Yep, but if you just lost half your fleets trying to eliminate an AI to record a Conquest Victory, would you reload all freshly awaked and aware to wait a turn more and reset your starports with more accuratly designed weapons to say, fasten the inevitable outcome?

Or for 50,000 points more? In GC2. For a metaverse rank.

Scoring doesn't work like that...

And anyone who finds themselves in that kind of a situation isn't going to be getting the kinds of scores either you or I are talking about regardless.

Well, i should at least revise my entire approach to Conquest and how it "scores" more or less in certain circumstances then!

@Zyx - I didn't respond to your original post, or successive ones, both because I wasn't sure I understood them and you, unwittingly or not, seemed to be making assumptions about my style of gameplay (and intelligence) in achieving the score. I think I have a better handle on what you are trying to say at this point.

Let me see if I can bring some of these sentiments into focus. IMO there are four elements here: rules, effective strategies, exploits, and cheats.

Rules are both the actions which are, and which are not, permitted by the game.

Effective strategies are those styles of learned gameplay that produce better results than others.

Exploits are actions unique to electronic gaming wherein players can take advantage of the fact they are interacting with non-sentient electronic code not with other living players. You don't find exploits in poker or monopoly.

Cheats are where you break both the rules and the spirit of fairplay, and an action wherein you create an uneven playing field. Cheats are corrosive and abusive and ultimately ruin the enjoyment of games for all players, including the cheater.

You seem to be saying that reloading the game to a prior turn to avoid a negative event is an exploit that bothers you and that you wish there was a way to differentiate games wherein players did reloads and games where they did not. I'm pretty sure you aren't truly objecting to saving a game every round. When games take weeks or longer to play, and when CTD, power failures, and game freezes are all a real risk, saving periodically is just prudent. 

I believe even my feline enemies would agree that I am a staunch proponent of a level playing ground, and as such, I think I do understand your sentiments about reloading. You believe reloading is an exploit that distorts measurement of skill. I don't believe your sentiment on the reloads is correct however. Let me explain.

There are many different types of games. GC2 is a strategy game. The fun of playing GC2 is learning those behaviors which make the most effective strategies within the rules provided by SD. There is also a scoring system provided by SD to enable players to evaluate their performance, both individually and collectively, under those rules. In essence scores indicate which players have developed the best adaptive behaviors in-game to create a certain end result. SD measures these results and gives us scores. If we are not happy with our scores we adapt some more. Essentially what is being measured is the players effectiveness of strategy within the rule system created by SD.

There are random and Mega events in the game that are detrimental to score. When such an event happens, many players will reload to a prior save to avoid the consequences of that adverse event. You seem to believe that it would be a more valid measure of skill if all MV games were required to endure those events. In fact, it would not be. All you are measuring that way is luck. If one player receives the econ event in year zero and another gets the depopulation event, regardless of their respective skill levels, the first player is going to achieve a higher score. You haven't measured the effectiveness of their skills at all. So why have these events? They add complexity and enjoyment to the game, especially in sandbox mode. In the MV though, because most players will reload to avoid negative events, odd as it may seem at first, you actually have a more level playing field. There are still huge elements of luck involved in any individual game though. Starting map, location of resources, number of planets, etc. are all still random elements so no one game is an indicator that one player is better than another.  The only way to test the skill of one player against another accurately would be if both players started with exactly the same map and conditions. Therefore the scores on the MV are not a true measurement of skill. They're a truer measurement than if you forced players to endure random, game-distorting events, but no, the MV scores are not a final arbiter of skill nor can they be. Since that is the case, why not just relax and play the game for fun, share effective strategies with your friends (you can find some of mine here), and enjoy some witty banter with your colleagues on these forums?

This isn't entirely true; there's an exploit in TPM08 (The Political Machine 2008) that is so powerful it can even be used on a human player.

But since TPM is a cyclic game that no one cares about outside of the elections, it'll never get fixed (nor will TPM08's connection/hosting problems).

I'll let you get back to making your point now...and I do in fact agree with it.

Well said, CL! Another demonstration of why these forums are far superior to the average gaming forum.

When I first started playing metaverse games, a player by the name of Harbone had just set off a firestorm of controversy over certain tactics. It was correctly pointed out that it is up to the individual, and his or her personal sense of ethics, to self-govern in regards to the use of questionable tactics. There are some techniques that I simply refuse to use in metaverse games since I do not feel that I would get much of a sense of accomplishment from the results. If others want to employ these techniques, that is their business. My only exception is the ToA exploit, which I actively campaign against. Once that can of worms is opened, there will be no closing it again.

