I think the point is to show how good you are compared to others. If you took a total, then the person who plays more games would win. However, if you take an average, the person who gets consistently higher scores would come out on top. Relax, I think the team know what they're doing. It's not perfect, but pretty close.

Believe it's been changed to total / games^.4

It was something like Metalkid said. My character by the old system on the 32nd game went from 8th to 16th. I then started a new guy. Then they rescored everyone, and now i'm at 10th...

Thank you Frogboy for the reply. I think you should probably sticky this post. A lot of people have been complaining about the scoring. Especially the older way where you'd play on game and get hammered. I think most people in the know like the current method of scoring.

High point games (usually) take more time. Someone can just report a huge number of losses per day and still gain 700-1500~ points per game post, but post literally 100 games in a few hours. Is this fair?

One definate problem is that no-one concerned with their overall score submits a loss. There shouldn't be such a penalty in doing so. Perhaps a loss shouldn't add to your number of games the same way ?

I really wish Frogboy would post the ideas/philosophy behind scoring on the metaverse. It would hopefully quite threads like this down...

This post is a Prime example of Why I never want Multiplayer. Someone does not like the way something works and stuff like this happens, and its not fair. Blah blah blah.

So far as i can see, the only problem with the adding all the scores together is just simply people submitting a 100 games a day (which i doubt is possible if they're wins). So since noone (except me and my only loss btw) submit losses to the metaverse, make it impossible to submit a loss game to the metaverse. Whats wrong with submitting 100 wins on a tiny universe for a tiny score? Its a win right? It deserves credit right (although not nearly as much as a larger map granted). The guy submitting 1 game a week on gigantic is still going to come out ahead score wise, and if he isnnt then the scorinng that the game does needs to be reavaluated aswell.

Why i'm upset is each new game i do i have scored MORE than the last game, yet my metaverse score is LESS with each game. Logic? Nope none.

I think a lot of players dont realize that another recalc was done. The scoring system is now working correctly and readjusting scores at everry submission instead of a huge hit at game 5, 16, 32 etc. dj-LiTh The main reason your score dropped is because you had a v1.1 beta score that got recalced. All of us that played games on the 1.1 betas 1 and 2 took quite a hit on this recalc. The 1.1 betas missed the last recalc. All recalcs have now been done. If you post another game your total will go up. The formula they are using takes your total for all games, Subtracts 5% for each month the game has been on record to a max. of 60 %. This total is then divided by the number of games played to the power of .4. Hope this helps.

You should be doing "beta" stuff for the joy of helping test and make the game a better game.

I went from 2nd place to 160 because most of my games were betas. So I understand the phylosophy behind the recalculations, but some players get a big cut just because they are not playing the latest version. I believe that beta scores should not count at alland they should be wiped out when the official version comes out.

CraigHB Do you think that a score of 5000 pts, after spending a week and a half playing the one game, for a suicidal military victory on a huge map is fair? As Magnumaniac said in this thread the Beta 3 and 4 versions of 1.1 were recalced even though the new scoring system was in place for those versions. I agree that these games should be removed if they cannot be restored to there original value. It is a compromise that i would be happy with. If they were removed anyone that played a lot of beta games would see their total scores, at this point in time, increase as the divisor in the equation would decrease a lot more, in proportion, than the dividend. A lot of us spent a lot of time playing the buggy betas and our total metaverse score should,in all fairness, not decrease because of this. Some of us that average 50,000 to 100,000 points per game on 1.2 received scores of 5 to ten thousand for similar games played on the Betas 3 and 4, which used the same scoring system as 1.2, after the latest recalc. It was only Betas 1 and 2 that you could exploit the scoring system by pressing end turn for 40 game years. By removing these games completely we would have a much better chance to increase our totals with future games, as the divisor would be a lot lower. The system that is in place is a fair one. All that is needed is a re-examination as to which scores deserved to be recalced, or to do a complete ommision of all the Beta games. I know you have much higher priorities. All that I ask is that you give this some thought. Thanks for your time. TBAY

CraigHB Do you think that a score of 5000 pts, after spending a week and a half playing the one game, for a suicidal military victory on a huge map is fair?

No, that's not fair either. Most simple solution, disallow beta versions in the Metaverse.

Average score for a winning game (total scores for a win/# of games) + average score for a loss (total scores for losing games/# of losing games) + accumulated points for each game submitted 0.05(Game Score) regardless of win or loss. This gives some motivation for submitting even losing games without a thought of screwing up your average. This also gives some credence to reward those that play more games.

Average Score Wins + Average Score Losses + 0.05(Total Score for all games submitted)


Now, the real crux of the matter is how individual games are actually scored, and since I have no idea what the formula for that is I can't comment.