This was my second game, and I be no means expected to get a score this large.

What kind of scores can we expect by the elite players, in the 100,000's or maybe millions.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/35008.jpg

What level did you play? Mapsize? What year did you win?

1200BC Conquest, Destroyed the two other Civs to win.

Tiny Map, Chieftain

Just trying to learn the game.

Maybe milking won't be the best scoring way anymore.

Anyway, the rankings seem far too low. If you got Augustus with a Chieftain game, what will happen on Deity?

30k seems quite a lot. My first game netted me only 3k :blush:.

I bet scoring will be more like jason scoring now.

I bet scoring will be more like jason scoring now.
Aeson was in the beta test. Whatever the scoring formula proves to be, it'll have HOF implications.

Maybe milking won't be the best scoring way anymore.

Anyway, the rankings seem far too low. If you got Augustus with a Chieftain game, what will happen on Deity?

30k seems quite a lot. My first game netted me only 3k :blush:.

I agree the scoring should never allowed me to get the highest ranking on chieftain.

Does anyone know how high the scores could potentially get, I would hope that there is a multiplier and if I had this same victory on diety it would be 6 or 8 times higher.

I played two games so far with quite different scoring results:

1st game: Noble, standard, Germany(Frederick), space ship victory in 1969AD: 9K

2nd game: Noble, tiny, Japan, conquest victory in 1150AD: 49K

There must be a veryhigh bonus for early victories

I think the scoring system is seriously flawed, worse than civ3. The early victory bonus is huge and doesn't change based on victory type. So an early domination or conquest victory is always going to score highest. Also, from my limited testing (I've won 4 games now) it seems the difficulty level doesn't affect the score at all. I scored 25000ish for a 1650ad domination victory on chieftain. But my 1950AD spaceship victory on Prince only got me 8000. Sorry, even if you win in 10AD on Chieftain it shouldn't score higher than any victory on Prince.

Game is great, but it seems they released another flawed scoring system.

I just finished my first game and I think the score was pretty high, so this is for comparison purposes.

Noble
Domination in 1640 AD
Small Map
Gamespeed Normal
52,528

46K on Immortal with a 425 BC victory on a tiny map. It seems there is quite a bit of room for milking in Civ 4.

I bet scoring will be more like jason scoring now.

It's very different from jason.

The score system in the game is mostly geared towards MP play. It should be relatively easy to mod the score system. Perhaps that would be a good project for the beta HOF.

The score system in the game is mostly geared towards MP play.
What exactly is the IV score system? I haven't seen the factors/formulas posted anywhere yet.

..\Assets\Python\EntryPoints\CvGameInterface.py
def calculateScore(argsList):
#CvUtil.pyPrint( "CvGameInterface.calculateScore" )
return gameUtils().calculateScore(argsList)

..\Assets\Python\CvGameUtils.py
def calculateScore(self,argsList):
ePlayer = argsList[0]
bFinal = argsList[1]
bVictory = argsList[2]

iPopulationScore = CvUtil.getScoreComponent(gc.getPlayer(ePlayer).get PopScore(), gc.getGame().getInitPopulation(), gc.getGame().getMaxPopulation(), gc.getDefineINT("SCORE_POPULATION_FACTOR"), True, bFinal, bVictory)
iLandScore = CvUtil.getScoreComponent(gc.getPlayer(ePlayer).get LandScore(), gc.getGame().getInitLand(), gc.getGame().getMaxLand(), gc.getDefineINT("SCORE_LAND_FACTOR"), True, bFinal, bVictory)
iTechScore = CvUtil.getScoreComponent(gc.getPlayer(ePlayer).get TechScore(), gc.getGame().getInitTech(), gc.getGame().getMaxTech(), gc.getDefineINT("SCORE_TECH_FACTOR"), True, bFinal, bVictory)
iWondersScore = CvUtil.getScoreComponent(gc.getPlayer(ePlayer).get WondersScore(), gc.getGame().getInitWonders(), gc.getGame().getMaxWonders(), gc.getDefineINT("SCORE_WONDER_FACTOR"), False, bFinal, bVictory)
return int(iPopulationScore + iLandScore + iWondersScore + iTechScore)

..\Assets\Python\CvUtil.py
def getScoreComponent(iRawScore, iInitial, iMax, iFactor, bExponential, bFinal, bVictory):

if gc.getGame().getEstimateEndTurn() == 0:
return 0

if bFinal and bVictory:
fTurnRatio = float(gc.getGame().getGameTurn()) / float(gc.getGame().getEstimateEndTurn())
if bExponential and (iInitial != 0):
fRatio = iMax / iInitial
iMax = iInitial * pow(fRatio, fTurnRatio)
else:
iMax = iInitial + fTurnRatio * (iMax - iInitial)

iFree = (gc.getDefineINT("SCORE_FREE_PERCENT") * iMax) / 100
if (iFree + iMax) != 0:
iScore = (iFactor * (iRawScore + iFree)) / (iFree + iMax)
else:
iScore = iFactor

if bVictory:
iScore = ((100 + gc.getDefineINT("SCORE_VICTORY_PERCENT")) * iScore) / 100

return int(iScore)

All the "gc.function()" stuff is going to have to wait for the SDK to be released to see the inner workings of it.

If I'm reading that right (and it's very possible I'm not) then the factors are population, land, techs, wonders and early win bonus.

46K on Immortal with a 425 BC victory on a tiny map. It seems there is quite a bit of room for milking in Civ 4.
You've already beat immortal :eek: ? Talk about fast learning...

The base factors are population, land, techs, and wonders. So Civ4 scoring is twice as diverse as Civ3 scoring, which only counted population and land. (Assuming the SCORE_FACTOR variables are relatively equal. The tech factor was useless in Civ3...)

There is a complicated formula involving finish date and "max score", but all it produces is the denominator of a fraction (iFactor / iMax). The really interesting factor, iFactor, is calculated in gc.getPlayer(ePlayer).getXXXScore().

But if we assume that iFactor has the same finish date bonus, it appears that finishing earlier pays off exponential returns.
Winning in the first half of the game = score^2 (squared)
First third = score^3
First quarter = score^4

The base factors are population, land, techs, and wonders. So Civ4 scoring is twice as diverse as Civ3 scoring, which only counted population and land. (Assuming the SCORE_FACTOR variables are relatively equal. The tech factor was useless in Civ3...)

