Why the Hall of Fame Scores do not mean anything.

[TomA]

I've been playing Civ3 pretty regularly, and generally I like games in which I build up my CIV to a nice size, and then fight a nice large war or two against other developed Civs. Even though it is off the topic, I think its extremely boring to not fight a later years war, all that is left is micromanagement at that stage.
My high score so far is 1800 or so, on warlord, and I've just started playing on regent. The game in which I had my score (space race victory), was one in which I had a large Civ, dominating a continent, with basically a large tech lead, and had a large culture and military. In other words, I was able to choose my type of victory.
Yesterday, I played, simply out of curiosity, a game on Regent, as the Zulu's, against one opponent (the French), on a tiny map (pangea). What I did was I only built military units and attacked Paris. I took the city rather quickly, since their capital was right next to mine, and all of a sudden, they restarted in another city near by. I sent all my military units (rushed through Despotism, and increased my happiness rate up to a 100%, no science or money needed), to their new capital, and quickly overtook it, ending the game through conquest. My score was 13800 or so. This score would put me in first place on the hall of fame, yet it doesn't seem fair to do so. And yet, I see other people with scores achieved on tiny maps by conquest. It seems impossible (or extremely difficult) to achieve a score this high by building up your civ, yet it took absolutely no skill to achieve this victory for me. Does this seem fair?
Does anyone know which victory types provide higher point totals anyway? If I conquered a large map, would I achieve a higher score? Should this website not allow these types of victories on their hall of fame?

 

[cutiestar]

You are correct, the small pangea conquest will kick ass for scores, and it takes no skill, it is almost a joke, the first GOTM wasn't far different, I think the only way to limit the ridiculous way of scoring for the hall of fame, is to make a limit on how few civs you play against on small maps, or atleast pangea.

If the guys want to just rush out and kill for a high score, atleast make them get map making, a boat, and maybe a lighthouse before they can achieve it

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

You're absolutely right. That quick-and-easy sort of win is a joke Take some pride in your empire, dammit!

Perhaps we could put some 'minimums' in place. ie: game lasts until 1AD, small map, 6 civs...etc.

 

[jc011]

or you could also take out the total domination win.

 

[Archbob]

Doesn't population count into score like it did in Civ II? I'm getting civIII for christmas and I want to know.

 

[Damien]

The real problem is the scoring system:it ain't complex.
It's not relative to the situation.
In civ2,u just gotta build a civ on a giant map with 1 opponent at chieftain level n u'll have many pts due the population pts.
Without those bonuses in civ3,the problem would be the same with pop pts n territory.
It's not based on the % of overall worldwide pop n % of territory.
Another scoring system;fair n inspirated from the players' experience is needed.
Let's imagine a scoring system based on the % of the pop(in which is the % the happy;content n unhappy citizens),the % of land,the number of techs,wonders.
+pts relative to the land mass(linked to the world size n the % of land),the difficulty level,the WLTKs,the barbarians,n the year of the victory.
-pts relative to the pollution n the revolts.
Those bonuses must be fair.
P.S:i liked the scoring system in CTP n the %score.

 

[cutiestar]

A bonus for the WLTK days would be great, then players who sacrifice science and money for happiness are being rewarded, especially if they are able to still win the game while doing it