Just feel I should repeat the oft-said phrase - if you don't like the Metaverse, don't participate.

We've lost very good players in the past because they felt Maso wasn't sufficiently rewarded.

There will always be people who would be unhappy about any chosen scoring system.

~SDC~

Ray, I think that is why I find large maso maps so hard. I neglect influence improvements! I'll try a large map and concentrate on influence. I will triumph!!!

And please, no-one suggest they nerf diplomacy ratings at set-up. Let some of us fringe players win on maso every now and then.

Managed to win one solidly at Crippling - a new accomplishment for me - but it took a TON of trade+influence SBs in my home sector to catch up and surpass the AIs. And I had a great starting position to begin with (3 yellow stars in the home sector). Maso is definitely going to be a challenge.

On a side note, how can you demolish Social improvements after they're built? The AI builds everything on the list, and as soon as I take over one of their worlds in the mid-late game it turns into a money pit with the upkeep.

On your planet go to the details tab, click on the project you want demolished and it will ask you if you want to sell it. Click yes. It will demolish it. It takes a couple turns to see the resulting change in the money costs though. Not sure why.








Just feel I should repeat the oft-said description hypocrite. Where was that phrase from you when EBZ was getting demolished for his methods huh? Of course no where. No all we heard from you was. Oh when will these devs recognize true scoring nirvana? Oh it's a tribute to our mighty fine empire that all us maso players are being cheated with lower scores and we're in first blah blah blah and more stuffed shirt nonsense It only comes out now that you LIKE the way it's scored and others don't. What a hypocrite.



Noted Killa. I humbly withdraw my suggestion since it is a useful tool for most.

As somebody who sees merit in rewarding higher difficulty levels, BUT has never won at Maso, let me offer the following:

"Can't we all just get along?!?!!"

"He started it" can be a fun game. It's not the one I'm here to play. Not every argument is about proving that you're right. Sometimes it's about knowing when to sit down and...

No offense to either of you. But please, tone it down outside the Imperial threads. I came to this thread looking for hints and strategies, not for this.

I agree with Obi Wan whole heartedly (i hope this doesnt scare off Ray and Pontious, there tips are quite helpful). I cant believe i never thought of buying tech from the AI with actual credits.... i guess im so used to being in the tech lead the thought never crossed my mind

With due respect to Obi and Ray (and also from someone who has never won at Maso), I wish to analyse this without it turning into a personal issue, because it IS relevant to much of the stuff turning up in other threads. Er...it's not really an Ambassadorial comment, is it? And I don't recall similar sentiments being offered when EBZ was being flogged on the boards.

The subtext really reads: "If you don't like the Metaverse THE WAY I LIKE IT, don't participate." It is perfectly understandable that expert maso players are delighted with the changes; their 25,000 point gigantic games are now scoring 60,000 points. I have no problem with the reward for the highest difficulty level - it's the lack of a graduated reward for those working their way up to the peak that generates very mixed feelings for me.

Look at the title of this very thread: "so maso seems to be the only way to rack up points now". We should ask ourselves: can everybody still join this party? What does a newbie make of this? Can the good average player still make headway, or are their ankles tied together until they hit maso? Can we all just get along - or are some of us feeling that WE DONT BELONG? This is not about me personally; I've had a good run near the top of the tree, and I applaud the skill of the maso players; I just think it might be important to reflect on what this says about inclusiveness for the community and recognising players for their worth BEFORE they hit maso.

Don't worry, Obi-Wan, I wouldn't be responding to a person who only has respect for his own opinions and resorts to name-calling when he is out-argued. You would notice that I've not responded to any of his provocations for months already. I think most of us get along wonderfully.

Black Shade, there are quite a lot of useful Maso tips over at the Strat Forum. I hope you have already read them. There are also other strats written recently by Maso players such as Killa, Pontius and Jeff Desilva. Hopefully, they will post their strats into the Maso Strats thread where it is more accessible to all.

