 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Raven's Claw (The Galactic Guardians Empire Thread)
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
| Thanks for the analysis of Greldon's games, VoT. |
|
Well, I am not VoT, I am PP. I was just faster than him on this case (being in another time zone help a lot) 
          
| |
|
| Stardock's take on the 'verse scoring, but... They have always stated that the 'verse is oriented towards the steady casual player. |
|
And the formula used correspond to that: having a steady submission rate avoid big jump and big fall. And this is linked with the splitting method in block and the formula based an total divided by squareroot of number of games in block, meaning that if there are lots of games in a block, one more or less has few effects, but if there are few games in the block, one more or one less games has a bigger impact on score.
And it very important in the case of Greldon since he was submitting games each day before he took his break.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| but I am recovering (My name is Weyr, and I am a snack) |
|
Yes, yes you are! 
     
| |
|
|
|
| Hey, Guardians and friends. I have started a new topic in the Guardian Hall at the new site to discuss improvments we could suggest to Startdock on the scoring method of the Metaverse. |
|
If it is in a guardian area (reserved to guardian and honorary guardian), I can't access it.
Why haven't you started a thread in the public chamber?
Have you looked at the following thread  Link in galactic forum?
| |
|
|
|
Peace, thank you for running the numbers too.
Greldon, Peace of course got it right. And unfortunately this will keep happening as the blocks slide around. If you would continue submitting games, on the 26th of each month, you would get a block completely empty, and that would cause a huge scoring flop as you have seen. The score would continually fluctuate.
I understand why you don't want to play another, but please, stay around and chat with us. I don't want this to drive you away too.
 
| |
|
|
|
You don't want to know. 
You have every right to be extremely angry though. The system isn't well done. Hopefully they will fix it for the next Metaverse.
| |
|
|
|
| My prolonged absence wasn’t by choice and it appears that I can never recover from that absence. |
|
Wrong. You just can't recover in few days. You forget that the time for metaverse is month and not days.
And the rules must be the same for everybody. It is the only guarantee for equity.
| The formula is bogus in my opinion (which means nothing) and I still don’t know why there has to be a formula at all |
|
In order to favorize new players, they have introduced aging and block to decide how to age. But it wasn't enough if people start cranking games.
You just have to look to alternate metaverse to see the desastrous effect for not diminushing effect for games when having sent a great amount of games in short time.
So they came with divinding by squareroot.
I guess what is really annoying you is that no recalc occurs on player that aren't submitting, because it favor player to stop submitting games when they reach a certain level.
| I’ve been over two million mpts twice and knocked back down. No explanation or logic can make this right. |
|
You mean that the justification behind the formula isn't right? It is you opinion. As a casual player (submitting roughly one game per week), I am happy with the current formula that allow me to rank 37
| This is Stardock saying to me, “Go Away!” because you’re not a casual player. It took nineteen games, but I finally get the message. |
|
I don't think you have taken the right message. They are saying: if you decided to crank games, we have some nice hurdles for you. The more you submit in a months, the more the hurdle. And if you stop submitting for too long, you also have hurdles.
| |
|
#14940
by Citizen Weyrleader - 7/27/2004 9:34:08 AM
| Have you looked at the following thread Link in galactic forum? |
|
Yes, I am aware of that thread. I could of course add to that thread, or make a more open thread at the Embassy, but my concern here is that this will not develop a concensus of what can be done, but a wish list of what people want. Stardock is unlikely to respond to a wish list in a timely manner.
I believe that the community needs to come up with an agreed upon change to the Meta and present that with the weight of the community behind it to Stardock.
My first attempt at this is to see if the Guardians can even agree on an approach. Not a perfect approach, just an approach that we agree is fair and doable. If that works, then move it to the next stage and open it up to others for comments, extensions, improvements, etc.
But, you can see from the threads that exist, we normally cannot or will not agree on what could or shouldl be done, other than something should be done.
   
