Remove counted score for galaxies

[Veedeejem!]

First of all let me state that I like counted score for alliances, makes people stick it out with their alliance more and stops allies from poaching other alliances members midround to win.

However, I don't aprove of it's use in galaxies. It only promotes being lucky at the start of the round and doesn't encourage people to actually improve their gal by exiling dead weight and getting active people ingal.
With the current exile system there is no way to be sure you'll get an active exile in so it can take a while for a galaxy to find the players that they want to stay ingal.
This way the galaxy rankings have absolutly no reference to actual ingame strength & rank.
I know some people will say "remove counted score and then some ppl will keep on exiling till they hit the best gals...", guess what, people still do that if they want to be in a good gal.

If you want to check out the difference between real score and counted score use the link below:
http://sandmans.co.uk/?p=rankgalaxy&...re&order2=DESC

In short: I want rankings to actually rank the real strength of a galaxy, not how lucky they were in the start of the round with a) good randoms or b) good exiles early in the round.
If not changed back to real score then you might aswell remove galaxy rankings all together.

[Gate]

I think I agree with this.

Maybe someone can come up with a good reason against this? It discourages you from exiling planets in theory but in my galaxy, this round, it's not made an iota of difference.

[Kal]

The problem is the defintion of "dead weight".

[JonnyBGood]

Has there actually been a round where the #1 galaxy wasn't the number one on both counted and real score? To be honest I find myself struggling to care beyond that but sure if the actual ingame impact is worse one way than the other then change it back.

[Veedeejem!]

Originally Posted by Kal

The problem is the defintion of "dead weight".

I don't know the exact defitinition, maybe it's something like:
- Inactive player
- Player that does not report incomings for his galaxy
- Player that does not use IRC
- Player that does not respond to the rest of his galaxy in any kind of way
- Player that does not defend his galaxy
- ...

I know you good people in PA-team would rather have it if nobody had to exile or self exiled and we would all get along in a joyfull galaxy but however that is not how the playerbase plays this game.

Your galaxy and the way it handles communication is very important in this game. If you have people in your galaxy that don't add anything to the galaxy then why should they be allowed to stay in the galaxy?
Or, if you are active and you just happen to have landed in a place that is full of "dead weight" then you would like to get out of there and go to a galaxy where you can contribute to the galaxy and the galaxy can help you out to?

With the counted score in place it makes little difference to a galaxy (rankwise) to exile "dead weight" and get some players that actually play the game in their galaxy.
Why? Because they completly lose the score of the exiled player (no matter how small that is) and even if they get a huge player ingal they gain from it nothing. Except the score he gains after he has allready joined.

After a quick browse of the link I posted in my original post there are a few good examples of this. Best example I can give is a galaxy that isn't even in top 50 counted score but it is sitting nicely near top10 in real score.
There's an 11mil difference between their real score and their counted score...

Galaxy rankings does not accuratly rank anything atm except how "lucky" your galaxy was the first 2-300 ticks of the round.

[Veedeejem!]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Has there actually been a round where the #1 galaxy wasn't the number one on both counted and real score? To be honest I find myself struggling to care beyond that but sure if the actual ingame impact is worse one way than the other then change it back.

For rank 1 it usually doesn't make a big difference, but even inside t10 there can be gals there that shouldn't be there on real score.

[JonnyBGood]

Okay. I'm not following why this is a problem, on its own, for galaxies but not for alliances.

[Veedeejem!]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Okay. I'm not following why this is a problem, on its own, for galaxies but not for alliances.

Answer to that is simple:
You chose yourself what alliance you join.
You don't chose yourself what galaxy you get shuffled in.

[JonnyBGood]

The idea that one choice that you make determines a whole load of things when the one thing that that choice is explicitly connected to is not determined for the whole round by that choice (the things we choose eh) isn't really a sound one. Surely a counterpoint would be what entitlement does a galaxy have to score that was accumulated outside of that galaxy? We're either trying to reflect strength in our rankings or we're trying to adhere to notions of "entitlement" and such (obviously there are more options, these are just the two we've used).

