Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Do Dreadnaughts coun't for more points than Escorts? If so how much more?

Does it matter what components a ship has? Does my Cruiser loaded with CSM's get me more score points than my Long-range scout Cruiser filled with supply storage?

Do units count? If so, how much?

I am so full of questions today.... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

If you have SE III, the help file discusses the score calculation. I don't know if it is the same, but I suspect that it is farily close to SE IV.

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Ships and bases count based on the kt of the hull. Every 100kt of hull gets you 1k points. Resources, intel and research have a 1-1 ratio with points (1000 research = 1000 or 1k points)

Units, planets, population count for zero.
Techs researched count for some small amount, I haven't bothered to check out how that's calculated, but I think it depends on how much it cost to research the tech.

Hope this helps.

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Drake:
Units, planets, population count for zero.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dont know about that, when i blocade planets the AI's score drops quite a bit, especially if all of their planets in a system are blocaded. i think it subtracts them from the 'has x number of planets and y number of systems' point total, however that is generated.

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Actually the score goes down when you blockade because resource, intell, and research production isn't generated on blockaded worlds. So all the point it gets from that go away if you blockade.

Also on how many points technology that has been researched gives you just start a full tech game and blockade an AI. They have between 300 and 400 points after the blocade so thats mostly technology points there. Not very much for all that technology and research time. If you are playing for score ships and bases win hands down. Bases even more so because you can support more of them with the same resource production base.

[This message has been edited by Tomgs (edited 23 January 2001).]

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Yes, and there's a flaw in the score calculation where it doesn't matter what's on the ship, just the hullsize. So all destroyers are worth the same score, and all the baseships are worth the same, etc. Which is why we had to impliment a rule in our high-score contest about not building the biggest starbases (I forget the name) with nothing but a single computer onboard and mothballing it. Someone found out that in 150 turns he could build over 20,000 such stations and pull a score of 50 million points based off of totally worthless stations. So now our rule is you have to use the hull size chosen, meaning you can't put only 100kt of gear onto a dreadnaught, that's an escort design.

If you're not entering our contest and want a really high score, build big spacestations with master computers and mothball them. It's stupid but it works.

------------------
Compete in the Space Empires IV World Championship at www.twingalaxies.com.

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Thanks for all the feedback.

I spent a couple of hours Last night trying out different games settings and I have figured out the fomula exactly.

I also have done some work on what combination of ship size to component arangement gives you the most bang for the buck in score to maint ratio.

I want to win the twingalaxies tourney though so I won't be sharing my work here until after it's over. MUUUUUHAHAHA-HA-HA-HA!

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Heh, good luck. I've done a few calcs of my own, and the biggest problem for me right now is how long it takes to process my turns because of all the ships in the game. I'm not sure I'll have enough time to finish a full 150. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Seriously though, it doesn't look like the game restricts you to the setting for max # of ships in startup. Even if you restrict yourself to 2000 ships & bases combined, you should be able to hit 50M+ by turn 150 using the biggest space station with the first Version of the master computer and lots and lots and lots of organic armor (again Version 1) to bring the total to 1510kt.

At a cost of 6500m, 4430f, and 1000r, a huge world should be able to pop one of these out a turn. Large and medium worlds every other turn at least. If you set things up right, hitting 2000 ships is a feasible target. Now worrying about the infrastructure to support all those ships... Well, I think I'll wait until next month before mentioning that, heh.

-Drake

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

On second thought, I've changed my mind. In the interest of fairness, I'd like to point out, in case you weren't aware, that you can reduce your maintenance costs to ZERO by upping maintenance to 120% and selecting merchants.

I also take organce, adv. storage, and the +25% planetary shipyard rate. Factor in +20% research, +10% growth, decent mineral and farming and +28% const rate, and you basically can take out the AI in about 20-25 turns usually without firing on their planets.

I'd pick either the Sergetti or the Amon'Krie symbols to play with, because they only surrender if you have 50x their score as opposed to 10x their score. By using their art, you ensure you won't be seeing them.

Other tips for the contest would be to make sure you have a good balance of races for the different atmosphere types (check race symbols at beginning of game), have over 35 systems in your quadrant, have 15 or 16 total players in your game (forcing them to surrender ALWAYS), and use a spiral galaxy type.

