Using PQ instead of population for scoring

from Stardock Forums
I think this idea bears repeating in its own thread.

One issue with the current scoring system is that
populations that grow exceedingly large give a score
that is out of preportion with the difficulty in getting
that pop. Essentialy if you win the game, but before
completing a victory condition, just hit turn for awhile,
your score will increase. Where it stops increasing
seems only limited by your patience. This may only apply
to larger, more abundant maps.

As within the scoring system, population rewards players for
taking over larger chunks of the galaxy, another method
of measuring a persons ownership of the galaxy is through
the Planet Quality(PQ) of all their planets.

This measurement is uneffected by hitting end turn and thus
can not be 'milked' for score as can the population. It
also puts military conquest and influence conquest on
equal ground as it does not detect the difference between
militaries genocide of the enemies population and cultural's
assimulation of the population. The way it is now,
military conquest is at a disadvantage because they wipe
out the pop(and the score it represents), while cultural
gains the pop(and score). PQ doesnt see this difference.

A possible method of actually using the PQ would be to
subtract 15 from the PQ of every planet(thus eliminating
any use in colonizing uninhabitable planets, though if you
can get a planets PQ over 15, then its still worth
something) and then raising the resulting number to some
power fractionally above 1. This results in more
points for planets signifigantly above 15.

For example. using 1.2 as the power to raise too the
results for different PQ's would be.

15 = 0^1.2 = 0
16 = 1^1.2 = 1
20 = 5^1.2 = 6.9
25 = 10^1.2 = 15.85
30 = 15^1.2 = 25.78
35 = 20^1.2 = 36.41
40 = 25^1.2 = 47.6

Add all the results together and then multiple by some
constant that would result in a number similiar to the
population that a person would have had if they had
finished the game normally with the planets that they
had. Use this number instead of the population in the
scoring formula, and viola, a population result that can't
be inflated by using end turn.


320 views 12 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
Staffa - just wanted to commend your thoughtful work so far on scoring issues, having read other threads. With respect to the above, don't you think this would just lead to 'planet rushing', rather than population rushing? That is, if you are going to be rewarded for each planet above PQ 15, say - then players on gigantic maps are going to do their initial colonisation, then nearing the end game go out of their way to 'back fill' all those PQ14 and 15 planets they hadn't bothered with previously. Plus, at that stage, they'll have the money and tech to rush buy PQ improvements to those poor planets and thus bump their score just at the end. I don't think that is any less 'legitimate', in a sense, than your own 23k effort - I just think any set of rules can be "used creatively".

Maybe some change in scoring for each type of victory? Military victors should be rewarded for planets taken, but cultural victory should, for example, reward number of planets 'flipped' during the game. How might this apply to a tech victory (I can't help but think 'Transcend' - I'm an old Alpha Centauri player)? Number of planets has no relevance there - I think that is more a matter of speed; i.e. how quickly you transcend.

I'm sorry I don't have any answers, just adding some thoughts to the mix!
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
People who are milking pop already do this(the back
rushing to fill all the planets). The difference is that at least people are doing 'SOMETHING' when they
are backfilling their planets, also the way I set up
the score, backfilling 20 worlds that will end at 16-
18 pq after improvements will be worth about 35
points, or about one 35 PQ world. Ie not very much.
All the planets that will be worth good points will
already be colonized by you or the computer and hence
there will be very little you can do to artifically
increase your score.

You are correct, you can improve it slightly, but
not very much, and the hard limit is reached at a very
firm and fairly quick point unlike pop milking which
can be done endlessly all for the click of the end-
turn button.

To quote Cataleptic(I think), the difference between
milking your score 10% and 100% is quite profound.
And in actuality the difference between the two would
be more like 1% compared to 200%. And thats assuming
the 1% is enough to overcome any time penality if you
delay the end of the game.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Mabye better to count only planets with base PQ 15+ - all planets still have base PQ level, improvements just increase that number.

Or even count base PQ in scoring.

~SDC~
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Yea Ellestar, I can see the merits in that, it would
eliminate what little milking was possible.

Would also eliminate racial PQ bonus towards scoring
though currently they benefit from an inherent pop
advantage due to the PQ and hence they would be
slightly nerfed by that.

I def dont think you can count the base PQ, as
I dont want to encourage people to colonize pq 6 worlds
with 1 million people just for a few points. Unless
you meant something else?
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
Hmm.. perhaps something which might work well is to base population or PQ on a percent? On the percentage of your population or planet quality, as compared to that of the entire galaxy.

