Raphael Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Hello and welcome to my TED talk. I think the score formula could use a look at simply because of the age of the game and the scale of certain nations. The way score is calculated has long been a source of contention and it's about time to stir the pot once again. Some facts for discussion/consideration: -The nation of Fraggle Rock (sorry Fraggle ily) is the #1 nation in score by a margin of ~2000 score. -The number 50 nation is approximately half the score of the number one nation. From 51-100 is less than 1k score difference. From 101-150 is roughly 400 score difference. 151-200 is roughly 200 score difference. From there everyone is pretty tightly compacted all the way down. - The top 2 nations are considerably ahead in score even from the next nation in rank. (Fraggle to Tywin is about 2k, Twyin to Wampus is also about 2k). After Wampus (#3) scores seem to follow a much closer trend. - The breakdown of how Fraggle achieved #1: 14 cities, 32.2k infra, 6 national projects. All of which account for a little over 10% of her score. There is no military other than missles and nuclear weapons in the nation of Fraggle Rock. - The breakdown of how Tywin achieved #2: 38 cities, 99.7k infra, 14 national project. All of which account for a little less than 50% of his score. Tywin's military is almost entirely traditional, with only 5 missiles and no nuclear weapons. - Wampus, Seb, and Bollocks all have a similar build. Seb should probably be #3 with the current formula but he has relatively little military but more cities than Wampus. Notably, Wampus only has ~40k infra whereas Bollocks and Seb have about 80-100k each. Actually the rest of the top ten follow a similar pattern of less military but larger city count and infra than Wampus. Suggesting Wampus and potentially Tywin and Fraggle are not the "true" top nations. - Based on the nations on "None" alliance alone, a rough estimate puts PnW at less than 4000 active or semi-active players. My initial thoughts on looking at things is as follows: Infra needs to count for significantly more score than it does. Like say a 20-30% increase. Cities need to count for slightly less score. Like say a 10-15% decrease. Nuclear weapons need to count for significantly less score than they do. Like a 50% or more decrease. Soldiers and Aircraft could stand a 5-10% increase in score but they aren't "needing" to be tweaked per se. All score numbers could be doubled (before factoring in any other tweaks) to create more spread out tiering. More spread out tiers may be a good or bad thing though, I would interested to hear opinions on this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Wampus and tywin ain't coming back so why are you counting them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) 994 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frawley Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 This has been argued for a number of times, still a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted June 4, 2019 Administrators Share Posted June 4, 2019 I'm not opposed to recalibrating the score formula. I would think that the contribution from cities ought to be a function of decreasing returns to scale. Military should probably count a bit less compared to infra/cities to account for double-buy potential. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 can someone please report sheepy for this grave dig? 2 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chief Wiggum Posted June 5, 2019 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2019 Worth it. 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted June 6, 2019 Administrators Share Posted June 6, 2019 On 6/4/2019 at 3:09 PM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: can someone please report sheepy for this grave dig? This isn't a rules violation. Per the forum rules: GravediggingReplying to, or "bumping", old, unpinned topics which have been inactive for at least 30 days. The following exceptions apply:Alliance Affairs - topics with no posts for at least 10 days will be considering gravedigging.The following are immune to the rule, as long as replies are constructive and remain on-topic.Alliance RecruitmentFree Trade MarketGame DiscussionGame SuggestionsAll forums in the Social Hub 3 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 2 hours ago, Alex said: This isn't a rules violation. Per the forum rules: GravediggingReplying to, or "bumping", old, unpinned topics which have been inactive for at least 30 days. The following exceptions apply:Alliance Affairs - topics with no posts for at least 10 days will be considering gravedigging.The following are immune to the rule, as long as replies are constructive and remain on-topic.Alliance RecruitmentFree Trade MarketGame DiscussionGame SuggestionsAll forums in the Social Hub We all know you went in and changed the rules while we weren't looking you can't fool us. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted June 6, 2019 Administrators Share Posted June 6, 2019 8 hours ago, Sketchy said: We all know you went in and changed the rules while we weren't looking you can't fool us. Do you really think I would do that? If you're not teasing, there's probably a waybackmachine copy of that page that shows that I clearly did not just edit the rules. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chief Wiggum Posted June 6, 2019 Moderators Share Posted June 6, 2019 14 hours ago, Alex said: This isn't a rules violation. Per the forum rules: ... Typical criminal... Full of excuses. You have the right to remain silent. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 10 hours ago, Alex said: Do you really think I would do that? If you're not teasing, there's probably a waybackmachine copy of that page that shows that I clearly did not just edit the rules. i was joking lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted June 9, 2019 Author Share Posted June 9, 2019 (edited) Since we're grave digging this, I've had another thought: Tying some score into military improvements as well. This way a part of your military score is also tied into your ability to produce units, not just the units you have. Just an idea. Anyways, some actual formulas to pitch here. Recognizing score as the game's way of deciding war declaration range, the considerations for changing it should be focused entirely on how to make war ranges fairer. Here's the current formula: Nation Score = (City Count - 1) *50 + (Nation Infra Total/40) + (Project Count *20) + ((Soldiers * 0.0005) + (Tanks * 0.05) + (Aircraft * 0.5) + (Ships * 2) + (Missiles * 5) + (Nuclear Weapons * 15)) Here's a proposed tweak: Nation Score = (City Count - 1) *40 + (Nation Infra Total/20) + (Project Count *20) + ((Soldiers * 0.0010) + (Tanks * 0.05) + (Aircraft * 0.7) + (Ships * 2) + (Missiles * 2.5) + (Nuclear Weapons * 5)) So using a 10 city nation with 1000 infra each as an example here. The original formula would score a fully militarized (maxed military improvements with max military) nation of this size as: 2,390 Without military as: 740 The proposed formula would score it as: 2,805 when militarized Without military: 900 score This proposed formula, using Fraggle again as an example, would reduce his nation from 13k score (current) to 5,022.5 score. Still far above what a 14 city nation should be at with no other military but at least gives some recognition of the several hundred missiles and nuclear weapons. This is just an example of a tweak. I increased the value of aircraft because they should be valued as more score than tanks. I increased the value of soldiers because they didn't account for anything, but tbh that could be thrown out and kept as-is I think. I halved missile score value and cut Nukes down to 5 score per nuke. I also lowered the city multiplier to 40 from 50 - which honestly could be lowered more. Cities are devalued, infra is increased in value. The proposed formula accomplishes three main things: 1. It addresses how utterly inflated nuclear weapons and missiles are in the current score formula. 2. It widens the gap between militarized and de-militarized score so nations can better fall out of range when they are losing, or conversely they can reach higher by militarizing. 3. It reduces city value and inflates infra value in score. This allows the players to better control their score, and allows more infrastructure damage to be done in wars. Edited June 9, 2019 by Bartholomew Roberts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 Errr, you made infra devalued too. Your example made 70 infra = 1 score instead of 40 = 1 score. So to correct that math, under your proposed example changes, the example nation not militarized would have a score of 542.8, as it seems you're assuming 2 projects. Militarized would be 2247.85. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted June 9, 2019 Author Share Posted June 9, 2019 9 hours ago, Akuryo said: Errr, you made infra devalued too. Your example made 70 infra = 1 score instead of 40 = 1 score. So to correct that math, under your proposed example changes, the example nation not militarized would have a score of 542.8, as it seems you're assuming 2 projects. Militarized would be 2247.85. Haha oops, I actually caught and corrected this mistake the first time and adjusted my math but forgot to edit the formula. I used 20 for the divisor I think? Edited it in. Either way though, I’m just throwing out an idea of what a changed formula could look like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.