I don't know if there's a difficulty modifier or not.

At first I thought score was mostly based on population so in my 12 year game I finished with .02444xxxx population, taking the +20% planet quality trait to make sure I could get the highest pop - finished game w/ 800K score. After winning that I reloaded the game and played out another two or three months (finishing same year) and got an 820K score even though population was going up very slowly at that point. Tried building a bunch of military ships and finishing at same date - got same score.

So then I decided population wasn't a factor. Something else was increasing w/ time - probably the amount of credits generated. So I played out a few other games, finishing at the exact same date each time. Game 1 I had 30913271 treasury (0% taxes) and 27.79B population on last invaded planet for a 828442 score. Game 2 I had a 31510882 treasury (increased taxes) and 22.29B population on last invaded planet for a 829765 score. Game 3 I gave away all my cash to the last AI and ended with 0 in treasury w/ 21.08B on invaded planet for 829435 score. Game 4 I exterminated about 300B citizens on my planets and ended with 31367166 treasury and 24.72B ppl on last invaded planet, for 8293xx score (slightly smaller score than game 3 probably due to lost taxes from that small fragment, otherwise ending treasury would have been the same).

So I'd guess the primary factor on the score is yer econ, population looks like it only plays a part indirectly via taxes... but I'm kinda confused, cause this game I just finished (milking it to 14 years) I was making 10k creds a turn about 1 1/2 years in (250K a turn at the end) and finished with > 110 million treasury & only got 1.07 mil score. I took all econ bonuses and Federalists instead of the pop growth and planet quality stuff. I guess it's possible some military action might figure in, since in game 1 I exterminated 3 or 4 of the AIs (took about 20-30 planets instead of just culture flipping them all). I was expecting a 1.2mil+ score. Maybe there's some sort of penalty applied if you finish in > than a certain # of years. Certainly didn't seem like it up to 12.

But there you have it.... scoring system certainly does need some work though, hah. Faster wins need to be rewarded a whole hell of a lot more.

Heh, I was wondering how you were getting those insane scores Zevus.

Well, I will certainly never "milk" any scores. I will play the AI on the hardest setting from here on out (just won my first suicidial), and be happy with my scores. I doubt I'll ever break 200k, but that's ok. Slaughtering the AI in the shortest time possible is my goal:)

Anyway, yes, scoring certainly needs to be totally readjusted. I also think it'd be cool to have more postgame stats on the metaverse so people can see things such as: initial bonuses, final bonuses, planets, average time in war, techs traded, political party, etc etc:)

BTW, I think diplomacy needs to be toned down somehow. My last game I had pratically no army the first half of the game and I was never at risk of being attacked due to my diplomacy. Once I had a few techs and some cash to spare I set the whole galaxy at war with each other and kept it that way until I had a large enough army to smash them all one by one.

Changes that need to be made in scoring system:
1) Reward people who finish early, not people who milk.
2) Reward people who play with harder AI, not people who play on easy.

Until those are fixed, the system is broken, period.

Also, forcing someone to play on larger maps to get better scores is not fair to those with low end machines, or, god forbid, real lives. Find some way to scale the score based on map size.

it is just as difficultto get a "quick" win on a small map as it is on a large map, its just that the term "quick" has a different definitionfor the two game types.

I don't think you can submit on anything faster than normal... I read that somewhere but I could be mistaken.

Your right about milking, but I was using the term specifically towards those who hit end turn 500 more times than necessary because it increases your score when it should in fact decrease your score.

Yes, you can submit scores played with "Fast Tech"

See, now thats just Bass Ackwards.

There is no way you should get more points for a game that took 21 years than a game that took 7 years,all other things being equal. Every time you click end turn, it should depreciate your score, not increase it.

I have to agree with alot of things said here. A while ago I finished a game in less than 8 years on normal with tech victory. Which is fast and was for me quite difficult to do. I recieved roughly 10.000 points for that one. I also did a game on simple, again a tech victory though this time I took waaaay longer then 8 years and recieved 25.000 points.