There is a complicated formula involving finish date and "max score", but all it produces is the denominator of a fraction (iFactor / iMax). The really interesting factor, iFactor, is calculated in gc.getPlayer(ePlayer).getXXXScore().

But if we assume that iFactor has the same finish date bonus, it appears that finishing earlier pays off exponential returns.
Winning in the first half of the game = score^2 (squared)
First third = score^3
First quarter = score^4

That would explain my score, since I finished in the first quarter of the game.

Hopefully, we will know the actual formula soon.

Noble
Domination in 1640 AD
Small Map
Gamespeed Normal
52,528
46K on Immortal with a 425 BC victory on a tiny map.

Am I the only one who finds this somewhat wrong? Or did MP just have that many wonders?

Am I the only one who finds this somewhat wrong? Or did MP just have that many wonders? I had a good amount of wonders, but I agree the score seems wrong. Why would a Noble game score as high as Immortal? Map sizes were just 1 size apart: Small vs. Tiny.

It has to be the technology +land area/pop deal. Thats why I think you can milk technology and other stuff to a higher score.

I don't have the game, but I have a screen shot of the HOF (thanks! see signature) - what are the other options in the Normalized Scores dropdown list?

Seems quite high for a late victory on chieftain to. Notice the two scores though. The game score is probably the one that should be counted for the hall of fame and is like the civ3 scores.

*edits* fixing long picture...*

Score is your score at the last turn. It's 0 if you are conquered (I know from my own experience :D)

Game score is probably average score, just like Civ3 score. And I agree, this one should be counted for HoF.

what are the other options in the Normalized Scores dropdown list?
Normalized Scores (Sorts by Game score), In-Game Score (Sorts by Score) and Finish date.

Edit: It might be vice versa, I'm not sure.

55,943
250BC Conquest Victory for Catherine
Although Settler difficulty level and Duel map :rotfl:

I also have to comment that in some cases both scores are equal, while in other they aren't.

Take a look at Chris' picture, they're equal in 4 out of 6 games.

55,943
250BC Conquest Victory for Catherine
Although Settler difficulty level and Duel map :rotfl:
That makes no sense at all compared to my score. Im thoroughly lost on the scoring mechanism.

Take a look at Chris' picture, they're equal in 4 out of 6 games.
I dont think he won in those games, under Victory it says "none".

I also have to comment that in some cases both scores are equal, while in other they aren't.

Take a look at Chris' picture, they're equal in 4 out of 6 games.I think that is because of the victory bonus.

edit: crosspost...

OK, my last game: 2014AD Prince SS, Score was 4000 and Game score just above 2800. Nowhere near those 50k+ scores :crazyeye:

I discovered another interesting thing: SS defeats are listed as victories in my HoF.

It does seem wrong that you can get the same score while playing on the easiest setting as you would if playing at the hardest setting.

BTW, is there any way to clear the HOF? :)

BTW, is there any way to clear the HOF? :)
:confused: There's nothing in the HOF yet. We haven't opened yet...

Well i'm more confused than ever about the scoring system.

I just scored 71980 on a tiny map/noble/conquest in 750 A.D. against 3 other civs. It's not really making much sense to me since people in this thread beat it on a harder setting and earlier.

I didn't even build a wonder...

I got 69000 in my second game :P

I got 69000 in my second game :P

BTW: chieftan, tiny, 25BC

BTW: chieftan, tiny, 25BC

So why is your score double mine, when we played the same size game at the same level and I actually finished 1200 years before you.:confused:

My game was a Conquest which should be the ulimate Victory, what type of victory was your's?

So why is your score double mine, when we played the same size game at the same level and I actually finished 1200 years before you.:confused:

My game was a Conquest which should be the ulimate Victory, what type of victory was your's?

How many cities did the AI have at that date? I can't imagine more than 2 or 3, but by the longer the AI's have to expand and grow the more points you'll get for taking their cities

If the early win bonus is the same if you win in any year B.C., then that would explain how Skintigh's score was higher than yours.

Maybe conquest is no longer the ultimate victory, it's probably cultural, SS or diplo.

I think if you want to score high you need to be near the domination limit in tiles for much of the game, way over the domination limit in population and maintain a fast tech pace all at once. Then cap it all off with a fast victory date. A good way to stay near the domination limit without having insane maintenance costs is to have really spread out cities in the areas you've conquered. Like keep one or two cities from each civ you conquer and then build culture in those cities (or culture bomb) to fill in a lot of land.

All I know is I've finished I think 5 games now. Four of those I didn't fight any wars except defensive ones. The last one I won by domination. The domination win got 3x the score of my next best one. I think you have to go to war and claim a lot of land to get a high score. No ifs ands or buts about it.

I've only played one game so far. I did it on standard settings (continents, noble, standard, normal, etc.).

I got 41284 score in 1785AD for Domination victory. I was checking the score every turn and my 'score if you win this turn' continued to go up and up and up, so one can overcome the early win bonus. Not sure when, if it would have started to turn back down because I wasn't getting so many points for eary finish.

My pre-win game score at that point was 5510 which was mostly from people and technology. I was getting far more for tech (had just got tanks) than I was land. Obviously expansion was important, but for the PEOPLE, not so much the land.

Maybe conquest is no longer the ultimate victory, it's probably cultural, SS or diplo.Yeah, that's why my Prince SS games get 4000 points, and Chieftain Conquest gets 50k :)

How many cities did the AI have at that date? I can't imagine more than 2 or 3, but by the longer the AI's have to expand and grow the more points you'll get for taking their cities

If the early win bonus is the same if you win in any year B.C., then that would explain how Skintigh's score was higher than yours.

I think I ended the game with 5 cities, two that I founded myself.

So if I left one city to the last Civ and then played to a Domination Victory, I would have had a much larger score. I might be starting to get it.:)

I dunno if this will help the Scoring debate or not, but tonight I finished the game.

Cheiftan Level: Large Map.
I was Romans. Vrs: Persia, Germany, Mali, Japan, Spain, China, Greece.
Domination Victory.
Score 15,989
Won in 1974.
I had every tech, was researching first future tech, and was rolling across 3 other empires when the game ended. 2 were already gone due to my hand.

