|
|
|
|
Ah, time to talk about scoring again. I'm not asking you guys to follow what I do. Do what's best for yourself.
For the games I play for the Metaverse, I play it slow (ie. v limited rushes except Maso which is another story). I focus a lot on research so that I can get through the tech tree quickly. I would also build up my economy / manufacturing so that I could get all the TGs/wonders etc. Then I go for the culture bomb. The game usually ends at around 2200.
In my last highscoring game, I also played Pure Good will Pure Evil AIs.
I find that doing your own research yields much more than just trading for them. So I don't trade for techs unless I really need to. It's more fun as well because it makes the game harder.
All the above is for Crippling. It's obvious that you can't do the same for Maso. For my Masos, I rushed to conquer about 1/2 to 2/3s of the map, then I sit back and empire build instead of going for the jugular because the game does not reward speed. Trading for techs is a near necessity for Maso so Maso players lose points there. You also lose points for losing all those early TGs/Wonders.
         
| |
|
Ok, so if I understand this correctly;
1) at some point your earlier games start dropping off your score.
And 2) longer games score better than shorter games, presumably due to having built a better civilization.
Does the number of inhabited planets have anything to do with it besides the obvious speed difference? (i.e. sparse vs. abundant)
   
| |
|
|
|
From Frogboy's very own words, games of a medium length would score best.
He wants players to experience the full scope of the game, meaning going through the tech tree, building up your economy, etc. Basically, experiencing the parts of the game where the developers have spent a lot of effort coding, rather than just win through quick rushes. The scoring reinforces this.
In Beta2 of GCX, the tech costs have been reduced. This is done for the same purpose of getting players deeper into the tech tree and having the bigger ships come online before the game ends.
| |
|
| Personally I don't understand how PBP consistently scores 19k on gigantics |
|
My full play style.
1. AI' s set to
Yor and Drengin Crippling level
Rest to Painful level (this produces a balanced game). comes out painful. 2. I always play through the game in front of me. An occasional cntrl-n if there's a simply unplayable map but otherwise no.
3. I always play a no safety game that is I do not save and reload. Well actually I do alot as My game seems to crash alot. But I do not save and reload around a bad event. Nor do I quit. I will always play a game through to the end.
4. I go for all the wonders I can. Sometimes I get em, sometimes not.
5. Gigantic maps offer the best chance to experience the whole game without milking. They are also the most tedius in controlling planets but I'd rather do that than turn turn turn turn turn oh joy its just like moo3!!! turn turn turn turn turn.
7. I'm usually finished in the early 2200's.
8. I don't milk pop. In fact, I have to keep it lower than I'd like to or the game crashes.
9. Midgame I have to sneak attack aliens to get units off the board so the game will run or it crashes. So I guess war is an integral part of my game strategy by necessity. It doesn't seem to get me more points though.
10. for me, researching a whole tree of tech's doesn't seem to get me many more points than trading for them.
  
| |
|
Can one of you continue the story that Yoda left for the Fellowship in the War of the Worlds thread?
I have my hands full with our own Fellowship MMORPG. Didn't expect the number of characters that I have to add in. It's not a problem but I would like to give each one a decent amount of air-time.
| |
|
|
|
| I'd rather contribute to the community rather than try to get the most out of my score. Mostly I try out new strategies, moving from easier to harder maps depending on how I feel. |
|
It's tricky, isn't it? I started by going up the difficulty levels, spending about five games at each level to familiarise myself with various tactics. Challenging was good for me, and I managed to squeak out a win at painful, though only just. I'm going back through others' strategy posts now, trying to breathe life and fun into the play. The writing has really saved me from boredom and quitting the game, though, and even now I'm getting a little tired of playing - though don't want to let my empire down.
I also share the confusion about big scores - can someone enlarge on the value of alignment in game? That is, do you score more if your alignment is directly opposite ALL others? (just noted this inference from a post of Ray's above)
  
| |
|
Yes, you do score more, Wombat. The game checks each turn up to a certain year (not revealed) to see how different the player's alignment is from the AIs. There is a small scoring bonus for playing opposite alignments, which is thought by Brad as being more difficult and thus require more skill.
He challenged players to play all good while being evil and so on.
Yeah, we all need breaks from the game. Even if you are not playing, there lots of stuff you could still do in the forum 
| |
|
Just tipped the Fellowship over the 600k mark with my latest game. A Crippling Gigantic just shy of 25k.
I had the Dregs declare war on me early in the game. Our closest planets were on adjoining sectors. Didn't build any defenders but parked a scout between the planets to see if they would attack. After a few years (i think), the Dregs managed to send a transport 2 parsecs away from my undefended planet. And yes you guessed it, they sued for peace which I accepted.  .
Shortly after, I creamed the Arceans (which had about 20 systems) with frigates. No one else dared to touch me ever after. Empire build, culture bomb, game over 2196.
| |
|
|
|
Thanks Gengsta but we all know Staffa has a number of games stored away to smack me down again
I've got enough gas this time round to put in a couple more games to hit 100,000 pts.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hats off yet again to Ray, well done 
| |
|
The game I've just played was Gigantic Abundant.
I believe it took me between 10-12hrs.
I had to refrain from doing some of the things I usually do, such as building a production SB in each good sector to cut down on the micromanagement. Up to a point where I knew I was winning, I stopped upgrading resource SBs as well. The constructor micromanagement is the most time consuming.
It can actually go quite fast if you are not fighting many wars. I had one major war with the Arceans where I had to move a fleet of about 60-80 ships. After that was done, it's went quite fast (other than the constructor mania part).
| |
|
|
|
Welcome to our MMORPG, plephart.
You came just in the nick of time to help out against the impending Undead attack. I was hoping for an archer too.
| |
|
Wow, my last game was worth almost full value!
This must be what was mentioned earlier, that games are grouped for the square root calculation.
That's going to work in my favor, as I pretty much finish one game a week.
The stories being posted a great too! Keep up the good work. Now that I've finished this game, I'm going to download Beta 2 and analyze it.
   
| |
|
|
|
|
|
H5O's latest game and our newest member, Miles helped us to the Top spot again.
The MWC is however doing extremely well themselves with new members and many submissions.
Welcome to the Fellowship, Miles!
I'm really interested in the new tweaks in Beta 2, H5O. Do share with us your findings.
| |
|
Good idea, Gengsta! Why didn't I think of that?
| |
|
|
|
|