Wombie,

If you recall, Frogboy posted before a dream scoring state where Maso scores are 5x than Normal. I can dig up that old post but I believe most of us "Metaverse" players remember it. In 1.1, the multiplier is 2x - 3x depending on the map size.

Yes, I agree that the intuitive thing is for scoring at the different levels to be spread out more gradually. However, remember that the key change for 1.1 is difficulty base score and difficulty does not increase linearly but exponentially. IIRC, the intelligence level for Maso is 150 while Painful is 100. I'm not a maths person but Maso is certainly not more difficult than painful by just 50%. Anyone who have played both Crippling and Maso can tell you that Maso is heck of a lot more difficult than Crippling.

Do the new Maso scores really trouble the newbie or the casual Metaverse player? No, the only people who truely troubled are the hardcore metaverse players, myself included. What does it mean if you can't win Maso? Yes, you don't get the mega scores and you may never see First, Top 25 or 50. Does it mean you can't win ranks or medals and you can't contribute any score to an empire? Does it mean you are not having fun if you don't become No 1? Has any empire kicked anyone out because he is not submitting Maso scores? Are you not contributing to an empire by submitting normal difficulty games? Does anyone feel unbelonged just because he is not a Top25 player?

edit- I typed 1.01 instead of 1.1
~SDC~
[Message Edited]

Whenever there is a scoring change, there will always be people who get upset because the new scoring system does not suit them.

For the last five months, we had scores which are not proportionate with difficulty. So Maso players got upset and some left. They didn't like how the Metaverse looked and they took the advice and didn't participate any further. I left for a while myself but returned and continued to participate despite the lack of reward for my Maso games.

Now we have a system where Crippling and Maso scores are rewarded better. So people who can't win at those levels will get upset and again the same advice goes to them.

~SDC~

Read this old thread started by Frogboy where he asked for inputs on scoring. http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?id=70021&BID=GF&page=1#70628

Almost all if not everyone agreed that difficulty should be the key factor in scoring. Notice also the last statement in Frogboy's 1st post. This thread was started in Jun 03.



He mentioned 1.05 here specifically but it's more a general principle that he wants to see a gap between the top players and others.

Frogboy, pls correct me if I'm wrong.

~SDC~

Ray, I'm not 'upset' that maso players get the big points, or that I personally haven't won there; it's how everybody else below maso comes to regard the environment that I was trying to get at. Rainbird considered signing off in the ANZAC thread today, as an example of the issues I was getting at. In addition, I'm not sure old maso players left because they weren't getting enough points. I presume you're talking about players like Staffa and Sergey here, and I feel that they left because the game didn't CHALLENGE them, not because they didn't get the points.

It was interesting to watch Staffa come back and try a game just after the release of the expansion pack - he beat maso (again) and presumably, since he hasn't played again, we wont see him back. My interpretation is that he tried it, found maso no different AS A CHALLENGE, and left again. The dedicated maso player will always rise to the top, and you are the perfect example. There is one dedicated maso player here, and he is NINETY THOUSAND POINTS CLEAR ON TOP OF THE TABLE. How many points would you like maso to be worth?

Yes, they both found exploits at Maso level that made it too easy for them. But they argued strongly for more points for higher difficulties as well. See thread by Staffa http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?BID=GF&id=69913#74923 . He wanted a 5x multiplier for Maso/Normal as well. Which means that a 1.1 normal small game which is earning 11,000 pts now would have a maso small equivalent of 55,000 pts.



Staffa played Crippling in his last game, not Maso so your point is invalid.



Look at my history of scores. http://www.galciv.com/info.asp?accountID=639761
Most of my points were obtained in 1.05 and 1.091 (1.091 in fact scored lower than 1.05). Some are 1.092 which gave me up to 30,000 pts, but not too much higher than 25,000 that people are getting under Painful Gigantic. So far I have only submitted 2 higher scoring 1.1 games. I got the gap because I was a dedicated Gigantic map player for a while.

Let's assume that the Top25 players are a distance away from the pack because they are all Maso players. So where's the problem other than the fact that non-Maso players are not able to break into the Top25? Are they failures? Or are they unable to contribute to empires with their 50,000 pts earned through playing lower difficulties?

~SDC~

Hey Stardockians! Read this? Fix this damn Bug ASAP please! Influence from Starbases MUST NOT multiplicate but only add up!

But how shall maintenance bankrupt them? AFAIK they will disband colonys with less than 15 PQ...

Don't worry, AIL. My piece was a hoax, a parody of all the other guides and bug abuse systems.



When a GROSS post offends me, I tell myself it must have been intended to be tongue in cheek. It's the only way I can stay out of flame wars.

Otherwise, I'd be responding indignantly to posts like this:



Which always sounded to me like someone offering taxi rides to people running in a marathon on the grounds that they allow anyone to go as fast as a champion long-distance runner. True, and very egalitarian, but possibly detrimental the spirit of competition.
Anyway, given the number of AI flaws I've taken advantage of, I'm in no position to criticise. I think it's Stardock's duty to eliminate cheese rather than our duty to resist its temptations, just as it's the duty of the people who organise marathons to ensure that the use of cars is strictly forbidden.

On the subject of the original scoring system, I can only say that I found I could score more in a single game when I didn't play Masochistic, because of the heavy score rewards for researching techs rather than buying or trading for them from the AI (which, since you can't sell things for cash at Maso, I do a lot).

By the way, I haven't found culture flipping such a big problem at Maso. Last time I played it, I colonised a class 15 planet early in the game after the AI had colonised a system with two class 16 planets in it. Somehow I managed to keep that planet from flipping, and when my influence bonus got high enough, I got his system to flip to me. Maybe it was because I captured influence resources and stayed out of wars?

~SDC~
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

Apologies for the Staffa comment, then - I simply presumed he would have played Maso!



Well, nothing is wrong with that at all, if they're all like you - long term dedicated players. You absolutely deserve your points lead, let me make that clear. And as I said in the FOTR thread, I appreciate we are playing in the world according to Frogboy, and I accept that too - although I have a right to voice my opinion about things. I come back to the comment Rainbird made earlier today, and the sentiment suggested by the title of this thread: "...maso seems to be the only way to rack up some points..." Rainbird simply commented that, to her, playing at lower levels suddenly seemed pointless. Now, I appreciate that's only one person, but it illustrates a view from the 'bottom' of the ladder, in contrast to your view from the 'top', so to speak. You see, since no ladder can ever hope to ideally assess 'skill' as a pure absolute quality, perceptions become important. Some weeks ago I suggested having several boards - flyweight, middleweight and heavyweight - instead of a single board throwing all difficulty levels in together.



Yes I understand, and I think this is the point at which we really disagree - you believe in the exponential curve and I think it might end up unbalancing things too far the other way: not in terms of who tops the table (which will be the maso players in the end) but in terms of discouraging the non-maso player. I think that's what I'm really getting at - only time will tell. OK?

I think Stardock has said they would rather spend their engineering hours on improving the game mechanics then removing never-ending cheese from a single player game. Yes, there is the issue of Metaverse competition but Stardock has made it clear what they think of it. Progress Quest anyone? Of course, I'm hoping the exploits and cheese can be fixed as well but it cost me nothing to make suggestions.



I thought your suggestion was a good one. Filters for different difficulties so that someone could be Top under each. I think it would be impossible for anyone to dominate more than one of those filters.