I found the high scores easier to acheive in this version over others.

I forgot that gc.getDefineINT()'s return values can be found from GlobalDefines.xml, so if you want the wonder, population, territory, tech breakdown it can be found in there.

<Define>
<DefineName>SCORE_POPULATION_FACTOR</DefineName>
<!--Score you get if you have the 'maximum' population possible on the current map-->
<iDefineIntVal>5000</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>SCORE_LAND_FACTOR</DefineName>
<!--Score you get if you have all the land on the current map-->
<iDefineIntVal>2000</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>SCORE_WONDER_FACTOR</DefineName>
<!--Score you get if you have all the wonders-->
<iDefineIntVal>1000</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>SCORE_TECH_FACTOR</DefineName>
<!--Score you get if you have all the techs-->
<iDefineIntVal>2000</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>SCORE_FREE_PERCENT</DefineName>
<!--Percentage of the maximum score you get for free-->
<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>SCORE_VICTORY_PERCENT</DefineName>
<!--Percentage of your score that gets added if you win the game-->
<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

Appears the scores are much higher the earlier you win. That is, the highest scores will all be conquest. It is still early, but I see no evidence that milking leads to a higher score. I also dont appear to see the score increase with difficulty.

That being said, here are some thoughts regarding HOF records compares to Civ 3:

Very early conquest will be tougher. Classic rush strategys will probably be less effective on higher levels. The best rush units in this game are the Inca Quecha, Jaguar and Persian Immortals (if you have horse). Of course the high level AI may very well have the counter by the time you get there.

Milking at max land area will be harder. You cannot sell cultural buildings when you do not need them anymore. Being creative is obviously out.

Being creative is obviously out.
I think it's way too soon to jump to conclusions like that. Milkers are already aware of the dangers of culture in border towns, and even if cultural buildings can't be sold, there's plenty of ways to reduce the number of occupied tiles.

True, giving cities to the AI is always an option.

Is there any multiplier applied to your score during the game as you play based on the difficulty level you are playing, I don't feel that there is.

Wasn't there a multiplier in CIV3, if you played SID wasn't there a x8 multiplier applied to your score and then upon a victory any bonuses earned would be applied.

I got more than 31,000 with a conquest win, Noble, Tiny, Pangea in 800 BC. So yes, it is easy to have high scores.
HOWEVER, I think having high scores with a cultural victory is really, really hard.

I've gotten 50K on a tiny/pangea map on "Settler" difficulty level. Easy win, no challenge at all... on the other hand, my Emperor difficulty level wins on a standard/continents map have only netted me between 7000 and 10000 points.

Hope it'd be something that's changed in a patch at some point, kinda messed up that difficulty level doesn't factor in at all.

Just another data point:

Prince, Spaceship Victory, 2002 AD
Standard Map, Continents
Base Score: 4313, Final Score: 7200

Had majority of Wonders, was #2 in land, #1 in pop, and Future Tech 3.

Just another data point:

Prince, Spaceship Victory, 2002 AD
Standard Map, Continents
Base Score: 4313, Final Score: 7200

Had majority of Wonders, was #2 in land, #1 in pop, and Future Tech 3.

That is the kind of score, I would have expected with Civ3, but in Civ4 it appears the HOF needs some work.

Doesn't look like they spent much time testing it, if they did, they would have found these issues after one or two games.

I am really disappointed that the difficulty level appears to play no part in the score.

It there a file that can be accessed to save the HOF or clear it if one chooses.

I wouldnt say the HOF needs some work. It is simply set up differently than in previous Civ game. Here are the apparent differences.

1. No multiplier for difficulty level. Means that Highest scores will be on Settler/Chieftain. The lowest "high" scores will be on deity.

2. Early conquest scores higher than milking. This is different than civ 3.

That being said. I have the following to say with regards to HOF scores and attempts.

Conquest: MUCH tougher on highest levels and larger maps. I have heard that praetorian rushes are doable on Deity, but unsure if they are feasible on, say, huge maps.

UN, Space: Dependant on rapid tech development.

Culture: This will be interesting. Stuffing 3 cities with wonders and Great People (artists specifically).

histographic: Milking per se is no longer applicable, due to the new scoring formula. Rapid Mil conquest, city growth and tech development all must be balanced. Goal is to get close to max land. then farm everthing with all hammers to research to max future techs, with all specialists to merchants from the start. (for extra food=bigger cities). Maybe scientists can get you more points from more future tech but unsure. Will have to be tested. Can you get future techs for free from GP?

There is a "125000 score" thread in the general forum. Although it appears the Domination victory condition was turned off for that game and had too few oppenents for an "official" game, it appears that 70-75000 is theoretically feasible on lower difficulty levels. That thread basically verifies that early win beats milking ONCE terrain is maxed out for area and pop. Of course at higher levels, it may just take too long to recover score by maxing pop and land after killing the AI. In other words, early domination may be the ONLY was to get the higher scores at these levels. Only testing will verify though.

Now thats an impressive game; 116 cities is a heck of a lot in this game and a future tech per turn is equally as impressive.

I don't see how the fact that there is no difficulty modifier is a big deal.
In all versions of civ, it was very hard to compare games from different difficulty levels, even victory types.

I don't see how the fact that there is no difficulty modifier is a big deal.
In all versions of civ, it was very hard to compare games from different difficulty levels, even victory types.Comparing different VC's is now impossible, with Dom score being more than 10 times greater than SS.

With different levels... There should be a modifier. A Deity game, say 1000AD Conquest can be (and is) a lot tougher than a 1000BC Settler Conquest, but it still get less points.

My understanding is, with the exception of Histographic (2050AD) Victories & the High-Score Table, score was irrelevant.............Fast Finish Date is King! :)

I think what's important are the RELATIVE dates/scores within each table. :)

My understanding is, with the exception of Histographic (2050AD) Victories & the High-Score Table, score was irrelevant.............Fast Finish Date is King! :)
Date is king in most things in HOF III, and will be in IV's tables as well.

The aspect that could be the problem is the Quatromaster's Challenge. In III's Quartermaster's, we needed some way to rank games from different tables. When two #1's are facing each other, a tiebreaker was needed, and the first tiebreaker was always raw Firaxis score.

