OK. I had to do this once . . . for data 
Brad Frogboy posted he slightly bumped the scoring for 1.11 over 1.10 but how much the tweak would change the end game mpts (metaverse points) was unknown. The curiosity was overwhelming.
Today, I upgraded to 1.11, loaded my recent 58k mpts, version 1.10, gigantic, maso endgamesave and then refinished the game and resubmitted it. It scored 60k mpts - the cap, which is still there in version 1.11. That is at least in increase in 3 or 4% in 1.11 over 1.10 at gigantic maso. When I resubmitted, it kept the date at 10/22 but changed from version 1.10 to version 1.11.
Eventually, it will be interesting to see what sort of mpts % scoring bump 1.11 has over 1.10. If you refinish a game whether you resubmit or not please calculate the % change the new version provides. Also please note map size, difficulty level, & habitability of planets, and whatever else you think is important so we can compare 1.11 to 1.10. Please share your results on this thread so we don't have to look all over the forum. Thanks in advance. OK, off to play one. 
          
| |
|
Doh!!! I meant 1.11 vs 1.10 in the thread title. Sorry about any confusion. Anyone know how to change it?
[Message Edited]
| |
|
|
|
It means that you could artificially boost your score if you submit again your old games to Metaverse. Let's hope that no one will abuse this.
   
| |
|
I've just submitted a completed normal huge for about a 7% improvement....
Alex
    
| |
|
|
|
|
|
#7
by Citizen Sirian - 10/26/2003 12:29:50 AM
I'd say the scoring nerfs are off. If so, hooray! I do not turn off victory conditions, and as such, most of my games are played to the first available victory. I am here for fun, not to slave myself to milking the scoring. Not having to milk a won game to a military finish just to boost score is a definite move in the right direction, whatever the changes may actually be.
In fact, in my view, there should be (minor) scoring penalties for disabling victory conditions. That only makes the game easier. Shouldn't scoring reflect that? I know that when I decide to go for conquest, it's a special occasion that I'm doing for the gameplay and a change of pace, not to pursue score.
I doubt Stardock intended for "military" wins to come by turning off cultural victory and flipping everyone with starbases. Ending the arbitrary scoring boost for conquest could only improve the experience for everyone, IMHO. If the game is not handing out enough points for military campaigning within the game, that might be a separate issue. (I've had total routs where I killed better than ten to one and the game just seemed to yawn at that performance).
Anyway, I would think we'll have to play a while under the new patch to form useful opinions. I just had my first "double" victory: simultaneous cultural and alliance wins. I submitted the cultural win earlier today, scored 22k, patched to 1.11 this evening, reloaded and signed the alliance to see if the game would still give me cultural or would go to the alliance, or if somehow it would credit me with both. The alliance won out, and the score doubled to 44k.
If the scoring nerf is gone, my typical alliance win scores are going to jump significantly.
- Sirian
   
| |
|
44K Large Maso conquest game resubmitted, scored 60K. I think they just made a big increase to Maso scores like they said they would.
Well, if they leave the cap in place, it means it'll be possible to get maximum scoring games more quickly than before, either by playing in non-gigantic galaxies or by winning culture/alliance victories.
But if it goes like the last time they upped the maso scores, they'll get around to increasing the cap soon.
 
| |
|
Thanks for the comments. This is confusing but fun . . . doubling of score? 44k going to the 60k cap? wowza. It is just a fun game and the metaverse simply adds that "something" other games don't have. We might as well have fun with 1.11 until 1.12 comes out.
I really like the better explanation in submission of metaverse scores where it now reads:
Success = 1
No known errors = 0
It explained what is obvious to some and not so obvious to others. Wonder if someone can hit the 60k cap with a Huge Maso or a Gigantic Crippling???
[Message Edited]
| |
|
| . Wonder if someone can hit the 60k cap with a Huge Maso or a Gigantic Crippling??? |
|
I did it with a Large Maso (the one above medium), so I would say they can.
| |
|
After my Germany trip (sans Internet), I cleared my hard drive of three saved games last night, using 1.10. After upgrading to 1.11:
Maso Medium - 24910 @1.10, 41100 @1.11. 65.0% increase.
Maso Tiny - 16740 @1.10, 28060 @1.11. 67.6% increase.
Maso Tiny - 16660 @1.10, 27980 @1.11 67.9% increase.
All were military victories. That's a sizeable increase. I'd be curious to see if the non-Maso levels received an equivalent bump.
P.S. Finally beat Maso - although I admit that the scoring changes sort of make my previous games moot.
P.P.S. - submissions are going through a LOT faster - only about 25 seconds for a Medium. Last night was five minutes and two clicks on the "Submit" button.
[Message Edited]
  
| |
|
Interesting . . .
I just finished a maso gigantic and hit the 60k cap without researching past the techs that give The Terraformer and Galactic Guide Book and missed a lot of early trade goods and wonders so no need to milk the tech tree on maso gigantic to hit the cap.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok I got it. The new scoring system is bumping everything up. A 44k large maso just hit the 60k cap. There still is the difference between the types of victory. Nothings changed except it's bumping everthing up. One Old small Crippling went from 14,980 to 19220
>+36% for the maso (It hit the cap)
+28% for the crippling.
| |
|
Yes, PBP, that is the impression I get too.
Wow, that's two re-submitted large masos (PBP and Matthew Downie) that capped at 60k. Has anyone played a large or huge maso from start to finish on 1.11 and hit the cap?
Please continue to report scoring changes from 1.10 to 1.11. Thanks.
[Message Edited]
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Well this is as clear as mud. 
Ray did a Huge Maso on 1.11 as his last game and got 53k. On three Huge Masos on 1.10 he got about 50k. Anyone else played an entire Huge Maso with 1.11?
Time permitting, I will try to work backward on map size with future games and see what the 1.11 scores are like especially compared to 1.10. At least we haven't heard of 1.11 making scores go down.
| |
|
|
|
Per post #11 above, I scored 41100 with a medium Maso played on 1.10, rescored on 1.11. I am working on a new medium Maso at the moment, played completely on 1.11. Similar setups and playing styles. Will report in when it's finished, assuming I pull off the win - still touch-and-go.
Unlike some others, it takes me awhile to get a game in unless I'm locked in a hotel room on another continent surrounded by people who don't speak English. So, it will probably be a day or two before I finish it off.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