If one wants to measure skill vs skill, I would submit that the Tournaments are a better way to do so. Sadly, there are not enough of those to keep our interest. In the metaverse, we are simply measuring our best score under a particular set of circumstances against the best score of other players under their particular sets of circumstances. We have unofficially agreed to a set of guidelines, and I believe that the vast majority of players adhere to those guidelines. Saving regularly, and reloading at one's discretion, is one of those standard guidelines. I have no issue with this; since it will cost the player considerable time and aggravation end the end. If one wants to endure 3 min. reloads to achieve a higher score, more power to them, I say.

For me, it would have to be a pretty significant advantage to get me to reload.  Mine can take over 10 minutes and that's on my super-duper gaming machine.  Having so many ships flopping around like bass going after shad can seriously slow things down.  Taking the time to reload is too much of an inconvenience under all but the most dire circumstances IMO.

I even keep my game running for a week or so at a time to keep from having to reload.  I have one computer dedicated to playing GalcivII and 3 others that are always on in case I need to surf the net or buy something that I can't live without when the commercial comes on.  I don't have the patience that this reload thing requires.

Saving every turn is worth it though.  Memory frags or random CTDs can cause real pain if you don't have the game backed up.  I usually set it to every turn until the game progresses past year 3.  Then I save once every 6 turns to keep it from taking up too much time.

Agrrrrrrreeed... entirely but there is another reason;

Relative truth about performance and not skills.

Chaotic as it this, gameplay favors top scorers in a way that indicates how efficient they ***must get*** to, in fact, bring some order to that chaos for - hold on to your click turn button guesswork - points.

I'm just curious about how many re-loads somebody would be willing to SKIP if they knew scoring would really benefit from daring through some unlucky or favorable activities.

That's what i've been meaning all along. Even if conditions are perfectly matched by scenarios or otherwise.

(PS; and, no way i'm gonna click on your here link, CL. Don't want to spoil both the destiny & the newbie feelings that were soooooo precious and must still be! I want to deserve it.)

And, Motti just explained my own "perspective" on such issues better than i ever could for simple lack of vocabulary... tough as it is - i do my best.

I just started a true MV try (instead of tournaments) which i may submit later while using what i think may get some reasonably high score and yet, i wonder.

But, here's the fun part; almost all rare settings - just in case.

@Zyx - I'm not sure why you're focusing on reloads as a way to increase score.  The fact is that you lose BCs from trade when you reload, and doing so can decrease your score.  I've mentioned this in several threads.  A couple of people question that, but most have accepted it after seeing the effects for themselves.

As I said, reloading would have to carry some significant benefit that overcomes not only the loss in BCs, but in the time it takes to play the game.  You seem to think that reloading is some sort of magic elixer that guarantees a high score.

Also, losing fleets to battle is insignificant.  I've lost fleets to battle and shrugged them off.  I've also decommissioned large numbers of warships in order to keep my military statistically clean.  You don't seem to understand how scoring works.  The assumption that more ships is always better is dead wrong.  The same with reloading.

I'm not going to go into such a basic tutoring course to explain these elementary ideas, but all of the information needed to score 1mil+ is openly available in these forums.

Then, i would indirectly mimic everyone else's strategy to simply join the club mentioned in this thread.

Let me find my own, even if worst!

Impressive, to say I must. Hats off guys it is good to see you have still plenty of activities out there. Still a great forum. May I come to seep a coffee in the Milionaire’s Club? 

Unfortunatelly I don’t think to get part of the club, I wish I could, but I’m more likely the one chasing challenge with quick games. Honestly a game above 1 mill needs plenty of time, patience and knowhow. I respect and envy that.

Take care 

Actually, I think this may be doable. Yes, I'm shocked too, but I tested my current game this morning and I scored 829,500 at the end of 24 months. There is some room for improvement in that score too.....I'm not sure I could get it to 1 million, but maybe....

If you're talking about year 2 = 36 months, then no problem. I've already done that and I'm sure Motti did it well before me. The game he posted to start this thread would have to be over a million at 36 months to finish out where he did.

No CL, I was thinking of 24 months. I guess in hindsight, I wouldn't consider it "impossible". More like "exceedingly unlikely", but if anyone can do it, it would be you or Motti. Go for it CL. 829K in 24 months is already incredible. Nice job!

Unofficial until (if?) MV comes back up.

 DL 1.5, 7yrs