My high scores, all on standar maps:

21658/5672, Domination, Immortal, 1876AD
14985/7125, Space Race, Emperor, 1955AD
11263/3781, Space Race, Monarch, 1946AD
9629/5159, Space Race, Immortal, 1968AD
3627/3627, Lost Space Race, Monarch, 1942AD

I'm getting higher scores on higher difficulties due to the cities I will inevitably conquer being better developed. Never tried to rush a victory though.

Comparing different VC's is now impossible, with Dom score being more than 10 times greater than SS.

With different levels... There should be a modifier. A Deity game, say 1000AD Conquest can be (and is) a lot tougher than a 1000BC Settler Conquest, but it still get less points.

But comparing different VC's and Difficulty was impossible in CIV 3 too though.
Look at the civ 3 hof table, and its clear to see if we would disregard VC or difficulty, than some would have never been represented

Your example is just saying that it's impossible to compare fast conquests between difficulties.
It was the same in Civ 3. A 3800 BC chieftain was much harder to obtain (if even possible) than a 3500 BC say warlord. But the warlord game would have gotten almost double the score.
So nothing changed, it wasn't possible to compare between different difficulties, and it still isn't.

Being one of those that like the long games where civilization building is more important than conquest, I'm disappointed that earlier victories means a higher normalized score. I played the tutorial on Settler and had a score over 10000 (my first Civ game ever) because I won a 'conquest' victory (owned % of land). However, as I've been upping the difficulty, even though I'm playing better and have won the majority of my games so far, my normalized scores are lower (right now in the 3000+ range) because I'm not all about expansion and conquest, which the game seems to favour.

Not that this makes Civ4 poor in any respect (it's one of the best games I've ever played). It's just that I like stats, and the score system doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It should really have something to do with what you've accomplished and take into consideration the difficulty level. My Settler tutorial should never have managed a score 3-4x higher than my other, harder, victories.

Being one of those that like the long games where civilization building is more important than conquest, I'm disappointed that earlier victories means a higher normalized score. I played the tutorial on Settler and had a score over 10000 (my first Civ game ever) because I won a 'conquest' victory (owned % of land). However, as I've been upping the difficulty, even though I'm playing better and have won the majority of my games so far, my normalized scores are lower (right now in the 3000+ range) because I'm not all about expansion and conquest, which the game seems to favour.

Not that this makes Civ4 poor in any respect (it's one of the best games I've ever played). It's just that I like stats, and the score system doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It should really have something to do with what you've accomplished and take into consideration the difficulty level. My Settler tutorial should never have managed a score 3-4x higher than my other, harder, victories.

I agree 100%.

Being one of those that like the long games where civilization building is more important than conquest, I'm disappointed that earlier victories means a higher normalized score. I played the tutorial on Settler and had a score over 10000 (my first Civ game ever) because I won a 'conquest' victory (owned % of land). However, as I've been upping the difficulty, even though I'm playing better and have won the majority of my games so far, my normalized scores are lower (right now in the 3000+ range) because I'm not all about expansion and conquest, which the game seems to favour.

Not that this makes Civ4 poor in any respect (it's one of the best games I've ever played). It's just that I like stats, and the score system doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It should really have something to do with what you've accomplished and take into consideration the difficulty level. My Settler tutorial should never have managed a score 3-4x higher than my other, harder, victories.

I think before they had systems to make the score comparable between difficulty and victory conditions (in civ 3 say).
They ended up not working that well (see Jason in GOTM and split conditions in HOF) so they decided why bother?

I don't think that's a bad idea.

I just finished my second huge epic game on chieftain and even though the first game had more land and much more future techs, the second scored higher because it finished in 1898 AD versus 1959 AD. Both games were cultural victories. The first had an in-game score of 9527 and a final score of 20769 while the second had an in-game score of 6259 and a final score of 22943.

I just completed another much better played game at the same conditions and finished in 1782 AD but it was the adjusted score that suprised me. The in-game score was 6069 which was very close to the 1898 AD finish but the final score was 51449. I really don't know how the scoring works for this game.

Played a standard pangaea map on noble, epic speed. Went to war early and pretty much stayed at war the entire game until domination. Scored 80,000 points. It's no contest; if you don't go to war your score will suck. If you do go to war and early it will be great. I find that wrong, especially in civ4, because having a large empire in civ4 can actually weaken your civ instead of strengthening it. If I was going for a space race victory for instance there's no way I would have wanted that much land. But I would have to take that much land if I wanted a high score.

There really should be some sort of "difficulty divisor" in play here... No "Settler" rated game should score high at all... Easy enough mod to make given the supplied code...

Though, I have to admit, this section is hysterical (added emphasis mine)


<Define>
<DefineName>SCORE_VICTORY_PERCENT</DefineName>
<!--Percentage of your score that gets added if you win the game-->
<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>


"Veectory bonus? We don' need no steenkeeng Veectory bonus!"

You've won! Your prize? NADA, baby, NADA... :)

Any one else agree that Civ 1 had the scoring system just right. Gave a percentage. And only way to get above 75% was to play a Emperor (toughest level).

It's been an awful long time, but IIRC in Civ 1 it was possible to "flip" the score back to negatives. (Or was it 0?)

I never played Civ1, but I know that was possible on 2, I wrapped a score once just before I got bored with the game. If I recall correctly, the wrap was at something like 512%, but it's hard to be sure. So the early ones didn't have *that* good a scoring system.

Garath

Based on my experience, there is definitely a difficulty level multiplier, but it's a lot smaller than it should be. Domination seems to be the way to get the best score.

Here are a few data points...

Score - Finish Date - Game Score - Victory - Difficulty - Size - Speed
107675 - 1240AD - 5089 - Domination - Warlord - Small - Normal
79712 - 1120AD - 2873 - Cultural - Deity - Standard - Epic
73371 - 1305AD - 4024 - Space - Diety - Standard - Epic
52993 - 1920BC - 1067 - Conquest - Noble - Duel - Normal
50966 - 1670AD - 5625 - Space - Monarch - Small - Normal

Note that I cheated for the Deity wins because I wanted to see what the scoring is like for that level. It was the same game that I reloaded to see whether the scores would differ for a cultural vs space win.

