1) Don't forget to take a look at the AltMeta, where it is far easier to climb the ranks because it favours recent submissions ánd there are ladders in 6 categories (split into galaxy size and military vs. non-military victory)
I'm living (more or less ) proof that it doesn't take long and doesn't require drawn out games or maniacal score boosting to take some high spots on those ladders.

2) You could take part in the Metaverse League. Summarized every month there will be a new choice of settings that everyone in the League will use to compete. People are grouped into teams which is a nice opportunity to pick up useful hints (I mean more in terms of getting better at the game than pure scoring), there are bonuses for fast games, different team averages, not just for a maximally squeezed score.

3) It's a game. It would be ridiculous if everyone tried to grab the #1 spot in Metaverse. Some have more time than others, there's plenty of life besides GalCivII no matter how addictive it can be, etc.
For me it's enough to see that after a few Metaverse League attempts I've risen a few dozen places with all in all a few hours of gameplay.

I wonder if everyone is aware of what it takes to get the top scores.

It's basically point grinding. You keep playing to maximize your score after you already won the game. Once all the AI is basically dead, you leave just one AI planet so the game doesn't end. Then you start maximizing your economy, building dozens of starbases and literally THOUSANDS of ships.

Yes, it takes skill to even beat the AI on a suicidal game. In addition, the best way to maximize the score is to get a booming economy/military/research as soon as possible. So it does take skill to get the best scores, but the majority of the point grinding process is just tedium. Why, why, why?

Let me give an example. In my last suicidal medium game, I finished it within 3 years (I think) and a final score of about 75,000. For the next 5 years, I point grinded the score up to 149,000. So, half of my gameplay didn't involve much thought or strategy or anything. It was just monotonous, repetitive actions to artificially raise my score. 149,000 is a good score for a medium map, but is it reflective of my skill? Not really.

Yes, I don't have to do it, but like I said, I'm too competitive. I just wish my competitive streak could be fulfilled by a point ladder system that is indicative of skill, not patience and/or luck.

I think you underestimate the skill level needed to post those obscene scores. There is an element of tedium but a much larger element of skill. It's comforting to think that the best players only score so well because they have a higher tolerance for monotonous score-grinding and that you or I could score as well if there was different scoring metric, but having (as a Galactic Diplomat) seen what these guys are capable of, what they have to do from a pure-skill perspective to reach those scores before the score grinding even starts, I know I'd never have a chance of reaching similar scores. I don't think there is anything wrong with that; in any competitive activity only a handful will comprise the very top.

It would be nice if somehow there was an improved forumula that didn't require score-grinding to reach the highest scores, but I doubt such a perfect formula exists. Even if it did, personally I'm confident they same names would still be at the top of the Metaverse.

The record for the highest score ever is held by a masterful score monger, Magnumaniac, who scored 975,000+ in a suicidal, gigantic abundant all game. The record for the highest scoring ZYW, 40,000, is also held by Magnumaniac. That game took 13 turns. The best players are simply always going to score higher, by any scoring metric that accurately reflects player skill. If the scoring metric is changed, the players most adept at analyzing the mechanics of scoring and at, very simply, playing GalCiv2 well, will rise quickly to the top.

It diminishes the accomplishments of the best players to say that to get such scores "it's basically point grinding". They score higher than us because they are better at the game than us.

If I insulted anyone, I apologize. I did acknowledge that it takes skill to get the top scores. But even for them, I can't imagine that they enjoy the process it requires to get those scores.

My point is that the scoring reflects a combination of skill and patience for point grinding. If the scoring was done in a way that minimizes the need for point grinding, then everyone would have a better gaming experience.

The top players would no longer need to spend hours (days?) doing mindless grinding. Casual players could have a chance at achieving scores that are in the same ballpark.



Great point.

Either in the official Meta or the AltMeta it would be great to have seperate ratings for Twilight, since as Wyndstar has pointed out, it's going to score a lot lower. It may be too large a request though (personally I've no idea how much work would be required for something like that). It's an interesting thing to think about at any rate .

Do you have any idea how hard it would be to add the version data to MV posts?

Doh. Now I think I see. Is the idea of adding the version parameter to ranking schemas pretty much asking for an AltAltMeta?