I haven't really thought through the system but offhand I think it works fine.

Newbies should not find it easy to overtake oldies who have started playing since the beginning and are still playing today.

But we have seen more than a few ex-Top25ers who have disappeared into the depths of the Metaverse. So newbies can still easily pass those who have stopped playing.

This is an outstanding thread. Great job IceMole and others.

Question: Do you think that once scores get old enough they will drop out of the calculation alltogether? Or do you think they will stop degrading in the 10% block and linger there forever?

If I remember correctly, T-Man said scores would bottom out at 20%.

It is, however, an interesting question what happens when scores more than a month apart reach that bottom.

If the blocks are based only on age, growth should pick up a bit after 9 months of play as 20% scores stop degrading while new blocks are still being formed.

On the other hand, if blocks are based only on the amount of degradation, there may be a slow score collapse after 9 months of play as all blocks eventually merge into a 20% megablock.

Nothing like a potential doomsday scenario to make the metaverse a more interesting place.

This should now be 100% accurate in describing metaverse overall score calculation.

For the score as shown on the player page:
1. Separate the scores into blocks of 30 days, counting back from the most recent submission.
2. Within each block take the sum of the scores, divide by the square root of the number of games in the block and round the results to the nearest whole number.
3. Apply the appropriate degradation to each block score. (10% per month)
4. Add the final block scores.

For the score as shown on the metaverse list:
1. Same as above.
2. Same except always round down.
3. Apply the appropriate degradation (5% per month here) to each block score and round down again.
4. Add the final block scores.


As an example, here is Staffa's player page score calculation at 35 submissions:

2 Month Block (61-90 Days Old) 10 Games; 80% Value:
5/08 672
5/09 1562
5/10 1639
5/11 1503
5/13 1662
5/13 1788
5/14 2982
5/16 4312
5/20 5565
5/21 4937
Number of Scores in Block: 10
Block Total: 26622

26622 / 10(sqrt) = 8418.6 --> Round to 8419
Block Score (pre-degradation): 8419

8419 * .8 = 6735.2
Final Block Score: 6735.2


1 Month Block (31-60 Days Old) 18 Games; 90% Value:
5/23 6178
5/24 5673
5/25 6213
5/28 6487
5/28 3465
5/31 7097
5/31 3668
6/02 3985
6/02 4381
6/03 8850
6/04 6890
6/06 16150
6/07 11080
6/08 3678
6/10 11400
6/11 17380
6/12 13380
6/14 21870
Block Total: 157825

157825 / 18(sqrt) = 37199.7 --> Round to 37200
Block Score (pre-degradation): 37200

37200 * .9 = 33480
Final Block Score: 33480


0 Month Block (0-30 Days Old) 7 Games; 100% Value:
6/25 13530
6/30 21850
7/02 22200
7/03 13030
7/04 14850
7/15 19070
7/22 13050
Block Total: 117580

117580 / 7(sqrt) = 44441.06 --> Round to 44441
Block Score (pre-degradation): 44441

42674 * 1 = 44441
Final Block Score: 44441

Sum of the Final Block Scores: 6735.2 + 33480 + 44441 = 84656.2

Good work with the number crunching, IceMole.
Another mystery of the Metaverse revealed.

Saves me a lot of anguish, IceMole. Much appreciated.

This should be a sticky or an article in the encyclopedia. Great job!!!

I have submitted a score five times to the Metaverse and it still does not list the game, even though each time I submit it, the game reports it was submitted successfully. At first I thought they just needed more time to post scores, but it's been two weeks now and still no sign of it. Any ideas out there? I stumped on how one is supposed to get their scores posted.

And yes, I have registered and am submitting the games under the same name as the one I registered with.

~SDC~

OK, so can anyone tell me why my "Listed score" is only 89 (ranking me at 2332) and indicates I've only played 2 games while my Score if you click on my name in this post it is 11000+ and shows me playing 4 games.

Oops, sorry, I see my Metaverse Ranking is now 2360. Someone please help me! This is so embarrassing and my Wife won't let me take this bag off my head until I get my proper ranking.

clues
1. Don't go for the quick finish..
2. start on the smaller maps Tiny,Small and set the computer players AI to Fool till you figure out the game
3. leave all the victory conditions blank.. ?(IE: for a military victory)
4. set your mil/soc/res sliders to
90 5 5 to start with and produce nothing but colony ships till you've gone through most of the map
(I normaly stop at about 3/4 of the map) then decide where you want to go from there...
5. set your tax rate as hich as you can so that your lowest planet's moral is 50 or above
6. set your spending level up to Full.. and leave it there as long as you can.. (normaly I find that I have to start lowering my spending level at about the same time as I need to stop producing colony ships..
7. set your mini map to display sectors by influence .. then as you find other colour squares turning up.. concentrate exploring in those areas first (to help limit the spread of the computer players..

using this method as a base I've achieved a score of over 10000 on a gigantic map .. and i've used it on all map sizes starting from Tiny..