The spiral galaxies are typically better connected, so your missile escorts can take the shortest route to your enemy's HW. Keep close eye on your score, when it hits 10x theirs, demand surrender. Once you hit 200k+, you'll typically be able to demand their surrender as soon as you meet them, without bothering to blockade their HW.

Basically once you wipe out the AI, you're only concerned with the amount of construction you can get done per turn, and the resources needed to support that turn's construction. With zero maintenance, it simplifies things so that you don't find yourself overextended on turn 120 or something. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif I'd basically suggest not bothering to research anything that didn't benefit either expansion, population growth on your existing planets(for higher construction), and resource production. Once those goals have been met, build the biggest size hull you can per turn, filled with organic armor.

I'll be interested in seeing what kind of scores you guys can generate with the tactic. I've been able to beat the AI in 16 turns with propulsion expertise, but not do that and keep the 0% maintenance, and the latter is more useful for purposes of the contest..

Keep me posted if you decide to give it a try & good luck!

-Drake

[This message has been edited by Drake (edited 24 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Drake (edited 26 January 2001).]

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Good point about the spiral galaxies and using one of the Xenophobes as your own race Drake. That's two points I had not considered.

Zero Maint? I was using reduced maint but had not thought it all the way through to that extreme. That seems almost to be a bug if it is true.

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

I don't think it's really a bug, but probably more of an oversight that occured when they changed the effect of maintenance in race creation. I'm guessing they didn't intend for maintenance to fall below 5%, but forgot the merchant maintenance reduction.

I think the maintenance issue, coupled with the AI surrendering so easily, totally unbalances things with regard to the contest. I'd much rather see it be the player vs all other AIs, who have a huge bonus, and the player isn't allowed to communicate with the AIs at all. Either that, or base victory on something other than the score. Oh well, it's probably a bit late to change things that drastically.

Also, another tip - if you set your construction to 128% and pick hardy industrialists, on your standard HW with 2000M pop, you can build the shell of a colony ship each turn without having to go into emergency mode. Then just retrofit to include engines and a cargo module. It'll actually cost you less than building the full ship from scratch, due to the way retrofitting works. You'll only be delayed one turn, but after that you won't have a slowdown period. I wouldn't recommend doing that with your starting HW, because you'll probably need the quicker start to get your points up faster, but it works great with the homeworlds you'll acquire from getting the AI to surrender.

-Drake

[This message has been edited by Drake (edited 24 January 2001).]

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Warning, this one's really long.

Totally overriding the maintenance I'd call cheating.

Now this: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I also have done some work on what combination of ship size to component arangement gives you the most bang for the buck in score to maint ratio. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is the sign of a good player.

Your trick about building colony ships faster is also a great idea. Exploiting the ability to retrofit a ship an infinite number of times in one turn, that's cheating.

AI and resource manipulation for your own benefit based on study, practice, and an understanging of the mechanics: Good gameplay.

Finding ways to avoid following the rules and circumventing the mechanics: cheating.

It is a moderately thin line, but you should all be able to recognize it. We expect anyone who considers themselves a champion at a game to be able to make that call.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I think the maintenance issue, coupled with the AI surrendering so easily, totally unbalances things with regard to the contest. I'd much rather see it be the player vs all other AIs, who have a huge bonus, and the player isn't allowed to communicate with the AIs at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, let's say we hold a player vs player contest. We can't rightly say that the winner is the top player can we? S/he's only the best who showed up to that tournament. High score is the best tool, but it's not a perfect tool--even in arcade and pinball (though it's close to perfect in some of those cases).

Simply defeating the AI? Please, even all AIs vs the human with all AIs getting high bonuses, isn't much of a challenge. Even if it was, you know we'd have more than one person win. What criteria do we use to determine the victor then? It's like calling someone who finished Mario Brothers a world champion just for completing the game. Overcoming the game is nothing, you need to ovecome the other players. We could combine it with fewest turns, then highest score Last, but even then it's iffy. So someone's fast and aggressive, are they the best just for that? Is crushing several AIs faster than they can act truly the sign of a better player than one who can build up and control the greatest portion of the galaxy and get the maximum value out of his holdings? I don't necessarily think it is.

