ITA Score - One Standard

Here you can find, hints, strategies and other info for VGA Planets, PHost and it's many addon's and utilities.

Moderators: BitMask, Havok

User avatar
Shardin5
Posts: 3808

Post#16 » Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:08 am

Catman wrote:IMO, I believe there should also be something figured out to do with mines and/or torps.

It seems to me the Crystals get low scores a lot when in fact they are a force to reckon with. I'll have games where most of my ships are torpers with at least MK7 and mucho torps and webmines, and still be lower in the scores with the higher scored enemies running scared.

On the other hand the Robots get good scores due to fighters and/or torps/mines. It would be nice to see a balance.

My 2 cents.

Catman
Being a Tholian minded person, I agree about the scores, but when I was reading the doc's Torps are counted in general. So 100mk1's would count the same as 100mk7's. That would lead to to much abuse. If Torps can be rated by tech level then it would be of value. My 1st thought about fighters was to divide them by 10 or 12, but then I reread DH's post and we are working on a score that shows fighting capablity, and Fighters are just that, one of the reasons the CV races walk over a couple of the Torp races. As far as the Cylon's, Minefields are Minefields, as its rated by the size of the MineFields, granted he can do more with MK4's than most, but it does go to his battle worthiness. Fighters are going to be the Hardest part to figure out, as DH is correct score should be reflect battle worthiness, but a 120 fighters on a Qtanker that is now where near a Instrument or Golem, isn't worth Crap.
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The US Marines don't have that problem.
President Ronald Reagan

User avatar
the.Ant
Posts: 283

Post#17 » Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:54 pm

I totally understand your points,

however, I would say we should take a step back and see how the default ITA-settings develop in the games which have just started.

Only then we will be able to truly assess, how they need to be adjusted. I think there is no use in tweaking a system from which you don't know how it run's anyway.

For example, I am really curious, how the number of planets will influence the scores. They give quite some points, and in the above mentioned example (big fleet unarmed, vs. big fleet armed), the later could just invade the former. In that way, these scores really give an intension to expand, which is a nice thing I would say. If neither Fighters, nor torps give to many points, you can't any longer just stay at home and let the fighter-factories do your work... That's why I really like the idea of not counting them at all.

User avatar
Catman
Posts: 272
Contact:

Post#18 » Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:05 pm

the.Ant wrote:I totally understand your points,

however, I would say we should take a step back and see how the default ITA-settings develop in the games which have just started.

Only then we will be able to truly assess, how they need to be adjusted. I think there is no use in tweaking a system from which you don't know how it run's anyway.

For example, I am really curious, how the number of planets will influence the scores. They give quite some points, and in the above mentioned example (big fleet unarmed, vs. big fleet armed), the later could just invade the former. In that way, these scores really give an intension to expand, which is a nice thing I would say. If neither Fighters, nor torps give to many points, you can't any longer just stay at home and let the fighter-factories do your work... That's why I really like the idea of not counting them at all.
Another good point Ant.

I've been in games as Robot where my fleet would not be able to stand a fight against one of the lowest scoring fleets, yet with the few ships and what they had on them I was in the top 3 score-wise.

Being able to defend a large amount of planets means you are good, and your score should reflect this.

Catman

User avatar
Shardin5
Posts: 3808

Post#19 » Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:18 pm

Getting points for Expanding your Empire is a good thing, and we should focus on it. Playing with the points for planets 300-500lyrs away from your HW, I don't want to give to many points for over 500lyrs. My thoughts and THIS IS OPEN and NEEDS to be discussed, is more points for planets for expanding, but keep it in check so the 3 hyp races don't get to much of an advantage, and keep points really low for over 500lyrs as ITASCORE isn't seam aware if I remember correctly. How about for fighters we divide by 10 instead of by 5. As for the Cylon's, and Minefields, those points are wiped out quickly by the CofM with fighter sweeping and the Tholians and others with big cargo bays countermining.

Distances: * 20
4 zones from HW are 150lyrs, 320lyrs, 500lyrs and + LYs
for 2, 15, 7 and 1 points
More points for controling your area, not more points for HYPing out
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The US Marines don't have that problem.
President Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Shardin5
Posts: 3808

Post#20 » Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:25 pm

I have had this problem before myself and fighting a Cylon right now, where points was it looks like the Cylon is unstoppable, but when push comes to shove, he will fall down faster than a house cards in a Hurricane.
But that issue will have to wait for a shiplist adjustment. But lets stay on track or Sherek will go off on a tangent.
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The US Marines don't have that problem.
President Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Samuelt86
Posts: 170
Contact:

Post#21 » Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:30 pm

There is one rule of thumb I like to follow - first, do not harm.

Each race is designed in such a way to have particular attributes which when played to their advantage can win the game. It seems to me that many of the attempts to change the shiplist or scoring are mostly disguised attempts to force players to play their races according to how others think they should play them. Some races don't do a lot of fighting (or shouldn't) by design. The Crystal and Pirates come immediately to mind. There are a couple of others which I shall keep silent so as to retain my advantage.

