• English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
  • Español

A new score system ?

46 replies [Last post]
yeku's picture
Last seen: 5 weeks 4 days ago
Modo
Posts: 420
Points: 421
And what do you think to give some points to the player that killed more players' lives?
dharokan's picture
Last seen: 10 hours 14 min ago
Modo
Posts: 779
Points: 783
yeku wrote:
And what do you think to give some points to the player that killed more players' lives?

That could do better.
But only for deathmatches imho. Maybe we should find 2 different formulas, one for deathmatches (and maybe races won without finishing it) and a different one for finished races.

EDIT:
By the way, for duels this would always be the same result (3 kills) as long as there are no suicides. 
But that's fine with me.

EDIT2:
The only problem would be to distinguish wether the death of a robot was a kill or not. Some kills in fact can't easily be recogniced by programmation....
yeku's picture
Last seen: 5 weeks 4 days ago
Modo
Posts: 420
Points: 421
dharokan wrote:

EDIT:
EDIT2:

lol

It can be used the system that appear in the chat. I know that sometimes that can be wrong, but I wouldn't change anything. That would be to waste the time for these special cases...
scorpia's picture
Last seen: 2 years 33 weeks ago
Power bot
Posts: 39
Points: 39
dharokan wrote:
 


scorpia wrote:
For the score system, increase gained points depending on the removed life points to support the players who shoot on other robot, and give few points to the winner.
Very interesting idea.


But imagine 2 players on Blitz:
  1. Player A shoots player B
  2. Player B heals himself with energy
  3. Repeat from 1.)
With such a method, a player could do 1000 damage in one game. This would again open doors for cheaters :(



With a limitation of  points earning by shooting per players can resolve this problem and favorise game with more players. And when they are a lot of players, the man who win thanks to the luck isn't the only one who win points, that can resolve the problem of negative point too
east amloo's picture
Last seen: 2 years 29 weeks ago
Modo
Posts: 1258
Points: 1260
Some others ideas...

1. I remember when i was a newbie on Robostrike. My first reaction was : Why the second don't win some points ? Why just the only first player can win points ? It's not so fair because i did all the work and he win with a basic (lucky, quickly) move...

Why not giving some points for the second or almost permit to not lost points ?

2. I read all that and i see the start of a difference between race and deathmatch that we never do before... Maybe we can change the actual score in 2 scores : one for deathmatch and one for race ? If someone win a race by the deathmatch way, the result will be on the deathmatch score... >> so long to change like this no ?

PS : there is a lot of people on the page actually xD (9 people)
chris's picture
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Admin
Posts: 852
Points: 848
The races are already different because you can win only half the points given for a death match. I agree with you to say that the winner should often not be the only one who get points.
Our goal is to setup a score system as simple as possible to solve 80% of those complex issues. We won't find the perfect system to mix attractivity for new players, activity of all players and 100 % fair. So we must target something "in between".

But, he he, I think I've got a suggestion wich could match several thoughts and wishes expressed in this discussion, while keeping positive and negative scores.
I tried many new formulas today, and I'd like to submit this one for discussion :

Score = nbplayers (for the winner only) + nbbotsyoukilled (x 3 for the winner) - 1% x yourscore / nbplayers

You'll find here an excel file showing what it does with different number of players and different scores. You also can change the nb of killed bots to calculate different situation (especially for the loosers score).

As you can see it has several advantages :
  • Only one formula for all players not depending on the type of game (race or DM) but with more points in death matches (because of the kills) and more points for the winner if more players (good to prevent cheating)
  • the number of points you can lose is easy to calculate in advance, doesn't depend on other scores and is bigger for high scores but limited (ex -10 or -15)
  • lower scores lose less points and can win some by killing other bots even when losing
  • At the beginning, after a reset everyone will gain points (even the losers if low scored), but when your score grows the risk of losses grows too. So the average big scores should stabilize around 2000/3000 points
This kind of system could maybe achieve different goals in one formula : gameroom activity, new players satisfaction, and quite relevant scores of experimented players

What do you think ?
Bye
Chris
yeku's picture
Last seen: 5 weeks 4 days ago
Modo
Posts: 420
Points: 421
This is a good system for multiplayer death match, but I don't like for 1 vs 1 and races because it benefits a lot the multiplayer death match.

            1. 1 vs 1
I think that for 1 vs 1 this shouldn't be used because, imagine you put a bomb, you paralyse the opponent and he is in a slider that goes to a hell and in next turn he dies for the slider. It doesn't count as kill and the winner would lose some points for that. I know that happens with more players, but the % of points that you lose is smaller.