[Veedeejem!]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The idea that one choice that you make determines a whole load of things when the one thing that that choice is explicitly connected to is not determined for the whole round by that choice (the things we choose eh) isn't really a sound one. Surely a counterpoint would be what entitlement does a galaxy have to score that was accumulated outside of that galaxy? We're either trying to reflect strength in our rankings or we're trying to adhere to notions of "entitlement" and such (obviously there are more options, these are just the two we've used).

Afaik counted score was implemented to reduce the number of shipjumpers and to stop alliances trying to poach away members from other alliances to recruit for the win.
What counted score does in terms of alliance rankings is that it forces yourself to think before you join an alliance "do I really want to join that alliance, will the alliance be good for me, will I be good enough for the alliance, ...".
In terms of galaxy rankings however that idea doesn't work (imo) simply because you do not have the choice before the round when it comes to your galaxy members after the shuffle.
You can BP ofc, but that is only a small part of the galaxy you'll eventually end up with.

Long story short: Counted score for alliances makes you think about your alliance choice before the round starts, counted score for galaxies just rewards luck...

We can argue over galaxies entitlement to their players score if you want.
My viewpoint in that is that if people self exile or get exiled that they take their score along with them to whereever they go. Afterall the score belongs to their planet and it's only normal that when you move somewhere else you take your belongings with you...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Veedeejem!

Afaik counted score was implemented to reduce the number of shipjumpers and to stop alliances trying to poach away members from other alliances to recruit for the win.

No. Counted score was implemented post r17 when 1up rotated players in and out of tag keeping their score low while retaining all the benefits of the ingame alliance.

What counted score does in terms of alliance rankings is that it forces yourself to think before you join an alliance "do I really want to join that alliance, will the alliance be good for me, will I be good enough for the alliance, ...".

Okay but what about from the perspective of the alliance?

In terms of galaxy rankings however that idea doesn't work (imo) simply because you do not have the choice before the round when it comes to your galaxy members after the shuffle.
You can BP ofc, but that is only a small part of the galaxy you'll eventually end up with.

Actually including the late signups the bp counts for half the galaxy. And almost always more than half the score.

Long story short: Counted score for alliances makes you think about your alliance choice before the round starts, counted score for galaxies just rewards luck...

One could also say it rewards motivating the new people who join your gal. Admittedly some are just lost causes from day one but I think a system which means some galaxies finish 13th instead of 20th or vice versa is adequately compensated for by a system which adds new players to the game. Overall I think the impact is probably fairly minimal there but I'm fine with that.

We can argue over galaxies entitlement to their players score if you want.
My viewpoint in that is that if people self exile or get exiled that they take their score along with them to whereever they go. Afterall the score belongs to their planet and it's only normal that when you move somewhere else you take your belongings with you...

Like with alliances...

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

TSurely a counterpoint would be what entitlement does a galaxy have to score that was accumulated outside of that galaxy?

By that logic, galaxies should not lose score when a planet exiles. I'm not saying I disagree with you (I think both your and VdM's points have merit, I haven't made up my mind yet which I like most), but if you're going to argue in favour of this system (which I think is what you're doing), you should at least look at how it works ingame.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No. Counted score was implemented post r17 when 1up rotated players in and out of tag keeping their score low while retaining all the benefits of the ingame alliance.

Wasn't it implemented after 9:10's win in r19?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Wasn't it implemented after 9:10's win in r19?

I was talking about for alliances. Counted score for gals was implemented after that yeah.

By that logic, galaxies should not lose score when a planet exiles. I'm not saying I disagree with you (I think both your and VdM's points have merit, I haven't made up my mind yet which I like most), but if you're going to argue in favour of this system (which I think is what you're doing), you should at least look at how it works ingame.

Does a galaxy that cannot keep its planets deserve to keep the score they accumulated? As PA views it, no (see alliances as well).

[Mzyxptlk]

The amount of score they'd get would be proportional to the amount of time the planet stays in the galaxy. So yes, in my opinion a galaxy deserve to keep the score planets accumulated while there, even if that planet exiles out before round end.

And while there's a major difference between galaxies (random element) and alliances (free choice), I'm tempted to allow this to apply to alliances as well.

