| Author |
New Fleet Scoring Formula |
Viet Minh
Grand Admiral
Joined: April 09, 2002
Posts: 29
From: Kailua, Hawaii
|  Posted: 2002-11-04 12:44
I would like to propose an alternative Fleet scoring formula based on either total planets or resorces possessed by each individual fleet. The current system favors large fleets regardless of how many planets they hold in the MV. And, in view of the shift towards more emphisis of economic and trading aspects of the game, a fleet scoring system based on planets held would further enrich the nature of game-play and reward those MV-active fleets.
_________________
|
DOM700 [-IMO-]
Fleet Admiral
Joined: July 26, 2001
Posts: 3175
From: Eckental, Germany, Sol-System
| Posted: 2002-11-04 13:01
That creates more problems, loading troops and unloading them again on uncaptured to make it owned by your clan will be more common then
I guess that's not too good
_________________
If the buildings on your planets disappear, guess who was there....
Never forget what you fight for
I have earned my betatester badge for being part of the open beta
![Goto the website of DOM700 [-IMO-]](http://www1.palestar.com/gamecq/phpBB/images/www_icon.gif)
|
Tael
2nd Rear Admiral
Palestar
Joined: July 03, 2002
Posts: 3695
From: San Francisco Bay Area
| Posted: 2002-11-04 13:10
Actually a valid concept, then the top 10 list could be automated...
Maybe even reduce a fleets points for "inactive" members. So instead of fleets keeping old members on to just bloat their numbers and points, those inactive players could hurt them if left on the roster.
Will consider reviewing concepts for new scoring formula after the other issues have been addressed.
_________________
|
Warpath81
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 13, 2001
Posts: 431
| Posted: 2002-11-04 17:18
ya, but I know I don't want the top 10 automated. Half the fun of the top 10 is bug'n Demorian to put it up and mess'n with him as he tabulates his numbers. I say Demorian should always have to do his numbers. It is the heart of the top 10. =)
*sacks Demorian upside the head*
Now get to work! =)
BTW: I agree about the inactives. There are a few clans that have many members on that are just there to bloat numbers. However, if you are going to tabulate a pentalty into the top 10 numbers for inactive members then you should have an option on the fleets page to mark someone as inactive. Sometimes players go on vacation or take a long break from DS with the obvious intention to come back. It would be nice to keep them on the roster, but mark them inactive so their prestige doesn't count into the clan's top 10 prestige. =)
Just a thought.
_________________
Come hang out with us
irc.steelrat.com, channel #dirtydeeds
http://www.steelrat.com/ddforums
|
Clete2 {C?}
Cadet
Evil Empires Inc.
Joined: October 04, 2001
Posts: 141
From: Mansfield, Pennsylvania
| Posted: 2002-11-04 17:26
I'd rather have it automated, I do not like waiting for people to post something.
_________________
My Beta Tester Badge was obtained during the Open Beta, the old days of DS.
Featuring: My Blog.
|
Neo-21
Cadet
Joined: July 22, 2002
Posts: 6
From: Köthen,Germany
| Posted: 2002-11-04 17:42
mmh Dom700 said all i think ...
something like this would grow up the disharmony between two fleet of
the same faction .... nobody would work together in the future
Dont mess a fleet on the base of planets they control.
In fact some planets were never captured by other faction so no new fleet
could control planets behind their homesystem. Isn´t it so ?
have fun
___________
[ This Message was edited by: Neo-21 on 2002-11-04 17:48 ]
_________________
|
Hitman23
Grand Admiral
Joined: March 22, 2002
Posts: 585
From: WoW
| Posted: 2002-11-04 17:49
I like the way Demo does it too...maybe we could have it both ways....
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Hitman23 on 2002-11-04 17:50 ]
_________________
|
Viet Minh
Grand Admiral
Joined: April 09, 2002
Posts: 29
From: Kailua, Hawaii
| Posted: 2002-11-05 19:44
DOM has a valid point regarding planet ownership based on troop loading. However, planet ownership, at this time, is determined at the point of capture depending of how the troops are unloaded. The current ownership algorithim is pretty quirkly and leads to the problem DOM has described. However, if troop unloading is coordinated predictable results can be achieved. A question I am not familiar with is change of ownership through loading and unloading on and exisiting friendly planet (does this change ownership?).
My point remains that small active aggressive fleets are at a disadvantage compared to larger fleets with proportionally more inactive players, and this should not be the case. A fleet of low-ranking planet-cappers should not be scored less than a bloated fleet of inactive players. This leads to static play and diminishes the incentive to new players and new fleets.
_________________
|
NoPants2win
Cadet
Joined: February 23, 2002
Posts: 1275
From: Poorly ventilated paint storage facility.
| Posted: 2002-11-06 02:13
Planet ownership should go to the highest ranked fleet that drops inf on the planet.
_________________
You sir, have an incurable case of rationality. I'm afraid the only thing you can do is develop a deep cynicism before the stress of searching for something you cannot find causes a stroke.
|
AlphaPrimus
Cadet
Joined: September 24, 2002
Posts: 69
From: France, Toulouse
| Posted: 2002-11-06 03:07
As player of a small but very active fleet on MV (47 Planets in 7 Systems, 9560000 Resources, 672 Units - No so bad), I will be very happy if our efforts in the MV to defend our faction, wil be taking into account in the Fleet Score. May be, but it is my own opinion, the best solution will be to increment the gain obtened in the MV and also to add a new prestige line with badges as prerequisite of ship like AD, station and the new one for eg. By this way, it will be necessary for all players to play in the MV to obtain the necessary badges required to unlock the best ship.
_________________
Exploit the line of least resistance. So long as it can lead you to any objective that would contribute to your underlying object.
|
Deleted
Cadet
Joined:
Posts: 0
| Posted: 2002-11-06 04:03
I dont consider a 30 man fleet smal...
I could put up the PB-Planets up but check for yourself 
otherwise I agree that at some point the ownership of planets should be worth something, either Fleet ranks or something else (why dont we get percentage of the planets income as taxes to distribute them to the fleetmemebers?)
[ This Message was edited by: J.C. Szun on 2002-11-06 04:04 ]
_________________
|
Demorian
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: October 06, 2001
Posts: 3406
From: Charlotte, North Carolina
| Posted: 2002-11-06 22:01
Top 10 could be automated as it is, however if I have anything to say about it...
No formulas. No automation. I like posting. I started it, and I'm gonna end it, just not now  hehe...
-Dem
PS. Sorry Clete.
_________________
|
Darkheyr ={NuKe Squad}=
Fleet Admiral
Joined: October 23, 2001
Posts: 805
| Posted: 2002-11-08 06:56
dont like the idea at all. planet ownership means NOTHING. neither does prestige actually, but why change it from something meaningless into some other form of meaningless ?
Example
if 6 XYZ defend 3 ABC trannies from 30 enemy ships so the tranny can drop their troops... whos "better" then ? ABC, who did little more than fly to the planet and hit "u" ten times each, or XYZ, who died over and over, and kept coming back to help ABC capping ?
sorry, id just say : keep it as it is.
_________________
\"A little bit of weird with a dash of oddness.\" -Kitana
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
