As many of us are aware the Metaverse scoring system is broken.
Here are some examples:
1. For winning a Conquest game on Normal difficulty in 1,053 turns ... mighty effort as it was ...this player scored 29,000+ points
https://www.galciv3.com/metaverse#/playerOverallTab?playerID=072aaa53-ef1f-40a9-b142-7b00dc553ee7
2. For winning one of the Campaign games in 22 turns on Beginner, with a population of 60 Trillion, this player scored almost 10,000 points. Wait ... 60 Trillion ... LOL!
https://www.galciv3.com/metaverse#/playerOverallTab?playerID=7b1caf2f-7f33-4418-9983-d0159f5e6243
3. For winning a game by influence on a Huge map in 59 turns, this player scored 14,000+ points. Wait ... influence, on a Huge map ... in 59 turns ... LOL!
https://www.galciv3.com/metaverse#/playerOverallTab?playerID=fcd6a153-4ab7-419c-aae0-d54fea0e46c6
There are many others.
Now yes I'm in the Top 10 ... and clearly slightly competitive. And annoyed because my games are all clean. But of course, I can't prove that. Well actually I can prove some where I still have the save games. But anyway, the point is, the Metaverse doesn't care.
Philosophically the Metaverse is a terrific concept because with work and family commitments my gaming time is all over the place, so multi-player simply isn't a viable option, but I can still scratch that competitive itch.
But please could forward plans ensure there is at least some sort of integrity in the way scores are calculated?
Good luck. I know a lot of other people, including myself, are with you on this.
I believe that the scoring for these games is unfortunately skewed towards quick games rather than 'accomplishment' games. The most interesting & fun games that you play, where you had to struggle & claw & maneuver your way to the top of the leaderboard, are not scored very highly is GC3. I think the scoring parameters need to be drastically revised - but I'm not very optimistic.
I don't recall hearing these complaints with GC2, so its scoring system must have been much better. On my unofficial game score sheet, I still find it simplest to just use the 'Power Score' number as my game score.
I wish the Devs would publish the parameters for their Metaverse scoring system so we could start a dialog about it.
One of the first anomalies I noticed was a 4000 point 1 turn win. It turns out the person who did it was showing his daughter how to set up to play the game and forgot to assign any AI opponents.
The early GC2 metaverse was rife with cheating, to the extent that one person who was found to be modifying a game and submitting it over and over again was banned from the metaverse, if I remember correctly. Stardock had to add code to verify that each metaverse game could be submitted only once, and modded games were excluded.
Let's hope the Devs will address the game-score issues.
LOL. FIFA.
Actually the comparison with FIFA was unfair.
At least FIFA has an investigation going which will hopefully clean the house up.
Here, well, we wait to hear anything ...
The metaverse score we see is really nothing more than fluff. At it's heart what it does is collect your game info; how you won and so forth so stardock can see all the different strats and exploits players do. Its there to improve the AI and balance issues for the most part. The higher the score the better the strat or exploit in which gets looked at. Brad said 90% of games are played and completed/lost on beginner.
"1. Nearly all players play at either beginner or easy. And by nearly all, I mean 90%. This has always been the case and will always be the case. So feedback or suggestions that involve affecting those players negatively or spending a vastly disproportional sum of money and time on some AI idea just isn't helpful. "
He knows full well what people are up to.
In the stream paul did mention they are going to balance how the metaverse score calculates your score but that wont be for a while. I could presume on that basis they are in the data collecting phase atm and when things get more balanced the metaverse scores will as well.
Actually I don't even know how to find myself on those lists. Don't think any of my wins have gotten more than 70 points :/
The only way I've been able to find myself is to start up the game and then click on Hall of Fame on the main menu. And then wait, and wait, and wait, since the site seems underpowered.
The turn 59 Influence win might actually be legit. By going early colony spam while grabbing all the production & influence relics you can, getting the full Construction ideology line, them spamming culture SBs everywhere... it could be possible. Choose tight clusters, and there's a lot of empty space for your culture SB's to claim uncontested.
