Sam_Catchem
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2001
- Messages
- 350
I think the page looks rather cool.
I am just not that eager to see how much better everyone is than me.
I am just not that eager to see how much better everyone is than me.
Civ3 High Score Hall of Fame
- Thread starter Thunderfall
- Start date
Originally posted by Sam_Catchem
I think the page looks rather cool.
I am just not that eager to see how much better everyone is than me.
I don't really think that score is a good measure of how good a civ player is. Rather it is a measure of how much patience a player has for continuing to play after victory is assured. Personally, I get bored once I know I am going to win.
Although, some of the highest scores will be from those who conquer the world in the BCs, but this is another story altogether. I also find this a bit boring, but to each his own.
Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
I know is a bit bare right now, but it was just barely born.
We still have to receive submissions for it and then it will be updated. It will be updated sometime soon.
Again, thanks for your kind words.
DoM, sorry about that guy. Some of us appreciate your hardwork.
i sm sorry but i don't know how to do the "quote thing" on this message board, but i have a couple of points.
Eyrei it is a bore to drag on when you know you will win, i think if you are in this situation you need to raise your difficulty level, as i doubt you'd have that problem on a large map with more than 10 civs As for a bore winning in the BC's, umm you try it again at a hard difficulty level and see how much of a bore it is trying to survive when you find out you have bitten more than you can chew too early. lol
As for the comment about obviously the bigger scores will be on large maps, haha, ohh I don't think so, all the big scores will be conquest on a small map for sure.
Eyrei it is a bore to drag on when you know you will win, i think if you are in this situation you need to raise your difficulty level, as i doubt you'd have that problem on a large map with more than 10 civs
As for a bore winning in the BC's, umm you try it again at a hard difficulty level and see how much of a bore it is trying to survive when you find out you have bitten more than you can chew too early. lolAs for the comment about obviously the bigger scores will be on large maps, haha, ohh I don't think so, all the big scores will be conquest on a small map for sure.
So far it looks as if you are right. The top three scores are all conquest games on small or medium maps.
I'm very much use to Civ II, so I'm still adjusting to the many changes that Civ 3 has.
There were a couple of things that needed to be fine tuned, but the page will be updated by this weekend.
If your name is not on the updated page it means that I did not get complete information from you or your saved games were not attached to the e-mail (both of which have already happened).
benjdm
Warlord
When I go to the HOF page it is still empty. Are there scores posted now ? If so, is anyone else having this problem ?
Um, no there are no scores yet....
If you really want to know benjdm, you are currently fourth for the Regent level.
benjdm
Warlord
Thanks ! I'm sure I won't last long, though.
Check out the Updated Page.
If there are any errors or changes needed, e-mail or PM me. Some of the submissions did not provided all the required information, so there are a few blanks for map sizes.
Deity Leader: tetley
Emperor Leader: Dark Schneider
Monarch Leader: tetley
Regent Leader: Smirk
Warlord Leader: Sir. Martin
Chieftan Leader: Celeron450
Congratulations to all who submitted, I can tell there is going to be some serious competition for spots on the HOF very soon.
If there are any errors or changes needed, e-mail or PM me. Some of the submissions did not provided all the required information, so there are a few blanks for map sizes.
Deity Leader: tetley
Emperor Leader: Dark Schneider
Monarch Leader: tetley
Regent Leader: Smirk
Warlord Leader: Sir. Martin
Chieftan Leader: Celeron450
Congratulations to all who submitted, I can tell there is going to be some serious competition for spots on the HOF very soon.
I think it would be nice to see the finish time as well, since you get a bonus for any early finish it would be helpful to see at a glance what sort of game that person played. For instance a 2050 UN victory is definately a milked game.
Also the civ played, but I see you mentioned using different colors.
My last suggestion I sent to you in a submission as well, have people include the 4000BC auto save so others can play the same map and compete directly with a highscore. This would remove any kind of lucky map scenarios.
Looks great however, keep up the good work.
tetley your scores are going down!
Muwahahaha!
Also the civ played, but I see you mentioned using different colors.