| |
|
|
|
| You have every right to be extremely angry though. |
|
Hey G! Welcome to the club 
At least you had a long break, so it can be explained by having times when a whole block is empty - I had a breaks of 5 and 7 days and started losing points. Unless they sneaked a 5-day block into the equation somewhere... 
There is one simple rule they could implement that would remove all these problems, and overcome the issue that is the "masoverse". Keep the same general scoring system but add in that "Any game submitted will cause your overall metaverse score to increase by a minimum of 2% of that game's value". So, if you submit a 60K game, regardless of the other calculations you will always get an increase of 1,200 mpts minimum - not a huge amount, but keeps people interested, and allows you to go back and play non-maso games occasionally, or smaller maps and still see your metaverse score go up with every game (even losses).
If the calculations work out in your favour (as they will from time to time), then you get the larger increases from that. If you submit hundreds of 60K games a month, the calculations will rarely be in your favour, but you will always get a small reward for every game.
Sounds fair to me. I'm sure someone could even write a routine that applied the rule retrospectively. While they're at it, they could sort out the problem with some retired players scores aging rapidly (jaws, Aarberg) and others not moving (Free Tibet, Jaxom, Amulek). It would be nice to see some consistency, rather than some random factor decreeing that Jaws is no longer worthy of a place in the top 25! 
 
| |
|
| Does this mean I'll take the big hit every month for the next six months, or forever? |
|
Let's do some simulation with a 60K game submitted each day.
the 08/02/04, the 2 Millions barrier is passed again
the 08/11/04, the score is 2034K
the 08/12/04, games of july start to move in a new block. The score is 2092K. All block contains games
the 08/13/04: 2111 K
the 08/14/04: 2125 K
the 08/17/04: 2141 K
the 08/18/04: 2127 K. This is due to the fact that a block will be soon empty
the 08/19/04: 2133 K
the 08/20/04: 2145 K
the 08/21/04: 2143 K
the 08/22/04: 2140 K
the 08/23/04: 2138 K
the 08/24/04: 2140 K
the 08/25/04: 2064 K Big drop due to the fact to there is an empty block
So as you see, you will experience each month important variation due to the fact that for few days, a block is empty. It is due to the 47 days windows between to submission that can correspond to a full block. During 14 days, all block are filled and during 16 days, one important block is empty.
But on the long term (comparing situations where the same number of blocks are filled), the score increase.
In your case, 100 K between 07/26/04 and 08/25/04
| |
|
| Peace, this implies that people who submit lots of games are only cranking for score and not playing the game. I dispute this contention. |
|
It is your right. But I am just expressing how I see stardock position.
| It certainly should not be the people selling the game telling us that if you don't play it the way they want you play it then please don't play it at all. If they want to say that, then they should offer people their money back |
|
Yes, but you aren't obligated to submit scores to metaverse. If you do it then you play metaverse, not GalCiv. And metaverse is free. No charge.
| |
|
| Keep the same general scoring system but add in that "Any game submitted will cause your overall metaverse score to increase by a minimum of 2% of that game's value". |
|
Sound fair but will be horribly complicated, due to block calculation. And if you thing metaverse scoring is obscur in the current state, it will be horrible with your rule since no sipmle recalc can occurs.
Sure the current system has some flaws, but a metaverse wide recalc can clean up some strange ranking.
| |
|
|
|
| You mean that the justification behind the formula isn't right? It is you opinion. As a casual player (submitting roughly one game per week), I am happy with the current formula that allow me to rank 37 |
|
The fact you're happy with it doesn't mean it's right either PP. Effort should be rewarded! You should not be shown to be a "worse" player according to the Metaverse because you took a break from playing!
| |
|
Unfortunately indefinately.
Every month you will suffer these effects from having an empty block from time to time. Like Peace's scenario, you will have your score move up from more submitting, but you will have drops when your absence causes a block to have 0 games in it, and then your scores will unfortunately go to hell. They will drop, but then after the block becomes filled again, they will rise back up. But I can't give you any better news. Your score will go up, but it will also go back down every month.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2025 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
