New Stats function at the end of game

[Freon22]

When I first was thinking about how you could score alliances to show a clear winner. I wanted something that was hard for players to pad (cheat) that gave credit to alliances playing in different ways. Like can a trading alliance complete with a hunting alliance? By all rights they should, part of the problem SMR has today is some of the players are saying you have to play my way or what you do does not count.

So the first thing I looked at was overall experience points an alliance could make and the total experience they can lose. How much money they could make and what they had to spend. How many planets they could claim and how many they could lose. How many kills they can get and pods they could take between fleet fights, planet bust, hunters coming after them.

The way the game sets your experience loss when you take a pod. I did not want to give experience gain and loss a lot of weight. It takes to much time to build experience points and only a few seconds to lose experience levels.

Last thing what you do in an alliance stays in the alliance. So if you leave the alliance all the scroing points you made for the alliance stays with that alliance. Like if you leveled up to level 30 and left the alliance the alliance still keeps those scoring points. Now if you join another alliance and get a pod at level 30 your new alliance will take the score hit for it.

So here is an explanation of how this works.

1. You get 1 point for each kill unless you killed a newbie then you only get 1/2 a point.

2. You lose 1 point for each death.

3. You can see from the sheet how I did experience gain and loss.

4. Money earned has weight because all alliances must make money be they hunting, trading, or planet owning.

5. Money spend has less weight then earned money because all alliance must spend some money to replace ships, build planets, buy mines. So if you spend as much as you make you are still ahead of the game. But if you spend less then you make you will be better off.

6. Alliance port raid to build trading routes, make money, and to hurt other alliances trade routes. So you earn 1 point for each level you bust on a port. So if you bust down a level 9 port to level 6 you would earn 3 points plus the money gained points from the bust.

7. An alliance gets 2 points for each planet it claims. So if you bust an enemy planet it is best to claim the planet also.

8. You lose 1 point for each planet that is taken away from your alliance.

9. If your alliance bust a level 70 enemy planet you would earn 151 points that more then makes up for the pods and money you would spend to do the bust. But you get nothing for busting a planet that is level 10 or less. The only thing you could gain is 2 points for claiming it and you will lose 1 of those points when the other alliance takes it back.

10. For planet build you earn points for each level like building a planet to level 70 would total 23 points.

Now you may a noticed I have nothing for mine fields that is because mines fields are bad. lol Mines fields cost you money which cost you points so even those spending money does not carry much weight it does still cost you some points. So mine as much as you think you need to.

Here is a link to my spreadsheet, look input your alliance now and see how it would come out in the score.


https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... uqYH#gid=0

PS: I have made this sheet so that anyone can edit it so please do not change the Formulas. You can change the Total fields with anything you want to test it but leave the formulas alone. I do have it saved on my computer but I want everyone to get a chance to view this. If not I will make it private and only allow a few to view it.

[Kard]

It should be dependant on many factors, and those factors contribute to the aliances overall score. For now lets call it a merit score.


Totals
______
How many forces were laid
How many forces were lost
How many forces were killed
Enemies killed (higher exp players, , player with higher kills, and players you are at war with, give higher merit)
Killed by Enemy (getting killed by enemies you are at war with and killed by low lvl players, reduce merit)
Exp
Money Made
Money Spent
Planets Owned (higher lvl planets give higher merit)
Ports Raided (higher lvl ports give higher merit)


Killing should bring in more merit then being killed. You wouldnt want to go to war, and after 2 months of fighting, both sides have equal kills, and based off simple addition and subtraction of merit, both sides have gained zero merit lol. Meanwhile another aliance that didnt even bother to try and win the game, used their turns gaining a little bit of merit Port Raiding, or trading.

Also, there should be check points every week. And the increase to merit recorded. And that should affect the overall results too. For example, an aliance that steadily increased their merit for 12 weeks, should be ranked higher then an aliance that dramaticly increased their merit for only 2 weeks, and was very small or no gains in merit all other weeks.

[Freon22]

Kard sound like you worked it all out, maybe we should be looking at your spreadsheet. But then again did you read the part about how some players feel that there is only one way to play and win the game? Also why should anyone get credit for laying mines, the mine cost money that come out of money spend by the alliance. You say that if an alliance wants to play as a trading alliance they should not be able to compete because they are not playing the game the way you think it should be played. You think they could just do a few port raids and wins? Lets see a level 9 port has 9 level you get 1 point for each level, now many ports would you have to bust to make a different in the overall score?

Last point if you look at everything I have they are all interactive. You get a kill you not only get 1 point for the kill but you also get points for the increase of exper points, plus the money you get from the kill.

You you afraid that an alliance could beat your team playing the game a different way? I mean if you get credit for laying mines then if an alliance doesn't lay mines then they can not win. Now it a mining war to win.

[Kard]

Kard sound like you worked it all out, maybe we should be looking at your spreadsheet. But then again did you read the part about how some players feel that there is only one way to play and win the game? Also why should anyone get credit for laying mines, the mine cost money that come out of money spend by the alliance. You say that if an alliance wants to play as a trading alliance they should not be able to compete because they are not playing the game the way you think it should be played. You think they could just do a few port raids and wins? Lets see a level 9 port has 9 level you get 1 point for each level, now many ports would you have to bust to make a different in the overall score?

Last point if you look at everything I have they are all interactive. You get a kill you not only get 1 point for the kill but you also get points for the increase of exper points, plus the money you get from the kill.

You you afraid that an alliance could beat your team playing the game a different way? I mean if you get credit for laying mines then if an alliance doesn't lay mines then they can not win. Now it a mining war to win.

Whoa, relax. I wasnt saying your way wasnt good already. Was just "suggesting" my 2 cents on the idea. And no, I dont think an aliance should "win" a round by a few port raids and trading alot. The winner should be the aliance that showed the most dominance, over the largest period of time. That means doing a little bit of everything. Or at least dabbling in most things. You would hardly say that an aliance won the round, when they never once maintained a minefield, and defended planets. Which brings me to the mines issue. Yes you could just use "money spent" as a way to guage how many mines are layed. Im not saying that wouldnt work. Was just suggesting other ideas. Its a thread for discussion. Someone posted an idea, and people are giving their opinions. Thanks for your passive aggressive reply though

Look, I get that you already put work into this idea before. Its not easy to watch others say ideas or things you may have already taken account for, or turned away, in order to realize your vision for how to choose a winner. But try not to get worked up because some others have a few ideas of how their vision of SMR would be, and they feel like adding to the discussion about it, in the suggestion forum.

[Freon22]

Sorry I get carried away sometime. BTW an alliance that did nothing but trade could not win. Now if they traded the whole game then the last few weeks or so went out and took down a few level 70 planets they could win. Anyway it does need some adjusting and balanced there are a few fields that need looking at in more detail.

[JettJackson]

more discussion could be needed on this if we want to signify official winners.

[jouldax]

Yeah - we'd need to come up with some sort of point system, which inevitably will be complained about by the players, but it would certainly be cool to look at the "points standings" for alliances during a round instead of having to sort through kills vs. profit vs. deaths vs...etc...

[Holti]

but it would certainly be cool to look at the "points standings" for alliances during a round

I agree - plus it would add to the competitive nature of the game.