My last suggestion I sent to you in a submission as well, have people include the 4000BC auto save so others can play the same map and compete directly with a highscore. This would remove any kind of lucky map scenarios.
Looks great however, keep up the good work.
tetley your scores are going down!
Muwahahaha!
Most of the highest scores were from games played on tiny and small maps. I am guessing that this means the games were won very early, so they got a huge bonus to score. Just my opinion, but I enjoy playing a game for a long time, so I rarely play on anything smaller than medium. I have posted this idea before, but I really hope the scoring is fixed in another patch. Has anybody beaten deity on a medium map or larger. Now I bet that is hard.
On one hand clearly its easier to get a conquest victory on a tiny map, on the other hand any old joe can milk a larger map until 2050 and get a large score just from settling cities and sheer population. So how do you fix the scoring so that both are equalized?
Basically they are on two different poles, conquest is best for small maps, and building is best for large maps. You would have to have two separate scoring systems, one for conquest and one for milking the game. The conquest one would give more bonus for larger maps, and the other would give more bonus for small maps.
Giving a bonus for smaller maps on the basic population scoring system should equalize the scores between a tiny map and a huge map. So those of equal skill would get the same score no matter what map they played, they wouldn't get a bonus just because the landmass supports more cities and therefore more population which creates higher scores.
Same could goes for conquest, on a tiny map if the best my skills can muster is a 200BC win, and on a huge map if the best I can do is 1500AD, the score I should get for both those games would be similar in a balanced scoring system.
The only thing I think may be a good idea that we as players can do is just create a balancing factor for the game size and type. For instance I would make medium the standard map size and its factor would be 1.00, tiny for conquest would get maybe something like 0.50, whereas large would get 1.5 (just guesses, I doubt tiny and huge are equally distant from medium scores).
On an unrelated topic:
Duke,
Kind of a rules clarification, when you say default rules would that include something like specifing which other civs you are playing, or how many? I noticed the winner in the chieftain level turned off 2 of the civs so that he only had to defeat 1 civ in the game. That doesn't seem very fair, and also potentially ruins it for conquests, since its obviously easier to conquest when you only have 1 enemy, right? This can be said about non-conquest games as well less civs less competition for land.
Basically they are on two different poles, conquest is best for small maps, and building is best for large maps. You would have to have two separate scoring systems, one for conquest and one for milking the game. The conquest one would give more bonus for larger maps, and the other would give more bonus for small maps.
Giving a bonus for smaller maps on the basic population scoring system should equalize the scores between a tiny map and a huge map. So those of equal skill would get the same score no matter what map they played, they wouldn't get a bonus just because the landmass supports more cities and therefore more population which creates higher scores.
Same could goes for conquest, on a tiny map if the best my skills can muster is a 200BC win, and on a huge map if the best I can do is 1500AD, the score I should get for both those games would be similar in a balanced scoring system.
The only thing I think may be a good idea that we as players can do is just create a balancing factor for the game size and type. For instance I would make medium the standard map size and its factor would be 1.00, tiny for conquest would get maybe something like 0.50, whereas large would get 1.5 (just guesses, I doubt tiny and huge are equally distant from medium scores).
On an unrelated topic:
Duke,
Kind of a rules clarification, when you say default rules would that include something like specifing which other civs you are playing, or how many? I noticed the winner in the chieftain level turned off 2 of the civs so that he only had to defeat 1 civ in the game. That doesn't seem very fair, and also potentially ruins it for conquests, since its obviously easier to conquest when you only have 1 enemy, right? This can be said about non-conquest games as well less civs less competition for land.
I don't 'milk' the game for points. I win as soon as I can, usually with a diplomatic victory as soon as the UN is built. If the state of international affairs does not allow diplomatic victory for whatever reason, then yeah, it takes longer. I may have to wait for a cultural victory, or attempt domination. I usually enter the modern age around 1650 AD. I can't even imagine spending the time to milk one of these games. Add to that the patience it would take to sit through turn after turn that take 2-5 minutes a piece for the AI, and I would say people should be somehow compensated for their patience. Not for me though. I get bored. The fact that all of the really high scores are on tiny and small maps does bother me though. Despot rushing a huge military to destroy 3 or 4 opponents is really not that hard. What is hard is fighting off a overwhelmingly large force sent by a large, industrialized nation or preventing several large opponents from ganging up on you.
