Do you care about the score and leaderboard at the end of a solo game?

[PiR]

Often in strategy guides we see advices to focus on the victory.

And yes it's better to win with a low score than to lose with a high one.

But I found that if you just focus on your victory, unless your conquer a lot, then you will end up winning with a low score and the joy of dozens of hours playing your game will be mitigated by a screen comparing you with some of the worst leaders of history...

Do you care about that and just focus on winning?
Or do you also try to achieve high score (e.g. building useless wonders, getting useless GP, etc.) to be very proud of you at the end of the game.

 

[Chekko]

Never been a guy who goes on to focus on unlocking achievements, to complete the side missions and stuff. All that matters to me if I have fun so I don't follow metas and such either, always found it more fun to just use my own imagination and play. Fun is my first priority, victory is second. Though if it was a tight game and I lost, I tend to load that autosave 20-30 turns before the loss and try to win it. Doesn't feel like a legitimate victory but eh.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I do sometimes, but I never prioritize it. I do prioritize building an empire that even the Romans would be proud of.

 

[bengalryan9]

Score seems so disproportionally dependent on domination and empire size that I generally don't concern myself with it.

 

[kaspergm]

Not concerned with it. I did feel a certain element of satisfaction when I did manage to score enough to take first spot, but really the scoring system is completely off as others have said, so even if a HOF was introduced, it would be completely meaningless.

 

[Equilin]

Only in scenarios, where scores are usually the main deciding factor for victory. In a regular game i never cared.

 

[Time Tested]

I enjoyed the scoreboard in previous iterations of Civ where it depended on win time and difficulty level. But in Civ 6, it doesn't matter to me because it's not a good reflection of the game I played. As others stated, the score is too dependent on raw empire size to really mean anything.

 

[Finvola]

I'm not a fan of the scoring system either, although I do look at the graphs and HoF when I've finished a game. I'm currently going through all the leaders, either ones I haven't played yet or ones I haven't played since the base game or R & F and are grayed out in the GS Hall of Fame. I do like going for achievements but I don't push myself for them. If they happen they happen or if I remember to do this or that, that's fine. Once I finish filling in all the leader heads I probably won't look at the HoF so often. But I don't care about the score and won't do needless things just to bring the score up.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I'm not a fan of the scoring system either, although I do look at the graphs and HoF when I've finished a game. I'm currently going through all the leaders, either ones I haven't played yet or ones I haven't played since the base game or R & F and are grayed out in the GS Hall of Fame. I do like going for achievements but I don't push myself for them. If they happen they happen or if I remember to do this or that, that's fine. Once I finish filling in all the leader heads I probably won't look at the HoF so often. But I don't care about the score and won't do needless things just to bring the score up.

Ah, achievements. I go after those. Not all the time, but they are fun to go after.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

I have yet to receive a legitimate (IMHO) score/ranking at the end of any of my games after over 4,000 hours of play. Pretty worthless and incomprehensible scoring in my eyes no matter the degree of difficulty or speed of victory or monumental of the empire.

I HAVE found myself trying to garner a few achievements here and there if I happen to know what a particular leader might have...but the tedium of having to find a list of achievements, mark them down, or remember even the more arcane ones lends itself too easily to ignoring them completely out of sheer frustration. IF the goal of the game designer is to engage a player- then making achievements more readily accessible would make a ton of sense. Hey, you are playing a game as "leader X" on such and such map etc ..did you know THESE achievements are able to be had in your upcoming game!? More so, something in-game would be grand... and engaging.

 

[BD123]

It feels disappointing to win a game just to see your score is bottom of the barrel. You can still get 2500+ peacefully with the right luck but that's hardly a regular occurrence. CiV had a pretty rewarding scoring system but I agree with others here that Civ VI's scoring is all out of whack and focuses entirely too much on empire size and domination victories. I wonder if it's possible for the devs to fix up and rework the scoring system or if it's too late for that?

