Fix the score, please!
- Thread starter oagersnap
- Start date
oagersnap
Emperor
Maybe we should email Firaxis about this?
While they've tweaked the system a bit for difficulty in the 1.09 patch, the scoring still favours earlier victories over later ones far too much (as many have stated already). I'm a civ builder and have never even attempted a conquest route to victory so I tend to always go for later victories (time mostly).
I am sure it has been mentioned already but couldn't you just add a certain amount of points for each piece of infrastructure?
so if you were warmongering only then you probably didn't build 6 universities which would = 6 * X = Y points
The question is how much for each building?
Another option is you get a bonus based on your overall culture at the end of the game.
==> an aside of this is if you are at war all cities could stop/severly limit producing culture. Because, and correct me if I am wrong, but if at war doesn't a nation's effort go into the war and not into making art?
so if you were warmongering only then you probably didn't build 6 universities which would = 6 * X = Y points
The question is how much for each building?
Another option is you get a bonus based on your overall culture at the end of the game.
==> an aside of this is if you are at war all cities could stop/severly limit producing culture. Because, and correct me if I am wrong, but if at war doesn't a nation's effort go into the war and not into making art?
You'll never be able to create a scoring system where all the victory types are scored evenly. There will always be one best way to get the highest score possible.
Who cares anyway? You guys know you can filter your high score screen by victory type right?
Who cares anyway? You guys know you can filter your high score screen by victory type right?
Efexeye
Silly Donkey
Thalassicus said:
Well said. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, but the game is very much tailored for warmongering, at least in terms of high scores. I'[m a turtle, so my scores always suck, even when I win. I don't WANT to fight, why should I have to to stay competitive in the scoring?
Problems with the scoring system:
A domination against 1 Civ on a small map is worth as much as a domination against 12 civs on a huge map ... the latter is obviously considerably harder, but there's nothing built into the system to accomodate for this.
The number of civs you are playing against and the world size should have a direct effect on the resulting score.
Additionally, the current scoring system is heavily slanted towards domination/conquest style games ... it rewards land grabbing and population size in a weighted manner ... try playing a more peaceful game and you'll see your score slipping unless you continually - CONTINUALLY - found and grab new cities throughout the entire game.
Net result? If one style of play rewards more points over another, it stands to reason that if both styles won a game in the same year, the style that emphasizes growth will actually give more points at the end of the day.
Diplomacy and Culture victories are typically scored in the latter part of the game, but by going for these you therefore resign yourself to the fact that a conquest victory could have brought about an earlier win and therefore more points. Again, more emphasis on the warring style of play.
If I want to score big points, I'll go for a conquest victory over 1 opponent on a small map. 'fin.
My style of play, however, is to have as many AI as possible on a HUGE map ... I have, immediately, cut my own wrists ... the game will be longer and my points much lower because of it. Something doesn't add up.
A domination against 1 Civ on a small map is worth as much as a domination against 12 civs on a huge map ... the latter is obviously considerably harder, but there's nothing built into the system to accomodate for this.
The number of civs you are playing against and the world size should have a direct effect on the resulting score.
Additionally, the current scoring system is heavily slanted towards domination/conquest style games ... it rewards land grabbing and population size in a weighted manner ... try playing a more peaceful game and you'll see your score slipping unless you continually - CONTINUALLY - found and grab new cities throughout the entire game.
Net result? If one style of play rewards more points over another, it stands to reason that if both styles won a game in the same year, the style that emphasizes growth will actually give more points at the end of the day.
Diplomacy and Culture victories are typically scored in the latter part of the game, but by going for these you therefore resign yourself to the fact that a conquest victory could have brought about an earlier win and therefore more points. Again, more emphasis on the warring style of play.
If I want to score big points, I'll go for a conquest victory over 1 opponent on a small map. 'fin.
My style of play, however, is to have as many AI as possible on a HUGE map ... I have, immediately, cut my own wrists ... the game will be longer and my points much lower because of it. Something doesn't add up.