I wouldn't give points to kill other players in 1 vs 1.

            2. Races
If players want to get more points in races they have to kill the other robot. So, as more times they kill robots they get more points and in races it shouldn't be this.

Imagine a little race (coureur) with 1 vs 1 and both players finish the game with 3 lives: the winner wins only 2 points....

In races, I think it should be better to penalize losing points each time that a player kills another.

The problem, one formula for all this wouldn't be possible

Chris wrote:

  • At the beginning, after a reset everyone will gain points (even the losers if low scored), but when your score grows the risk of losses grows too. So the average big scores should stabilize around 2000/3000 points
Have you thought what would happen with the little scores? (next day I say my opinion about this because now i don't know how to say it and I have to think somethings about this)
baron rojo's picture
Last seen: 7 years 5 weeks ago
Tech bot
Posts: 2
Points: 2

A new score system... I don't see the need of a new score system because the current one is pretty ok, it works fair enough. But Chris may have a point right there... I remember when i stopped playing the game, it was while the second score system was just starting to take over the game and back then the game was sickly crowded... the game was actually alive and I guess that what we all want is the game to be alive like back then.... don't we?
About the resetting of the scores... There isn't  a need of it neither... lyo thinks that players can't win more than 1000 by themselves... but he does it... and I've done it myself several times... without cheating (eventough you don't believe it lyo :))
Maybe some people will think that I don't want to get the scores reseted because I'm the one with the most points... in several accounts... but to be honest... you can reset all my accounts to 0... wouldn't make a change at all...  and it would not make a change  for the ones that cheat neither cause they will cheat their points back...

So... if you Chris and Bill want this game to reborn... you guys gotta get back to the second score system... which to me, has been the worse... but kept the most number of players per day than any other...  having alot of players around is better than having a fair score system and no players to use it.... its like a necesary bad... anyways... thats just me

Regards

Rote

east amloo's picture
Last seen: 2 years 29 weeks ago
Modo
Posts: 1258
Points: 1260
I want to try your new score system chris. I'm curious.

If a reset don't change anything for you rotey, that's good : let's reset. All high scores will want to don't reset, that's logical. But a reset can be a new way for great players to confirm that they are strong and always in the place.

Maybe we can lauch a popular vote for reset or not ?

yeku's picture
Last seen: 5 weeks 4 days ago
Modo
Posts: 420
Points: 421
east amloo wrote:
All high scores will want to don't reset, that's logical.


You are wrong Amloo, not all high scores dont' want a reset of the scores because I want the reset. Actually, I wanted a total reset (ask Dharokan ^^).


My proposal, in short, is the next:

The players that are in a worst position in the ranking have an “activity-system” (winners win more points than losers). According to they improve in the ranking, the score system gradually becomes to a “skill-system” (winners win same points that losers”) by a coefficient.

And how create it? Joining the 2 last score systems.
 
1. In the penultimate system from (January 2006-August 2008) winners won more points than losers lost. This system was better for active players because to get points was easy and any player could win a lot of points easily.
 
2. And in the current system, winners win the same points that losers lose (except if the winner has between 0 and 200 points). This system is better for skilled players.

To do it, I would add a coefficient to the current score that shows insofar as loser’s points are multiplied to know how many points the winner wins. Moreover, the coefficiet depends on 3 things:
  1. Position in the ranking
  2. Number of active players
  3. Winner's points
The formula of the coefficient is the next:
C=(Px5)/(AP+0,05*WP)
  • P= winner's position in the ranking
  • AP= active players
  • WP= Winner's points
The higher coefficient is 5 and for the players that the coefficient is less than 1, they would have 1 (the score system would be a "skill-system".

So, the formula for the winner would be the next:

gain = C x [ coeff x mini(average opponents score, average score) ]
with coeff = (0.5 to 1 depending on the type of game) x nb of opponents/2
with C = (Px5)/(AP+0,05*WP)

And finally, for this system would need the next:
  • A score system (I think that the current system would be good. Moreover, I have based in it)
  • A periodic semi-reset of points (Each month would be good, as in the first 7-8 months of 2006)
  • To know how many active players there are in Robostrike (players who have played for last 7 days.)
  • A coefficient: Shows insofar as loser’s points are multiplied to know how many points the winner wins.
And is a system based on:
  • Players’ position in the ranking
  • Number of active players
  • Points of the players that play the game
Of course, it can be changed the formula of the coefficient, or the "important part" of the score system.

This is a summary of my idea and I wrote it fast, so maybe I forgot somethings to explain or I explained it bad. So ask me what you don't understand. Moreover, soon I will put some examples to understand it better.