|Posted By: Tully (2003-04-09 08:00:20) |
Bow down to the EvilOne that is a great score. (Hmmm that doesn't sound good at all.)
|Posted By: es (2003-04-09 09:50:22) |
Is the methodology for the scoring documented anywhere at this point?
|Posted By: Tully (2003-04-09 12:19:58) |
I don't want to give out the exact formula because then people will optimise their gameplay to try and get the high score, but I will tell you the generals...
You get points for things that are good, producing units, killing enemies, etc. You lose points for bad things, getting killed, etc. You also lose points as time goes by. Every X turns you lose y points from your score.
Finally there is a bonus for winning, and a multiplier based on hardness level of the game. East divides the score by 2, hard multiplies by 4.
So the one thing I will say is winning a hard game is probably the easiest way to get the high score.
|Posted By: Eric B. (2003-04-09 12:31:29) |
One thing that I noticed, and correct me if I am wrong, but a player could really inflat his or her score by mass producing easy units like say marines.
If you were playing a larger map and you had the game in control, what's to stop a player from setting all cities to produce nothing but marines? Every five turns the player would then get x points per city for producing a marine. If I remember correctly in a post or email you had dicussed the scoring system and players got the same number of points for producing and killing a marine as they did for producing and killing say a battleship.
Why not make the harder units to kill/make be worth more points as you make them or kill them, and if you get one of those types killed then of course you would lose more point also.
|Posted By: EvilOne (2003-04-09 17:35:57) |
Sure a player could inflate their points but if you play an XL map by the time that it is almost over, you just want it over!! And plus, Marines are really worthless once you get a city with a Commando!!