Yep. I think the devs validated their software on small maps, and then did scalability testing on the larger maps (to test memory, performance, etc.). The AI for large maps was probably not validated extensively. Takes a long time.

Yes and no.

Certainly smaller maps are different. When I first started playing smaller maps in the Metaverse League after exclusively playing gigantic galaxies for over a year, I did find the games more challenging. However, I'm pretty sure that it's mostly a matter of being used to the gigantic game style and trying to apply some things from those games that don't work as well on smaller games. I'm sure if the experience were reversed I would have had similar difficulties.

After a bit more experience with the shorter game I've found I've adjusted to the differences fairly well. The biggest difference that I've found is that it's far more difficult to use specialized planets when there are far fewer of them to go around. I also think that there is perhaps a bigger premium on having a good colony rush on the smaller galaxy than on the larger galaxy. On a large galaxy you can make a trade off between fewer but more developed planets versus more but less developed planets. In a smaller galaxy if you are out rushed by the AI you are in a difficult position. Not insurmountable but certainly more difficult.

So here are two examples coming from opposite side of the size range that indicate that being forced to play "random" games in the Metaverse League has improved someones overall play. That plus some exposure to different styles of play and help from team mates is part of the goal of the Metaverse League.

The Metaverse League is open to all levels of players and dedicated to the idea that everyone can benefit from a little friendly competition.

We have monthly games that are limited to medium galaxies and below so there's not a huge time commitment required. Anyone interested could simply make a post to any of the following threads and be assured of getting a positive response.

"The Metaverse League"

"The Metaverse League" Player sign up & Roster

MV League Round 2

The first link is the official thread of the Metaverse League and is stickyed in the Metaverse forum. I suppose the Player sign up & Roster thread is technically the thread to post membership requests to and the MV League Round 2 thread is probably the most current MV League thread. In any case as I said posting to any of these should get you noticed and on a team in time for next month's game.

I encourage all that want to improve your game to join us.

Smaller maps IMO are certainly more enjoyable. The game comes to a conclusion within a day if you play alot in that day. I would hate to play gigantic maps. Conquest can get tedious enough as it is. I do enjoy being able to have the game conclude quicker for some reason.

I generally agree on all points above, but mostly with:



The biggest reasons being:
1) Ship speed. Face it, the AI still doesn't build "fast" ships. Not even avg speed in my book. This makes the AI terribly slow on larger galaxies.
2) trade doesn't work worth beans on larger galaxies with lots of planets, and yet the AI uses a lot of resources there.
3) The colony rush can go on for a long time on a larger galaxy. This often seems to drag the AIs down.
4) Anomolies. A human will build more survey ships and keep thier economy going, where as the AIs rely on a single survey ship.
5) The AIs may not switch into resource grab mode fast enough, allowing you to gobble up the key resources on a larger map. (while they fight over class 3 planets)

However, I don't like the smaller maps. My favorite part of the game is the colony rush, and the transition to mid game. That just ends way too fast on a smaller map. Large is about as small as I'll play.

To each his own.

I like "large" maps but I find that for me the larger the map, the easier it is to win, and more likely it is that I'll follow the same "script" to success.

I've been trying medium maps lately and they seem more suited to the AI style and ability.