There is a mindset that we all get big ships and just go pound each other. Anything else is unholy. For some races, the strategy to play is to go pound your enemy and not let up. Others require more finesse. There is far more to this game. I happen to enjoy playing the races that require more than just smashing your neighbor (which means, I really like the pirates and crystal.

Of all the times I have seen ITA attempted, I can honestly say I have not yet seen it result in a better methodology than autoscore. Too much weight is trying to be placed on things that really don't matter which forces people to play they way others think they should be played. Each race has their own strategy(s) that work. What does it matter if a planet is 5 light years away verses 2500 gamewise. I am sure the Borg don't really care. Why reward tech levels if your a carrier race and don't intend to build torpedo tubes on most of your ships.

Yes, autoscore can be manipulated as can any scoring system. The true measure is to allow game to play out long enough to where there is no doubt whom the winner will ultimately be. All scoring systems are cheap substitutes to letting the play determine it.

User avatar
the.Ant
Posts: 283

Post#22 » Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:36 pm

The point is that autoscore is really favouring the carrier-races.
All too often I've been playing in a game with "highest score at turn xxx wins", when the robot or rebel suddenly got a huge increase in points just because they build many fighters in the last turn.
Since I don't like carrier races, I don't play this kind of games anymore.
If you take a look at autoscore games it's usually the fighter-races who lead the score. I know the argument that this is just the design of the game (fighterraces just getting fighters cheaper) but I do not agree, I think fighters are way overrated.
Sure, carriers are stronger than torpers, but a Golem or a Cube gets taken down by 2-3 Darkwings, no matter if it carries 100 or 200 fighters.
In Autoscore it is a huge difference! On the other hand, 60 fighters on a fully developed base are enough to destroy any ship, no matter what.

I also think that expanding the empire does not favour the hyperjumping races too much because you also have to keep the planets throughout the game.
In most games I don't care if a HYP-race owns some crappy planet near me, but if the planets count, I will hunt them down! If the game advances, noone is able to expand through hyperjumps.

The only problem I see with default-ITA is indeed seam. I know at least one game where someone leads the score simply because he started in a corner and now has planets in every corner of the map, you can't be further away than that.

User avatar
Shardin5
Posts: 3808

Post#23 » Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:07 pm

Samuelt86 wrote: Of all the times I have seen ITA attempted, I can honestly say I have not yet seen it result in a better methodology than autoscore. Too much weight is trying to be placed on things that really don't matter which forces people to play they way others think they should be played. Each race has their own strategy(s) that work. What does it matter if a planet is 5 light years away verses 2500 gamewise. I am sure the Borg don't really care. Why reward tech levels if your a carrier race and don't intend to build torpedo tubes on most of your ships.

Yes, autoscore can be manipulated as can any scoring system. The true measure is to allow game to play out long enough to where there is no doubt whom the winner will ultimately be. All scoring systems are cheap substitutes to letting the play determine it.
Don't build the tech levels if you don't want to then, but everybody uses the tech levels on SB's, rather its a maxed out SB vs a single tech10 base used to build low level ships to be recycled later for its parts and PBP's( worthy tactic vs the build junk ships just to clog up the Q). As for distance scores from HW, doesn't matter what race you are playing, you are fighting to control the cluster, rather you do it by ship to ship fighting or if you capture a ship, the Plantes are whats important. Even the Tholian's and Pirates have to take over planets. Rewarding extreme distances is kind of pointless as HYP ships can abuse the crap out of it, or just crossing the seam can do that as well, I was thinking of you(don't take it personal) when others started talking about distances, half your score was on a bogus distance settings. YOU are correct that letting the game run out is THE BEST way to decide things. But I can attest to at least 1 game, where Cherek and I fighting, he was loosing territory like mad had to recyle ships to keep them from getting captured, where he was building more of the little buggers in his inner area. He was the Bot and I was the Tholian and I couldn't catch him score wise, he kept up the PBP's by recycling(the thing to do) and building big ships,and keeping his score up, I was building a few ships, but as the Tholian I prefer to capture the little buggers instead, and only had a few ships for recycling purposes
But with the Doom bonus on, I would have captured the lead or at least came close, He took out 2 races, and I took out 5 races in that game. Planets in control would have played a big difference as well, I controlled almost 3 times the amount of planets, and all Neighboring clusters were mine, my ally had planets on the other side of the seam, so more Points for zone2, zone3, control will reward those that are conquering the cluseter not just blowing other out into space with overpowering, and miss configured CV's. It will force some end to NAP's, that alot of players try to use. Limit the points for zone1 and limit the points for over zone3 as those planets are normally HYP or seam crossing planets. As in the game I reference and there has to be more, the Race with the lead at turn 125+ was NOT the race in command of the game, but had the right race with the right ships, to keep the lead(and thats the way it is)
I wont get into your style of play as it wouldn't be right, you have 1 taught me alot and 2 play in your own style and fashion that should not be aired out, but your style of play is a product of the system, not abuse, but a product of the system, you are used to it, you truely belive there are NO worhtless ships, and can give a good case for every ship, I respect it, I just don't agree with it in some cases. Scoring can be fixed as well as the Ship configurartions.
When you compare Similar ships mass, cargo, fuel capacity, Fighter Bays, Engine slots. To what it takes to build them, things are WAY out of whack, there should be some reasoning to how a ship with 700 or so mass, 10 fighter bays, 10 Beam Slots, 6-8 engine slots, cargo in the 300 range, and fuel capacity over 1500 on the minerals and mineral combo's need to make ships like that.
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The US Marines don't have that problem.
President Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Shardin5
Posts: 3808

