A Modest Proposal for (GalCiv 2) Metaverse Scoring

from Stardock Forums
I find it intriguing that GalCiv, alone among the video game genre, tracks the "best" players by including quantity of submissions along with quality of submissions. To wit: Remember the Atari games? One game, one entry on the high score list. Want to move up? Play your next game better.

I understand why Stardock went in a different direction for GalCiv. By allowing a player to build up a ranking with multiple submissions, it drives up the desire to continue to play the game. So, there's an effort to reward both good individual game scores (more points per game with fewer submissions) and the dedicated cranker (any points, however few might be gained with your 86th game of the month, help your overall ranking).

But I think the balance is way off.

Staffa - arguably the best player in the history of this game - is barely remembered by anyone outside GROSS - and the old-time pirates, at that. Ray and Cotal are nearly in the same boat. Those three players did a lion's share of the work in designing the strategies that allowed nearly any player to beat the game at nearly any level. Granted there were others in the early days, and more recent players who have refined those strategies. But because of a lack of recent submissions, the old masters are no longer prominent.

Here the structure of the leaderboard works AGAINST GalCiv. I haven't played in months; but, as I have neither the free time nor the inclination to crank games, there's no point in my even loading up AP, which I have through Drengin. There are other PC games out there. Also a job, family and yard work.

Sure, "Play the game, not the Metaverse." That's fine, as far as it goes. But then, why is the Metaverse THERE? So we know who's the best. Because TRYING to rise up the ranks keeps us coming back. This is a game, after all, and competition is what helps to set GalCiv apart from other 4X titles. But when advancement is well-nigh impossible, the Metaverse becomes an obstacle and dilutes the desire to play.

It's obvious that the current Metaverse isn't likely to change for the current game. Reworking it would be a lousy use of resources; the core game, after all, is a year old. Besides, changing the system in midstream would be unfair to the players who HAVE devoted time and effort to rising to the top. But for GalCiv 2...well, it's obvious that a new Metaverse will have to be developed. And any scoring system would take virtually the same amount of programming time and resources. So what's best for the individual gamer, for the community, and for preserving the interest levels of both?

For GalCiv 2 - or anything with a single-player Metaverse, for that matter (Political Machine? The fabled MOM2?) - I believe that a shift away from massive QUANTITIES of submissions should be implemented, in favor of the quest for that one perfect game. The ideal PC game immerses the player in the experience; it shouldn't be a call for an ice-pack on the mouse finger to prolong one's ability to hit "end turn."

If you want to reward the daily player, fine - but limit the impact - maybe 10-20% of the overall score would be based on one's record, and the rest on the single best game. Obviously, a few changes would be in order - no scoring cap (not much point in three pages of players with 60K games), no radical score changes between game versions. Although I'm no fan of score degradation, it might not be a bad idea to encourage newer players. After all, there's an incentive to return to defend one's title if you can do it with only one game.

Thoughts? We've been here for a year, people, and GalCiv 2 is that much closer. Perhaps less than a year for the first betas, perhaps a bit more. Stardock has shown that it responds to feedback from players before - the introduction of starbases in the early versions, the boost in Maso scoring later. How many of you would like to see the entire Metaverse scoring concept shift?
1,205 views 14 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
I have serious doubts that such a shift would enhance the metaverse experience. If you thought that people were milking games now for points, wait until you have a single game ladder.

GalCiv is ultimately a game that is either won or lost. It really does not matter how you win the game as long as it is within the rules of the game and contraints of the programming. The best strategy games don't have style points. A chessmaster is not judged on the number and quality of moves he makes but whether beats his opponent and the quality of his opponent.

Everytime the AI or game is enhanced every score would have to be expunged from the ladder because the rules and contraints of the programming would have changed. There would be no other way for one to compare one player to another fairly. In fact the one problem that I have with the current metaverse is that players are allowed to submit games using weaker versions well after the latest version has been released. There should really be a point when a version can no longer submit valid games. As always this is my humble opinion.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
There should really be a point when a version can no longer submit valid games
End of quote

Don't forget that Galciv is not only played in english. And others languages versions are behind the current version.

And since it is easier to gain 60K in the latest versions that in older ones, why should older version inable to submit games?

Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Here is post I have made few weeks ago in the Senate Halls about an alternate metaverse. The idea behind it is to be rewarded for playing better than average. Sure, it will involve lots of calculations, may be counter intuitive and difficult to explain to everyone but here it is :

Calculate for each combination of version/size/level/version the average score and the standard deviation. We need at least 10 submitted scores in a combination to make the calculation.
A game will score:
- 100 points if the statiscal informations couldn't have been calculated
- 100* score/average if score average
All retired and loss submissions are compared toward a military victory.

With this we have:
- a bias toward submitting a better than average game. So if a person submit to game, one better than the average and one lesser than the average, the results will surely be greater than submitting 2 average games
- people who take the time to achieve greater than average score, meaning that they take lots of time to play the game, will be rewarded and have the equivalent of 2-3 average submissions
- people who submit lots of games compete in the same category than others so we won't have to choose how to split people
- the only penalty for submitting lots of games if that you surely aren't submitting better than average games.
- as winning formulas are discovered, the average is impacted, reducing the effects of the formulas

And here are some consequence of this proposal:
- if the average for a combinaison is 60K and you submit 60K, you will score 100 points.
- if, for a combination, the average is 10K, the standard deviation 1K and you submit a 12K game, you will score 300 points.



Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
I'm afriad that I also do not agree with Obi Wan Kenobi's suggestion. I don't feel the metaverse would be enhanced in any way by changing the table to show highest individual score.

It's important to remember who the metaverse is for. Is it for those top 25 scorers who just want to be number one, or is it for the other 3500 players who just want to compete and gain a few places? I vote for the other 3500 players, and suggest that any modified future metaverse be aimed at them. The way to achieve this is not to so much change the scoring system, but to change the appearance and structure.

When someone logs on they should see their score, compared against similar scores. If they play at average difficulty, then they should never have to see scores of players at higher difficulty. They should see a filtered metaverse showing their score, filtered by max difficulty, average/max galaxy size and possibly style of play. It should be centred on their player with the 12 scores above and the 12 scores below. That way the top players see no change, but the other 3500+ players suddenly have more reason to submit scores.

Paul.


PS. I have no objection to a best single game scoreboard, just don't replace the metaverse with this.



~SDC~
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
When someone logs on they should see their score, compared against similar scores. If they play at average difficulty, then they should never have to see scores of players at higher difficulty. They should see a filtered metaverse showing their score, filtered by max difficulty, average/max galaxy size and possibly style of play. It should be centred on their player with the 12 scores above and the 12 scores below. That way the top players see no change, but the other 3500+ players suddenly have more reason to submit scores.
End of quote


That sounds a nice suggestion. But it needs a first submission in order to see where the player is. If they go to see metaverse ladder before any submission, they could be afraid and not submit.

And I wonder, how many people are not submitting to metaverse because they see the top 25.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
Well, I thought this would garner at least one "maybe" vote. Let's see where this thread goes over the next few days as others check in.

Peace Phoenix, I like your concept, but I'm against the "alternate Metaverse" idea. Too many websites to keep up with as it is. We obviously have the current system in place for GalCiv1; I would not be averse to seeing some of the changes you suggested for the "official" GalCiv2 metaverse.

Solitair, I think the real issue that you're driving at - and it's a good one - is that the "Metaverse" is seen as the Top 25 based on total scores, because that's the default page. I agree that the default page should be centered on the player in question. I just feel that the total score shouldn't be the focus, as it isn't a goal that fosters healthy competition for the majority of players - who don't have a ton of time to spend on playing the game. Anyone can work at a single good score, but submitting multiple games per day for MONTHS is beyond the time commitment that most players can offer. That can lead to burnout and disenchantment with playing the game.

Moser, I can see your point of view, but I think that "milking" is going to be a part of any leaderboard. Milk a single game for points, or drown the Metaverse in multiple submissions; pick your poison.

Side note, in case it isn't clear; I have nothing personal against those who play a ton of games. I've shared Empires with several, and swap emails with a few of them. They've dominated this game's leaderboard, and I congratulate them. But if we're talking about the next logical step here, it makes sense to ask what the majority of players would prefer for the next game.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Why can't we have all of these? Take the cap off games, but make the scores lower and more reasonable. 60K is a rather large and uncommon number. Make the scores lower and more believeable. Say the standard 30K games worth now 3,000. Cut scores by 90%. Leave the top open, if you can get 10K, leave it open. I bet some Gig/Maso on AP could get 100K if there was no cap. So have an individual board for best scores. But also have an overall score totals, like we do now. But have the display of individual scores conform to your position, so the top 25 isn't overdone rather like it is now. When I first started, and my scores were around 10-20K, I didn't even bother to see who I was around. Too much scrolling. So inhance the position relative to others, while allowing for individual achievement. Best of both worlds.

And of course have the empires again. :)

My 2BCs.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
Obi Wan,
if you want to encourage reasons for playing then you could have best score this day or this week. I suspect that best score ever will be a completely milked game that the majority of players will just never be interested in competing for. Seeing someone with a 100k+ score when you normally get 5k will just depress players!

Best within a single day or week and best at various difficulty levels may encourage people to submit a game. Especially early in the week!

Paul.

~SDC~
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
Peace Phoenix, I like your concept, but I'm against the "alternate Metaverse" idea.
End of quote

I understand that. I am not promoting an alternate metaverse. I just wanted to share with everyone some ideas I have during discussions about an alternate metaverse.

I would not be averse to seeing some of the changes you suggested for the "official" GalCiv2 metaverse.
End of quote

Same for me. And this is the reason why I have made my post in this thread.

Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
Peace Phoenix, I like your concept, but I'm against the "alternate Metaverse" idea.
End of quote

I understand that. I am not promoting an alternate metaverse. I just wanted to share with everyone some ideas I have during discussions about an alternate metaverse.

I would not be averse to seeing some of the changes you suggested for the "official" GalCiv2 metaverse.
End of quote

Same for me. And this is the reason why I have made my post in this thread.

Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
Peace Phoenix, I like your concept, but I'm against the "alternate Metaverse" idea.
End of quote

I understand that. I am not promoting an alternate metaverse. I just wanted to share with everyone some ideas I have during discussions about an alternate metaverse.

I would not be averse to seeing some of the changes you suggested for the "official" GalCiv2 metaverse.
End of quote

Same for me. And this is the reason why I have made my post in this thread.

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
Sorry for the triple posting. Something on the network went wrong on my side
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
Sorry for the triple posting.
End of quote


Hey, at least it bumped the thread. :) Apologize if I missed your point the first time around on the alternate Metaverse, Peace Phoenix. (So much for diplomacy.) I do think they're good suggestions - anything to make the player more visible on the Metaverse is a good thing.

Solitair, I do like the idea of having different "sorting" options as you're describing. Perhaps the top of the main Metaverse page could have a few "Top 5" lists - overall, single game, top scorers of the month, etc. It wouldn't take too much space, as all you'd really need would be space for empire logos, names, and the actual scores in question.

The bottom half of the screen could be devoted to the player's section - a trimmed-down version of what you suggested earlier, Solitair. Say 11 lines (as we see them in today's Metaverse with full information), rather than 25, just to save space. The player would be in the middle, with his 5 immediate neighbors above and below. Tabs at the top of that table to re-sort by the same categories shown at the top of the screen. That way, at a glance, each player would see their own ranking in a variety of ways, as well as several ways to move up to the top. The whole page would probably be tidy enough to fit on a 1024x768 display, too, eliminating the pesky need for scrolling.

Good suggestions, all. Any other opinions?
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
I thought the best meta was the one where there were several different paths to the top. It had only one slight problem in that Maso, was a bit down on scoring.

But now, several strategies have been virtually eliminated by the point cap. I see no value in monkey see, monkey do strategies. It's supposed to be fun. There is no fun in a pedantic, play the game the same way, the same time, rush to the end, strategy. A trained monkey could do the same thing. I am much happier with a game (with ai cheats or not) where I can't do that.
The AI never was really revamped all that much. The Drengin tech order was changed to combat speed exploitation on larger maps. The others were changed to combat Ray and Staffa early on. But since then, the Meta hasn't done what it was ostensibly for.
It's way too easy to sucker the ai with bribes. The alliance victory needs to be eliminated.
Maso is way too easy due to a bad trading ai on the part of the computer coupled with a total lack of aggression, and a total lack of ability to use its ships to its advantage. The AI barely uses any amm's if at all, for example.
There are still no good defensive ships past the battleship era. Furthermore, the in game defenses for culture don't work. (THE AI DID WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HERE AND BUILT ALL THE CULTURAL DEFENSE STRUCTURES.) It isn't its fault they don't work worth beans.
There needs to be some ai defense of death stars. The ai still shows no care that you just built one right next to every one of its planets.


GalCiv is ultimately a game that is either won or lost. It really does not matter how you win the game as long as it is within the rules of the game and contraints of the programming. The best strategy games don't have style points. A chessmaster is not judged on the number and quality of moves he makes but whether beats his opponent and the quality of his opponent.
End of quote


I'm afraid I disagree with the chessmaster anology. Elo-chess (the rating system you describe) only works because it's a closed system where you play a rated opponent. And there is only one path to victory in chess (move your pieces better) But beyond simple things like chess, it stinks. It's horrid for any system that cannot be measured in mere wins and losses. Even in a game like college football (where there is a home field advantage, elo-chess doesn't work.
In Galciv, WE AREN'T EVEN PLAYING AN OPPONENT, AND DON'T EVEN HAVE TO SUBMIT LOSSES AND QUITS. An Elo-Chess system of evaluation would be disasterous in this case. Furthermore, if a win lose system is what is wanted, why not just forget the whole mess and count up how many games you win at what difficulty. We're essentually doing that now by the way with the 60k point cap. The result is that strategy has been taken out of the meta. There's no more actual strategy left. Do I score bomb? Or do I crank? Can I get in enough more easier games (20) so I can outdo someone bombing 1 hard game in the long run. Or can I do better upping my difficulty a bit? Those were my favorite days. You had several different real strategies to get to the top. Not surprisingly, the meta was very active as a whole. Think of the Olympics if Phelps never actually got to race against Thorpe but each were evaluated on how many times they beat a baby in water wings. That's what an elo-chess system of measurement would be measuring in this case (The ai being the baby in water wings)
Elo-Chess is not the rating system to use in this case and it definitely isn't just win or lose (Since no one has to submit a loss or a quit, or a control-n (which is nothing more than a designed fast quit) anyway. It wouldn't be fun at all.


Sure, "Play the game, not the Metaverse." That's fine, as far as it goes. But then, why is the Metaverse THERE? So we know who's the best. Because TRYING to rise up the ranks keeps us coming back
End of quote


I never bought that line. Of course you play the meta. That was half the fun. What strategies could we devise (as a team) so that players of all types, not just the crankers or the bombers, could succeed and do well? Although you must get it out of your head that this meta OR ANY META can actually measure who's best given that 1. We don't play each other and
2. We don't have to submit losses and or quits.
[Message Edited]