Ofcourse I understand this is because my civilization was more developed. But the others were too, so that wasnt anything special or difficult thing to do and I can't really see why that should give me extra points. What rather should give extra score is when I grow stronger then the others civs in a certain field. Not when I just keep up with them but do it for a lenghty time.

Wow...

My mistake then.

About the "score study" :

Thanks a lot for all the info you are putting on this topic. This teaches a lot to me, and must also be a good scoring tutorial to other newcomers. I did have a game like one of Zevus, just need to finish my war against one last AI. Never put a rest to the war thing though, with a very incredible population.

About the "debate" about what should be made to the scoring :

I agree about the "turn" thing. Finishing a game in some turns should be more rewardful than finishing a game in more.

I do not agree about the "population" / "economic" / etc things Trespasser. Obvously you were already mad at Stardock scoring system when these ideas came out winning with less population IS a more difficult, but then, would you reward the one who managed a conquest victory without ever researching a weapon ? or the one winning a Diplomatic victory without researching diplomacy techs ?

I understand what you are saying is mainly "try to win and see who wins first", please forget the suggestion about pop and eco things being counted against a player instead of for him. Taht is nonsense, should you blow up your own colonists to have more points ? buy some ship wreckage on all colonies to decrease treasury ?

We want to encourage normal-playing of the game, and reward the best normal-player ; that is someone who develops his civilization well and leads his race to one of four possible victories. We agree on the "should not be a milking thing", and I do not want to encourage some other odd behaviour.

I agree with you about the "race for power" thing ; let all players have their own means to be the first. There can be only one.


Side note: I find very odd that Metaverse games are not more "streamlined", more similar to each other ; should all have about the same parameters, with only your own race and galaxy size changing (and of course randomness of planets to have a new game every time).

Anyway, I ran that game out to 21 years, in honor of my competition Magnumaniac's 21 yr victory. Year 21 - 1524670 score, 309227/turn econ

Heh, heh - I guess you had a few more pop than me if you are playing on abundant settings - max pop I've ever got to is .006. That 21 year game was the result of making the mistake of picking occasional stars / planets and "very slow" tech rate - seriously, don't do it. You get twice as many points for tech (compared to normal), but that's only worth about 20K before the victory multiplier anyway (so 50K total on a mil. vic) if you research the whole damned tree yourself - which took a loooooooooong time.

Started an abundant everything game, but it was taking too long between turns after about 4 years so abandoned it.

The way the scoring is at the moment, no-ones going to be able compete unless playing abundant everything on gigantic - and that really is not fun.

We have had dozens of posts from people guessing how the scoring works. Someone from Stardock needs to explain how the scoring works!!!

Some good points are brought up about quick victories not always being impressive, but scoring multipliers can fix some and simple counters can fix the others.

In the example where you start with everyone being best buddies and then go for an alliance on turn 1, giving a multiplier of -50% per race that starts the game as "friendly" to you ends that strategy real fast.

In the example of killing your people to get a better score, if it doesn't already it should keep track of how many people are born, not how many you end up with.

In the example of buying useless things to reduce your cash, it should (and I think it does) base the score on credits earned, not credits you have at end game.

Balancing the scores for different galaxy sizes would be much, much more difficult, and has already been mentioned, should probably just be listed under different meta-verses.

Yes, that would be cool... a tiny metaverse, small, medium.. all the way to gigantic.

That would be very cool.

For the scoring - I doubt Stardock'll tell us how it works... its more of something for us to figure out on our own.

With the economy - it calculates it based upon the average for your race... so as time goes on your average normally increases (thus making a higher score).

arghhhh...
i just explainmed ...
why do people think that short games should score more
please read my message above...

if my theory is correct i could finish a game in about 2 to 5 turns... and that certianly isn't what i call playing the game... and should not be rewarded because you havn'tr maxed your population.. researched all techs .. created max trade routes.. extended ytour influence or flexed your military might ..

The idea is to build an empiere .. a civilization.. not just end the game as quickly as you can