Difficulty-wise, that Domination win for the 107675 score was stupid easy. At lower difficulty levels, once you get the lead, it basically landslides into an enormous advantage very quickly. Since it was a small map, I expanded quickly, cut off expansion for several civs, ate them up, and I had a huge amount of room to grow.

No, difficulty level has no effect on the score.

I found the formula for calculating the score.

A couple of other interesting things about the score. As well as no difficulty multiplier the score is not averaged across turns, just based on the game state of the final turn. Also, the scores are normalized based on the theoretical maximum for the map. Assuming the theoretical maximums are calculated correctly this means that the maximum score before early finish bonus on a huge map is the same as that of a small map.

So milking will be done on Tiny Settler? :lol:

my lowest point is won by time victory
just 6K ...

Have a look at this:
http://www.geocities.com/sigurdnw/civivhighscore.bmp

133k score on settler difficulty?
The settings of that one was Small map, Great Plains, 17 opponents. I was just 1 city short of getting conquest victory, it would most likely had fallen in one more turn. Wonder how a conquest would have affected the score. If I try something akin to that again I will be romans for sure, seeing how my most used units were swordsmen.

The deity game was a duel ice age map with 1 opponent. It appears that having multiple opponents greatly enhance your victory score, thus this score was way lower, although the achievement much higher,

What victory condition you win with, the difficulty, number of opponents, or map size dont matter for score.

What matters is how:
high pop you have vs max pop (the x/y after pop score)
how much land you have vs domination limit
how many techs you have researched
and to a small degree how many wonders you have buildt.

Population is by far the most important factor (matters more than the others added together)

This is modified by how early you win (if your score factors grows faster than an extra turn is vs total number of turns it is generally better to hold off the win a few turns to get a higher score)

You can find the exact formulas in the python code that comes with game.


So basically.. to get highest possible score.. expand to 1 tile below domination limit, then grow cities as much as possible (while researching techs, but dont sacrifice growth for techs), then when pop score is maxed, pass domination limit ( or win by conquest).

The faster you can do this the higher score you will get :p (maxing techs or wonders takes too long vs the number of turns it takes)

Do any of you have the exact formula for score, plain mathematical and not as some piece of a code? Then I'd stand a chance of understanding the mess and could find an algorithm of sorts, telling me when I have milked enough.

And also, if you turn domination victory off, would the theoretic max land score then be 100% of the land, or would it be same as if domination victory had stayed on ?

Do any of you have the exact formula for score, plain mathematical and not as some piece of a code? Then I'd stand a chance of understanding the mess and could find an algorithm of sorts, telling me when I have milked enough.

Maybe later, when I'm home from work, if nobody else does first ;).




And also, if you turn domination victory off, would the theoretic max land score then be 100% of the land, or would it be same as if domination victory had stayed on ?
The theoretical max land score is 100% of the land whether domination victory is on or off. There's no reason you couldn't stay 1 tile under the dom limit until the final turn in which you settle all of the remaining land with a bunch of settlers you prepared earlier.

Do any of you have the exact formula for score, plain mathematical and not as some piece of a code? Then I'd stand a chance of understanding the mess and could find an algorithm of sorts, telling me when I have milked enough.


If you hover over your civ's name in the lower right of screen it will tell you the score if you won on the next turn. I imagine when that numbers starts going down then you've milked enough.

The theoretical max land score is 100% of the land whether domination victory is on or off. There's no reason you couldn't stay 1 tile under the dom limit until the final turn in which you settle all of the remaining land with a bunch of settlers you prepared earlier.

This is not nearly as easy as it was in civ3. You can't disband cities or sell off cultural buildings. So staying exactly 1 tile short would be nearly impossible. The only way to prevent domination if a city is about to expand would be to gift that city away and then you're not 1 tile short anymore.

This is not nearly as easy as it was in civ3. You can't disband cities or sell off cultural buildings. So staying exactly 1 tile short would be nearly impossible. The only way to prevent domination if a city is about to expand would be to gift that city away and then you're not 1 tile short anymore.
There's no reason to stay that close to the limit though since turns before the final turn don't count towards the score.

Ah very good point. It's hard to get the civ3 mindsets out of your head sometimes.

As promised here are the formulas for Civ4 scoring. There are 3 different formulas used depending on a number of things. The following are the parameters to the formulas:

initialScore : Seems to be based on the possible score at the end of the first turn with the units/techs supplied. Typically this is as follows for a game starting in the Ancient era:
pop = 1
land = 21
tech = 6
wonders = 0

rawScore : Calculated from the current turn. Can be seen in the score breakdown visible by hovering over your score:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/scorebreakdown.jpg

maxScore : The theoretical maximum rawScore for the map. Can also be seen in the above breakdown.

factor : A weighting for the score components. By default these factors are as follows:
pop = 5000
land = 2000
tech = 2000
wonders = 1000

currentTurn : The current turn number. Note that this does not start at 0 for games other than the ancient era!

maxTurn : The turn limit for the game.


The following are the formulas for calculating the score components.

For unfinished or losing games:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/losingscore.gif


For pop/land/tech components for winning game where initialScore is not 0:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/winningscore_expo.gif


For the wonders component of winning game, or for pop/land/tech components for winning game where initialScore is 0:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/winningscore_nonexpo.gif

It looks like the two critical factors are rawScore (pop, land, tech) and percentTurnsUsed (currentTurn/maxTurn)

Final wonder score can never exceed 1000.
Final score increases linearly with rawScore.
Final score is multiplied by (maxScore/initialScore) ^ (1 - percentTurnsUsed).

In your example game, the population multiplier would be:
Turns Multiplier
0% 815
10% 417
20% 213
30% 109
40% 59
50% 29
60% 15
70% 8
80% 4
90% 2
100% 1

The "scoring curve" expects you to double your score every 10% of the game. So the winning strategy is to keep growing your empire until you cannot maintain the "double every 10%" rate, and then claim victory.

The big question is, How is rawScore calculated?

The big question is, How is rawScore calculated?
Gyathaar has done some work on this:
Pop: 1 per pop
Land: 1 per tile
Tech: 1 per Ancient tech, 2 per Classical, 3 per Medieval, ..... 7 per future
Wonders: Don't know, but not worth much anyway ;)

As you can see the turn multiplier is exponential, which is the reason earlier victories result is much higher scores. On the lowest levels It may be possible to increase your raw score quicker than the multiplier goes down up until a certain point. There is probably no way to continue to increase you score for long after your land is maxed out, assuming you can steamroll over the AI.

