Coffeedragon´s Scoring Formula

from Stardock Forums
Or short: `The Coffee´. :)

The points of the Coffee:

-It only measures achievement. No nonsense.
-Quality over quantity.
-Totally simple. Everybody knows what to expect, all the time.

The rules:
\Including explanation for each.

Lose: Coffee = 0
\I could give you a negative score if you prefer that.

Win at any difficulty below Normal: Coffee = 50; *NO BONUS*
\And I am feeling generous here.

Win at Normal and above: Coffee = (100 + Bonus)

Bonus points awarded for:

Difficulty: +100 for Challenging or above/+200 for Painful/+500 for Crippling/+1000 for Masochistic (only one applies)

Map Size: +250 for Medium/+500 for Large/+750 for Huge/+1000 for Gigantic
\I wouldn´t need this, but we must appease the Gigantic Map Crowd; call it the Perseverance Bonus :p

Difficult Starting Position:
\This one may take you a minute to understand.

Count all habitable (15+) planets within 2 sectors of homeworld. Class 18-19 planets count as 2 planets. Class 20+ planets count as 4 planets. Include homeworld. Do *not* include planets closer to homeworld of an opponent.

If result = 4, add 100 to score. If = 3, add 200. If = 2, add 500. If = 1, add 1000.
\Let´s say your homeworld is Class 18, but there is no colonizable planet within 2 sectors. This would give you +500 points to your total.

Speed: Number of years finished faster than 20: +30/year
\Finish in 12 years, get +240 to your total.

Alliance Victory: *Unless* your military is stronger than all your allies combined, subtract 2/3 of final score.
\We must rely on ourselves, not allies.

Last words: As the Coffee totally favours quality over quantity, you could simply add the 10 best scores of a player together to give his Metaverse rating; no modifications needed.
498 views 17 replies
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Don't take this as criticism, just constructive comments:

As a Huge/Gigantic map player, I think the perseverence bonus is going the wrong direction. Map size should affect the way the other parts are scored (what a fast victory is counted as, how many planets count as a good starting position, etc), it shouldn't be a bonus in and of itself. Or, as an alternative, the starting position could be based on the ratio of your points to all the AI points combined, and you could get rid of the 2 sector limit.

The formula needs to take resources into consideration. A planet-wealthy starting position can still be bad with a lack of resources, or even the lack of certain resources. I got clobbered in my last game, and wound up taking a lot longer than normal because the Drengin got most of the military resources and all the influence resources.

I also disagree with your alliance scoring. Your scoring system would penalize me if by some miracle I managed to pull off an early alliance with all 5 AIs still in the game, because there's no way I'd have a larger military, but that is certainly a harder victory than an alliance with only one other member.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but I don't think anything as simple as you'd like will be as fair as you'd like.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
I think this has some really good ideas to develop!

Early reflections: I think you should extend your Difficulty/Map Size criteria all the way down to Easy/Tiny maps - many new players start this way and still need to be rewarded for effort, rather than just get a fat zero until they work up to Normal.

I know what you mean about 'perseverance' bonus - the map size thing is interesting, because I have found (with admittedly milited experience) that small/tiny maps encourage a completely different kind of game. In fact, it sometimes feels harder on the smaller maps - time pressure, lack of 'space' and good planets = less infrastructure, etc.

I really am interested in '10 best scores=Metaverse rating' - I've wondered if my Metaverse score was just a matter of time i.e. would a hundred small/easy map wins @ 70 pts each eventually give me 7000? Thus, the highest scorer is simply going to be the one who keeps submitting scores the longest. I would think the drawback is that once you get 10 good scores at the highest difficulty/largest map size, why would you keep contributing? Sure, you could squeeze out an extra few points for increasingly brilliant wins, but the return will diminish rapidly. Good food for thought though!
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Huge/Gigantic: This is very purposefully *not* related to the other things, because I want you to be able to get at least a mid-range score on Small or Tiny. So, yes, some of the other bonuses somewhat benefit the smaller maps, and that´s intentional.

To be #1, you would still need to play on Gigantic, but Tiny, in my system, does not totally keep you from getting a reasonable number of pts.

Resources: I think they are over-rated. In the early game, I never bother to build Constructors. No way having early access to a Resource is worth that investment. I really think starting advantage is PQ-related only.

An early Alliance with all Ais in the game you consider winning? :p
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
"I think you should extend your Difficulty/Map Size criteria all the way down to Easy/Tiny maps - many new players start this way and still need to be rewarded for effort, rather than just get a fat zero until they work up to Normal."

