Jump to content

feature request: total points in summary page


Recommended Posts

It should definitely be possible to add the total points (though we need to define exactly how to calculate them), and to make it possible to view the current stats in-game as in the Age of Empires games etc.

We should probably add a small crown or wreath or something next to the winning players to make them stand out, even if/when total points are added as in for example team games a player might have less points than most other players, but still be on the winning team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, for starters, does anyone know exactly how the AoE series calculated its points? I think it was something like 1 point per 1 of each resource you had, and then the cost of a unit/building was removed from the total, but you got the double back when it was trained/built. Then when you killed/destroyed an enemy unit/building you got some percentage (50%?) of its cost as points(which was permanent unlike the points for resources/units/buildings). And I think you lost all the points a certain unit/building had contributed to when it was killed/destroyed.

Do we want something like that or something different?

Also, for in-game display, where do we want it? I would say the bottom right, top right could also be an alternative, but I think it's best to let the tech queue stay there :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In AOK, scores were displayed as an overlay with all players listed. Of course it would be listed in the summary. IMO it doesn't do much good to show only a single player's score, you won't know how you're doing relative to other players.

I would say something like this:

(Food + Wood + 2*(Metal + Stone))/12 + "number of units" + 2 * "number of buildings" + "number of units killed" + 2 * "number of buildings destroyed" + 20 * "number of techs researched"

What about units and buildings lost, should they be considered?

For resources are you counting trade/gather/barter as one stat?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say something like this:

(Food + Wood + 2*(Metal + Stone))/12 + "number of units" + 2 * "number of buildings" + "number of units killed" + 2 * "number of buildings destroyed" + 20 * "number of techs researched"

Ok, so let's break that down in smaller pieces I can understand :)

(Food + Wood + 2*(Metal + Stone))/12 Ok, the first part (food, wood, metal, stone) I get and can see the value of, stone and metal are generally more rare (though since you can get any of the resources via trade the differences diminish). What I don't see is why it's divided by 12? I guess that depends on what the answer is to my next question though:

"number of units" + 2 * "number of buildings" + "number of units killed" + 2 * "number of buildings destroyed" What do you mean by "number of ..."? Do you mean the actual "number of..." as in player x has Y number of units? I guess that's easier than to calculate a cost for each unit/building, but it does not really tell very much about the actual strength of a player as in this calculation 100 female citizens would be "worth" as much as 100 elephants, though the latter not only cost the player more but would also be more useful in a fight.

20 * "number of techs researched" Again, what's the significance of the number 20? And also, it might be useful in some ways to treat all the techs the same, but different techs are more or less worth compared to each other. On the other hand that might even out over the course of the game as early techs which might be cheap can be worth a lot in the long run etc, so I guess it's less of an issue for techs.

I don't think anything should be subtractive in the formula... Your enemies are already gaining points relatively to you when they kill your stuff. Just a thought.

Also, it would be nice to keep the scores relatively short, e.g., instead of 23647235454 vs. 234623476346 it's more like 21807 vs. 24742.

Either way is fine with me, though having subtractive elements does keep the scores down =)

In AOK, scores were displayed as an overlay with all players listed. Of course it would be listed in the summary. IMO it doesn't do much good to show only a single player's score, you won't know how you're doing relative to other players.
Yep, most definitely :) I guess that was implied, but thanks for making it clear so there's no confusion about it :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a simplification:

([Total number of resources ever gathered] + [enemy units and buildings destroyed in resources] * Multiplier) / Divisor

Thoughts behind it:

  • Giving a value to certain techs/buildings and units and multiplying them separately by arbitrary values is very difficult to balance and should be avoided. Insead we should just calculate the resources and should not care about how they are spent.
  • Everything is broken down to a unit (resource) and simplified in this approach
  • The multiplier is to give more value to damage given to the enemy compared to gathering resources, training units and building buildings. One example: Imagine a 2vs2 where player A in team 1 defeats both players in team two and player B in team 1 just stays in his base and collects resources. Player A should get the most points in this case.
  • The divisor is to take Mythos_Ruler's input about keeping scores short into account
  • Each type of resources counts the same
  • Enemy buildings and units are counted as resources (costs 20 wood, 30 food = 50 resouces worth)

Link to post
Share on other sites
([units you've killed] + [building you've destroyed] + [city centers you destroyed] + [winning bonus] ) - ([your units killed] + [your building destroyed])

each value in [ ] should have some kind of multiplyer, so the formula is:

(UYK * UYKm + BYD * BYDm + CCYD * CCm + WB * WBm) - (YUK * YUKm + YUB * YUBm)

