Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kal
What I'm saying is I think Heartless' score system is an excelent idea. BUT I have no idea how to go about doing it. We need to define:
-what actions should gain score
-how much score each of theese should gain
-how alliances should gain score:
--should it be the sum of member scores?
--should it be based around alliance actions rather than individual member actions?
- how galaxies should gain score
Score is a big and complex thing, but the core of the entire game, it needs serious and detailed thought and I don't think PATeam or anyone else for that matter can do it alone.
|
I don't think score should be broken down into specific rewards for specific actions. This dictates policy rather than mechanism, which is much less open-ended. I think being open-ended is an advantage, because it allows for more creative action. Consider the demand for change in the Planetarion system vs innovative alliance play. Consider implementing mechanism a way to make alliances fill the former demand by making players and alliances supply it.
(For other readers, I had a quick discussion with Kal about all this on IRC and he asked me to post how I'd specifically implement the score changes I discussed in the OP.)
Quote:
|
A good case is made for a new scoring system in this thread. In it, Heartless suggests that score should be based on spent resources rather than anything else. An amendment that would allow PAteam to remove the restrictions on galaxy and alliance donations would be that score is based on resources mined from asteroids only. It is important that it is gained only from mining asteroids, since there is already a very strong incentive to initiate few asteroids and rely on refineries to make up for this.
|
In short: Two possibilities with some adjustable variables. One rewards mining, the other rewards spending. The differences are subtle, with varying advantages and disadvantages. One thing they have in common is that overflow needs to be stored so that players aren't screwed over by rounding. The example here is that if a player earns 1.99 score per tick, the extra .99 needs to be carried over so that he doesn't lose .99 score every tick.
Score for spent resources
For every 100 resources spent, 1 score is gained*. This rewards scanners, who gain score equivalent to buying ships for every scan they perform. This rewards covert operation specialists, who can gain large amounts of resources through covert operations and gain score while doing so. A key point here is that all actions taken give exactly the same amount of score. Whether a player buys ships, scans himself endlessly, performs failed covert operations, buys constructions and so on, the resources are spent and the score is gained. It doesn't matter where the resources came from, be it refineries, covops, asteroids or donations.
This system rewards any action that results in the gain of resources. Planet score becomes about generating the highest overall resource revenue for the round. Galaxy and alliance score become about the same thing: having the planets that generate the greatest overall revenue for the round. Pressure will be on alliances to hit fat alliances early on. That is, when they become fat rather than when they become ripe. To explain this last bit, consider ND vs EXilition in round 15. ND were left until the last week to hit, with this system they would've been untouchable for victory if left alone for that long. But in the XP system, EXilition made huge gains from hitting high value, high roidcount ND planets.
Score from mined resources
This system gives 1 score for every 100 resources mined. Minor details include whether to count only resources mined from asteroids and whether to count engineering/FC bonuses. This system has the advantage of allowing donations without any of the current limitations, since the score will already have been gained from the resources. This encourages cooperation.
Disadvantages of this system are that players are rewarded regardless of whether they spend the resources; completely inactive players would gain the score and players would retain score from resources lost to covops. Along the same lines, covoppers would not gain score from the resources they steal. This last bit could be changed, by specifically reallocating score in these cases.
Whether to take resources from refineries, engineering bonus or FC bonus into account is a big deal. Remember, under this system, resources are still their own reward. Refineries, engineering and FCs will allow a player to build a larger fleet for use in gaining and holding roids. However, giving score only from raw roid revenue would make the game very heavily about capping. It's possible to mix and match, but in my opinion, rewarding refineries, FCs and engineering is a mark of policy rather than mechanism. If only roids give score, then the game becomes about using engineering and constructions (among many other thinsg) to gain and hold roids. This is another big advantage of granting score for mined resources over score for spent resources.
These two methods both fulfill the goals Heartless's post outline, by providing a mechanism for score rather specific micromanaging rewards. I dare say that the alliance that wins a round with this score system will have to sustain a good deal of pressure to come out victorious.
A side point is the bash limit. Since value is independent of score, it's tempting to revert to 40% value only. However, this would again open for 'abuse' situations where top100 planets artificially lower their value to avoid being hit by direct competitors. Losing roids is less bad if they're lost to a plethora of tiny attackers. Personally, I don't believe the bash limit is useful, but at the very worst the bash limit should be maintained in its current form.
* The exact relationship here doesn't need to be 100:1, I'm just picking that because it's the current relationship between spent resources and value.
Spending resources covers almost every action in Planetarion.