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

planetmaker
Posts: 88
Contact:

Post#31 » Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:16 am

Did you ever think of using PTScore?
Each kt minerals counts 3 points, each supply and megacredit counts one point. Each structure equals the score that was necessary to build it, except fighters which count 20 points each (thats the score for a fighter that was built in space). Fuel counts nothing. The space mine score depends on the torpedo score : ptscore will assume that the player used the torp with the lowest possible (ptscore-)score. The space mine score is added to the warship score (this is because torps loaded onto ships count for the warship score and mine laying shouldn't be obvious to the other players).
http://www.xs4all.nl/~donovan/hosting/ptscore.htm

It works fine and fair in my experience, also wrt torp / fighter races.

User avatar
Ricki
Posts: 2
Contact:

Post#32 » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:52 pm

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
AutoScore was never in use at RCworld.
keep well,
Ricki : rcworld.de

User avatar
Ricki
Posts: 2
Contact:

Post#33 » Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:24 pm

Imho, there is no unique scoring system out there.

It always depends on the game styles you would like to create and to play and of course their victory conditions.

I do join planetmakers opinion that ptscore comes very close to a true scoring system for lots of different setups. Its a perfect base to determine team games with specific lenghts or even general turn limited game setups. Since ptscore does calculate its scores based on the resources spent to build your current economy as well it does calculate the scores for your ships based on their equipment (tech levels), it does always represent an up to date score or "value" of your race.

Using ptscore for many years in different applications I believe using the USED score method is recommended. Means, it does only score what you build, not what is in the core of a planet or laying around on the surface. Therefore no lucky player anywhere in the field colonizing lots of planets but building no structures and still earning lots of score points.

During the Coalition War tourney we actually discovered a little clinch in the official ptscore 1.4 release and therefore I build a ptscore 1.5 release for my games at these days. It does correct a backdoor to lay mines using mark7 torps, scoop them with a mark1 ship and lay them out again as mark1 mines. There were plenty of discussion during these days in the coalition war boards.
keep well,
Ricki : rcworld.de

User avatar
Havok
Site Admin
Posts: 7557
Contact:

Post#34 » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:04 pm

Ricki wrote:Imho, there is no unique scoring system out there.

It always depends on the game styles you would like to create and to play and of course their victory conditions.

I do join planetmakers opinion that ptscore comes very close to a true scoring system for lots of different setups. Its a perfect base to determine team games with specific lenghts or even general turn limited game setups. Since ptscore does calculate its scores based on the resources spent to build your current economy as well it does calculate the scores for your ships based on their equipment (tech levels), it does always represent an up to date score or "value" of your race.

Using ptscore for many years in different applications I believe using the USED score method is recommended. Means, it does only score what you build, not what is in the core of a planet or laying around on the surface. Therefore no lucky player anywhere in the field colonizing lots of planets but building no structures and still earning lots of score points.

During the Coalition War tourney we actually discovered a little clinch in the official ptscore 1.4 release and therefore I build a ptscore 1.5 release for my games at these days. It does correct a backdoor to lay mines using mark7 torps, scoop them with a mark1 ship and lay them out again as mark1 mines. There were plenty of discussion during these days in the coalition war boards.
Can you make a .dat configuration file like ITAscore, or something similar, with PTscore and carry it from game to game?
Regards,
][avok

User avatar
Vertigo
Posts: 239

Post#35 » Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:00 pm

PT-Score, Auto-Score, the glitch exists in both, with the exception of Ricki's ver 1.5 PT-Score update.

I believe it was previously pointed out in this thread by Enemy-1

Generally minefields are layed with M4, or preferably M7's. At the end of the game they get scooped up as a M1. This shows minimal effect to the minefield while artificially inflating the score.

Generally the crystals are able to assume the largest advantage as they should have plenty of minefields to perform this task & they have torp ships with large cargo bays.
Does this look infected to you?

User avatar
NinjaScott
Posts: 18

Racial advantages on scoring

Post#36 » Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:05 pm

Whether you're a fighter race, a torp race, a hyp race or whatever, you'll always have an advantage over other races and they over you. Just depends on which race you chose and how you choose to run it.

Not counting fighters or torps or minefields does an injustice to an empire's true 'worth' as to how it can defend itself or attack it's neighbors.

Depends on how ItaScore can be configured, but perhaps torps could be counted as 1*tech level. Minefields and fighters should be counted on a per unit basis. It isn't a racial advantage if the score doesn't reflect it.

