How is it possible to get THIS score??

Well, you can start with increasing the game difficulty...

Size of galaxy (and particulalry population) plays a big part.

Seemingly the WAY in which you win is also relevant (culturaly victory scores lower than military or tech wins).

Earlier versions gave more points for the same
victory then do more recent versions.

This is a known 'problem' and apparently they will
recalc the scores at some point.

Though the previous commenters are correct, as if you
look at the number 2 player, he is still scoring
over 10k using the current released version.

One method of getting a high score is this.

Win by tech victory with a very very large pop
on a very large map with lots of computer opponants
set to a high level.

This is hard for these reasons.

You have to be quick to take over the galaxy(or you
will have a small pop if u dont take it over)
or the computers will win by a tech victory resulting
in your defeat.

Its pretty easy to take over the galaxy if u turn tech
victory off, by leaving tech victory on, you set
yourself a time limit. It can be very difficult
to basicily win by a cultural/military conquest with
this time limit. Just make sure you go out with a tech
victory.

Another point :

If you are looking at the releases, he has used, than you know why. Since Stardock have changed the calculation of the scores, you get a very low rating.
Unfortunately they have forgot to update all the old games .....

eh.. The AI can't win by tech victory. So no need to turn of the tech victory option. It only limits your own ways of winning

Also, the newer version (.04) is going to make it so that the size of the map will matter a little less in your final score, and the difficulty will matter a little more. So those who want to crank out more games on a large map may well be able to do so.

fleabitfox

I believe only the "10 best games" of a given player should count, for two reasons:

-Reduce the "Crank out" factor.

-Players can submit games with few pts without fear that it may actually hurt them.

Sure, the point system needs a recalc for all the older games. Yes, it does need some tweaks to compensate more for difficulty and less for map size. As for the "low score kills your stats" argument, you got to be in it for the long haul, baby.

I got a lot to lose from some of this, but I am going to tough it out anyway and actually welcome a recalc and keeping some sort of rough averaging system. My recent submission dropped my average so that I actually lost an equal number of points that the victory was worth. A recalc would tank my first 6 scores entirely, because they were v1.02 wins.

Even if the score system were totally modded to be nearly bulletproof somehow, you would still have the problem of cherry pickers choosing which finished games to submit in order to skew the points on the Metaverse. Despite all of this, it comes down to play hard, play fair, and let the cheaters beware. Reputation is worth more than a score in my book, so don't let the bottom number tell the whole tale about anyone's stats, no matter how the system goes.

I was thinking that there should be some incentive to submit your losing games and your subpar games.

I was thinking that, when calculating your overall score, your worst result should be dropped if this would lead to a better ranking. This should be repeated until dropping your lowest score is no longer an improvement.

The current metaverse system violates an important rule: A player should *NEVER* be penalized for submitting a result.

~SDC~

"The current metaverse system violates an important rule: A player should *NEVER* be penalized for submitting a result."

Yes.

Be easy enough to do - just run the existing algorithm but have it check against the previous cumulative score and if the result is lower just add 1 (or some other low number) to the previous score...