As for achievements, I'll try to get the "win with X leader" here and there, but some of the other achievements like that Panama Canal with two cities one just seem so confusing or extremely labor intensive to get, especially considering some of the requirements of those achievements aren't things that will be built or sought after in a regular game (like who seriously builds Panama Canal without a mod to boost its effect?)

 

[nzcamel]

Yes. I like beating previous scores. I was stunned it took so long for the HOF to appear. I suspect they had decided early on that Steam Achievements had pretty much replaced the need for a HOF for the majority of players; and for some I think they guessed right. But I think a large enough % of us still want a deeper comparison of specific games.

As for achievements, I'll try to get the "win with X leader" here and there, but some of the other achievements like that Panama Canal with two cities one just seem so confusing or extremely labor intensive to get, especially considering some of the requirements of those achievements aren't things that will be built or sought after in a regular game (like who seriously builds Panama Canal without a mod to boost its effect?)

It's good that there are a range of achievements from super easy to super hard. To me it should be that way; and it sounds like you aren't that bothered that you aren't going to get the harder ones.

 

[WillowBrook]

In civ vi, I ignore the score - it's not calculated in any sort of satisfying way. I am aiming to fill up my personal hof eventually, and I enjoy checking off Steam achievements.

 

[Elhoim]

Not really, doesn't seem balanced or representative.

 

[ShakaKhan]

I mean.... if I play a space victory game (Or if I ever play a Diplo victory til the end - too much of a yawn-fest) I'll take a glance at it and see if I cracked the top spot - I've made it to second once with a 25 city empire on a small map, but otherwise I disregard it. Want to know how to increase your score? Simply don't win when the opportunity comes along; delay and build a wonder or two while your population increases before building that last spaceship part and start spamming laser stations. Or simply hit "end turn" a few dozen times before conquering the final capital, and settle a few more cities. The longer the game goes which kind of implies the less optimally you've played, the higher your score will be. And while I love this game and this series of games, the biggest consistent flaw that it has to me, through all six titles and various states of them, is that the game is usually decided around 1/3 of the play time through it, and when ending becomes possible, I do so as quickly as possible, as I'm simultaneously exhausted with the current game that I'm playing and drooling over the next game to come.

 

[Piranga]

I don't care about the end of game score at all. I just like finishing games so I fill out the win tally for each leader in the Hall of Fame.

(I'm missing quite a few cause the HoF wasn't added on release. Still irks me)

 

[Xur]

I used to watch the replay map for every game. But for some reason civ6 does not have this feature. Winning or losing a game in civ6 is pointless for me without that feature. The current win or loss in civ6 is not much different than just quitting the game.

 

[Myomoto]

Not really. Score seems totally broken in 6 anyway.

 

[Deggial]

..., so even if a HOF was introduced, it would be completely meaningless.

What do you mean with “if” and “would”?
A HoF was introduced and does exist.
Admittedly too late (it should have been implemented at the first day) and it’s also not very telling due to the huge adjustments done over time, which made games less comparable.

The way points being distributed is another issue. However, for me as a domination focused player, it’s less of a concern.
Therefore, I actually like the HoF and always look, how I did in comparison to my previous games with different leaders. I don’t like MP and “competing” against myself is the only competition I have.
On the other hand, enjoying a game is the most important goal and leader board position just the icing on the cake.

 

[PiR]

Thanks all for your feedbacks!!
I think it will help concentrate less on that and more on the victory. But probably, I did because the end of the game you know you've won but else do you have to do except improving your score?

It's good that there are a range of achievements from super easy to super hard. To me it should be that way; and it sounds like you aren't that bothered that you aren't going to get the harder ones.

Totally agree. I personnally like to go after them, but I also agree they are not presented (in Steam anyway) in an optimal way to organize yourself chasing for them... How CTFL+F did I do on the achievement page... If the challenge of the achievement was presented to us in-game, that would be awesome, but I think it's too late for that.

I used to watch the replay map for every game. But for some reason civ6 does not have this feature. Winning or losing a game in civ6 is pointless for me without that feature. The current win or loss in civ6 is not much different than just quitting the game.

How I miss that too!!!