Value of Troops Killed

[LemonWarlord]

Is it really a good indicator of how good a player is?

I couldn't wrap my head around it, but it seemed that all you needed was enough geos to afford the troops. There is obviously a difference created by active planting or jeweling, but otherwise it seems like it's not a particularly good indicator.

If I'm wrong, please tell me, but that's how I interpreted it.

[Luke]

Open for suggestions.

The number of troops killed was also the main factor in the previous version of gewar, where we had score. Score was also based on kills.

Does it mean you are the best player? No.

I have an example for you:
I play an iphone game called Pocket Frogs. Peonboss is ahead of me in level, which meant he bread more. Yet it should be clear to everyone that I'm the better player. ;). So also there, level/score doesn't mean you are the best. Means just you went for the goal that is counting, even when you don't agree it should be based on that.

But what other things should be included in gewar for the 'best player' besides the kills, do you think?

[LemonWarlord]

Except I remember the system being slightly subtler. At least back when me and filibuster seriously played, when you hit armies outside of your cities and won, you earned HUGE amounts of score, easily 10x more than just plain attacking. Those subtleties make score not a geo grind but rather connected to being able to intercept armies before they hit.

A huge thing I would like to see implemented into score is city value. City value is arguably the basis of the game (otherwise why not fight at homebases).

Right now, city value has no use until the last week of the game, since it doesn't accrue anything, and the maintenance used to hold cities is more than the taxes themselves. Honestly, I could see an alliance own nothing or very few cities the entire round, and during the last month spend all their geos and end highest worth. That is not representative of how many cities they held throughout the round.

[Luke]

Ah but now you are talking about a bug in the previous score system. It wasn't supposed to be like that. You should've gotten the same amount in score whether you attacked a city or an incoming army. Strategy because of a bug I guess :)

City value: when we are 2 weeks into this round, I'll make it worth owning them. I'll make sure they keep going up. Like inflation. As people earn more, they can buy bigger armies and therefor the army within a city needs to be bigger. And a city should be able to afford that.

[LemonWarlord]

Ah, it was a bug? I thought it was a very good idea that promoted activity and holding cities.

Eh, the only problem with that is the relative cheapness of nukes then which I commented on too. So large armies in cities isn't reasonable either.

What I'd really like is a score system, but instead of units, city worth. So like 1/10000000 or something of your city value is accrued daily or something in a way like score.

[Luke]

But then you get the opposite of those that attack but don't hold cities....you get too many naps as people don't want to fight anymore but just hang onto their city(as we had in the past before score, when city value was deciding). The ideal way is somewhere in between I think. A combination of city value + killed troops.

[LemonWarlord]

I remember Raging suggesting something like score being related to amount of value * troops killed or something like that.

I dunno, I started when city value wasn't deciding until the very end. The way I see it is that, in order to win, you have to hold cities. If you decide to NAP everyone, you'll always be Xth place. So in order to win you have to fight for cities, and initiate peace properly. You can't just hold onto geos and on the last day throw them all out in a huge bid for score or city value etc.

[Luke]

The problem with basing it pure on city value was that people were satisfied with a 6th or 7th position. Or even a 3rd position for one of their alliance members. So they all pacted and made NAPs to not attack eachother. The newbie was the victim as he/she could not get a city.

When we based it on fighting, finally things got 'rough' again. More action, and less stalemate games after only 3 months. But then cities become less valueable and in some cases owning them was a pain.

If btw you go by inflation, and cities require more troops and therefor need to pay out so you can actually earn geos from cities...then I agree that nukes should be more expensive also. A nuke in general should always be more expensive then the average troops inside the city. A nuke is a message in your face, not a cheap way to win the war.

[rynix]

I haven't really thought this all through yet so It may be a silly idea) but what about a Flag type object in the game worth Value each alliance has a flag.

1) The flag worth is equivalent to the alliance value/number of players at the time of capture or some other formal that is fair for all size alliances. (This will be the tough part)
2) The flag may be planted in any city the alliance wants (must be a city currently held by the alliance)
3) If the alliance has not cities a negative score effect is created (prevents an alliance from never planting a flag).
4) Value can go into a negative range (prevent end of round scenarios)

OR something that I think could be implemented potential this round

1) One Flag for all of Gewar
2) The flag is worth (100 points/number of members in alliance) every hour owned by an alliance (flag must be planted to gain points)
3) Only the member who captured the flag can plant the flag
4) Once a flag is planted in it city troops/experience can not be added or moved into the city
5) If the flag is not planted in x hours it is returned to a default location for capture
by an Admin with a rand large amount of troops defending it.
6) ??? Profit

[LemonWarlord]

Yeah, I can see how that'd happen. People play the strategies to win.

And nukes imo are just too strong. There was a huge debate about nuke strength because nuke shields are just too weak and unreliable.

[Decooter]

ive said it before and im sure i'll say it again. bring back the REAL nuke shields!! ;slap

[ghostdog]

I think troops killed by attacking should get more score than just planting a big ass army outside of someone's cities & letting you attack them. I mean anyone can save for weeks make a big army do that, It requires no skill at all. we need some skill base stats. there really are not enough goals in the game to challenge players during the course of a round other than team pride & that gets old after a while. any ideas on how to add a little depth to the game without taxing the coders too much?

[lmylls]

or in other words, a capital per alliance?

[RagingMongoose]

But what other things should be included in gewar for the 'best player' besides the kills, do you think?

In addition to the current stats, off the top of my head I would like to see:

1) Effectiveness score for players (total HPs killed/total time online that round)

2) Effectiveness score for a whole alliance.

3) Score that incorporates time for cities held.

4) Score that recognises an active attacking player and doesn't allow people to park massive armies outside cities and HBs and still score well (same as Ghostdog said basically). In my opinion, the attacking player should always receive a score bonus compared to the defending player. However, if a city is attacked and held, the defending player should receive a score bonus for holding the city. Only attacking players should receive score for army battles outside of HBs, defending players receive no score even if they win.

5) Longest time holding a city league table.

6) Award for best defended city (i.e. the number of consecutive times a city was attacked by an enemy or one of their armies was killed outside the city, without the city being taken).

7) Total HPs killed by an alliance.

8) Jewelling league table at end of round.

9) Nuke league table.

10) Award for highest number of cities held at any one point - player and alliance.

[SJ]

I agree with RM, if you look only at total troops killed, thats an easy figure, You could potentially make your way round the globe and just attack armies outside of hb's and cities, not ever hitting a city. That does not measure the effectiveness or the ability of the player.

Basically in short, anyone can hit an army at a hb, but if you are headed at cities, it takes some skill to hit and wipe out armies within a city, whilst being able to sneak up on your enemy.

[Starchy]

I know I have said this in another thread, but I would be really interested in seeing score as HPs killed / active time per round. Not saying it has to be _THE_ score, but would be cool to see how effective players are with their time. There would obviously have to be a minimum time active.