They do get 50 points. Zero is for losing. If they play 10 games at Easy, they will have 500 points, but that´s the ceiling, as long as they don´t get serious.
:)

"Sure, you could squeeze out an extra few points for increasingly brilliant wins, but the return will diminish rapidly."

That´s the idea. :)
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
"The difficult starting position would have to take into account habitable planet frequency."

You mean because you get a higher probability of difficult starting positions on Maps with rarer habitable planets? But the Ai starting positions, on average, would be more difficult, too, so that the bonus wouldn´t be quite as deserved on such maps?

I can follow your argument, and you are correct, but I view it like this: With 5 Ais, chances are that at least one or two WILL get a better start, and their advantage will be especially significant on that hostile map type, so I think it should average out, and the bonus, in most cases, IS deserved...
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
An interesting formula, although for the speed bonuses, I'd ramp up the thing something faster than linear as the number of turns grows small (incresing returns for speedier victories)

I like your idea though. (no this isn't a misprint, and yes I'm being serious)

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
Coffeedragon:
They do get 50 points. Zero is for losing. If they play 10 games at Easy, they will have 500 points, but that´s the ceiling, as long as they don´t get serious.
End of quote


Sorry - my mistake! That makes sense of course. (I should ensure adequate blood caffiene levels before posting). With respect to the top ten scores, though, since we both agree there are diminishing returns, how does this impact the whole Metaverse? Isn't scoring primarily about the Metaverse, and how victories between opponents compare (in lieu of a genuine multiplayer process)? If everyone gets 10 near perfect scores and then gives up, the Metaverse approaches stagnation - where's the fun in that?
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
Sorry - my mistake! That makes sense of course. (I should ensure adequate blood caffiene levels before posting). With respect to the top ten scores, though, since we both agree there are diminishing returns, how does this impact the whole Metaverse? Isn't scoring primarily about the Metaverse, and how victories between opponents compare (in lieu of a genuine multiplayer process)? If everyone gets 10 near perfect scores and then gives up, the Metaverse approaches stagnation - where's the fun in that?

This can be fixed by using my patent pending "ScOrEmAsTeR" methodology. All we need to do is to take the top 'x' number of scores and all games after that give a %.

E.G 10 games of 500 give maxout of 5000

the 11th game scores 600

this gives a total of 5100 for the top ten games. To encourage people playing, we just add a percentage of say 10% of the excess games score.

So with ScOrEmAsTeR, the total will be 5150 (5100 + 50)

Seems good?

~SDC~
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
The first three sentences of the above message should have been in quotes :)

~SDC~
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
In general I don't like the idea for many reasons,
though one simple one is as previously mentioned
the frequency of habital planets is not accounted for
properly. This system heavily favors using the lowest
frequency which while its a different game, is not
more difficult and thus shouldnt be worth more points.

Basicily the formula needs to be different for
different frequency settings or better yet just
directly related to the AI's position.
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
Yes, if you can manage to win an alliance victory with all 5 AIs still in the game, that's a victory very much worth winning. Or do you consider politics to be the last refuge of the unsuccessful warmonger? Think it's the easy way out? Try it.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
Staffa spotted the same thing I did. My guess is that if the original system was implemented the top scorers would all be gigantic, rare, with +military type traits: best bonuses combined with fastest win capability.
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
Alliance Victory: *Unless* your military is stronger than all your allies combined, subtract 2/3 of final score.\We must rely on ourselves, not allies.
End of quote


Yes, we just have single-handedly make diplomatic victories pointless. If you have a stronger military that all of your allies combined, then unless you've destroyed everybody other than one AI ally, this isn't a diplomatic victory anymore.

~SDC~
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
"My guess is that if the original system was implemented the top scorers would all be gigantic, rare, with +military type traits: best bonuses combined with fastest win capability."

Gigantic, yes, because, that´s what people seem to want. Rare: I´ll give this some more thoughts. +Military: Nope, don´t think so.

I am sceptic if there is any system that makes the competition for #1-3 score dependent on anything but perseverance. I care mostly for a system that gives a better skill comparison for mid-range players than the current one does. I want to remove the possibility to get a great score with many simple games, and I want a reason for players who mostly play on small and/or rare to even bother submit their games.
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
"Think it's the easy way out? Try it."

Popup: I understand that it can be difficult, within the game system, to get everybody to ally with you.

But why on Earth should you want to do that? If you don´t control the Galaxy, what kind of win is that? It´s like not playing at all; you end in the same place where you started. Honestly, I can´t comprehend why one should want this. :SURPRISED: