|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerakken Spymaster
This is very interesting. Of the highest metaverse ranking about a third play maso/crippling; about a third play painful/tough/challenging; and the other third play normal or below.
Throughout the discussions about low difficult level cranking and anomalous games, the question remains, "What makes for the best metaverse"?
I joined meta after I read that the developers might use the metaverse to make the game better. After that, the competition seemed like fun and I finally joined the empire in second place to make a run on first place. In the process, I have played all the galaxy sizes & shapes, different moralities, most of the levels, and have had a lot of fun.
Where does the metaverse fit? It is another aspect of the game. If the developers were trying to find a balance to reward the best but encourage newbies, they certainly did well. This recent scoring adjustment to reward the really good players and encourage people to play at higher levels should be an nice improvement too. Thanks. It's time to go play. 
Rick
          
| |
|
#30
by Veteran Gerakken - 8/28/2003 3:11:52 PM
| The spymaster better look out... it won't be long until the MWC codemonkeys finish banging on their keyboards and we complete our own data-mining, stat-crunching SQL automaton! |
|
Great! Right now, players have no options but to crunch the numbers themselves, or rely on the simple means I have available to me. An automated process would be very nice. So show us what your cruncher's got when it is done.
| Where does the metaverse fit? It is another aspect of the game. If the developers were trying to find a balance to reward the best but encourage newbies, they certainly did well. This recent scoring adjustment to reward the really good players and encourage people to play at higher levels should be an nice improvement too. |
|
The current Metaverse is a means to an end, obviously a small step toward a greater goal. What is that goal exactly? I do not know. Ask Frogboy.
In the current Meta, the goal has been to make a more inclusive setting to not intimidare newbies. One premise is that if they are scored too low, then it would take them so many games to crack the top 50 or 100 that they would get discouraged. The other premise is that determination is rewarded. Lots of small, fast scores add up to compete with the slower bombers who play hard on big maps.
(Gerakken goes into editorial mode:)From my point of view, part of the problem has always been that the powers-that-be were slow to impose a solid set of standards. While our input as players is always being considered, the defining core principles of the Meta are going to be set by Brad and company. This has not been the case in the past. The lengthier Meta dwellers have lived through a score devaluation (v1.02) followed by three rounds of score inflation (v1.03, 1.04, 1.05), and now an announced difficulty tweak for the latest v1.09. But the Meta as a work in progress thing aside, the people in charge have basically come to a point where they have to stick to their guns, so to speak, and Frogboy laid down in a recent post what his goals were in regard to how the Meta should be scoring.
There can be a Meta where everyone is right and everyone feels good and has great self-esteem, but that Meta could only be a roster of names with no stats. Any stat would be used to establish a ranking. Even if only the number of games played was the only stat, people would be ranking by it. So standards have to be set and maintained. (End of editorial mode.)
   
| |
|
Gerakken,
Can we get an Difficulty update?
    
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Preferred difficulty has definitely jumped upward. |
|
Intersting...I wonder if his has anything to do with the GCCG trouble?
Yes, the Masos are definitely growing. I think it's a good thing!
I'm surprised there are only 35 orphans...it seems like a lot more when you flip through the Metaverse.
| |
|
|
|
Gerraken
Thanks. This is interesting. It makes me feel like less of a dork mostly playing at a tough level (level 7). Of the 9 maso players not all are active (like Staffa) so maso players are not common. In my opinion, they deserve the metaverse point bump in 1.09.
| Preferred difficulty has definitely jumped upward |
|
| Intersting...I wonder if his has anything to do with the GCCG trouble? |
|
Theoden, I think it has partially. No one likes an anomalous metaverse score. I think EBZeroMatrix has retired but he is still top 10 and Wild Wombat is playing at normal and challenging difficulty now. Those two can really play a lot of games very fast and lead the metaverse in games played. Jaws is still playing beginner (but can play painful) and has no anomalous scores so it hasn't bothered Jaws. Some of the top players have amazing speed even at large games (e.g. Cotal). Ray is well . . . in another category.  .
I played the EBZ GCCG for about six or seven games as a "trainer". It gave me some new insights particularly about slider management and priority shifting (military to tech to social back to tech, etc.). After I played beginner for a while I rose again to the level where I have the most fun, which right now is tough - level 7.
If someone is going to radically change their gameplan and wants to try a totally new approach, it is not a bad idea to drop down a level or more. For example, if I ever learn how to rush, I may need to back down some levels and work out the kinks before I play the AI on tough or painful. Then when you get the new strategy down, it makes sense to go back up for the amount of challenge one prefers.
Hey all you orphans. I was an ophan for a long time but then joined an empire to add another dimension to the game. It's fun to compete against the empire in front of you so go 4 it.
Rick
| |
|
| what percentage of people playing maso are playing at tiny(which i've heard is the easiest) vs other map sizes. |
|
The MWC only collects data for the top 25 empires and their members so this isn't all inclusive, but the best I can do at the moment 
 Link
idle
    
