Metaverse score doesn't comply with total victory points

from Stardock Forums
I just saw that. In my case: I won two games, got 74 and 176 scores, so in total 248. But I get 177 as a total score in the Metaverse ranking. I checked it also for LordtheRon (he was above me in a thread, so I just was curious to see if this was applying to him as well) and he also has two wins with scores 231 and 152 totals 383, but the metaverse says: 271. Anyone knows why this is?
360 views 10 replies
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
I wonder why that formula is used. It disproportionately rewards the "early adopters" over players who either do not play as often or who will not begin playing until some time in the future. They will face a pretty high cliff to challenge for the lead in Metaverse scoring, just because they didn't start playing in March 2003. Other than that, it's okay, I'm not saying an arithmetic average is better, or the formula being used is just wacko, or anything like that.

For example, Player 1 plays 100 games and has a total score of 20,000. Player 2 plays 1 game and has a total score of 200. The Metaverse would score Player 1 as 2,000 and Player 2 as 200, even though they both had the same game average.

It's an interesting concept. The more you play (assuming your game scores don't decrease), the higher your Metaverse score.

~SDC~
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
If it didn't work that way, someone who only ever played (or only ever SUBMITTED) one game could sit at the top of the board, with very little chance for people who had played dozens of games to ever get above them. :)

~SDC~
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
That's a good point. Maybe the Metaverse could keep track of other things besides Total Score, like highest one-game score. If someone could set that record, staying on top seems right to me. Someone else could be on top of the Total Score rankings. :D
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
The other strange side affect is that you can submit a game that you won and have your score go down, just because you played on a smaller galaxy or easier difficulty than you have been.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
"I wonder why that formula is used."

Essentially to balance the issues of playing more games and playing GOOD games. If your score was simply a sum of your game scores, it would disproportionately reward people who submit lots of fast, low-score games. On the other hand, if it was just an average, it would disproportionately reward people who only submit their one or two BEST games. This way you get some credit for playing the game a lot, but also have incentive to play tough/big/good games.

And let's not get started on the flaws in the actual calculation of game scores again... it's been said in so many threads already. :(

- Ash

~SDC~
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
The ultimate goal is to elevate the games that will have the best strategies and the most interesting data to incorporate into the AI later on......
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
With this calculation method only games on giga maps count as interesting data, while playing on medium or small maps won't give you much. I don't think one can say that the strategies on smaller maps wouldn't be as interesting to incorporate in the AI.

Either make it so, that long lasting games give you a higher score, but then simply add every game - OR use this square root system but then don't count the length of a game. But mixing both methods will always encourage players to send only their games played on giga maps.

Sure, there are some people who don't want care about their ranking. But if the ultimate goal is to get the best strategies, then this scoring system won't achieve this goal.

But - oh well - I don't care that much about it, and will send every (won) game anyway. :)