I actually like the way this contest is turning out. The top players are finding fascinating techniques and we're into the empire building side of the game as much as the enemy crushing side. The winner will be the person who crushes the AIs fastest, and then develops the most in what time remains. S/He's got to excell at both aspects of the game, not just one or the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Oh well, it's probably a bit late to change things that drastically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Technically, not. Our rules and terms & conditions clearly state we can alter anything at any time in the interests of fairness and avoiding cheating. However, this has to be weighed against the severity of the disturbance to the players.

This is where the PC platform is a problem compared to our origins in the arcade world. Arcade ROMs rarely changed and basically had only a couple of settings. We declare the original factory settings to be the official and only accept scores on those settings played on actual arcade machines. Simple. Even easier than consoles. PCs... Boy they're a mess. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Not to mention how with new games the bugs and cheats are being found continually. There's really not much left for people to discover about Pac Man. Three people can score "perfect games" meaning get every dot on every level, eat every bonus fruit, and eat all four ghosts off each power pellet all on their first man. It takes about 4 hours (nearly 6 the first time, but they've perfected the technique since then). These guys know EVERYTHING about the game. I've seen a tape where Billy Mitchell just walks away from the machine for over 15 minutes to take a break and the ghosts don't get him. He knows the patterns well enough to know where and when such things are possible. No rules changes will be made in that game, I assure you.

Unlike the arcade games, we can't hold a PC world championship a year or two after release since no one is still playing the game. We have to aim at the first couple of months. But that means the game is in flux with regard to bugs and cheating. It's an ugly situation for the rules. especially here in SE4, where we usually play Last-man standing but this contest is high score. Bugs we never saw before because we were never looking are turning up.

I have no problem with the AI surrendering, because in a high-score contest, you're not competing against the AI, you're competing against the other humans in the contest. If you can get them to surrender faster than me, then you're a better economist player than I am. If I can enslave them faster than you can force surrenders, then I've got the advantage. This is all acceptable and even desireable. You should see what some of the people can do in the top tier of gaming. Using the computer as a resource is a key strategy to achieving the best scores in any game.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Either that, or base victory on something other than the score.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We thought about first person to a set score (we were thinking 5 million or so), and we may yet introduce that contest at a later date. I've almost got our founder to agree to a SE4 team ladder and/or contest. We could really do just about anything you guys ask for. It all depends on how much of a success this one turns out to be.

------------------
Compete in the Space Empires IV World Championship at www.twingalaxies.com.

[This message has been edited by Nyx (edited 24 January 2001).]

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

I understand where you're coming from, and mostly agree with your points, Nyx. However...(another long post, sorry)

I think the issue with maintenance is still a little murky. I'd agree that 0% maintenance was probably not intended and is somewhat exploitive. What's a fair amount then, the 5% you can get not counting culture modifications? If so, can you then take 115% on maintenance to get 10% and reduce that by another 5% by picking merchants to net yourself 1000 points in race creation?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have no problem with the AI surrendering, because in a high-score contest, you're not competing against the AI, you're competing against the other humans in the contest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the problem I have with the AI surrendering is that is does so based on the difference in score. If there aren't any rules against it, I'll find myself building more ships than I need in a certain turn, simply because I know it'll inflate my score, and the AI will capitulate. This can give me an unfair advantage when comparing results against players who aren't aware of the quirk in the AI. I mean, I found myself not wanting to colonize a planet I would normally colonize right away because if I did, I'd lose the 3k pts from the ship and that would drop my score below the 10x threshold! I'm not really concerned about making it fair for the AI, it's going to lose anyway. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

In the buildup stages, there's no point for me to build anything that isn't as effective as possible in getting a higher score. I feel like it's a little exploitive being able to just dump tons of organic armor and organic weapons on hulls and not having them cost any more in minerals than one with just a master computer. I don't actually need these ships/bases I'm building, they're purely for score.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is a moderately thin line, but you should all be able to recognize it. We expect anyone who considers themselves a champion at a game to be able to make that call.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess what I'm getting at is I find this to be a little... well, arrogant. The tone implies that there's a line that should be clearly drawn, and if you don't see it, you're a 'cheater' not a 'champion'. No hard feelings here, but while most would agree on the infinite retrofit being a cheat, I think you'd see a lot of different opinions on things like maintenance, taking advantage of AI, and the like. That's mainly why I brought up the issues in the first place, to see what people thought and hopefully generate some discussion on the matter. Thanks for taking the time to weigh in.

-Drake

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

I understand that the Twin Galaxies tournament requires every ship to be filled full of components. This was done to prevent the scoring loophole whereby a starbase with just a computer affected the score more than a fully loaded ship which took much longer to build.

But is that rule enough of a restriction to obtain an honest score?

I'm guessing that if an empty Star Base contributes more to your score than a fully loaded cruiser, then this also means that a fully loaded cruiser which took 20 turns to build contributes the same score as one which took only 2 turns to build.

I should think the score should be based on the total resources required to build the ship. Until it does so, a much more honest score would be the one obtained if the player scrapped all ships and units before submitting the save game.

(Granted, the retrofit loophole is still present in this score...)

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

In a prevous post, Nyx quoted another person who said:

--- &lt;Begin manual quote&gt; ---
I also have done some work on what combination of ship size to component arrangement gives you the most bang for the
buck in score to maint ratio.

Then, Nyx said that he thought this was the sign of a good player.
--- &lt;End manual quote&gt; ---

I would agree that he is a skillful competitor in the Twin Galaxies tournament, but I might not agree that he is a good SE IV player. Here is why:

I think he is saying that he has figured out which components take the most space but cost the least amount of minerals. In other words, he is meeting the requirements of the Twin Galaxies Tournament by filling up his ships. But he is still exploiting a fundamental problem in how the game calculates the score.

For example, let's say that I spend 20 turns building a ship with a stellar manipulation component. My total ship cost is 60,000 minerals, and my maintenance each turn is 15,000 minerals. But this ship is just a 300 KT destroyer class ship which contributes *exactly* the same to the score as a destroyer loaded up with cheap cargo bay components which might only cost 4000 minerals to build with a maintenance of 1000 minerals per turn.

I'm impressed that he found this loophole in how SE IV calculates the score and hope he uses it to skillfully win the Twin Galaxies Tournament. But I wouldn't call him a good SE IV player.

My definition of a good player is someone who designs a 15KT ship which he uses to destroy a much more expensive enemy ship.

Just my two cents worth...

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Well I can't speak for Nyx, but I am the one he was quoting.

I would agree with you 110% that it doesn't make me a better SEIV player. I would no doubt get my behind spanked by many of you in a multi-player game.

However, in a multi-player game I would never dream of using some of the strategies that would make one be succesful in a tournament such as the one twingalaxies is hosting.

The fact is though that if you are going to have a competition open to all, you have to come up with some way of figuring out who was the winner. They have just decided that score is the way they are going to do that. So it makes sense for us to discuss various strategies to accoplish that goal. It doesn't mean your way of rating players is any less valid.

IDIC right?

I think this is just because twingalaxies has been around for a long time and this is what they are used to doing. It makes sense in pinball or other video games to use score.(Really it wouldn't make sense to use anything else in those games. Maybe how many beers you drink while playing?)

My favorite thing about Space Empires is the flexibiltiy it gives you. It has something for everybody. Ability to mod, different victory conditions, and so on.

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 25 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 25 January 2001).]

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

I guess it doesn't matter all that much what method you use to determine the winner. Whatever you choose, the better players will just adapt their strategy to suit the situation.

Even by adding the latest restriction to the rules concerning outfitting ships, people are still going to build ships which maximize their score/cost ratio as opposed to ships which would be most useful in battle. I wasn't the one who sent in the score obtained by 2000 empty battle stations, but that's just because I hadn't gotten to turn 150 yet. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Now we have to pretend that what we're building has some use. It seems a bit contrived, but if they say I just have to fill the hull, I'll be creating an empire-wide shortage on organic armor. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif (now there's a balance idea - make components more expensive the more you use them, heh)

-Drake

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I understand that the Twin Galaxies tournament requires every ship to be filled full of components<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not true, a destroyer needs 210, more than would fit on a frigate. Not completely full, just enough to require the hull chosen. There's a big difference. Thanks for the post though, this one's going in the FAQ.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I guess what I'm getting at is I find this to be a little... well, arrogant. The tone implies that there's a line that should be clearly drawn, and if you don't see it, you're a 'cheater' not a 'champion'. No hard feelings here, but while most would agree on the infinite retrofit being a cheat, I think you'd see a lot of different opinions on things like maintenance, taking advantage of AI, and the like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, arrogant wasn't intended, elitist was. A champion at anything is a rolemodel. In an ideal world they'd be both skilled and morally upstanding. This isn't always the case, but it is what we, as an officiating body, are obligated to aim at. A number of our best players, Billy Mitchell, Ron Corcoran, "Captain Canada," and Ben Addair, to name a small number off the top of my head, are really great guys who help out a lot in ensuring things are don fairly, making sure that the person who really is the best player gets the credit, not just someone who knows all the best rules exploits. Not all our world record holders are that kind of person, but that's what we aim for. And I definitely appreciate bringing the subject up (hopefully you could tell I was inspired by the length of my response) and I'm really enjoying people's thoughts.