At this point it is unclear whether smaller or higher maps yield the higher score. Smaller maps can be one quicker. But larger ones can yield a higher base pop and especially land score from taking over AI cities at the time of victory. It appears both may be competitive for highest score for any type of victory.

The score is relative to the maxScore though, it's not an absolute. That means to get the same scores on a small/large map for the same turn you would need the same proportion of the available land/population. I.e. if you had 60% land on a small map you would need 60% land on the large map to get the same score. Getting 60% land on a large map is much harder and bound to take more turns than getting 60% land on a small map.

Great Wonder: 5 points
National Wonder: 5 points

Wonder scoring : 5 points apiece.

Apollo program, Internet, and Manhatten Project do not count. Your palace, and the shrines possible to build in the holy cities, do count as wonders.

Now what I want to know, is how is a 302/300 score in above screenshot possible? This is with future tech 1, and missing an "orange" tech, like fascism ?

And could someone confirm that future tech 2 gives 7 points, for a total of 14 points for future tech ? It would also help if someone could list the names of the six eras/scoring levels.

I still don't get the "bonus" points other than "finish as fast as possible!"

Now what I want to know, is how is a 302/300 score in above screenshot possible? This is with future tech 1, and missing an "orange" tech, like fascism ?

I'll check it out later when I get home. It's not actually my game, just one I "found" in the uploads folder... :mischief:

141k with diplomatic victory in 1425 AD (normal random (terra) map, 7 ia civ, prince, epic using realism mod)

I find it disapointing not to put more value on long-term games... but seems that the different kinds of victories give very different results... i have trouble understanding how it works :crazyeye:

http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/5387/hof2jx.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hof2jx.jpg)

Now that the patch is out we can throw all these scores out the window right? :)

unless it was played on Settler (assuming Settler is base score).

Seems early conquest is the way to go for high scores based on other peoples domination scores.

Mongols (Khublai - aggressive, creative) conquest in 340BC
Prince
Terra
Standard - 6AI's
Realism Mod
Raging Barbs
Aggresive AI
105047

Spanish conquest in 580AD
Noble
Terra
Standard - 6AI's
Realism Mod
Raging Barbs
Aggressive AI
105046

Looks like the earlier the higher the score. My Mongolian victory may have been an additional 10K higher if I'd attacked the turn before instead of seeing if the score would go even higher, it went down, then after taking Mansa's last city shot up by another 20K.

Some nice scores there phoulishwan! Was that with 1.00 or 1.09?

Some nice scores there phoulishwan! Was that with 1.00 or 1.09?

1.0 :goodjob:

These games were played using the realism mod which increases substantially the gold gained from capturing/pillaging cities. Only cities I razed were autorazed size 1's. I don't know if this type of aggressive conquest is doable in vanilla. And definately wasn't a good way to build a Civilization to "Stand the Test of Time'. On the last turn of both games I running a deficit upwards of 100gpt with 0% research...the only thing that kept me going was aggressive expansion to capture cities in order to pay the huge bills. I was definately in a downward spiral both games, only barely staying in it by pushing until all opponents were dead. These aren't the types of games that shold deserve such a huge score but that's how the scoring system seems to work.

These games were played using the realism mod
It increases also the max number of turns. It seems that the farest you are from the "last day" the higher the score. So more turns means higher scores when you finish early the game ;)
At least that what i imagined with the 141k in 1425 in diplo win.

The following is totally imagination, but sounds logical for i've seen so far : the distance between "last day" and the day you end the game seems to be multiplied depending on the victory type, since some kinds of victory can obviously be achieved only much later in the game (cultural, space, diplomatic) and even with that they allow some very high scores.

The formula might be something like :

score x (distance between end game and end of time) x victory type adjustment

does'nt mean the "x" is multiplication, its just the main factors that are obviously taken in account. And with that some other adjustments like raging barbs, no peace mode, etc etc

just got a high score of 25000, whereas score before domination victory was 4600, so just is the extra points calculated

Moved into existing thread

unless it was played on Settler (assuming Settler is base score).
I saw in another thread somewhere that Noble is the base, and the multiplier for lower levels is actually less than 1, a Settler game being worth (in terms of modified score - not sure if the relationship with game score is linear) 40% of the same finish at Noble.

I saw in another thread somewhere that Noble is the base, and the multiplier for lower levels is actually less than 1, a Settler game being worth (in terms of modified score - not sure if the relationship with game score is linear) 40% of the same finish at Noble.
Here are the score modifiers per difficulty level:

Settler : 0.4
Chieftain : 0.6
Warlord : 0.8
Noble : 1.0
Prince : 1.2
Monarch : 1.4
Emperor : 1.6
Immortal : 1.8
Deity : 2.0

This applies on top of the formula I listed in post #82 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3354736&postcount=82).

Hello. This HighScore system seems to be ****. Now I am playing with 1.09 pathch (Now the socores are dpended on the diff. level) and I was able to get very high scores:
72678 score Prince/dual map winning conques BC 575.
72240 score Emperor/dual map winning conques AD 400.


I think something has to be changed as I find no challange to play 10 hours with the game when it si possible to acchieve a high score within 1 hour .

So the score must 8may) depend on:
- Size of map (type of map maybe)
- Type of victory
- number of enemies

Whad do you think?

I think something has to be changed as I find no challange to play 10 hours with the game when it si possible to acchieve a high score within 1 hour .

So the score must 8may) depend on:
- Size of map (type of map maybe)
- Type of victory
- number of enemies

Whad do you think?

I tend to agree with you, although map size is kind off already included in the territory component of the calculation.

Something should be done to address the size of the game, which includes: number of rivals, not sure about type of victory, maybe world size/type of map.

Something should be done to address the size of the game, which includes: number of rivals, not sure about type of victory, maybe world size/type of map.
Obviously... i was very proud of winning by space victory on 1 city challenge (noble / duel size map with 7 civ) with a marvelous score of... 2739... argl...

