Does It Matter To You Where You Rank On The Leader Scale?

[tdqtiger]

I have just recently gotten to the point that I can get past the Hoover level and get some decent final rankings. The only thing is that now when I win a game, if I get a low ranking I feel like I lost. (I also tend to let this influence my game play as well). I'm just curious if this matters to anyone else, especially you guys that play at the higher levels.

 

[s.bernbaum]

It doesn't matter to me. I am usually surprised if it is a top ranking. It always amuses me when it is a low one because of who's names they use for those. I have no idea where I usually fall on the list. I would say it is rather meaningless. OTOH, I don't play to compete with anyone. I just play the game for fun.

 

[PreLynMax]

As long as the screen reads "PreLynMax has won XXX Victory!", I would care less about the final score. Only the joys of victory sastify me.

 

[lymond]

It matters to me when I play the regular game and I usually play to win as fast as possible with the hghest score possible. The exception is when I'm trying to win on Deity in which case survival is more a priority.

However, I have also played just for fun - usually with some mod. In that case, the ranking doesn't matter to me.

 

[tdqtiger]

That makes me feel better then. Just from reading a lot of the threads on here, I was imagining that these guys were lighting up the scoreboard.

 

[Psyringe]

Score and ranking are totally irrelevant for me. I haven't actually studied the Civ4 ranking system, but usually with such systems you score high by either winning very fast, or maxing out everything until the last possible turn. Getting a high score becomes a rather boring effort of calculating the sweet spot when to stop milking and sctually win the game.

Whether or not a game is satisfying for me depends on the course it took, on the events that took place. The ranking at the end is just an arbitrary attempt by a mindless algorithm to determine the quality of one's play by checking the values of a number of variables at game end, which is an intrinsically flawed approach. (I achieve the highest ranking in about 70% of my games btw, but I really don't think it means anything.)

 

[Darth Fred]

I have just recently gotten to the point that I can get past the Hoover level and get some decent final rankings. The only thing is that now when I win a game, if I get a low ranking I feel like I lost. (I also tend to let this influence my game play as well). I'm just curious if this matters to anyone else, especially you guys that play at the higher levels.

I don't really care either way. As other's have already expressed, a win is a win and I play for fun in the first place.
F

 

[CajNatalie]

I just want to win... however, I did use Augustus Caesar as a measure for when I was ready to level up the difficulty.
Now I'm on Noble, and don't fancy going up to Prince just yet, so I'm just churning out Augustus ranks. I'd be surprised if I didn't score an Augustus, but it wouldn't mean anything... except that the young grasshopper is still not ready for Prince after all.

 

[Iranon]

The only time score mattered to me was when nuking several civs on the last turn secured a time victory after a very ridiculous game.

 

[r_rolo1]

If the ranks were well calibrated, they could matter a little ... but given how easy is to get a AC-score victory + the points actually acheivable in game ( last time i checked the max posted score in HoF was closing of 2 million ... can someone give me the updated intel ? ), it means less than nothing.

 

[Bushface]

I wholly agree with r rolo1 that the ranks are poorly "calibrated", being far too close-set. A normalised score of 10000 or above gives you Augustus: I play for fun at Emperor level and regularly get scores around twenty times that figure - unless of course I am given a horrible start and horrible close neighbours, and then I quit and am labelled Dan Quayle.

PS. Who was Dan Quayle anyway ? Don't bother to tell me, just a rhetorical question.

 

[r_rolo1]

I'll bother

Dan Quayle was a american politician known for his less than polished tirades ... stuff like the quote of Future tech in Civ IV ( "The future will be better tomorrow" ) and normally regarded by the Americans in general as not exactly the sharpest person on the Planet

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I just want to win... however, I did use Augustus Caesar as a measure for when I was ready to level up the difficulty.
Now I'm on Noble, and don't fancy going up to Prince just yet, so I'm just churning out Augustus ranks. I'd be surprised if I didn't score an Augustus, but it wouldn't mean anything... except that the young grasshopper is still not ready for Prince after all.

Prince is pretty much the same as Noble. The main difference is a slightly lower happiness gap at start (I believe -1 compared to Noble). Once you get HR, it doesn't matter as much.

 

[Bushface]

@r rolo1 - A rhetorical question is, as you don't seem to appreciate, one which does not require an answer but can be used as a means of expressing an opinion. Or simply, yes, I did know who, and what, he was.
There's a quotation from some wise man saying something like "Fame passes: obscurity is forever". Personally I'd prefer to be as obscure as I am rather than be remembered as an idiot.

 

[Sneaky Snake]

I don't really mind what score I get,(Most of the time I get Dan Quayle )But I'll give myself a pat on the back if I get in the higher areas.

 

[r_rolo1]

@r rolo1 - A rhetorical question is, as you don't seem to appreciate, one which does not require an answer but can be used as a means of expressing an opinion. Or simply, yes, I did know who, and what, he was.
There's a quotation from some wise man saying something like "Fame passes: obscurity is forever". Personally I'd prefer to be as obscure as I am rather than be remembered as an idiot.

I know what means rethorical I just know that not everyone that plays civ has a automatic knowledge of american politics of the 80's and, because of that, might not know who was Dan Quayle ( I didn't when I started playing civ iV )... and that someone might actually learn something of my awnser

 

[none]

It's the journey that matters, not actually getting there. I like long games and seeing my civ grow and alter its surroundings. The end game is not the most satisfying part IMO. Besides some settings can pretty much break a game (it goes both ways, some events are game breaking, some goody huts can make a huge difference -especially at lower levels).

If you want a really awesome score play the Earth map on Prince with Rome and rush with warriors and then build praetorians and add some catapults later on this way you'll get a domination victory very quickly and a very high score.