Fix the score, please!

[oagersnap]

I really, really want a score system that actually works. To me it's nonsense that if you conquer the world in 600 AD, you'll get a score of 35000 and be ranked a better leader than Caesar Augustus, but if you win a peaceful space race victory in 1980 AD, your score will be about 3000 and your ranking will be on par with Dan Quayle.
Don't you agree?

 

[Pentium]

Absolutely.

I'm a peaceful type of guy too, so I usually win by SS. Even though I play on Monarch/Emperor (will soon be higher), I'm a good friend of Dan Quayle.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I think it should be fixed too, but how? It's true that the more difficult to attain victories should score higher, but how do you compare a domination to a space game (for example)?

 

[warpstorm]

So, you are saying that when you win should not be a big factor of your score?

 

[Pentium]

At least I'm not saying that. But, let's say a 1500AD SS would give as many point as a 500BC Domination. Again, military ones should depend on mapsize, while the peaceful ones shouldn't.

 

[MeteorPunch]

One thing for example, with it being terribly easy to generate culture in Civ 4, domination victories are much easier to attain than conquest, but get a better score because you always hit domination faster (unless playing on an easy level).

Also, a GOTM-style "best date" should be determined to scale different victorie types vs. each other.

 

[Pentium]

Also, a GOTM-style "best date" should be determined to scale different victorie types vs. each other.

That's mostly what I'm talking about.

 

[MRM]

I agree it must be fixed. IMO it should depend on how early the victory type could be achieved. For domination/conquest map size and number of opponents should play a role. So far my best score was an inca rush on a duell map against one other civ ( next to 40000 ) so the score don't reflect how hard earned the victory was at all ...

And the ranking list must be broader. Getting a Dan Quale for a victory or even a well developed empire is lame - the lowest rank should be for those who really lost the game ( whiped of the map, or endedwith two sucking cities only, beeing backwarded towards the other civs ) - and the highest ranking should be much harder to get. I allready had won several Augustus Ceasars and I think I am only a medium skilled player ( so far only won not higher than prince difficult level ) - So IMO the highest ranking should be really really really hard to get so that it is a challange to get there ...

 

[Psyringe]

Imho the scoring system weighs the time factor too much, thereby favouring early conquests. It could be improved. There won't be a perfect scoring system for a game so complex as Civ however, that would be impossible.

 

[Tauro]

It should be also fixed in conquest/domination according to the map size. If you win in 1950 AD in a large map your score is lower compared to a standard map even if it's harder.
And the difficoult ratio is still totally unbalanced...
I find that from emperor the game begin hard but it's never reflected on score. I have all my prince/monarch score up in HOF and emperor always down. A no sense.

 

[Commander Bello]

It definetely needs a fix. Reasons have been stated above, already.

 

[Pounder]

Map size and number of Civs should be factors.

As far as the ranking goes, I have won a game ( time victory) and I had the bottom ranking.

 

[Flak]

I just recently won a Time victory but had my choice of a culture victory or a spaceship victory. I was number ranked across the board in anything that is important and, for this game, I even took a more aggressive approach and wiped out a neighboring civ on my continent, something I really don't like to do unless I'm provoked. Still ended up a Dan Quayle.

 

[oagersnap]

I'm glad that so many people agree with me on this issue. I really hope it will be fixed in the next patch. I'm a builder-type, so I don't like the current system, where you can only reach a high score by winning by conquest or domination.

 

[Till]

I don't care much about the score, but i was suprised how low my last cultural win scored in comparison to a conquest success i had obtained earlier.
Favouring early victories is fine, but not to the current extend.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

At least I'm not saying that. But, let's say a 1500AD SS would give as many point as a 500BC Domination. Again, military ones should depend on mapsize, while the peaceful ones shouldn't.

NO, all game scores should depend on how many opponents, because you are more likely to win a spacerace againt 1 rather then 10

 

[Aldor]

I think the finish time should play a very minor role in the final score. Currently the score is made up from the following things: land area, population, military power, techs known, wonders etc. Then the early finish bonus is added on top of that. A player who wins by domination or conquest will already have a high score from population, land and power ratings, while a builder might have more in the area of techs and wonders. So, I don't think changing the time bonus would take away much from either playstyle.

 

[oagersnap]

Aldor, I still think there should be a bonus for the finish date, but it should be much smaller than it is right now.

 

[Psyringe]

NO, all game scores should depend on how many opponents, because you are more likely to win a spacerace againt 1 rather then 10

It's not that easy. The sentence above is only true if the AIs have enough room. If you put 18 AIs on a tiny map, you can wage a war so that you've got 3 cities when everyone else has just one. You're then guaranteed to win the space race because you can finish three parts when others finish one.

 

[Thalassicus]

Right now the score is almost entirely dependent on just two things: how much territory you control and when you win. This boils down to nothing more than a numerical indicator of how much you warmongered...which isn't an accurate measure of how challenging a game was.

Each victory type simply should be independent of the others, and your score should be placed somewhere on the range of expected values. So on a Small-sized Continents map, for example, the earliest it might be physically possible win a Domination victory might be date A (say 1000BC), and it shouldn't be too hard to win by date B (say 1500AD). Your score would depend on where in those values you fall. So a Domination victory in 1500 AD would net you about the same point bonus as a Space Race victory in 2050.

These ranges would largely depend on map size. On a Tiny map it'd likely be easy to achieve Conquest by 1000BC, whereas on a Huge map it'd be challenging to do that even by 2000 AD. On the other hand, the date you can achieve a Space Race doesn't vary too much by map size.