Domination Game

Status: Logged Out

Forum » View

Game Points [Admin]


Monday 23rd June 2003, 19:47 GMT
Ok, A long game that may last 2 months only pays out 2000 points at the end. And a 20 minute game pays out 2000 points.

Well, I think the points should be determined how long the game lasted, because a person stuck playing a really long game, will only gain 2000 in a month, but someone who plays lots of death matches may get 50000 points in a month.

Post what you think :)  


Wednesday 25th June 2003, 11:13 GMT
Ok, an issue raised by 'eliminos', was that people who are in a slow game aren't receiving as many points as members who are playing several fast games. A few solutions are listed below and I would love your comments...

* When a game is won, the time it has taken to complete the game determines the overall points. The problem with this is that inactive games will get more points (just by doing nothing).

* The game speed determines the amount of points received - e.g. a 'slow' game will always receive 4000 points, while a 'fast' game will receive 1000 points.

We will also need to consider the 'in game' points, such as how many points you get when you conquer a territory - should you get more points if you conquer a territory in a slow game? (As more actions can be performed in a fast game in the same period of time)  


Wednesday 25th June 2003, 11:42 GMT
I think that the amount of points should be based on the delay. Wow, when the reinforcements delay is 3 seconds, you get 3 points per reinforcement, same on action. Winning a game should stay the same.  


Thursday 26th June 2003, 14:53 GMT
...not that I'm sad enough to play mobile phone games, but...

I know on the game 'snake 2' you select a level between 1 and 9. the level determins the speed of game, and when you eat an apple, or whatever they are, the number of points you gain is equal to the level number.

I like that system, maybe you need something similar? Not that points really mean much. I've heard a few people in the top 10 only got there by playing deathmatch games with themselfs. Personally I prefer kicking someone elses butt.

But I hate mobile games, and don't have a Nokia anymore. Long live Sony.  


Friday 27th June 2003, 18:42 GMT
i have never played a deathmatch game with a password, i always play open games, so ANYONE can join

if they dare...  


Saturday 28th June 2003, 15:52 GMT
Uhh eliminos, the passwords have been removed



Saturday 28th January 2006, 13:28 GMT
what if you bind the points on the number of battles per game? Then its equal whether fast or slow...


Tuesday 31st January 2006, 5:40 GMT
i agree with mkroeger, that would work well.

especially if a you recieved bonus points for taking out an enemy, or even better gained the ememy's points fom that game...

that way it would really reward the victor of a large 8 player game... something which is alot harder than a small 2 player one.


Saturday 4th February 2006, 21:42 GMT
The scoring system will have to be changed soon. Although I believe that the number of points will have to be dependent on the speed of the game, or the number of days it took to play.

This is because you can have the best player, who prefers to play games with action delays of 24 hours... but wont get many points compared to a player who plays games with instant actions (death match).

Although I do like your idea of the number of battles, maybe this could be incorporated into some form of bounty.

At the moment I'm a little busy, but when I get a chance to make these changes, I will post a few solutions and see what people think.

Thanks for your thoughts, and I appreciate any more that you have.


Sunday 19th February 2006, 7:53 GMT
Krang is crazy and endorses LINEAR scoring based on time. I vehemently disagree, as this would leave very little difference in the shorter game settings and an insane bonus to long-term games.. Instead, I propose an algorithm to add bonus points using a square root function or several square root functions coupled with a number to produce a product equivalent to the bonus. I also propose that bonus points be given for the direct elimination of an enemy empire, as loot would give.

(With a root function, there would be difference between the slower games but a decaying bonus as games get longer and longer delays.)


Monday 20th February 2006, 23:55 GMT
There is no disagreement that I'm crazy, but could you provide the other members a little bit more information (in non ranting form) so they have an idea on how your calculation will work tiki.

For a bit of insight though, I am looking at changing how the points are awarded (for the scoreboard)... obviously this will have to be dependent on the time it takes to play a game.

There are two metrics available to the calculation though. First is the number of seconds each game has been played for (overall duration)... but I don't see that will be much help as some games can lay dormant for days/weeks. Alternatively you can use the number of seconds it takes to perform an action / get reinforcements.

Lets the maths challenge begin!

PS: Domination runs by using the UNIX timestamp (its my friend) so everything is expressed in seconds.

comrade tiki

Wednesday 22nd February 2006, 23:40 GMT
S = ( 2000 + ( 128 * sqrt( 2 * sqrt( 2 * sqrt( ( A )( A ) + ( A )( R ) ) ) ) ) )

Oh, Krang, there is one more variable which COULD be used, and that is starting battalions. The time the game lasted does not seem useful. My above expression attempts to utilise reinforcement and action delays only, assuming there is a cap on the delays to disable the exploitation of this equation.


Thursday 23rd February 2006, 23:07 GMT
S = ( 1000 + (( 1000 + ( 128 * sqrt( 2 * sqrt( 2 * sqrt( ( A * A ) + ( A * R ) ) ) ) ) / T ))

Where T is the number of alliance members, S is the total resulting score for victory, A is the action delay, and R is the reinforcements delay. The scoring as listed would award the following amounts for the longest possible game setting, which takes several weeks to play through.

By yourself: 5700
With one ally: 3850
With two allies: 3230

If you are greedy and can conquer the entire world by yourself, go ahead. But do not forget that el pueblo unido jamas sera vencido.


Saturday 25th February 2006, 23:46 GMT
Ok, the deed is done!

tfe, you were right, it did not take 5 hours - but thats probably because I don't have people trying to make amends.

Anyway, its up and partially tested (so yes, I am expecting bug reports any minute now).


Thursday 2nd March 2006, 22:31 GMT
First test results.

Just finished an endurance game. I was at 12077 immediately after the finishing move and resulted at 17786, resulting in a point gain of 5709 for my lonesome time-consuming victory.

It works.

Google Calculator tells me, according to the formula and the endurance numbers (with no alliance members), the points are 5 709.59927

I don't think rounding down makes any noticable difference! =)
Congrats on finally getting this feature functioning, so now us endurance-people don't feel like we're wasting all of our time.


Tuesday 14th March 2006, 8:50 GMT
The second and third tests have gone flawlessly, a lone endurance game and a more unique game with four alliance members respectively.

Everything went according to plan, and it is safe to say that everything is safe to play.