The more I deal with this contest the more I'm becomming aware of the difference between you guys and the people playing our other World Championship (Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2) We've got people in that group cussing out our refs for catching them cheating and telling us that we're not running a fair contest because they can't avoid using the bug we caught them using so we should have made it legal in the contest. All the rules changes we've made for SE4 came when people e-mailed me about bugs they discovered with the scoring system. Not once have they come up because we caught someone "cheating."

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I'm guessing that if an empty Star Base contributes more to your score than a fully loaded cruiser, then this also means that a fully loaded cruiser which took 20 turns to build contributes the same score as one which took only 2 turns to build. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As well it should. Score is *supposed* to represent your power in the game. How long that cruiser took to build shouldn't impact that, IMO (though I think total shipyard capacity would be an interesting value to add to score). By your premise, anything built at a shipyard 2 should only provide 2/3 the score points of the exact same ship built at the lower tech shipyard. And anyone with temporal tech and their 4xs speed shipyards would be realy screwed.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I would agree that he is a skillful competitor in the Twin Galaxies tournament, but I might not agree that he is a good SE IV player. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A good strategist knows how to alter his strategies to fit the required victory conditions. Those strats that will give you a fast military victory aren't as valuable in a game where the only victory condition is first one to reach a specific % of the tech tree. The better players recognize what is required to win, and find the strategy that will achieve that victory fastest and most securely. When victory is defined purely by tactical combat, your definition holds true, but what good does it do if he uses his knowledge of score manipulation to get such a high score so swiftly that three AI players surrender to him and your "perfect" destroyer, able to kill cruisers one on one, gets attacked by huge fleets of cruisers, more than it can handle? He beat you with economics. Tactics is battlefield only, Space Empires is a strategy game, economy and diplomacy and many other variables are important. mastery of only one is not the same as mastery of all. So your fleets are indestructable, fine, do you have enough of an economy to defeat me in a war of attrition? Can you withstand my intelligence onslaught? Can you protect your stars from my stellar weapons? Do you control the pace of the game or do you only react to your opponent's actions? IMO, limiting skill to one strategy alone is not a good idea.

And I said that Geo's behavior was *a* sign of a good player, not the only one. And I didn't mean score tweaking itself. Taking the time to figure out what exactly are the best methods to achieve the required victory condition, that's what I was complimenting. In this application it meant learning the ins and outs of the scoring system, but that same behavior would also apply to learning which weapons provide the best range, reload, damage, tonnage, and research costs. I've seen a lot of info on range and damage, bt very little on research costs. In a Last-man standing game is the wave motion gun really all that good? I'll top out on the psychic weapon tree about the same time you've just gotten access to ripper beams. It gets back to the question of is a dreagnaught really better than a cruiser, the cruiser may well obliterate the shipyard before it finishes the dreadnaught. In a purely tactical situation, the dreadnaught is always superior, but this isn't a tactical game, its strategic.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Really it wouldn't make sense to use anything else in those games. Maybe how many beers you drink while playing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What a great idea! Sadly we had to ban marathon games, but I think a contest to see who could drink the most beers while playing pinball might enable a comeback of the marathon-style contest! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif JK

------------------
Compete in the Space Empires IV World Championship at www.twingalaxies.com.

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

I said:

I'm guessing that if an empty Star Base contributes more to your score than a fully loaded cruiser, then this also means that a fully loaded cruiser which took 20 turns to build contributes the same score as one which took only 2 turns to build.

Then, Nyx said:

---
As well it should. Score is *supposed* to represent your power in the game. How long that cruiser took to build shouldn't impact that, IMO (though I think total shipyard capacity would be an interesting value to add to score). By your premise, anything built at a shipyard 2 should only provide 2/3 the score points of the exact same ship built at the lower tech shipyard. And anyone with temporal tech and their 4xs speed shipyards would be realy screwed.
---

What I meant was that a ship that takes ten times as long to build costs ten times as many minerals. Sorry for not being more clear!

