Game's great. Looking forward to 1.1 and beyond... where no one has gone before.

I suppose Metaverse needs more tweaks. With his humomgous score (the game lasted over 200 years) he took first place on the individual scores and his empire took second place in the galaxy - all based on only one game by one person. I foresee others doing this as well, ultimately leading to the top ranked individuals and empires all being the result of one game played.

I think the 10 or 15 year suggestion might be a little steep. One could do a military conquest in that timeframe, but going for a tech win would probably be impossible... I'll say "almost" impossible just to be safe. But I think the time limit idea of beginning to deduct points s at a certain time has merit.

That probably needs fixed. I must admit that I admire the guy's stamina though. His game consisted of over 10,000 turns!

The metaverse needs tweaking badly. I hope they'll adjust all the old scores or reset the metaverse when they finally fix it. Otherwise, I'm not sure all of these ridiculous scores can be overcome.

That's completely insane. The fact he's about 3.5 times the next highest score, a player who has played many games, and the fact he overtook the number 2 empire on his own is ridiculous. Frogboy said that there was a mechanism which divided points by years. This can't be in place right now, because no matter how good you are, a divider of 203 would really knock that score down.

However, if this person got that score with the multiplier, then we have a new gaming god.

AW Trespasser did it to prove a point; keep on clicking turns after turns (at endgame) should not affect score, but since the current system is broken... so now his 4 year old son is the best Metaverse GalCiv 2 player.

Hopefully Stardock would finally notice the problem and fix it.

If the current system is based on “the area under curve” (turns in x-axis, score of each turn in y-axis), then with additional turns, the area will continue to increase to infinite.

If the system is based on “the average score per turn,” then since score of each turn at endgame stage would always be higher than the average of previous turns, the score would continue to increase, finally converge to the highest score per turn at endgame stage.

Either way, both systems encourage dragging out the game as long as possible to increase the score.

Personally, I think the score system should be based on the Highest score in a single turn.

1) Thus, once it has reached the max, no matter how long the game dragged out, the score won’t change.

2) It would represent the score of a lost game much better as well. built up a huge empire but now it is gone… the score shouldn’t decease by that much

3) Allies’ score should add/factor into player’s. thus encourage alternate route to victory instead of military conquest.

4) Difficulty level must factor in more. (I have seen 240602 for a 22 year gigantic military conquest at Beginner level. while my 5 year gigantic military conquest victory at Crippling is only worth 71727!? It is less than 1/3!!! How is this fair? I could be half sleep playing at beginner level and still achieve military conquest within 4 years... 22 years?!)

5) can’t think of any right now…(have to get back to work)

We can only guess, but the longer game also means more research (even when it is irrelevant), more and probably happier population, more planets, better economy - all good things. I do think that this should be severly affected by a number of years you spent to achieve these results. A problem with my particular playstyle is that in order to achieve higher score I would have to postpone final victory quite artificially and simply spend time improving my empire when there is no pressure anymore - and this is pretty boring, so I did not do it . Ideally the scoring system would remove this dull part.

This does seem rather silly.

IMHO you should get more points for winning quickly than dragging the game out - with a military/alliance/culture victory a quicker win is obviously harder than a slow one. Even for a tech victory their should be a reasonably high correlation between how well you've played and how quickly you win - though the timescale in question would be somewhat longer.
Personally I would like this for another reason - it would also balance out the advantage of playing on bigger galaxies (higher population etc). I prefer to just have an empire of a few planets but if I wanted to milk the metaverse I would be forced to play on the biggest maps.

I am SO very happy that this got some peoples attention.

I intended to take first place empire, (with one game) and would have done so had there not been a persistent crash to desktop at about 210 years.

I am hoping that this will get the dev's attention and that they will do something about this.

Until then I am done with the metaverse, and likely with the game as well.

In the end even my son got bored, so I put a weight on the enter button and checked it every few minutes for random events, hit escape and put the rock back on the enter button.

I am very unhappy about the fact that there is absolutely no skill involved in getting a high score.

I really like the idea of the metaverse, it adds a competative reason to play, other than individual enjoyment.
I'm glad you did it too, I always believed that the largest factor to score was the amount of in game time that passed, which in my opinion is counter to how it should work. Surely taking less time to win is more skillful.
What really drove it home for me was the last metaverse game I played, I whacked the difficulty up and won a large galaxy in about 4 years, it was a really enjoyable game, and every turn took thought and planning.
I was rewarded with a paultry score that would have actually lowered my overall score had I submitted it.

I still enjoyed the game immensly, but it removed all reason to play metaverse games for me. Which is a shame, as I said the idea of a metaverse adds an entire new factor to playing and adds a large amount of replayability and life to the game, it just needs some revision.
As previously said, there is absoloutely no skill involved in getting a high score currently.
I do have faith though, and believe it will be fixed, hopefully soon now that someone has proven it conclusivly.

Adding another comment to my previous.

I am thinking Stardock really wants their game to be the best in every possible way. I am sure they will want to fix anything that detracts from its playability (or, funability).

Before GALCIV 2 had been released, I had said in the forum that I would not be bothering much with Metaverse. In GALCIV 1 I had found that games where I would just play and enjoy were much more fun that games where I concentrated on getting a high Metaverse score. It was explained that Metaqverse would be working much better.

Until this exploit was revealed (and it needed to be revealed - thanx for that) I was both enjoying the game and getting some pretty fair scores. I did find myself prolonging the games a little to discover more tech before bringing on the grand finale. Though I was not going for a tech win, I wanted to make some super ships using all the tech, so I didn't take out my opponents until I discovered all that was necessary.

The one thing I do not want to see, though, is the score weighted so heavily to quick games that the drive to end the game quickly becomes all important. I am talking about rolling and rerolling galaxy set ups and so forth until one gets the perfect setup for a quick grab, build just the right buildings/ships and win a big score on time alone using only a small bit of all the game has to offer and ignoring all the buildings and tech that do not fit into the "qucik game" formulae. That was done in GALCIV 1, and I found myself sacrificing game fun for high scores. I do not want to do that again.

So, I hope it is fixed. But I hope the fix takes some of this into account.

Hmm is anyone else reminded of the Simpson's episode where he got one of those swaying birds and just let it peck the same key over and over?

Weighted plastic bird toys FTW!

Frogboy's point is worth noting. It means that we might as well keep on posting scores as we have always done as they will be rebalanced when the scoring system is changed. Of couse if you all want to stop that's fine by me, it gives the colonial fleet a better chance of moving up the scores

Hi!
For me the score doesn't matter. I play metaverse games to put some meat behind the words I post here.

The only serious scoring system that I'd accept here (where direct duels aren't possible) would be a preset game with a set goal, and players would compete in who would achieve it faster.

BR, Iztok

The Metaverse scores can be adjusted retroactively (as people from GalCiv 1 know). So once we update to the new scoring system, the existing scores will be modified.

Rarely has so much been said with so little.

This is the first mention by a developer I have ever seen of the metaverse needing repair, let alone that it would actualy be repaired.
My faith is restored, and I will begin playing again once the patch is ready for normal consumption.
Also, one could infer that I would get to keep my medals woot! (The "former first place" medal that is)

AND, it means I wont have to keep checking to see if the fixed it so I can delete the ridiculous score.

To Frogboy: You have my sincere apology for abusing the metaverse like this, my only excuse is that I did try to draw attention to this problem in other ways before going to this extreme....