~SDC~

You haven't out argued me once. You've quit talking to me because I've exposed your hypocrisy. Calling a hypocrit a hypocrit is not name calling. It's just facts. Now if I said "Go Piss up a rope you idiot" That would be name calling. Learn the difference. As to respecting other's opinions, your "Love it or leave it post" indicates clearly that the very charge you made against me applies squarely to you. It is a clear indicator that you do not respect other's opinion. I have never heard anyone express that sentiment and then be open to even considering others opinions. Although I suppose I should do as you say and not as you do? I repeat. Hypocrite. That's a fact.

As to respecting others. Look at my record. Bombs bombs bombs. I now play Maso. My personal interest would be A: Not to reveal Tactics and when pressed reveal vague generalities only just like you Ray. And indeed when you were asked to give specifics you made the lame excuse well versions change, And B: To lobby for Maso getting the highest scores.
That would be in my personal interest. Why then, do I argue the other way? Because it's right. Because I wan't this to be an enjoyable meta for the average joe, not just the uber geeks like me, you, and others that can handle Maso. I wan't everyone to be able to compete with me. I wan't the Cotals, the EBZ's of the world to find a way to compete. TO MY OWN DETRIMENT!!!! So much for the charge of me not thinking about others.




Very weak analogy. Logically invalid. Taxi rides are illegal in marathons. The GCCG was perfectly legal for one. For two. Um look at my posts. I play Maso now. Soon as the scores went up Bamm. It's quite easy just as I said. It's entirely assinine for you to even think that the GCCG was "detreimental to the spirit of competition" I also ask you what competition? We don't run against each other here. We play against a computer. Very weak argument.
As a swimmer who has medalled at world class events, I take you comparing a video game to real competition as (no insult intended here) kind of laughable.



That's a crock. Shrink your big head 3 sizes and come back to reality. All Maso means is find a different exploit. It is harder yes but It's not exponentially harder. It's in fact, once you know the exploits, less than linearly harder. It is only exponentially harder if you do not know them. Sorry to be the big burster of your ego maso trip. In fact i've just taught two people who never thought they could beat it to beat it. I'm 2/3 of the way through a huge right now. I'm to the point where i can flip who I wan't when I want. Not gonna be any war short of a random event. I can't finish it though. Crash Crash Crash on the new 1.1. And it's not worth the grand right now to correct it with a new puter. But i'm far enough to where I can post how to win it. And I will.

There is one reason I'm not on top of the meta. I don't have 24/7 and no life to play. I play just a few games (less than most) and I'm still in 3rd. Unlike some who have accomplished nothing real in their lives and need their ranking in a video game as an ego trip. I've nothing to prove.

The Idea that the meta should be scored so 25 maso players end up on top is ludicrous. It sweeps under the rug that it is deliberately scored so as to end up that way. Duh.

I can and do play Maso. But I seem to be maligned for exposing the big egos for what they are and for defending the little guy and a concept where everyone, in their own way can compete rather than deliberately creating a meta where there is only one way to compete. Who do you think helped EBZ come up with that system? One that was diametrically opposite of mine (the big bomber system) to my own detriment.

Make no mistake about what I am saying. Genuine Competition has been Stiffled by this not enhanced. To think otherwise is merely an ego trip. An ego trip that I, Who can just as easily win at Maso, Choose not to go on. What is totally hilarious to me is I've had to correct several players that think more of me because my scores are high. The fact that I play Maso or whatever means absolutely nothing to my credibility or value as a human being. Let me repeat that. The fact that I play maso or whatever means absolutly nothing to my credibility or value as a human being. Oh that was good. Yet this hero worship continues. We'll I'll tell you. The real hero in this bunch is EBZ. He wouldn't see it that way. Most of us that were military do not. But he's military. You all think about that the next time you wish to call him "cheesy" or "detrimental to the spirit of competition"

To all:

1. Metaverse politeness is a sticking point with me. I'm responding here before I even LOOK at the Jedi thread this morning because of it. I took a shot at Frogboy over the EBZ brouhaha because of it, despite the fact that I enjoy the game and really enjoy the hell out of this community. I'm not trying to stomp on anybody's parade, but the one-upmanship games get old after awhile.

