Massive Assault
http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/

Weighted scoring for the Maps
http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=757		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Borealis [ Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Weighted scoring for the Maps
Hope this will spark some discussion;

The scoring system is still a little simple IMO. I enjoy playing the larger maps, it takes longer and usually requires a little more experience/skill. However, the scoring system does not take the extra time and effort into account.

Here are a few statistics I threw together to show an Idea for weighting the games based on the map chosen;

Map, Countries, Resources, Ratio(%/Total/Avg), Size(Ratio-sq.root), Ratio Totals(rounded off)

Bizzaria, 3/9 (33%), 6/18 (33%), 1/1/1, 28 x 32, (1), 1, ( 1 )

Emerald, 4/13 (30.8%), 9/30 (30%), 1.09/1.67/1.38, ~24 X 24, (~.8), ~1.14, ( 1.25 )

Antarcticus, 4/15 (26.7%), 9/35 (25.7%), 1.26/1.94/1.60, 28 x 32, (1), 1.6, ( 1.5 )

Noble Rust , 5/17 (29.4%), 13/44 (29.5%), 1.12/2.44/1.78, 44 x 48, (1.54), 2.74, ( 2.75 )

Anubis, 6/20 (30%), 16/58 (27.6%), 1.15/3.22/2.19, 44 x 50, (1.57), 3.44, ( 3.5 )

Wasserland, 6/22 (27.3%), 16/60 (26.7%), 1.22/3.33/2.28, 56 x 64, (2.0), 4.56, ( 4.5 )

New Paradise, 7/26 (26.9%), 18/66 (27.3%), 1.22/3.67/2.45, 56 x 64, (2.0), 4.90 , ( 5.0 )


This would probably require a re-evaluation of points required to reach a rank but would also make it more interesting and benificial to choose larger maps.

eg ;

Map Points (winner/loser)
Conscript loses;Marshall loses

Bizzaria 4/1 40/10

Emerald 5/1 50/13

Antarcticus 6/2 60/15

Noble Rust 11/3 110/28

Anubis 14/4 140/35

Wasserland 18/5 180/45

New Paradise 20/5 200/50

Anyone have some other ideas for weighting the Maps?
Author:  VaNO [ Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:48 am ]
Post subject: 
Excellent idea, and we will implement some map weights. But I do not understand how you computed this ratios? And I'm not agree with 1 to 5 ratio for Bizzaria and New Paradise. It is too high. I prefer to estimate duration of battle on these maps.
Author:  Borealis [ Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
VaNO, I weighted them on size and the ratio of starting SA resources vs total resources. Maybe 5 to 1 is a bit high. I used it as a starting point so that users could suggest some ratios. Presonally I think Wasserland and New Paradise should be worth about 2.5 to 3 times because of the duration of games vs Bizzaria. What kind of weighting are the Devs. looking at?
Author:  VaNO [ Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
2.5-3 times difference seems to be ok.
Author:  Alloca [ Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Size of map does not matter?
Why not just weight it on how many countries were under control when the game ended.

This way (assuming you implement abandoned games as win/loss) winning by abandonment or surrender on New Paradise when only 3 coutries are under control does not get an unfair advantage.

Also, playing on Antartica (whatever it is :) ) to the bitter end would get you more points than someone surrendering early. Perhaps this is not desired though?

Or does the game somehow do this already and I missed it - and that's what's not sufficient?
Author:  Maelstrom [ Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Problem with that is that it encourages people to surrender earlier than they need to, to avoid inflating the score of their opponent too much. In a game, it is possible to be at the point of no return where you know you cannot win. It is only fair to your opponent to surrender earlier than later, but you shouldn't be pressured to surrender.

Besides, if the game plays out, you win by 300% in any case, so the exact score is predetermined by how many countries there are on a map.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/