Where the multiplyers get the balance of how much every feild count.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a simplification:

([Total number of resources ever gathered] + [enemy units and buildings destroyed in resources] * Multiplier) / Divisor

Thoughts behind it:

  • Giving a value to certain techs/buildings and units and multiplying them separately by arbitrary values is very difficult to balance and should be avoided. Insead we should just calculate the resources and should not care about how they are spent.
  • Everything is broken down to a unit (resource) and simplified in this approach
  • The multiplier is to give more value to damage given to the enemy compared to gathering resources, training units and building buildings. One example: Imagine a 2vs2 where player A in team 1 defeats both players in team two and player B in team 1 just stays in his base and collects resources. Player A should get the most points in this case.
  • The divisor is to take Mythos_Ruler's input about keeping scores short into account
  • Each type of resources counts the same
  • Enemy buildings and units are counted as resources (costs 20 wood, 30 food = 50 resouces worth)

Sounds good to me (y) Simple while still reasonably accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another approach could just use the final "capital": count the total spare resources + the resources needed for all your assets (multiplied by a value depending on the phase, the difficulty or the time necessary to build them). If you kill enemy units you don't get points, but you decrease the enemy points. Obviously the loser will get 0 point and if you win at the "last man" you'll get very few points.

This approach would then reward not who just fight or build the most but who's also able to keep a good city after the win (Pyrrhus would get few points). This could be useful in campaigns, if you get many points (so you still have many resources) you'll have a bonus on the next match.

Another idea could also consider the total time: if you do the same in fewer time you'll get more points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to consider related to the live score is the amount of information we want to give away.

In competitive AoE you could watch the score and spot a drop when they spent a large sum of resources on an age upgrade. Since different tactics used different timings this could help in countering the enemy. This is a fairly small aid of course but I would prefer to eliminate this. To do so we could just balance the score given for researching a tech with the score for the resources, though the score would then have to be done when the player begins the research which complicates things.

I'm not massively bothered about this though, just something to consider.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to consider related to the live score is the amount of information we want to give away.

In competitive AoE you could watch the score and spot a drop when they spent a large sum of resources on an age upgrade. Since different tactics used different timings this could help in countering the enemy. This is a fairly small aid of course but I would prefer to eliminate this. To do so we could just balance the score given for researching a tech with the score for the resources, though the score would then have to be done when the player begins the research which complicates things.

I'm not massively bothered about this though, just something to consider.

If the calculation we settle on is simple enough, then a player's score would never "go down" at all, e.g. with Yves simplified version above. :)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry to resurrect this topic, but, even knowing that i may not change your minds, i must say some things i see as relevant.

1 - Subtractive elements lessen the glory of a player who, lets say, builds a huge empire, takes down 6 players and is beaten by the last player who was just turtling and then seize a weak spot of the brave expansionist. Well, at least a percentage of the points given should stay, uh?

2 - Some units may be relatively expensive and weak, thus affecting negatively the accuracy of the proposed resource-points idea.

3 - A "would be nice to have" (but indeed very difficult and very unlikely to be implemented) feature would be, not only detecting battles along the game (feature present on most RTS games) and showing them on graphics, but giving a bonus factor to points won when the odds are turning against oneself, for someone who manages to change the outcome of a battle that seemed already lost is surely more "skilled" than the other, and we want to see who is more skilled, uh?

Edited by Pedro Falcão
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to resurrect this topic

Don't worry, it's not even ten days old :P

2 - Some units may be relatively expensive and weak, thus affecting negatively the accuracy of the proposed resource-points idea.

Expensive and weak? Well, that sounds like there's something really wrong with them imho =) I just don't see how that would happen, if nothing else if they aren't useful no one is going to use them and thus they'd not show up in the stats anyway. (Or they'd be used by inexperienced players, but since they'd most likely lose quite early and for that reason not get very many points in total I doubt their use of a few expensive but weak units would matter overall.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

In Age of Empires 2:


  • Military score is 20% of the resource value (cost) of all enemy units and buildings each player destroyed or converted.

  • Economy score is 10% of all resources each player currently has or has paid in tribute, plus 20% of the resource value of surviving units and standing buildings (except Castles or Wonders).

  • Technology score is 20% of the resource value of every technology each player has researched, plus 10 points for every 1% of the map explored.

  • Society score is 20% of the cost of the Castles and Wonders each player has constructed.

  • Total Score is the overall total of each player's Military, Economy, Technology, and Society scores.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...