Scoring stays weird ^^

Its a good point as to what maps and settings will be allowed in HOF. Not all "huge" maps are the same size for example. Certain maps may be more favorable to the human player for warmongering. What about Quick vs standard vs epic.

I personally think the subcategories should be Difficulty level, victory type, and map size. Require Standard time for submissions for now. Let players choose the map that works for them. Otherwise the HOF will become too unweildly.

Whether we want to disallow "flat" maps for HOF submissions will have to be decided. Number of rivals should be the standard number than comes with the map size (may be more if you want).

Here's the intrinsic problem with the score calculation: I've won a ~100 BC Domination victory as the Romans on a small Monarch map with 12 civs, and won a ~1950 Conquest victory on a standard map with 7 civs. The first gave me five times the score of the second, even though it was unbelievably easy and only took an hour, compared to the 12 long hours of the second game, which I view as my greatest achievement on Monarch to date.

The score should reflect the challenge of beating the game as you did, which it doesn't even approximate right now. The number of civs has a huge effect on the difficulty (with more civs being easier), which will hopefully will be factored in soon. After all, if you have 18 civs on a map with two cities apiece, taking just two cities of the nearest civ makes you twice as powerful as everyone else. Compare that to taking two cities with 8 leaders in the game and 10 cities apiece, though; the advantage you get over the AI's isn't nearly the same.

Hi, I finished today my second civ4 game, and I must say that I was suprised about the score (see attachment). I have played my first game at chiften and scored around 28k, my second game was prince dificulty level and I scored only 26k!!! Can someone tell me why? Both game were played on standart size and both were conquest wictories. OK iI finished my firs game(chiften 40 turns erlier).
P.S. Sorry for gramer:blush:

I haven't scored more than 5000 yet, even though I play on Monarch. Peaceful games just don't get enough score.

Nice to see a Slovenian guy around here ;)

Hi,
today I finished my third game (I played only 30 min). I played dual world, pangea, roman, and dificulty monarch. I conquerd computer player 425 BC and get bacis score 1,9k. But I was suprised as hell when I have seen my final score 56k!!!! It is not right that the main factor for scoring is speed. I have to beat only one opponent, but when I played on standart map I have to beat 7 or 8 of them. I must say that i do not see any logic in scoring sistem.By the way I dont play civ becaus of the score I play it becaus it is fun calculating and planing for hours how u will crush opponent.

it is fun calculating and planing for hours how u will crush opponent.<telling the same thing again and again> Having a blossoming fast-researching empire is even more fun. </>

Playing the beta gauntlet got me a score of 75316, spacerace victory at 1505AD. I dont think It would end up as the best score there but pretty high anyways.

DROGEAR, could u send me your end save file of space race victory in 1505. Tenx
My email: pakpatak@gmail.com

Corrected email so displays properly!

sure grega its on the way

Getting a finishdate before 1500 AD is possible, know I could make it some turns earlier but I forgot to use the workshop/stateprprarty combo in the end game.

I think something has to be changed as I find no challange to play 10 hours with the game when it si possible to acchieve a high score within 1 hour. Whad do you think?

I am more of a builder than a warmonger so I am behind the 8-ball from the beginning just for that reason. I love the satisfaction of playing a weeklong game and having built a solid empire from top to bottom. With this scoring system, there is no room for a vast empire to Lord over.

Does someone know if the number of turns (and maxTurn) in a normal game is 440 or 430?

Also, on the victory advisor screen, does the game report the number of turns remaining correctly? It seems like it could be off by 10.

It's 440 in 1.09, but was 430 in 1.00. Games that started off as 1.00 and are then upgraded to 1.09 (I.e. GOTM01) end up with the wrong turn limit of 430, which is 2040AD in 1.09.

Can anybody verify that the scoring has or has not been fixed with the 1.52 patch? This is something I've got to know before I decide to install it. Thanks!

What do you mean by "fixed"?

I mean that if you finish the game on Noble with a well-developed, large, culturally and technology advanced civilization that is in the top 3 in the ratings on most stats, perhaps even winning the game on a Cultural or Time victory, that you rate higher than a Dan Quayle.

Also being able to generate, with relative ease, the highest score possible (just short of infinity) by just playing a 30 minute game on Deity on a Duel map with one other AI opponent.

That's what I mean by "fixed".

OK. Probably not fixed then. It will be slightly harder to get a quick high score now due to tiles only counting towards land score if held for greater than 20 turns, but other than that the scoring hasn't changed.

However, I would suggest aiming for fast finishes rather than high scores, and installing 1.52 for the much faster game play.

Try 374K. By the way .......I did cheat to get this score! And could have gotten higher

However, I would suggest aiming for fast finishes rather than high scores, and installing 1.52 for the much faster game play.

Wait, why? I mean I like this game and love long complicated games on huge maps. So why should I game it to get a first quarter win? I understand that some folks are saying 'fast finishes get more points deal with it' but it's a game I see absolutely no reason to have less fun playing to make a number bigger on the screene.

And honestly I have less respect for the whole HOF idea when winning fast means more than winning well. Any rule system for scoring will promote gaming of the system to take advantage of the scoring algorythm but this current system straight-up sucks.

-drjones

It's up to you drjones, the main thing is that you enjoy the game, but the whole point of the HOF is to get your name up on the tables, and the way to do that is to get a high score or a fast finish. If that's not your thing maybe you could get involved in another part of the CFC site? Maybe in an SG, or the Demo game?

Wait, why? I mean I like this game and love long complicated games on huge maps.
Fastest finish is kind of an oxymoron on huge maps, given how long anything takes on that size. Why not go for fastest UN or Spaceship on a huge map? Those would definitely take awhile!

Dianthus is right that CFC in general has a lot to offer, but don't give up on us in the HOF just yet. We're still in a beta mode, and I'm fairly certain we'll be coming up with our own scoring algorithms.

...I have less respect for the whole HOF idea when winning fast means more than winning well. Any rule system for scoring will promote gaming of the system to take advantage of the scoring algorythm but this current system straight-up sucks.



I'm not sure I understand you here as this paragraph seems to be discussing two different things. Your latter point I agree with, as I find it boring to game the scoring system, for one because I doubt the scoring system is an adequate representation of game skill and two because it invariably will result in one particular style of play that trumps all others. In Civ3 this was the fast almost domination milk. In Civ4 its looking like a mix between fast domination and early conquest, this is looking like an Jason derived scoring system which should make Aeson proud, but this makes for a tedious boring play style.