Milking the score at the end wouldn't be very effective then, as it might just mean the difference between getting 99% and 99.9% of some population bonus. Although this would mean that military victories would always be 100% for these values. It could also solve some issues with score and galaxy size.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
I appreciate where you're heading, but I still think you need to step back from the PQ issue in isolation and consider WHAT you are rewarding and WHY. The issues seem to be:

1. What constitutes a win?
2. How to distinguish 'better' and 'worse' wins?
3. How to make one person's wins comparable with another's - i.e. the Metaverse issue. I suspect we wouldn't be having this discussion if there were no Metaverse!

A military conquest should reward ground captured, and take into account minimal force losses, percent of universe dominated, number of successful battles etc. Sure, PQ is a factor but not necessarily the most valuable one. The efficiency of military conquest is the issue.

A tech Transcend really relates to the civ that can build a research infrastructure quickly without getting sidetracked into trade and military conflict. Again, PQ is a factor but not the overriding one.

A cultural victory relates to a cultural research agenda, starbases/wonders that spread culture rather than mil conquest - maybe reward no of starbases, etc.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
To Staffa
//I def dont think you can count the base PQ, as
I dont want to encourage people to colonize pq 6 worlds
with 1 million people just for a few points. Unless
you meant something else?//
I mean that maybe better to count base PQ in your formula instead of modified one. But maybe then better to give PQ15 1 point and so on.

--
To Space Wombat

//2) How to distinguish 'better' and 'worse' wins? //

IMHO fastest win under same starting conditions. But it also has many drawbacks.

You are right in general, but:

//A military conquest should reward ground captured, and take into account minimal force losses, percent of universe dominated, number of successful battles etc. Sure, PQ is a factor but not necessarily the most valuable one. The efficiency of military conquest is the issue.//

You can't do something outstanding, use some super-efficient tactics tec. in this game. So efficiency of military conquest based on economy (including production techs, resources etc.), but not on military 'skill'.

//A tech Transcend really relates to the civ that can build a research infrastructure quickly without getting sidetracked into trade and military conflict. Again, PQ is a factor but not the overriding one.//

This is also an economy. Alos, you can't fund your research w/o trade.


~SDC~
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
I take your point Ellestar, but I think it reduces everything to the PQ as a 'lowest common denominator' in valuing victory. Of course, a powerful economy can drive tech, mil AND cultural wins - but surely we could be more sophisticated in measurement? If you're a good commander, shouldn't you be rewarded if you never lose an engagement, rather than having a big enough economy to just throw units at the enemy until you exhaust them?

Why not just say a win at beginner=1000 pts, win at crippling=5000 pts, etc and forget the debate? ;p Again, the issue is really the Metaverse where we're trying to work out if your military victory is better - worth more points - than my cultural victory.

The developers must have had this debate too - anyone from StarDock care to contribute?
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
Im not saying PQ should be the biggest determinante
in calculating score. Im only saying it should replace
population. All the other factors that determine score
can still be used but where population was in the
formula, replace it with PQ.

#5 soralis
I like the idea of using PQ as a percentage of galactic
max and think it has many great advantages for
putting map size and abudancy on an equal footing, but
im concerned that this might reward the 1 hour tiny
games equally with the 8 hour gigantic games and I
dont think thats a fair measure. A second addition
would be needed to value different sizes differently.
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
To Space Wombat
A military conquest should reward ground captured, and take into account minimal force losses, percent of universe dominated, number of successful battles etc. Sure, PQ is a factor but not necessarily the most valuable one. The efficiency of military conquest is the issue.
End of quote


The efficiency of military conquest is the issue, but minimal force losses, percent of universe dominated, ground captured and number of successful battles not correlates with the efficiency of military conquest. And this efficiency can't be properly scored by a computer.

~SDC~
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
Hm... just one heretical idea:

Wouldn't it make some sense to rate PQ the other way round?

I mean:
Lot's of good planets -> Easy to win

Only average and lousy planets -> harder to win -> deserves a higher score.
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
The idea is to replace population count with PQ count
the concept is that they measure the same thing, which
is relative control over the current galaxy. If you
want to look at it as a ratio of control and have it
modify score that way(thus negating the bonus for using
a more abudant universe) that would be fine.

But no, your logic is flawed, lots of good planets
does not mean its easier to win, they are just as good
for the AI as well. A different game perhaps, but
not inherently easier.