Post#24 » Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:26 pm

the.Ant wrote: The only problem I see with default-ITA is indeed seam. I know at least one game where someone leads the score simply because he started in a corner and now has planets in every corner of the map, you can't be further away than that.
That is one of the reason I think its a good idea to Limit the points for planets over zone3, to 1 or 0 points, no more seam bonus. Up the points for Zone2 and Zone3.
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The US Marines don't have that problem.
President Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Samuelt86
Posts: 170
Contact:

Post#25 » Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:17 pm

Something you failed to admit is I play each race differently and I play to each races advantages. I will play a carrier race differently than a torp race. And yes, I recycle the NFC at some bases rather than squander the resources building engine tech. And I do the same for beams. When I build a bunch of junk ships I will almost always have a specific purpose whether it is hiss, recycle foe beams & engines, swifts to scout or hyp ships. You must have noticed they do not usually stack up. Occasionally, they do stack up. But that is usually the case that I am trying to raise teck levels to build a warship and don't want the queue to pass my base before I am ready.

I will also say something else, those persons who just fortify and don't attack almost always lose. You have seen my play I think you'd be hard pressed to point out a game where I failed to go on the offensive at some time.

There is more to this game than just building your biggest ship and attacking your neighbor. There are strategies involved. This game is really won on economy and pbp management.

As far as complaigning that carrier races have an unfair advantage, I can only say this. Fighters are certainly an indicater of strength. And yes, that is one of thier advantages. You also have strengths. If you play your race attributes, you should do ok and I would think by turn 125, your play should overcome most scoring advantages. I just don't relish the idea of awarding score for items that do not help you win the game. Distance from your HW is a meaningless indicator. Better is the number of overall planets, bases, ship power and armament. That is a far better indicator who would be the ultimate victor. I myself prefer blind score. Let your position speak for itself.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#26 » Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:25 pm

Samuelt86 wrote: I myself prefer blind score.
While I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, it creates the
problem of "victory conditions".

Your thoughts?
Or should we take such to another thread?
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Cherek
Posts: 5695
Contact:

Post#27 » Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:56 pm

B A N E wrote:
Samuelt86 wrote: I myself prefer blind score.
While I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, it creates the
problem of "victory conditions".

Your thoughts?
Or should we take such to another thread?
Another thread, that way it is easier to find later on.
The line below is true.
The line above is false.

Cherek

User avatar
Shardin5
Posts: 3808

Post#28 » Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:22 pm

I didn't forget to say you you play each race differently, I just didn't want to go into detalils, not the thing to do, to somebody. Nor did I say you are a Q stuffer with crap ships, as I did say you have said and have proven there is a USE for Every HULL in every race. What I did say is the ships the way are unbalanced, as a Purpose for a ship and a ship doing what the designer had as its purpose are TWO very different things, and a little realism for game play makes sense, Not even the WB President would build stuff just to junk it.
I truely believe that Tim would have changed the ships over the years, as just moving the over from 2x to 3x with some of the limitation built into 3 made for issues, but the Virus that wiped it out kept that from happening, and Tim moved onto 4x instead. Once again no offense was meant, your wins and overall finish's speak for themselves. I do think there is room though to tweak the system. As for players who HID behind NAP most of those that make to many don't win, but those who make them so they make a buffer or don't have to fight somebody head to head, can do ok. You don't have to war with everybody, nor do you have to conquer the Entire cluster, both are Unrealistic goals. But having control of the the majority of cluster should be rewarded.
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The US Marines don't have that problem.
President Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Vertigo
Posts: 239

Post#29 » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:50 pm

AutoScore has a huge flaw
Much to the dismay of many players, I have proven this during the Coalition War tounament at RC-World

I'm actually surprised to find it a standard on this host
Does this look infected to you?

User avatar
Havok
Site Admin
Posts: 7557
Contact:

Post#30 » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:24 am

Vertigo wrote:AutoScore has a huge flaw
Much to the dismay of many players, I have proven this during the Coalition War tounament at RC-World

I'm actually surprised to find it a standard on this host

One thing at a time Vertigo :)
Regards,
][avok

Return to “Intel”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron