Topic: How do we count VC scoring?

[Dizzy]

Gotta keep in mind this may have an affect on player numbers.

Often it is the side that is losing (smaller player numbers) that puts forth tremendous effort to capture a VC at the last minute to score a hail-mary victory.

[FPF-DieHard]

We can do like what was done in SS2, have different VC counting periods.

[FPF-Bach]

Gotta keep in mind this may have an affect on player numbers.

Often it is the side that is losing (smaller player numbers) that puts forth tremendous effort to capture a VC at the last minute to score a hail-mary victory.

I think you'd have a very hard time keeping track of "who owned it most" if it was a hot target that was switchting back and forth.

Stick with the usual method count the VC's as they are held at the end of the specified period like usual.

[Dizzy]

Gotta keep in mind this may have an affect on player numbers.

Often it is the side that is losing (smaller player numbers) that puts forth tremendous effort to capture a VC at the last minute to score a hail-mary victory.

I think you'd have a very hard time keeping track of "who owned it most" if it was a hot target that was switchting back and forth.

Stick with the usual method count the VC's as they are held at the end of the specified period like usual.

The problem is more multifaceted and dynamic than you may realize. If I increase the frequency of the VC counting, more VC's will be scored. Unless I take the total and add them up and then award one VC for who 'owned it the most'.

The dynamic issue has to do with balance vs PvP VC's. It is all interconnected.

Scoring VC's more frequently may make it more difficult for a lower player numbered side to win.

Interesting, yet complicated subject.

[Green]

I think you'd have a very hard time keeping track of "who owned it most" if it was a hot target that was switching back and forth.

What Bach said.

[Hexx]

In the history of war I think "who owns it last" has generally been preferred
over "who owned it most"

[Lepton]

VC points to be tallied every day for every side involved.  These tallies summed over all the days the server is up and divided by the number of days.  Essentially an average VC points tally over the life of the server.  The "winner" of the server is the side that has the highest average VC tally at the end of the server.  This would in effect make it more effective for each side to hold and defend its advances rather than making 11th hour runs to snag something and then loose it the next day or even the next hour. 

The average here is an important idea as well.  If the VC points were merely summed over a number of VC point periods, there is the potential for one side to run away with the VC point total once one side has a points lead.  This seemed to be the case in a number of recent servers where one side or the other was left in a significant points lurch which was essentially demoralizing to that side losing in the VC points totals.   The average itself would do what it is meant to do, to take all the dailly variation in the strategic situation and put a number to it to describe how well each side did overall not on some particular arbitrary day at some particular arbitrary time.

One might say that this is not in keeping with the militaristic sense that the victor is he who holds the most territory at the end of the war, but here in this situation we have an arbitrary end to a conflict.  Who's to say how long a war amongst these sides might continue?  A war ends when one side can no longer fight, not when someone turns off a switch on a server, so by definition we are dealing with an arbitrary, hypothetical situation that has little relation to reality.  This suggests to me that using a measure of each side's performance on a daily basis would be a more accurate and sensible than a mere arbitrary cut-off point.

[Dizzy]

I could envision doing VC map scoring every 3 days on the BP days. I'd just take a few screenies. I like hexx's idea tho, despite my making an arbitrary call as to when the server, and the war for that matter. (The Andro's invade early unifying everyone!). So I can do both.

Take the average VC's over the first 6 of 7 scoring periods (who owned it the most) and then take the last scoring period (who owned it last. Figure in the average of the 1st 6 is worth 25% of the total and the last scoring period is worth 75%. Then add the PvP VC's and we will have a winner.

After the 1st week, I'll be able to judge how to come up with a VC % system to show what spread in VC's will give one side a draw, marginal or decisive victory.

I also like the idea of having individual race VC's to determine a sides final VC's so as to bring into play every race's important role as a major player than a bit part where one race gets to run amok on the map determining who wins. That's great for them, but the other race's likely wouldnt allow their ally, no matter how strong an alliance they have together, to completely take over the quadrant. Wondering how to make this work...

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

VC points to be tallied every day for every side involved.  These tallies summed over all the days the server is up and divided by the number of days.  Essentially an average VC points tally over the life of the server.  The "winner" of the server is the side that has the highest average VC tally at the end of the server.  This would in effect make it more effective for each side to hold and defend its advances rather than making 11th hour runs to snag something and then loose it the next day or even the next hour. 

The average here is an important idea as well.  If the VC points were merely summed over a number of VC point periods, there is the potential for one side to run away with the VC point total once one side has a points lead.  This seemed to be the case in a number of recent servers where one side or the other was left in a significant points lurch which was essentially demoralizing to that side losing in the VC points totals.   The average itself would do what it is meant to do, to take all the dailly variation in the strategic situation and put a number to it to describe how well each side did overall not on some particular arbitrary day at some particular arbitrary time.

