|
|
Posted By: es (2003-09-30 00:50:34)
I've got to ask...these high scores...I don't get it. I always play on the most difficult setting with the largest map. My average game lasts between 1000-1500 turns and my average score is around 4000-6000 points. Am I more efficient than what is reflected on these 10,000-12,000-20,000! games? Or do I really suck and can't get a good score? Or is the scoring not truly reflective of a game well played?
I don't really care too much about the score - I actually never used to pay attention to it until it starting being posted on the front page of metalshard...but now that it's there, I think about it.
I know you aren't giving away how the scores occur, Tully, so that glory-hounds like me don't try to massage our games to get a 20,000 score...but I just wonder if things are a little out of whack.
-es
| Posted By: Tully (2003-09-30 08:23:49)
I would like to know as well. You are all doing better than me the best I can do is about 800 pts.
You get points for things you kill so I think they are drawing out the game longer. I used to tick down you score as time went by to punish people who took to long but that was resulting in negative scores.
I'm working on a 1.5 release that will include the user loadable maps. I will revisit scoring for that release.
| Posted By: ShadowWraith (2003-10-02 21:44:24)
I don't care too much about the scores myself, but I think it would be more fair to have negative points for losing units, or for too many turns. Maybe X turns for medium map, Y turns for larger, and then after that many turns, you get a few points knocked off every turn.
|
|
|
|
|