I have a question. How do you know someone didn't cheat. I can change the rules to give my civ all the benefits plus 4 techs to start with. Then pick a civ like the Aztecs and change their special unit to something like 20/20/6! I can easily conquer the whole world very quickly. Hence a huge score.
jju, i am not sure but I wonder if the saved game would include some info allowing you to know it is a modified game.
On another note. I'm starting to believe that the hall of fame should include normal sized maps with 7 opponents ONLY.
Reasons?
Possible to milk a bigger map for more points, but it is no harder at all. In reality your end score is almost always determined by your performance in the first 50 to 100 turns.
Possible to get an insanely easy, insanely early win on a 1v1 game on a tiny map. Just need to wait until the random generater puts you close enough to that other guy.
This would be a level playing field. Its just impossible to compare 1v1 on tiny to 1v7 on normal to 1v? on Huge.
Then we would be getting a true hall of fame instead of a hall of "What map and opponents spec's allow the biggest score".
I'd also like to see a situation where victories of different types are possible, ie you won't get a very high score with spaceship or UN on a tiny map.
Finally, I think games should have to have ALL victory types turned on. Why? There is an easy way to get a massive score. Huge map, Conquest the only victory type, and then just conquer and population boom. You have no fear of losing by tech (spaceship), popularity (UN), culture (has a comp ever won by this?), and can go all out war. I think a level playing field makes a HoF great.
This would leave room for the 9 different types of of maps and the different civs to give variety.
Eliezar
On another note. I'm starting to believe that the hall of fame should include normal sized maps with 7 opponents ONLY.
Reasons?
Possible to milk a bigger map for more points, but it is no harder at all. In reality your end score is almost always determined by your performance in the first 50 to 100 turns.
Possible to get an insanely easy, insanely early win on a 1v1 game on a tiny map. Just need to wait until the random generater puts you close enough to that other guy.
This would be a level playing field. Its just impossible to compare 1v1 on tiny to 1v7 on normal to 1v? on Huge.
Then we would be getting a true hall of fame instead of a hall of "What map and opponents spec's allow the biggest score".
I'd also like to see a situation where victories of different types are possible, ie you won't get a very high score with spaceship or UN on a tiny map.
Finally, I think games should have to have ALL victory types turned on. Why? There is an easy way to get a massive score. Huge map, Conquest the only victory type, and then just conquer and population boom. You have no fear of losing by tech (spaceship), popularity (UN), culture (has a comp ever won by this?), and can go all out war. I think a level playing field makes a HoF great.
This would leave room for the 9 different types of of maps and the different civs to give variety.
Eliezar
The Civ that was played will be shown by the text color. It was not done this time because I could not open some of the saved games to find out who they were.
I agree that the scoring is skewed towards a fast easy victory, especially with a 1 vs 1 game. I am thinking of making it a requirment to have at least 7 civs in the game. I'm not sure about requiring a certain map size, but, as a couple of you had mentioned, that would give more of an accruate picture for the HOF.
I am also thinking of having something similar to the GOTM. I would post a saved game and everyone can play it and the top ten for that game will be shown. There would be a time limit of (maybe) 3 months. I'm still trying to think of things that can make the HOF better and more fun.
I agree that the scoring is skewed towards a fast easy victory, especially with a 1 vs 1 game. I am thinking of making it a requirment to have at least 7 civs in the game. I'm not sure about requiring a certain map size, but, as a couple of you had mentioned, that would give more of an accruate picture for the HOF.
I am also thinking of having something similar to the GOTM. I would post a saved game and everyone can play it and the top ten for that game will be shown. There would be a time limit of (maybe) 3 months. I'm still trying to think of things that can make the HOF better and more fun.
Similar threads