Because of that the only other option is to win quickly. Then each victory type has a different play style which means there is as much variety as there are victory conditions. So winning fast is to me synonymous with winning well. If you dilly dally building, be it fantastic cities or extensive armies you make the actual process of winning much easier, when you could have made do with less and done it quicker. Knowing the when and how much is just about the only skill that isn't just procedural knowledge.

After submitting 3 games (Duel, Monarch) to the HOF, I'm a little disappointed that my highest scoring game is my least desirable game. In that game, I surrounded Bismark's last city, and dallied to build a couple of wonders, research tech and grow Berlin. Thus, I got a higher score than my fastest finishing game. I think fastest finish by map size and victory type is better than using the score. Victory on time can be determined by number of AI civs remaining because that, at least, would complicate the milking process.

Just curious, what is the highest possible score have you seen? I got around 280K on a standard map size in my last game. I'm not sure if it's a good score or not.

Just curious, what is the highest possible score have you seen? I got around 280K on a standard map size in my last game. I'm not sure if it's a good score or not.

wow.... the highest score on the table is like 160k now...

I'm not sure if it's a good score or not.
:lol: We've only had two submissions over 200,000 points so far, so I'd say yeah, it's a good score.

I'm not entirely sure why people sometimes refer to the HOF as "superslug's". I sometimes feel like less of a competitve event admin, and more like your publicist. :D

:lol: We've only had two submissions over 200,000 points so far, so I'd say yeah, it's a good score.

In that case, may I ask one more question: has there been any submission over 300,000 points yet?

In that case, may I ask one more question: has there been any submission over 300,000 points yet?
No. You've got the two highest top scores right now.

No. You've got the two highest top scores right now.

Thanks for answer my silly question! After my last post, I realized that I did submit two games over 200K. Anyway, I just move up a level and probably will break 300K pretty soon.

Thanks for answer my silly question! After my last post, I realized that I did submit two games over 200K. Anyway, I just move up a level and probably will break 300K pretty soon.


:o writeups plz :)

:o writeups plz :)

If you wish to know how I did it, check out this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152148

Have fun! Hope to see your high score right beside mine soon.:)

Moonsinger :goodjob: on cracking the code to get such scores.
I just wonder whether this kind of highly exploitive game isn't too repetitive to be fun. Maybe I wasn't a fan of ICS as well, that's why I wonder. How do you manage to stay interested in this kind of game?
But, I would also be curious how you would manage this style with barbs not switched off on epic. Because those chopping strategies such as chop near your enemy borders aren't that easy any longer. Maybe you can find a way to beat that too.

If you wish to know how I did it, check out this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152148

Have fun! Hope to see your high score right beside mine soon.:)

ah thanks!

might gonna try a deity game soon :P

Hi all
I'd like to ask what would generate more points - domination or cultural victory? (supposing that they both can be reached at the same time (+- 1 year)?

sry if it's wrong thread, but I didnt find the more suitable one :blush:

Orm

Hi all

Hi Orm!




I'd like to ask what would generate more points - domination or cultural victory? (supposing that they both can be reached at the same time (+- 1 year)?

There's no difference between victory conditions in the scoring formula, so it doesn't matter which one you go for if score is all you're worried about. If you're submitting to the HOF then finish date is also important as we have seperate tables for the fastest finish for each victory condition, so you might want to choose the victory condition with the easiest dates to beat in the HOF tables. (I guess you've seen the >> HOF site << (hof.civfanatics.net)?)

I expected this answer after studying of some formulas placed somewhere in this forum. It seems that finish date is the most important parameter in CIV 4 HOF calculation :sad: ...

I saw the tables at HOF sites but not too many cultural victories are there...
IMO, to achieve top score with this (my favourite) kind of victory is almost impossible, unless you are very lucky (combo of good terrain, stone, marble, religions, peaceful neighbours...) or VERY good player (not my case :blush: ). It needs much more planning from the beginning and more time than conquest or domination.
(I can't compare it with SS victory, because I disabled it - tried once and it was just boring components-construction rush at the end of the game)

The key aspects to score are population, land area, techs, wonders and early win date so maximizing the first four while minimizing the last will yield the best score no matter the victory condition.

Some victories fare better with that in mind that others, notably domination. But as Dianthus pointed out; quick victory has its own table so you could play a game that has culture as its sole purpose and ignore the points issue with regards to land mass and population.

Although as it stands now (until a patch fixes it) there is only *one* strategy for highest score and thats a constant anarchy domination game. Unless another exploit is uncovered that is even more advantageous.

Sorry for my imperfect locution (non-native English speaker).

1. I have no ambitions to reach the top - I am simply not good enough :) , I was just curious what are the calculations for different types of victories...

2. HOF tables give me some hints - how good/bad I am and other players are, but direct comparison is very problematic (even on the same map size and with the same difficulty there are many other conditions - land/ocean, locations of resources, hills, etc.).

Yeah, stop it...Anyway, it's the best game that I've ever played :goodjob:

Hi,
today I finished my secon deity game and was going for big score so I choose Roman, standart balanced map, with barbarian and 5 other civ. I finished around 100bc and score 418000 :crazyeye: I just hope that HOF staf wont reject my game.
BTW someone said that go for Pyramids for goverment changing, but u can go in anarchy with religion and labour.

Great work Dianthus and the rest who have figured out the mechanics, but score from land doesn't follow the formula. For one thing I don't get any points from land until 3200BC and then only a fraction of what I should get.

With 37 land tiles in my border my rawscore shows only 9, af ew turns later in 3120 still with 37 land tiles rawscore is 21 where it stays for quite some time.

I hope someone is still interested in this.

There is a 20-turn delay before land is added to your score.

Thanks, that certainly fits with what I've seen, but even after the 20 turns I'm not getting 1 point of raw score per tile.

So is the basic formula for scoring that is discussed in this thread the same in Warlords?

So is the basic formula for scoring that is discussed in this thread the same in Warlords?

Yes it is :D

but you have to also add 50% of any vassal's land and population to your score

Cool Thanks Ori!