Differentiated scoring system?

[Pawel]

The current scoring system makes good sense for conquest, domination, and even time limited victories. Getting a bigger empire with more land and citizens certainly is a natural goal in such cases.

However, if one aims for a diplomatic or space race victory, clearly this is more challenging to achieve for a smaller empire. Thus, the bonus for land and populations should be reversed! In a cultural victory, one can imagine that wonders, big and small, as well as projects would be much more important than they are now. Also, the UN challenger should be the 2nd most popular civ.

Personally, I like space race victories since they let me see the full time line of the game. But in order to maximize my score, I usually delay it as soon as possible. As it is, the time bonus for doing it quickly is small.

The suggested differentiation would make the game much more interesting and smaller civs, especially if the form an alliance, could pose a challenge until the very end!

 

[zeeter]

I kind of agree that the more military methods of winning the game are more heavily weighted than the peaceful methods. I've won quite a few games with diplomacy and one with culture. I'm always near the bottom of the Dan Quayle list when I do, though.

 

[Bushface]

I almost always play Noble/normal/pangaea and have found that I can always win much earlier with a Cultural victory than by Space Race or Conquest. Due to the overpowering effect of an early win, this means far higher scores on Cultural. I can't comment on Diplomatic, never having tried it.
This means that the scoring is heavily biased against the more difficult types of victory, which is obviously wrong. The final score takes no account of the victory type, though it should.

 

[Pawel]

Well, with my suggestion above, a very early cultural win would not give you all that high a score since you wouldn't have had the time to build all the wonders...

My point is that the current system, which gives a large premium to population and land area, is well suited for conquest and domination. But wouldn't it be more fun if you knew that you would score higher on space race if you had a smaller civilization, and thus had to try finding the optimum balance, or got elected winner withough having the majority of the votes yourself?

This way different victories would encourage different playing strategies. Right now, I usually find that it is easy to fulfill all victory conditions at the same time. You just take your pick. To me, this kind of defeats the purpose of having all these choices!

 

[Pawel]

So, I gather that few people really care how many points they get, as long as they win?

 

[Grey Fox]

So, I gather that few people really care how many points they get, as long as they win?

Maybe that is a product of how the scoring system works atm.

 

[einherjar_LC]

I agree scoring is screwy. As such I rarely pay attention to the scoring anymore.

I have had several diplo(no self vote wins), SR, and cultural victories, only to be consistently scored near Dan Quayle.

In the same time span with conquest or domination victories, my sores are MUCH higher.

*shrug*

 

[Pawel]

But wouldn't it be more fun if the score was actually tailored to the victory type?

Then a tiny, but well liked nation could be feared diplomatic contender. And if you wanted to win the space race, you would always have to ask yourself, do I really need this extra city, and do I have to invade my neighbor to succeed, even if it means taking a hit to my score?