Same thing with the zone scoring. Sure, hyp and gravitronics allow for further colonization from the HW. But that just means they have to be able to defend those planets far away. If they can, they have the military strength to do so - which is what the higher points are supposed to mean, right?

Some people will artificially run up the score as the endgame approaches. That's how they choose to run their game. Every scoring system can be tricked this way. The point is that not allowing some races the full benefit of their points robs them (apologies to Pirates and Crystals) of the ability to exploit their empires to the fullest.
"We're all innocent critters squashed on the highway of life!"

-- Gardner Barnes, Groover

User avatar
hennef
Posts: 2250

Post#37 » Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:40 am

nicely said.

sadly i dropped out of my first game that used another point-system - nf26.

i was first fast, as i had many distant planets, but i never knew how strong any of the races was. well, you get used to those things ;)

reading the score is very important. and tricking the score can be even more impotant.

i would like some input of those players useing the new score-system. and i would like to try it another time myself.
have fun!

hennef

User avatar
Death's Head
Posts: 262

Post#38 » Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:58 pm

I'm going to throw out a possible config after reading the posts over again. This thread has sat dead for a while and we really should iron out what the standard will be. This of course should be Havok's final decision after some input from the players, but up to now we haven't really come up with what the new setup might look like.

Havok, could I ask you to please post what you think you would do at this point from what has been posted here? It might be close to what is needed and we could perhaps throw some input back to you for tweaking.

Here's what I suggest from what I have seen here....

No Fighters - (yes and set to fighters/5)
No Mines (Yes but unsure how it computes score here, however minefields are an important part of the game and SHOULD be included)
Torpedos: * 0
Ships: / 12
KTons: * 1
Starbases (Doom bonus is: 'Y')
Defences: * 1
TechLevels: * 7
Planets (Special Bonuses are: ON)
Base Bonus: 15
Defenses: / 7
Resources: / 12
Distances: * 15
Planet Valuation is: Zone
4 zones are 200, 400, 700 and + LYs
for 1, 3, 0 and 0 points

Thanks and hope we can work this out and perhaps implement in a few running games.
Death's Head (Your Worst Nightmare)

User avatar
Cherek
Posts: 5695
Contact:

Post#39 » Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:13 pm

You know there isn't really a good scoring system out here. Has anyone thought about maybe writing one? Something that will give you points for doing something like capturing an enemy ship, setting off a Glory device and doing damage to enemy ship, intiating combat, boarding parties, ground attacks, mines destroying ship and taking over an enemy planet instead of one that give point for setting around doing nothing.
The line below is true.
The line above is false.

Cherek

User avatar
Havok
Site Admin
Posts: 7557
Contact:

Post#40 » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:13 pm

Commodore Cherek, IRJTN wrote:You know there isn't really a good scoring system out here. Has anyone thought about maybe writing one? Something that will give you points for doing something like capturing an enemy ship, setting off a Glory device and doing damage to enemy ship, intiating combat, boarding parties, ground attacks, mines destroying ship and taking over an enemy planet instead of one that give point for setting around doing nothing.
I've heard good things about PScore here in the forums. Is there a way to make that work with Tim's host? I haven't tried it myself, even with PHOST.
Regards,
][avok

User avatar
Cherek
Posts: 5695
Contact:

Post#41 » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:30 pm

I haven't played in a game with Pscore myself, but I like the PAL scoring system in PHost since it does give you point doing something (as I mentioned before) instead of sitting on your hands.
The line below is true.
The line above is false.

Cherek

User avatar
Havok
Site Admin
Posts: 7557
Contact:

Post#42 » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:47 pm

I still think ITAScore could be a good scoring program to use, but the configuration side of it needs more regarding it's presentation and the ability so see what's beening configured.
Regards,
][avok

User avatar
Cherek
Posts: 5695
Contact:

Post#43 » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:51 pm

I have another idea, instead of having a SDC 2007, why have a contest to see who could write the best new scoring system? :lol:
The line below is true.
The line above is false.

Cherek

User avatar
Havok
Site Admin
Posts: 7557
Contact:

Post#44 » Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:52 pm

Commodore Cherek, IRJTN wrote:I have another idea, instead of having a SDC 2007, why have a contest to see who could write the best new scoring system? :lol:
A VGAP Host Addon contest idea was actually discussed by DF and myself last year after SDC2006. We've come up with a viable solution and the guidelines of a contest, but haven't discussed it in quite a while. There's a good chance we may do something like that though.
Regards,
][avok

Return to “Intel”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron