom line is that my games match the gigantic map ZYWs in all ways that were agreed upon. Making up some arbitrary rule now based on whatever you're trying to convey makes no sense.
I did PI ZYWs in the beginning, before I had DA. My scores were lower then, but that's the only difference. This is a PI military win. Everyone has access to do this. Always have.
I don't recall you saying anything about my PI ZYWs when this all started. Why start now? That's my question and my confusion.
Ahaha. I wasn't suggesting it was. Would be interesting, though. Wyndstar commented in one of his threads that the fastest he'd ever gotten a tech victory was 26 weeks, IIRC. Wonder if we'd have anyone beat that?
I was attempting to use an analogy-you wouldn't group tech victory scores in with military victory scores because the multiplier is so much lower that there's simply no way to make up the difference.
Based on my very limited understanding of your methods involved in the ~200k game, which I have come to entirely on my own I might add and so therefore could very well be wrong in a dozen ways or more, you spent (significantly) more turns playing that game than the "classical" ZYW. If this is not the case I apologize, but from my perspective the fact that the game (or really, the MV) largely arbitrarily considers a 48 week game (or was it 47) to be year zero while one more week is year 1 (since each month is only four turns) means I would tend to count a 47 week game in the same vein as a 49 week game, rather than a 13 week game.
I hope that makes more sense and again I know very little if anything behind the methods you've used to achieve that score so I could very well be wrong in my assessment that it is indeed a different type of game, albeit still a ZYW (since as you and Neilo have both said, it does meet the outlined prerequisites).
Neilo, understood. I've had days like that, too. I didn't mean to imply that you were an asshole, you know.
@SS - I think I'm starting to see what you're saying. I still disagree, but I think I'm starting to understand.
The PI ZYWs always take longer than Spore ZYWs. Spore was brought into this later and is the newer style of playing, although it has become more common over time. This is only because of the high scores that a Spore ZYW can bring.
The PI ZYWs were never meant to be won on April 8. They started this whole thing though, before this thread was started. It was PI in the beginning, but Spore quickly took over. I did some PI wins early. So did a few others. We were eclipsed by the Spore players, especially with ARC involved.
The style I played early and the style I played these last few games are from the same cloth. New strategies have been shared and some were just stumbled upon. Essentially, I'm going back to the classic game, but am able to use ideas learned and shared to beat Spore type games.
Either way can bring high scores. Spore can be spammed until you reach the #1 spot in the MV. 3 of us have done that.
PI can't match that speed, so it's at a disadvantage. If played carefully, it can beat Spore on a game by game basis though.
To reiterate, this is the classic game. Spore had its day in the sun and now the old ways have a chance once again.
nevermind
So I was wrong. That's all I needed to know.
It's funny. The big thing about ZYW's originally, in the midst of the MVL was it's speed. No one really cared for the score factor of it.
I think my first ZYW's were around 18K with PI. It was the fact that i was winning in year 0 not the score that was fasanating.
As for a tech victory in a ZYW, then that is still a win in year zero and should be measured as such. Though, if someone plays one and posts it and wants their own category i wouldn't stand in their way. I think it would be a great achievement, but if that same game out scored motti's latest game then it would be the overall record holder.
Just like Motti's.
SS, this ain't the MVL.
I really can't even begin to imagine what this comment is supposed to mean, and in any case I've already dropped it, as Motti's post satisfied my desire to know how closely related the "new" method is to the "classical" method.
I've been wrong before; I'll be wrong again. (But hopefully not too soon!)
the MVL was about competing under very specific circumstances, generally speaking; your arugments reminded me of it.
Ah, okay. I wasn't sure if you meant that this was a more lenient environment or what, really. Got it now.
SS. You have not eleborated on your "And I feel that credit should be given where it is due-but no more than that." comment?
I am more than curious as to whom you believe is not getting credit and for what?
I still fail to see the point to the distinction. What method is used matters not. The game is a ZYW gigantic, so it is measured and recorded as such.
Hmmm just fishing for the strat to get them high scores me thinks.......
One of these days I'm going to be forced to submit an MV game, but it won't be today.
My comments were made because I was under the impression that Motti was using a different means to accomplish the ZYW in question. Since it appears from his post that he is not, almost none of what I said is even relevant, including that portion.
Note: I do not make a distinction between Spore and PI.
I really don't want to say anything more than that.
Ok, fair enough.
I don't see any distinction between any means to achieve a ZYW. Just to be able to do it was reward enough. Those means could be Spore, PI, tech or anything in between, i really don't care.
If its a win in year zero on a giga/tiny map, it's counted and recorded in my book. If there is no flag then i really don't care what method was sued, from a compliance point of view, it qualifies.
For score i always care.
If folks want to do other map sizes then they should be allocated their own catagory, and a HS list created.
Other than that, what we have is plenty.
*Ponders post a bit more.....*
Sorry i just can't let this go.
I must stress this point. How does the means matter at all? Motti's means to this score could have been the most outrageous method ever used.
Short of it being a ZYW on the current TA, then there should be no scrutiny.
I still fail to see why a win under other means than what has been the norm bothers you so much? It has happened before.
As long as a game is a year zero win and on either tiny or giga everything else is a clean slate.
so that's what the end of the mayan calendar means.
Verily, it shall be a sign of the End of Days!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
