High Scores Seem Possibly Easier Than Past Civ Games

[drjones]

However, I would suggest aiming for fast finishes rather than high scores, and installing 1.52 for the much faster game play.

Wait, why? I mean I like this game and love long complicated games on huge maps. So why should I game it to get a first quarter win? I understand that some folks are saying 'fast finishes get more points deal with it' but it's a game I see absolutely no reason to have less fun playing to make a number bigger on the screene.

And honestly I have less respect for the whole HOF idea when winning fast means more than winning well. Any rule system for scoring will promote gaming of the system to take advantage of the scoring algorythm but this current system straight-up sucks.

-drjones

 

[Dianthus]

It's up to you drjones, the main thing is that you enjoy the game, but the whole point of the HOF is to get your name up on the tables, and the way to do that is to get a high score or a fast finish. If that's not your thing maybe you could get involved in another part of the CFC site? Maybe in an SG, or the Demo game?

 

[superslug]

Wait, why? I mean I like this game and love long complicated games on huge maps.

Fastest finish is kind of an oxymoron on huge maps, given how long anything takes on that size. Why not go for fastest UN or Spaceship on a huge map? Those would definitely take awhile!

Dianthus is right that CFC in general has a lot to offer, but don't give up on us in the HOF just yet. We're still in a beta mode, and I'm fairly certain we'll be coming up with our own scoring algorithms.

 

[Smirk]

...I have less respect for the whole HOF idea when winning fast means more than winning well. Any rule system for scoring will promote gaming of the system to take advantage of the scoring algorythm but this current system straight-up sucks.

I'm not sure I understand you here as this paragraph seems to be discussing two different things. Your latter point I agree with, as I find it boring to game the scoring system, for one because I doubt the scoring system is an adequate representation of game skill and two because it invariably will result in one particular style of play that trumps all others. In Civ3 this was the fast almost domination milk. In Civ4 its looking like a mix between fast domination and early conquest, this is looking like an Jason derived scoring system which should make Aeson proud, but this makes for a tedious boring play style.

Because of that the only other option is to win quickly. Then each victory type has a different play style which means there is as much variety as there are victory conditions. So winning fast is to me synonymous with winning well. If you dilly dally building, be it fantastic cities or extensive armies you make the actual process of winning much easier, when you could have made do with less and done it quicker. Knowing the when and how much is just about the only skill that isn't just procedural knowledge.

 

[playshogi]

After submitting 3 games (Duel, Monarch) to the HOF, I'm a little disappointed that my highest scoring game is my least desirable game. In that game, I surrounded Bismark's last city, and dallied to build a couple of wonders, research tech and grow Berlin. Thus, I got a higher score than my fastest finishing game. I think fastest finish by map size and victory type is better than using the score. Victory on time can be determined by number of AI civs remaining because that, at least, would complicate the milking process.

 

[Moonsinger]

Just curious, what is the highest possible score have you seen? I got around 280K on a standard map size in my last game. I'm not sure if it's a good score or not.

 

[Regislian]

Just curious, what is the highest possible score have you seen? I got around 280K on a standard map size in my last game. I'm not sure if it's a good score or not.

wow.... the highest score on the table is like 160k now...

 

[superslug]

I'm not sure if it's a good score or not.

We've only had two submissions over 200,000 points so far, so I'd say yeah, it's a good score.

I'm not entirely sure why people sometimes refer to the HOF as "superslug's". I sometimes feel like less of a competitve event admin, and more like your publicist.

 

[Moonsinger]

We've only had two submissions over 200,000 points so far, so I'd say yeah, it's a good score.

In that case, may I ask one more question: has there been any submission over 300,000 points yet?

 

[superslug]

In that case, may I ask one more question: has there been any submission over 300,000 points yet?

No. You've got the two highest top scores right now.

 

[Moonsinger]

No. You've got the two highest top scores right now.

Thanks for answer my silly question! After my last post, I realized that I did submit two games over 200K. Anyway, I just move up a level and probably will break 300K pretty soon.

 

[Regislian]

Thanks for answer my silly question! After my last post, I realized that I did submit two games over 200K. Anyway, I just move up a level and probably will break 300K pretty soon.

writeups plz

 

[Moonsinger]

writeups plz

If you wish to know how I did it, check out this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152148

Have fun! Hope to see your high score right beside mine soon.

 

[ThERat]

Moonsinger on cracking the code to get such scores.
I just wonder whether this kind of highly exploitive game isn't too repetitive to be fun. Maybe I wasn't a fan of ICS as well, that's why I wonder. How do you manage to stay interested in this kind of game?
But, I would also be curious how you would manage this style with barbs not switched off on epic. Because those chopping strategies such as chop near your enemy borders aren't that easy any longer. Maybe you can find a way to beat that too.

 

[Regislian]

If you wish to know how I did it, check out this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152148

Have fun! Hope to see your high score right beside mine soon.

ah thanks!

might gonna try a deity game soon

 

[Orm]

Hi all
I'd like to ask what would generate more points - domination or cultural victory? (supposing that they both can be reached at the same time (+- 1 year)?

sry if it's wrong thread, but I didnt find the more suitable one

Orm

 

[Dianthus]

Hi all

Hi Orm!

I'd like to ask what would generate more points - domination or cultural victory? (supposing that they both can be reached at the same time (+- 1 year)?

There's no difference between victory conditions in the scoring formula, so it doesn't matter which one you go for if score is all you're worried about. If you're submitting to the HOF then finish date is also important as we have seperate tables for the fastest finish for each victory condition, so you might want to choose the victory condition with the easiest dates to beat in the HOF tables. (I guess you've seen the >> HOF site <<?)

 

[Orm]

I expected this answer after studying of some formulas placed somewhere in this forum. It seems that finish date is the most important parameter in CIV 4 HOF calculation ...

I saw the tables at HOF sites but not too many cultural victories are there...
IMO, to achieve top score with this (my favourite) kind of victory is almost impossible, unless you are very lucky (combo of good terrain, stone, marble, religions, peaceful neighbours...) or VERY good player (not my case ). It needs much more planning from the beginning and more time than conquest or domination.
(I can't compare it with SS victory, because I disabled it - tried once and it was just boring components-construction rush at the end of the game)

 

[Smirk]

The key aspects to score are population, land area, techs, wonders and early win date so maximizing the first four while minimizing the last will yield the best score no matter the victory condition.

Some victories fare better with that in mind that others, notably domination. But as Dianthus pointed out; quick victory has its own table so you could play a game that has culture as its sole purpose and ignore the points issue with regards to land mass and population.

Although as it stands now (until a patch fixes it) there is only *one* strategy for highest score and thats a constant anarchy domination game. Unless another exploit is uncovered that is even more advantageous.

 

[Orm]

Sorry for my imperfect locution (non-native English speaker).

1. I have no ambitions to reach the top - I am simply not good enough , I was just curious what are the calculations for different types of victories...

2. HOF tables give me some hints - how good/bad I am and other players are, but direct comparison is very problematic (even on the same map size and with the same difficulty there are many other conditions - land/ocean, locations of resources, hills, etc.).

Yeah, stop it...Anyway, it's the best game that I've ever played