And the Aztec temples might have been built by aliens.
One never knows.....
Of course but it could be fun as well. A lot of fun.
There used to be a search function in the Metaverse. Pretty sure it came up when you hit the "more" button at the bottom ... that's how I found myself anyway. But when I try the same now, no Search function ...
And the Aztec temples might have been built by aliens.One never knows.....
One DOESN'T know.
To be fair to Stardock they admitted pretty much from launch that the Metaverse did nothing to screen cheated games from being included.
No idea why they didn't bother to try to make the system 'fair'. Then again I don't really see the point of the Metaverse to begin with.
Yes but I haven't seen anything yet to say they are actually going to do anything about it. So again, we wait to hear anything that will make a material difference.
GalCivI's Metaverse was pretty good. It wasn't too difficult to figure out the scoring system. The scoring for any one game was capped at a certain level. No matter how fast you won a game, no matter how hard it was, the cap was (I think) 4000 points. Anyway, I made it to about #16 or 17 on the list of top total scores.
GalCivII's Metaverse was much harder to figure out. You could also create opponents that would more-or-less roll over and play dead. There were some other ways to "game" the system. I made it to about 140 on that list, doing it all honestly, as I did, in GalCivII. I never gamed the system and the opponents were always unmodified stock races.
I am about 150 hours into GalCivIII and have no idea how this Metaverse is scored. I have played all races and all sizes of maps, even insane. I play on the higher, but not the top two, difficulty levels. I have never had a four digit score despite some intense, micro-managed games. My best scores came on my first two games, on beginner level and tiny maps, as I was learning the system. Go figure. I like the new GalCivIII, but don't even pay attention to this game's Metaverse anymore.
I agree that the scoring in the new Metaverse is pretty useless, but the important part is the submission of games so the AI will learn from us. Even if the scoring made some sense, the AI is much more important than a leaderboard.
For competition, there's MP, so GavCiv3 has that advantage over GalCiv2.
Perhaps, when all the tweaks are in, Stardock might want to reset the MV scores and let everyone start from scratch. If it's important enough.
I just finished the recently added 2nd campaign game...the insane sized map of the Milky Way galaxy. It is a very, very well done map and quite a challenge. You must play as the humans and all victory conditions are open.
I usually play on gifted or genius level, but I had no idea what to expect from a campaign game, so I backed off to normal, especially since the only choice of race is the humans and I haven't played with them since my first two beginner games, some 180 hours (of game time) ago. After over 480 turns, I saved the game. I wanted to see how ascension, cultural dominance, and military victories would play out for scores.
I had 167 planets, about 60 were acquired by colony ships and the rest came from invasions. By turn 300, the game was a real slog of micro-management Moral was terrible. Every planet needed at least two morale boosting tiles and I was using constructors to build a starbase close to every planet to increase happiness. It is so much easier on these huge maps to have the patriot trait.
At turn 480, I had researched the entire tech tree and saved the game. An ascension win the next turn netted me 17 points! After 23 hours of game play, that was all I had to show for the work. I had 600 points on my first game on beginner in about 30 minutes on the smallest map. This just isn't right.
Well, let's try another way. I went back to the saved game, and a few turns later won a cultural domination game and had 67 points. I wanted to try for a military win, but was too far advanced in the save and always won a cultural domination win about two turns before I could take over the last two opponents in a one turn mass blitz attack from all points.
One of the Steam achievements is to collect all of the benevolent bonuses. I missed by ten points out of the massive amount required, just one turn shy of gaining the last bonus. No matter what I do, I can't turn off the cultural win by just one turn. How in the world do you gain all benevolent traits? I had point generators on each planet as soon as they were colonized and it was the first building I built after an invasion. Unless you colonize 150 planets and put a benevolent generator on every planet and play on huge maps I can't figure out how to accomplish this. And if you play with all the races available on the huge maps, I can't see how you can ever colonize 150 planets before other races are there before you.
Any thoughts on gaining all traits, benevolent, pragmatic, or otherwise? Any thoughts about scoring on insane maps?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