| |
|
#39
by Veteran Gerakken - 9/6/2003 5:06:26 AM
| what percentage of people playing maso are playing at tiny(which i've heard is the easiest) vs other map sizes. |
|
Maso players tend to take the extreme map sizes. Tiny for a quick military rush so the aliens have no time to build up, or gigantic for that drawn-out siege where sheer number of colonies will decide the game in any which way the player eventually chooses. I have no figures at hand, though, but the MWC figures I just looked at seem to confirm my suspicions a bit.
OK, Gerakken's editorial corner again: cranking has had some interesting effects on the Meta as of late, that is true. First, there was a great experiment phase among players in several empires to see how well it would benefit scores, but it seems to have been just an experiment overall for now.
Cranking has a certain priority in mind, and that is to exploit the Meta in the least amount of overall time, difficulty, and map size as is possible. The likely probability of anomolous games helps in countering that purpose. The reluctance of Stardock personnel to fix crank anomolies and the new score adjustment dinging the difficulty crankers prefer have helped deter the practice.
There is a marked difference in approach of cranking compared to the old Staffa guide on how to exploit the Meta on maso. Staffa published his strategy to purposely point out a glaring set of Metaverse scoring inconsistencies to the whole forum in the hopes that the holes would be fixed. Sure, players took advantage of the Staffa method while it worked, but he wanted the situation to be addressed and changes were made. There is no intent in the cranking method (or the older school it descended from) to fix the problem. It is a loophole meant to be exploited.
Now, I am sorry if any feathers were ruffled here. I just call them as I see them in my perception and experiences.
| |
|
| The reluctance of Stardock personnel to fix crank anomolies and the new score adjustment dinging the difficulty crankers prefer have helped deter the practice. |
|
Just wanted to clarify. From what I have read there is really no "dinging the difficulty crankers prefer". So far little change has been reported in the scoring of 1.05 compared to 1.092 other than a 10 to 15% bump in crippling with 1.092 and a much higher bump of metaverse scores in masochistic 1.092. I haven't read about any significant decrease in scores for lower levels but there may be. Someone will probably do some recalcs next week.
In addition one can still use the GCCG to crank at normal difficulty if one wants to. In spite of reading all the threads and EBZ's webpage, the anomalous games are still a mystery to me. What I heard was "don't crank at beginner or you may get anomalous scores". When I ran into rare exploits like the Draginol minor, I dumped cash at the end of the game so I wouldn't have over 1 million bc. In other threads one is warned not to mod the game to get high PQ or you may trigger the anomalous score. In the new Gal Civ version, one is warned not to try to submit games when using the cheat codes -doh!!!
So, it is still unclear to me all the things that cause anomalous scores but maybe that's the way it is supposed to be? Clarifications are appreciated. Thanks.
Rick
[Message Edited]
| |
|
According to a post by Ray, there is a bump of crippling in 1.092 compared to 1.091 but he is unaware of significant scoring changes between 1.092 and 1.05 other than maso. Anyway, we should know in a week and a few days. Didn't want to divert your thread Gerraken but your editorials are so fun to read.
Rick
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Gerakken thanks. As always, this is interesting.
Rick
| |
|
Gerrakken
It will be interesting to see the post-GCX follow-up. It appears that a lot more folks are playing maso now. As you say, it is getting more brutal. Top 10 players who don't play maso are uncommon and will become less common. Stay tuned.
Rick
| |
|
|
|
I am new to GalCiv as i have only just got the game from a mate and have not yet bought my own copy but i have played a few games on various map sizes and varying difficulties and i have only just got onto this site for more info and tips on playing, also i have just read this whole thread from start to finish. and i just have to say although highly interesting and highly informative(sortof) what does it all mean?, and how much time do you have on you hands Gerakken ? anyway very cool all the same and i hope to soon be able to be ranked among those in your extensive lists.
| |
|
Update on game crashing at startup:
SF_Intro and Intro do not play, just show a flicker of black screen as display resolution is changed {can tell as the desktop gets shown between flickers, and what is diplayed of the desktop is much smaller (looks like 640x480) then the normal desktop resulting in items running off screen or entirely offscreen}. Game "Setup" screen bounces focus back to desktop, minimizes, and locks up.
Have deinstalled and then reinstalled (to a seperate directory) GalCiv. No joy in Mudville.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
