MASOverse plea!

from Stardock Forums
I recently finished a huge painful game that was a lot of fun. Part of the reason it was enjoyable was because it added variety to my game play. The Metaverse score, however, would only have been around 16,660. I checked other player records and this was fairly consistent for a huge painful. Unfortunately, my overall score would drop if I submitted it. Here is the math for my most recent block:

(39,500 + 48,530) / square root of 2 = 62,247

(39,500 + 48,530 + 16,660) / square root of 3 = 60,443

As you can see, I would have dragged my empire’s score down with this huge painful submission. I want to help my empire’s score and enjoy GalCiv to the fullest, but that isn’t possible now. The best I can do is to restrict my submissions to only masochistic military wins and refrain from submitting anything less. Obviously this is why many players have been saying it’s a “Masoverse” now.

I’m sure I missed the initial debate while I was gone, but perhaps this issue can be revisited before Altarian Prophecy is finished.
357 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree with you whole-heartedly Kit - a way needs to be found to make it worthwhile to submit ANY game not just big maso's.

Exar
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Let me put the math to y’all in a different way.

If I submitted four huge painful games of 20,000 each and four gigantic masochistic games of 60,000 each in one month, my score would be 113,137. If I only submitted the four 60,000 point games my score would be 120,000. Do you see what I’m getting at? The size of the masochistic bonus limits how an experienced player can increase their score.

I like to play between painful and masochistic because it adds a lot of variety to my game play. Unfortunately, this doesn’t jive with the current Metaverse. I wouldn’t mind if my painful games only added a puny amount to my empire’s score, but having them reduce the score is frustrating and discouraging.

***Please note: This is not intended as a flamefest. I’m not pissed off. I still love Stardock and would have all their children if only my body were built for such an honor. ;)
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
I’m sure I missed the initial debate while I was gone
End of quote


Indeed you did: a long and sometimes heated debate ;) which seemed to rest on two points:

1. Having an exponential scoring curve (with maso rated much higher that lower levels), rather than a more linear curve.

2. Applying a modifier to the type of victory - at present mil=1.0x, all the way down to cult=0.5x.

I'm not going to re-present my own view; suffice it to say that none of the debate really altered the Stardock position. The thing to look forward to, in advance notices about Altarian Prophecy, is a variety of OTHER challenges (in addition to straight Metaverse scoring) that will be part of the release. :)
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Those are the exact same two points I had in mind. They really cause the first page of the Metaverse to be dominated by one style of play. Granted there are a variety of strategies to masochistic military conquests, but that isn’t the extent of GalCiv’s design. What’s unfortunate is that there has been less exploration of GalCiv's richness because there is only one path to the front page.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
Yes, I realize I'm beating a dead horse with this thread, but it was disappointing to start playing again and then hit this wall. I guess it’s more like a tight corridor than a wall. Anyhow... Altarian Prophecy at the end of February, eh?
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
I'm pretty sure any score submissions can only help you score. I jsut submitted a game lower than most of my recent ones, and it brought it up about 3,000 points
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
I still love Stardock and would have all their children if only my body were built for such an honor
End of quote


:sniff!:
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
From 37180 down to 25613 is not much of a difference. The math kicks in when a submission is less than half your highest level. Try submitting a loss... or ask your mate never-never. LOL

Just kidding never-never! I'm sure you'll get your medal. ;)
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
huge painful game
End of quote


Should be able to score around 28,000 IME - I regularly get around 20k on huge normal games.

Alex


~SDC~
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
Kit, I do think it is a shame that one don't have to show more variety to be on the front page (i have played a large part of my games the exact same way and that was just about to kill my interest in the game).

On the other hand i think it is correct to give more points for playing a higher level. Actually what i think is the biggest flaw is the effects of map-size. On maso a small/tiny will give you 20K and a gigantic 60K. This will make the playing styles for the top ranked players pretty much the same.

Does anybody think it would be possible to change the way the divisor works so that it would work for a category a the time (i.e games played in the 30 day block played on a certain map-size or with a certain winning method) ?
[Message Edited]
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
Kit the problem isn't with the scoring between painful and maso, the problem is purely with the metaverse summation being divided by the square root of the number of games. Many suggestions have been made to deal with this. The best I heard was that the score could be changed to ...

score = maso game summation / square root of # of maso games + painful game summation / square root of # of painful games + ...

This means no change in scoring for those who only play 1 difficulty, but still means that if you want a fun game at a lower difficulty if always adds to your score and does not reduce it.

Paul.

~SDC~
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
I wouldn't say it's purely the square root summation. We're just looking at it from two different views. I'm assuming more math won't be added. The solution would therefore be a reduction in both the maso bonus and the difference between victory conditions. If Stardock was willing to add more math into the Metaverse calculation, then the solution would be along the lines of what you just mentioned.
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
Even if you totally reduced the maso bonus, you would still be in a situation that playing games which give a lower score (such as loosing a game or playing at lower difficultly) will reduce your score. It's a fact of the averaging effect. Any averaging effect does this in any area of mathematics.

Paul.

~SDC~
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
Then there are those of us who submitted VERY low ranking scores while learning the game. Those scores now hurt our score much more than they help...
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
Then there are those of us who submitted VERY low ranking scores while learning the game. Those scores now hurt our score much more than they help...
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
Even if you totally reduced the maso bonus, you would still be in a situation that playing games which give a lower score (such as loosing a game or playing at lower difficultly) will reduce your score. It's a fact of the averaging effect.
End of quote


Yes, that's fine. I can live with that. What bothers me is that it'll be hard for me to get enough points from a huge painful so that I'm not hurting my empire's score. Isn't painful good enough for you people?!?! Why must I always burn and flog myself with masochistic tendencies?!?! LOL C’mon! It’s not like I'm playing cakewalk! (no offense intended to those who enjoy cakewalk) It’s painful for crying out loud! Cranking can’t be the issue! Players have been cranking out gigantic masos for months now! AAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

Sorry. It’s the beer talking. ;)

(edit: jumped by a Canadian!)
[Message Edited]
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
Then there are those of us who submitted VERY low ranking scores while learning the game. Those scores now hurt our score much more than they help...
End of quote


Not as time passes. Old scores move into separate blocks. Your average score, however, does suck @$$. :notsure:
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
As mentioned, old low scores are not a problem as scores are calculated in monthly blocks. It is new low scores that hurt as they can lower your current score.

Paul.

~SDC~
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top
I'm pretty sure any score submissions can only help you score. I jsut submitted a game lower than most of my recent ones, and it brought it up about 3,000 points
End of quote


Well, I just submitted a medium challenging, got almost 11,000, which is about my average, and it DROPPED my score by 2000! What the hell is that!?!?!

Then there are those of us who submitted VERY low ranking scores while learning the game. Those scores now hurt our score much more than they help...
End of quote


There are also those of us with scores from version 1.044. Those scores are MUCH lower than your current levels.
Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top
Scores are lumped into monthly blocks backwards from your last submission. This means that if you submit a 1 point score a month after your last score, then your total score will increase by 1 point. If you submit a 1 point score within 1 month of any previous scores then your score for that month (which gets added to scores from previous months) will be the sum score from all games submitted within a month divided by the square root of the number of games.

For example,

Imagine you had 2 games submitted within the previous month of 10k and 16k scores. This adds 18384 to your previous score.
Now you submit a 1 point game. This takes your score for the month to 15012. Your score therefore drops by over 3k for submitting that game.

Paul.
PS. Old games submitted under old versions (with lower scores) don't hurt your current score at all due to the monthly summations. I've got 1.00 version games submitted!

~SDC~