2. Pontius, I appreciate the fact that you quickly gave me a solution for which I've been unsuccessfully searching for months. If my first comment after that sounded like a criticism (which in retrospect isn't a bad interpretation), I apologize. I have no personal dislike for anybody here - it's just that when the atmosphere gets ugly, I get annoyed (see #1 above). Thank you for your help - it is greatly appreciated.

3. Back on-topic. I've said before that the Metaverse is Stardock's baby, and it's up to us to live with whatever they come up with. Anybody who takes a look at my profile can see that my idea of an enjoyable game is Large, Painful. It's got that old MOO1 flavor...

I slogged through a Crippling because of the changes in Metaverse scoring. I'd already given up on anything besides Military victories because of Metaverse scoring. Both of these changes take away from my enjoyment of the game. For now, I'm still here - but this isn't the only game on my PC, and the others look more attractive every time I have to shift my playing style to match somebody else's idea of scoring nirvana.

I'll start working on beating Maso. But if it's so difficult that to win I MUST simply assemble approved strategies and cheese tactics, what am I really going to accomplish here?

OK, didn't mean to get existential...but Ray, I think you can see my point. It's nice to reward those who play at a difficult level. But if it goes too far, you run the risk of annoying those who can't compete there without making the exercise meaningless - or those who simply choose NOT to compete there. I'm with Wombie on this one.

I don't enjoy playing such one-upmanship games as well.



Yes, I do agree that it shouldn't be too high but how high is high is really subjective. There will never be a system that will please everyone. So who gets to decide? Like Wombat said, we are of course entitled to our opinions and to make our suggestions. But as you pointed out in 3, we live with whatever Stardock decides.

~SDC~

Hmmm. . . my Emperor Ray . . . I don't seem to recall that attitude after EBZ had creatively turned the metaverse on its head with a cranking strategy that a newbie could follow step by step and get a good (not a great) score. For those of us who read all of the posts during that era, this "love it or leave it" attitude does seem to be somewhat hypocritical and self-righteous now. If EBZ and PBP and we other crankers/supporters had said "love it or leave it", we would have been verbally excoriated to the max (and there were some sharp barbs for sure). Say "love or leave it" too many times and we might have a metaverse of only Ray and a few maso players.

It seems much better to help others, even going to the trouble of posting a walk-through if we want the forum and metaverse to flourish. I still appreciate what EBZ did with GCCG and what PBP and Killa recently did on the GROSS thread. The maso strategy thread has some good tips but is certainly not a walkthrough. We need a walk-through to help players who have aptitude in areas other than playing turn-based strategy games. And, Stardock probably would also like to sell games to players who can't/don't/won't play maso.

The GCCG kept me interested when I was about to go back to Combat Mission and Gettysburg and Medieval Total War (none of which I play at the highest level) and the GCCG taught me to play better and faster. After a short time, it was more fun to move up in difficulty to find the "sweet spot" for me but the GCCG helped maintain interest and both EBZ/PBP deserve credit for that. They got me hooked on the metaverse.

Now we have a big change again with 1.1 metaverse scoring. One of Rainbird's comments was that she played normal so she didn't need control-N. When I was playing GCCG, I never had to use control-N and could make mistakes. On tough, I can usually take a lame start and still win while listening to Mozart, Stavinsky, and other masters while I play a game even though I am concentrating less on the game and more on tunes sometimes. But, when raising difficulty levels, the control-N becomes much more important (esp. large maps) and now I am scouring the forum to find more formulae/tips (some call it "cheese") to overcome the AI advantages if I move up.

If I can't listen to music and play high levels, I would rather not play high levels. It could turn out to be an exercise in control-N and saving the game at the right times and reloading the game for every bad event. But, how many are going to take the "love it or leave it" attitude and just leave? For the sake the GC playing community, I hope not many.