I think the cost of a ship in minerals should significantly impact the score. For example:

Empire 1 has maxed out his tech and is pulling in an impressive 2,000,000 minerals each turn. Let's say that they build a cruiser loaded up with the latest high tech gadgets so that their ships are KT for KT the baddest thing in space. Let's say that a single 300KT ship costs a ridiculous 50,000 minerals to build.

Now, Empire 2 is stuck in the stone age. They're still building 150KT ships which cost 5,000 minerals to build.

So, Empire 1 has 20 300KT ships patrolling its borders. These ships cost an even million minerals to build *and* 250,000 minerals per turn in maintenance.

Empire 2 also has 20 300KT ships patrolling its borders. These ships cost a total of 100,000 minerals to build and 25,000 minerals per turn for maintenance.

Clearly, Empire 1 is going to have the larger score because they will have more systems, planets, population, tech level, resource production, intel production, etcetera.

But both empires are going to have IDENTICAL scores for their ships.

Does the number and type of ships from contribute equally to each empire's power?

If you can convince me they do, I'm going to consider you one heck of a salesman. :-)

[This message has been edited by raynor (edited 25 January 2001).]

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

One problem complicating that scenario is that many advanced Versions of technologies cost exactly the same as the simpler ones, sometimes they cost less. For example, angine III costs less than engine I, shouldn't it give you a higher score representing your higher tech ship? Same with the guns, a wavemotion III costs the same as wavemotion I, shouldn't you get a higher score for the more advanced gun? If you go by the resource cost (and I assume that you were only using minerals as an example, not claiming that only minerals should be counted) then the advanced ships will often cost the same as a basic ship.

------------------
Compete in the Space Empires IV World Championship at www.twingalaxies.com.

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

There are so many flaws in how the score is calculated, it really isn't worth arguing any more. If the method used to calculate the score were an indicator of the quality of the game, I would say that SEIV is the worst game ever made.

Right about now, I'm just glad TwinGalaxies is supporting SEIV by hosting the tournament.

And, whether or not the score calculation is flawed or not, I'm willing to concede that the folks who achieve the highest scores are better players than me. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Well, at least the issue with how ships affect score isn't really going to matter for the contest. Without a doubt, resource generation is what you are going to need to win.

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Drake:
Well, at least the issue with how ships affect score isn't really going to matter for the contest. Without a doubt, resource generation is what you are going to need to win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know hardly anything about how the score is calculated except what I've heard from pros like you. Isn't your resource production just added straight into the score?

I recall having a score of 1.0M with resource production of less than 300K. So, it seemed that resources were much less an issue than other components of the score.

What would prevent someone from simultaneously building up a huge armada of bases/ships while also storing a modest amount of resources. Then, on turn 150, they cold unmothball all their bases/ships? Wouldn't it be possible to have a base/ship count well in excess of what you could afford to maintain?

Once again, I know almost nothing about how the score is calculated except that I've heard folks say that empty hulls count lots, and from my experience, fighters don't count at all.

Thanks.

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Isn't your resource production just added straight into the score?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So, it seemed that resources were much less an issue than other components of the score.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is also correct, however what I got from Drake's comment was that the top scorers in the contest are all going to have close to the 2000 limit on ships/bases, so the difference is going to be who can get the most resource points out of your colonies.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What would prevent someone from simultaneously building up a huge armada of bases/ships while also storing a modest amount of resources. Then, on turn 150, they cold unmothball all their bases/ships? Wouldn't it be possible to have a base/ship count well in excess of what you could afford to maintain?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two things should prevent that. One, you have to turn in a savegame file for every five turns. You want to unmothball all your ships every five turns before you save the game and then turn around and mothball them again? Yuck!

Secondly, I think it would take more than a "modest amount" of resource storage to acomplish this. Keep in mind you have to pay to unmothball a ship. It would take a LOT to unmothball 2000 ships/bases in one turn. Plus all those storage facilities are taking up spaces on you colonies that could be generating resources, and so you are going to be behind someone who whas the same number of ships, but fewer storage fac's.

Also remember that stored resources count nothing towards score, only resources generated in the current turn.

IMHO, the best plan is to generate enough points to maintain your 2K ship/base navy. Takes a lot of colonies, but can be done, even in a small quadrant.

