They could re-evaluate all the scores that were obtained on previous versions using the new rules. That would make all the scores on the level so anyone who actually worked for their scores wouldn't just have it erased, but also wouldn't have a rediculously high score compared to what they would've received now.

Stardock has already done the recalculation of scores, with a minor exception that throws everything off. Any scores from games started during v1.11 beta 1 through v1.11 beta 2 were excluded from the recalc. Scores from those games are still in the hundreds of thousands and are skewing the scores of several players in the top 50 or so (including mine, unfortunately).

I don't think that the exclusion was intentional; those games were started when the scoring system was changed to its current form. I suspect that those games were flagged as "newer scores" that should be excluded when indeed they were "older scores" that needed to be recalculated. Anyway, I have yet to see any word from SD about recalculating those specific scores.

All scores other than those from v1.1 beta 1 through 2 are all comparable with each other.

I guarentee that almost everyone in the top 10 has not posted A new score in A month or so. so stop catering to people who are not playing the game anyway and lets be fair to those of us who are still playing. there are tons of games competing for my game time and if i am not ever going to advance because of A few people who dont play anymore being treated like they are special then so be it ,i will go play a game that is fair

I guarentee that almost everyone in the top 10 has not posted A new score in A month or so.

Nonsense, just like ignuss said.

By the way, conquest victories on the large map types usually take a lot longer than the other victory types or playing on smaller maps. It's no miracle that they're not submitted daily.

Any system has 'winners and losers'.

Inevitably, as a generalisation, some 'losers' will complain whilst the 'winners' stay quiet, its the way of life. I guess we all been there as a 'winner' or a 'loser' at some point.

I believe genuine efforts are being made to keep it 'fair' - its in their interests to do so in any case. It will never be perfect thats an impossible Holy Grail in any system - even The Olympics (and $Billions are spent on that).

At the end of the day its a game ..... I am sure the world will still be spinning on its access in the morning

Regards
Zy

you people obviously dont do any researching on this matter. go and look at the top 10 players games. they all are real old games posted . version 1.1 and betas from 1.1 so before you go flaming me go and see for yourself.
Fair is fair. The reality of the situation speaks for itself look at the scores and see if you can get a 100,000 point game in todays system.
BTW I have played my share of gigantic games and can complete one in a few hours .So to call me a "looser" as Zydor put it is just pure stupidity . look at his medals and see why he has no place posting here .He has no score to complain about and is just being an ass.
also I have looked and 85% of all scores in the top 10 are from version 1.1 or earlier and only A handfull are from the past 2 weeks .
Maybe there should just be A metaverse wide recalc and not just the newer postings . After all the very oldest scores are the highest .I would be satisfied with that and not A total wipe. after all my scores are in there also

I guarentee that almost everyone in the top 10 has not posted A new score in A month or so. so stop catering to people who are not playing the game anyway and lets be fair to those of us who are still playing. there are tons of games competing for my game time and if i am not ever going to advance because of A few people who dont play anymore being treated like they are special then so be it ,i will go play a game that is fair

This is rediculous.
Should Roger Bannister have had his 4 minute mile record stripped from him because he retired from running.
I am new to GalCiv2 and agree if there is a change in scoring methods then previous scores should be recalculated but stripping ppl of their achievements so lesser players can take their places is an insult to the better and longer standing players.

A solution could be to have a time limiter ranking. running along side the all time ranks, So the top 10 in the previous month or week are shown. this would give the newcommers a change of a little glory.

you people obviously dont do any researching on this matter. go and look at the top 10 players games. they all are real old games posted .

~23% of the games posted in the top 10 are from the last month (May 6 and later), I think that's fair enough given that the game is out for 3.5 months now (1 / 3.5 = ~29%).

It's not "our" fault that Stardock didn't recalc some of the 1.1-Beta scores, things would look a lot different then, especially in the top 10.

see if you can get a 100,000 point game in todays system.

Well possible, just have a look in my profile. I'd do more of these, but as I said already, high scoring games take a lot of time.

I rather doubt they will make another recalc soon, as we enter summer vacations yet who knows, perhaps with an upcoming 1.3 - but I agree they should have nerfed the 1.1 betas 1 & 2 ( not as much than 1.0 & 1.0x though considering the AI upgrades ).

I still wonder if ( CariElf or any Stardock person ) will fix or erase the cheater flagged 1.2 beta 1.....

As for the scoring system, I think the longer it takes on gigantic maps STILL pays a lot for a military victory. I don't think any game played decently should last more than........15 years even on larger maps and I'm generous. That's 780 turns.....With a normal tech rate, any player/Ai can have Dreadnoughts by 2228..... So they could fix the '' sweet spot'' even more for shorter but hard games to be recognised .

i think its MUCH harderto get high scores when you are reading forums rather than playing MV games

hehehe,
Star Dagger

Heh, some example of someone playing the metaverse scoring system:

Take no 2 player named 'unfunf'. He played 3 games (Yes, only 3!) for a total score of 428361.

His first game is played with 1.2 on a Gigantic map at suicidal. Took him 3 years to finish the game! 3 years? How is that possible to even get the speed tek that permits you to get to the other side of a gigantic map?

His 2nd game is even better! 2 years on a Gigantic map at suicidal.

This should raise some red flag somewhere. I can't imagine anyone finishing the game that fast.

I play suicidal gigantic maps and think it is definitely possible. Definitely possible to get tech win that fast, would be very tough to get a conquest victory that fast but maybe with the right map settings. I can get a tech win inside of 3 years and my strategy is no where near to being fully refined.

Also if he is taking advantage of the save/load feature would be quite easy.
This is probably your big big red flag. But maybre not -- suicidal is not as hard as you might imagine -- I've only been playing for a little over a month.