I really look forward to seeing PBP's walkthrough and giving it a try. Heck, if PBP can get me winning at maso, I may even become a pirate if they would have me. LOL. It sounds refreshing to play a new style and may keep me around longer but I need a walk-through the first time - like EBZ did with GCCG. In summary, rather than "love it or leave it", it seems best if we help each other enjoy the game and make the Gal Civ community as strong as possible and try to be "inclusive" rather than promote an "exclusive" maso-club attitude.

Finally, we all need to chill out a little and put things in perspective. It will be interesting to see how all this shakes out. I have more to say but will save it for later. The bottom line for me is that Real Life is challening and sometimes painful . . . but games . . . they should be fun.

Rick
[Message Edited]

Rick,

Your comments are appreciated. The "love it or leave it" attitude is a reflection of the fact that we don't decide the rules of the Metaverse or the scoring. We can do our part by suggesting or making opinions to Stardock but they have the final say. I had to "love it or leave it" as well when I felt that the system does not suit me. Much like anyone else, I have my own dream scoring system (it's not the current one) but it's unrealistic to expect Stardock to design their system to suit me.

As to strats on Maso, I started the Maso Strats thread in the Strat forum 2 1/2 months ago. Then only a few of us were posting and discussing stuff there because nobody really wanted to play Maso at that time. Now there is a tremendous interest. Yes, that thread is not well organised because it's a forum thread, not a strat guide. I personally don't believe in step by step walkthroughs because the situation is different in each game. What I usually do is share them in the form of strategy tips. The Galciv blog that I have just started would basically cover every strat that I've used in my games as well. It is progressing along and people can see if that proves useful to them. Actually, all the stuff that I would be writing in the blog have already been discussed in this forum but I'm summarising them in one area.

Agree whole-heartedly that this is just a game. Most of us wouldn't be here some time from now and we'll all look back and wonder what all this fuss is about.

~SDC~

Wait! Let's get back to the "problem".

Chess has an overarching rating system, Tournaments broken into certain rating groups + open (you could have those who have played 0-10 games, 11-25 games, etc) + open. I remember different rating systems, but cannot remember what the issue was.

Or a rating with "flights" as in bridge, based on highest or average metaverse score. After you get enough points, you move up a group. In bridge, it is a matter of sheer accumulation, rather than average or quality.

Games where a slew of people are playing at the same time seem like better models for the Metaverse than something like a tennis ladder.

Others here must know other games/sports that have dealt with exactly this issue. Let's not spend lots of heat reinventing the wheel.
[Message Edited]

Not a good assumption - I rarely play above normal, same with some others. Dedication and number of games played matter too.

Alex


~SDC~

Now that's comedy.

You're in third place on metaverse, yet anyone who scores above you (both of them) must have "24/7 and no life tok play". You're very accomplished and busy in real life, unlike anyone who scores above you, yet you have time to write six-paragraph rebuttals to every post that so much as indirectly mentions you. You have nothing to prove, yet every other post in this thread is you droning on and on about how no one can out-argue you and everyone but you is a hypocrite and yada, yada, yada.

Yeah, nothing to prove... I'll buy it.

~SDC~

Agree. I only have real trouble when the AI planet is actually sharing a sector with my own. If they're in adjacent sectors, then they will often have more influence than I do in my sectors, but rarely to the point of flipping--or if there is serious danger, I can usually plunk down some culture-enhancing improvements. I can see how this might be a major problem on scattered/abundant though, a map I rarely play.



I had forgotten about this until I read your post. There is a tiny/rare walkthrough, posted by Ellestar in the strategy forum. It's for a couple months and a couple patches back but it may still help you get through maso on that level. I wouldn't recommend using that exact strat for anything but tiny/rare though.

http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?BID=GS&id=69135#93588

It's been said before, but it bears repeating: tiny/rare is the map where the tactical weaknesses of the AI are most easily exploited. It's a good way for people to practice before playing the larger maps.
[Message Edited]