It took me 12 straight losses to work out the stratagy.. as Galciv is different to other games like it that i've played before where I alweays used to colonise slowly and build up the planets to a level of sustrainment prior to going on.. this doesn't seem to work in GAlCic.. its colonise,colonise,colonise,colonise,colonise, as quick as you can.. don't worry about your population levels at the start.. with the moral set at about 50 min the pop sill increase enough to keep your population growing slowly.. and not too quickly.. while in the colonizing phase..

Hope this helps
BlueSteel of the ANZACS


~SDC~

Thanks for the tips BlueSteel; but I don't think you uderstand my question. I am getting decent scores (387,2391,2589,10510) but my metaverse ranking score is only 89 and my ranking is 2360. My games have all been played in the last 2 months so it isn't a score degradation problem. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I've E-mailed Tech support but no positive feedback yet.

To understand my problem click on BlueSteel's name in his message. You will see that his Metaverse Score is 11195 and his Ranking is 408. Now click on my name in this message and you will see that my Metaverse Score is 11029.6 (ie only 166 less than Bluesteel) but my ranking is 2360 (ie 1952 behind Bluesteel.

Meister:

i'm not a registration/submission expert so the only advice i have is check threads that have "submission problems" in the title.

Bob:

as per post #29, no one's player score is the same as their metaverse score. however, your metaverse score is really dorked up! maybe it hasn't been updated? everything gets more and more goofy the further down an overlord is in the rankings. i'm sure someone has the power to straighten things out... even if it's father time.

(edit: who unstickied the submission problems thread that was near the top?)

[Message Edited]

ahhhh..... thats out of all the players who've submitted games...


ie: your RANKING is where you stand in relation to your MetaVerse Score compared to everyone elses.. everyone else..

Player Name: Bob
Player ID: 9633 Your Player Id
Score: 11029.6 Your Metaverse score
Metaverse Ranking: 2362 out of all the players your score is the 2363rd highest out of all the registered players
Empire:



~SDC~

ay carumba! :notsure:

BlueSteel; you have a Score of 11195 and a Ranking of 415; I have a score of 11029.6 and a Ranking of 2136. For this to be right ther would have to be 1720 players with scores between 11030 and 11194. I find this highly unlikely.

Ray, if you're still here, a few of us are in the chat room - come on in.

IceMole help!

I can’t get your formula to work for Ray’s Metaverse score. I’ve gone over it checking and rechecking and rechecking... then messing with the blocks... then trying it out on other players, where it worked, but I just can’t get the score that’s displayed for him.

One thing I noticed about your instructions, you say 30-day blocks, but it seems to be based on month-long blocks (30 and 31 days). Either interpretation didn’t help with Ray’s score though. His score was always lower than my calculations so... maybe Frogboy doesn’t like him?

There still seems to be an old version fudge factor that cannot be fully accounted for. At least for version 1.02 when a major recalc of existing scores was done. The formula works dead on for versions 1.05 and 1.09.

Bob Harris: Since the number of games on your player page and the list don't match, I seriously doubt this is a calculation issue. I'm thinking that your registration is somehow mixed up with another Bob Harris who submitted scores with an older version. Hopefully tech support will be able to help you out.


KitWarrior: Well, I've just run Ray's numbers and they are coming out just right for player page score. I'm now finding his list score off by 1 point (I may have been too hasty in deciding on the rounding there), but I suspect you're speaking of something bigger.

I've had quite a bit of trouble with typos for people with a lot of scores and they are always a huge pain to track down. Let's see how your data compares to mine.

Ray the Wanderer @ 48
Sum of Block Scores:
7982 (9)
23236 (11)
111371 (12)
243450 (16)

Post Square Root Thing and Rounding:
2661
7006
32150
60863

Post Degradation:
1862.7
5604.8
28935
60863

Total:
97265.5


Gerakken: I never noticed the problem with the old scores before. Now that I've looked I would say they use the date they were recalculated (last week of May/first week of June) as the most recent submission date unless they have more new submissions since then. This seems to get them to cooperate.

As for the block timing, I stand by 30 days. A while ago I had some examples ready to demonstrate, but unfortunately my research subjects have escaped and submitted more games.

Nice data, Ice Mole. The calculations for the list score generates only integers - gives quite a bit away.

The blocks are the same and the division by the square root is still the same. Instead of rounding, there is a step of truncation as floating point values are converted into integers.

#s
2660
7005
32150
60862

Degredation and addition happen in floating point and the total comes out to:
99970.5

Truncation again back to integers and the score comes to
99970

Degradation at 95% / 90% / 85%

Blocks are determined by the length of the month. Since most recent scores are in July, the most recent block is 31 days long. For Ray, it's the days between 27/07 and 27/06 inclusive.
[Message Edited]

Gengsta: While your method works for Ray's score, it doesn't appear to work for mine.

IceMole @ 21
Sums:
56 (2)
689 (3)
21255 (7)
86540 (9)

Sqrt and Truncate:
39
397
8033
28846

Degrade:
33.15
357.3
7631.35
28846

Add then Truncate:
36867

Actual List Score:
36868

On the other hand, with your method I came up with 99970 even rather than 99970.5 for Ray, so perhaps I misunderstood you.

So you are saying that counting backwards, the last day of the block is the same day of the month as the submission? (i.e. Ray's blocks are 27/07-27/06, 26/06-27/5, 26/05-27/04, and 26/04-27/03)?