One might say that this is not in keeping with the militaristic sense that the victor is he who holds the most territory at the end of the war, but here in this situation we have an arbitrary end to a conflict.  Who's to say how long a war amongst these sides might continue?  A war ends when one side can no longer fight, not when someone turns off a switch on a server, so by definition we are dealing with an arbitrary, hypothetical situation that has little relation to reality.  This suggests to me that using a measure of each side's performance on a daily basis would be a more accurate and sensible than a mere arbitrary cut-off point.

Fast forward........ummm....rewind.........Yeah Hexx I agree

[KBFLordKrueg]

In the history of war I think "who owns it last" has generally been preferred
over "who owned it most"

Agreed...

[Dizzy]

Ok, the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of the 'sweep in at the last minute and save the day, who owned it last thingy'.

So we will have three of those. One at the end of each of the three weeks, then I'll add in the PvP VC's and we will announce the winner.

[FPF-Paladin]

The history of any war is always written by the victor.

[FPF-Bach]

I could envision doing VC map scoring every 3 days on the BP days. I'd just take a few screenies. I like hexx's idea tho, despite my making an arbitrary call as to when the server, and the war for that matter. (The Andro's invade early unifying everyone!). So I can do both.

Take the average VC's over the first 6 of 7 scoring periods (who owned it the most) and then take the last scoring period (who owned it last. Figure in the average of the 1st 6 is worth 25% of the total and the last scoring period is worth 75%. Then add the PvP VC's and we will have a winner.

After the 1st week, I'll be able to judge how to come up with a VC % system to show what spread in VC's will give one side a draw, marginal or decisive victory.

I also like the idea of having individual race VC's to determine a sides final VC's so as to bring into play every race's important role as a major player than a bit part where one race gets to run amok on the map determining who wins. That's great for them, but the other race's likely wouldnt allow their ally, no matter how strong an alliance they have together, to completely take over the quadrant. Wondering how to make this work...

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.  You put a pole up and are not even paying attention to it.  This system you are talking yourself through above is to complicated.  Keep it simple.

Oh and Dizzy it was Lepton that posted the "idea" not Hexx.

[Dizzy]

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.  You put a pole up and are not even paying attention to it.  This system you are talking yourself through above is to complicated.  Keep it simple.

Oh and Dizzy it was Lepton that posted the "idea" not Hexx.

My apologies to lepton, I misread.

As far as reinventing the wheel, if someone doesnt, then we are stuck on the ground. I prefer magnetic levitation trains, wings and rocket ships. Let's not get into warp drive thank you very much. A lot of the server stuff we all take for granted nowdays had its roots in the SG series. Don't thank me, thank everyone in the SGO Dev group.

I dont care if you pay attention to the poll, it's there for me as feedback. If I didnt give a damn what you all though I wouldnt be in business.

And besides, you quoted the wrong post. I have already decided on the likely VC system. Read my above post. I think you will like it, and that's the whole point here.

[Lepton]

My idea was merely a suggestion that was meant to even out the ups and downs of the server activity and provide a metric of performance that allows all points in time in the server's life to be as equally important as any of other point in time as well as the efforts of any particular person on the server who contributes to that day's VC point total.  In this way, a person could log on, contribute to the daily effort, and when the points are posted, they can feel they had a hand in getting those points.  This is opposed to the current situation in which any daily gains can be gobbled up at any time making one feel that one's efforts were for naught.  You capture a planet, you lose it, capture it, lose it, yada, yada.  The only time that matters is when the tally is taken and I think that can be disheartening.

I'll make a sports analogy.  With the current system, it's as if only the last drive to the goal line counted, only the last touchdown so to speak, as if all the other points that were scored didn't count.  It's perhaps not the most apt analogy, but I think it illustrates a point.  I'd rather see a system where the daily efforts of players counts toward something tangilble like a points total as opposed to some future intangle and unknown outcome that he cannot see and cannot know until the final moment.

The "endgame" scenario (whoever has the most turf at the end of the server) certainly can be more dramatic but also less rewarding overall to the losing side and also, really, to the winning side.

[FPF-Bach]

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.  You put a pole up and are not even paying attention to it.  This system you are talking yourself through above is to complicated.  Keep it simple.

Oh and Dizzy it was Lepton that posted the "idea" not Hexx.

My apologies to lepton, I misread.

As far as reinventing the wheel, if someone doesnt, then we are stuck on the ground. I prefer magnetic levitation trains, wings and rocket ships. Let's not get into warp drive thank you very much. A lot of the server stuff we all take for granted nowdays had its roots in the SG series. Don't thank me, thank everyone in the SGO Dev group.

I dont care if you pay attention to the poll, it's there for me as feedback. If I didnt give a damn what you all though I wouldnt be in business.

And besides, you quoted the wrong post. I have already decided on the likely VC system. Read my above post. I think you will like it, and that's the whole point here.

You are correct, I missed your second post.  My apologies.

[KAT J'inn]

<taps paw impatiently>


JUST START THIS WAR ALREADY!!  I GOT FROGS TO KILL!!!

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

<taps paw impatiently>


JUST START THIS WAR ALREADY!!  I GOT FROGS TO KILL!!!

Better hunt yourself up a few French wingmen then

<Snicker>