Metaverse ReCalc complete

Thank you for the update / heads up.

Thanks Brad, I'm glad it was done in the end.

As for the total MV score, it doesn't seem to work the way you said: Example.
The score of this guy is the sum of his three games, there's no division by the square root of 3.

Is there a good resource that breaks down what counts for what in a metaverse game? I still don't understand what gives me points and what takes points away.

Thanks for the continued work on this great game!

estab, they probably round the root down. So if he plays another, he should take a decent hit.

Yesterday I posted my first Metaverse game (painful, gigantic, every abundant) with a score of 61250. My rank this morning was 202 and now it is 120!

Now if only my medals would appear.

estab, they probably round the root down. So if he plays another, he should take a decent hit.

No, another player (Link) has 4 games already and it's the same for him: No division, just the sum.

So there has to be something involved that's not on the table yet.

For some reason it is the 5th game that triggers the division by 2. The program must be set to adjust the total score on the game following the game that the square root of the divisor reaches a whole number. So it stands to reason that the hits will take place on the 5th, 10th, 17th, 26th, 37th, 50th, 65th, Etc.

Why do some of my scores now have decimal equivalent of repeating fractions instead of whole numbers. There are about 10 scores that are decimal numbers out to 8 or so places.

My metavers game #15 is messed up, Its flagged and is a double instead of an int.
http://metaverse.galciv2.com/index.aspx?g=player&id=820

Would you fix it when you have the chance?

Thanks for the time and effort you've been putting into all of this Brad

Brad can you please explain the philosophy behind the scoring system ?

Probably like :
1) reward good players
a) time to get a the win
the type of win
c) etc...
2) reward quality and not quantity
3) avoid cheese...

For some reason it is the 5th game that triggers the division by 2. The program must be set to adjust the total score on the game following the game that the square root of the divisor reaches a whole number. So it stands to reason that the hits will take place on the 5th, 10th, 17th, 26th, 37th, 50th, 65th, Etc.

No, here's someone with 5 games and no division: Link.

I welcome any attempt to explain the MV score, both individual game scores and the total MV score, but please check at least one example before posting a theory.

The scores on the Metaverse are calculated as the total number of scores / the square root of number of games submitted

That was the formula for GC1. This formula doesn't work with GC2.

I welcome any attempt to explain the MV score, both individual game scores and the total MV score, but please check at least one example before posting a theory.

e-stab, the formula posted here https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=345&AID=122303 by Starweb gives your overall metaverse score when considering that the aging penalty is based on a calculation date set the 7/4/06 (time of the recalc)

e-stab, the formula posted here Link by Starweb gives your overall metaverse score when considering that the aging penalty is based on a calculation date set the 7/4/06 (time of the recalc)

Yes, thanks for the reminder. I replied in his thread, but seeing Brad's posting made me wonder what's really going on because the two formulas clearly collide with each other.

asd

Well, I think I have found the correct formula. One character was missing in CariElf formula since the correct formula is: SumOfDepreciatedScores / NumberOfGames^.4

That forumla calculates my metaverse score exactly. Somewhat of a difference (between number of games ^.4) and (number of games ^.5) which, as originally stated, would simply be the square root. Seems like an odd thing to change. I think it would have been better left at .5 because it makes an already complicated formula more confusing. Square root is easy to get a hold of in your head, throwing around numbers with odd fractional exponents is not. I wonder if that's an error in their scoring program? After all, the boss said it should be ^.5 not ^.4

Well, it was ^.5 for GC1. But I guess they have though it was more right to use ^.4 since it would means a less frustating formula for people that play lots of game:

If you play 1024 games, your total will be divided by 32 when using ^.5 compared to 16 when using ^.4

Works for me with the unrounded ^0.4, except that now I have to round the final result naturally instead of down (1 point of difference).