[Veedeejem!]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Okay but what about from the perspective of the alliance?
Actually including the late signups the bp counts for half the galaxy. And almost always more than half the score.

The alliances also have to consider who they recruit and who they give a spot in their tag. Galaxies however don't have the luxury of handpicking the people they want to join in their galaxy like the alliances have.
Also, most of the galaxies don't even use the late signups (which imo is a flawed system anyway). Think the only group of people that actually uses late sign-ups is ascendancy.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

One could also say it rewards motivating the new people who join your gal. Admittedly some are just lost causes from day one but I think a system which means some galaxies finish 13th instead of 20th or vice versa is adequately compensated for by a system which adds new players to the game. Overall I think the impact is probably fairly minimal there but I'm fine with that.

I really doubt that this system adds any new players to the game. If people play (semi-)active they will usually automaticly be considered "keepers" by their galaxy. The only thing that this system really adds to the game is alot more exiling in the first 2-300 ticks.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Like with alliances...

Another fundamental difference between alliances and galaxies:
Galaxies have to pay resources to exile somebody from their galaxy to get in a new person that might be better. Alliances however pay no cost to kicking a person from tag.
Exiling yourself from your galaxy also costs money (and alot too if you have to do it a couple of times). Leaving alliance tag however is free.
So basicly galaxies pay resources in hope of getting a beter player/person in gal but hardly get any benefits from this player in score.
Sounds like a bad deal if you ask me...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Veedeejem!

The alliances also have to consider who they recruit and who they give a spot in their tag. Galaxies however don't have the luxury of handpicking the people they want to join in their galaxy like the alliances have.

It's more like half your alliance you can pick and half you can't.

Also, most of the galaxies don't even use the late signups (which imo is a flawed system anyway). Think the only group of people that actually uses late sign-ups is ascendancy.

We don't use them intentionally. A lot of our members just don't want to play seven weeks or they'll have been away for the first part of the round. Joining ascendancy galaxies is always preferred though. We're pretty arrogant really!

I really doubt that this system adds any new players to the game. If people play (semi-)active they will usually automaticly be considered "keepers" by their galaxy. The only thing that this system really adds to the game is alot more exiling in the first 2-300 ticks.

The encouragement to get those initial players is pretty high though.

Another fundamental difference between alliances and galaxies:
Galaxies have to pay resources to exile somebody from their galaxy to get in a new person that might be better. Alliances however pay no cost to kicking a person from tag.
Exiling yourself from your galaxy also costs money (and alot too if you have to do it a couple of times). Leaving alliance tag however is free.
So basicly galaxies pay resources in hope of getting a beter player/person in gal but hardly get any benefits from this player in score.
Sounds like a bad deal if you ask me...

That's a decent point, although in terms of exiling planets it's rarely meaningfully expensive.

[Veedeejem!]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's more like half your alliance you can pick and half you can't.

Keep in mind that there are also tons of people that don't BP.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

We don't use them intentionally. A lot of our members just don't want to play seven weeks or they'll have been away for the first part of the round. Joining ascendancy galaxies is always preferred though. We're pretty arrogant really!

I never claimed that you use them intentionally but they fit your playing style of high concentration of asc members in the same gal perfectly.
Not gonna comment on your arrogance btw

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The encouragement to get those initial players is pretty high though.

I don't know if that's a good thing, afterall it comes down to being lucky the first 2-300 ticks... Don't know if that's something PA should be awarding.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

That's a decent point, although in terms of exiling planets it's rarely meaningfully expensive.

It may not cost that much but it all adds up.
Think I spend about 1 mil of resources this round exiling myself from one non t100 gal to another (after 5-6 times it gets frustrating & expensive).


I just came up with something else, if there were private gals, then I would support counted score for those gals. Since they chose to play together.

[Gate]

A quick thought on exiling and counted score.

It encourages you to exile more quickly. Without counted score there is a greater incentive to give someone a chance as there is a smaller penalty for kicking someone after 4 days compared to after 2 days. With counted score you lose 2 days potential scoregain if you give someone a chance, so the incentive is to kick low-valued players as quickly as possible.