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That is also correct, however what I got from Drake's comment was that the top scorers in the contest are all going to have close to the 2000 limit on ships/bases, so the difference is going to be who can get the most resource points out of your colonies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely correct. Also, mothballing and unmothballing at the end is a bad idea for the contest, even if it were legal (which it isn't, BTW). You need resources ON HAND to unmothball, which as geoschmo pointed out aren't added to your score. This takes storage facilities which use up room for resource producing facilities. By doing this, you're just hurting yourself.

I only use storage to keep current resource holding up for retrofitting. I plan on scrapping all my storage facilities after I am done building ringworlds, since I won't need to retrofit anything after that. I build one extra component two years ahead of the other 10, and take a two step retrofit to the core piece (costs a cpl hundred K, but years faster).

-Drake

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I plan on scrapping all my storage facilities after I am done building ringworlds, since I won't need to retrofit anything after that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RINGWORLDS?!?!?!

&lt;geoschmo sighs&gt; "Sorry honey, I can't take you to the movies tonight. Drake's got RINGWORLDS!"

lol


[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 07 February 2001).]

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Stop that! You can't make me feel guilty, even if you add depriving your wife of both dinner out and a trip to the movies!

Ok, maybe a little guilty. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Oh, I just meant I won't be able to take her out cause I have to get back to work on a new game.

I'm still going to beat you. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 07 February 2001).]

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Well, glad to hear you have time to start a new game. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif I've been working on my current one for over a week, and I've just hit turn 80. I'm pretty sure I'd burn out if I had to start over, so hopefully (I hope, at least) this game will be enough to keep me on top. Well, we'll see when I submit next week sometime. *evil grin*

-Drake

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

I am not worthy...

Ya know... TwinGalaxies could make back their prize money by *selling* your saved games on their website.

I just can't imagine 2000 ships/bases by turn 150 in a small galaxy--even if they are just empty cargo ships. The idea of someone building a ringworld soon enough before turn 150 to get enough resources out of it is mind-boggling.

Can you *finish* building a ringworld by turn 50 and actually max out its facilities by turn 150?

I just can't imagine...

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Well, I couldn't get them up by turn 50. All but one or two will be done by turn 90, so I won't be able to max them out. That's why I picked them over the sphereworlds. Of course, I can max out a domed ringworld, but not by much and the micromanagement and resource drain on maintaining 1000+ ships and building 50 sphereworlds at once would've bankrupted my economy. Micromanagement hell, I tell ya, MM hell. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif


BTW: emtpy cargo ships aren't good for your bases, because you're overloaded on the minerals in your design. You can't build them as fast either. I preferred to use organic armor and weapons to keep things balanced and be able to build one of them per turn by the planets, and 1 per 3 turns by my space base yards. All I need are a few hundred construction bases, and I don't even need space yards on my planets for the Last 10-20 turns. Besides, space yards don't generate resources, so they're a waste of space on my planets once I'm done building. When you're trying to max score, you end up doing a lot of odd things. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

-Drake

[This message has been edited by Drake (edited 07 February 2001).]

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

I had 2000 bases in turn 107 in the game I turned in and I stopped micromanaging on turn 77 so I could turn the game in early. My current game I am at turn 104 and am generating a lot more resources than I was but I am building bases slower because I don't need them all until turn 150 anyway. So the 2000 base limit will be hit fairly easily. Most of those were Starbases also. The only reason they wern't all starbases was I wasn't micromanaging and so I didn't scrap all my old origional bases to build new ones.

[This message has been edited by Tomgs (edited 07 February 2001).]

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Sounds like this is getting good. Glad to see some more people getting into the contest. Nyx says they haven't had a lot lot of hits on their SEIV page.

TOMGS and DRAKE or anyone, have we found out whether the game actually stops you from building ships once you reach the 2000 limit? I am getting close and figured if it stops me like SEIII did I'll just let hit the wall and stop automatically. Otherwise I gotta go through 200+yards and turn off all the repeats. MM Hell-ya!

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

It doesn't stop you. They've said we're to stick to 2000 max combined for bases and ships. If you just use the biggest SB, that'll get you 50M points right there. Everything else should be resources, because you'll almost always get more from a Monolith III than your research facilities.

Just a tip, but make sure to scrap any planetary engineering components after turn 141, as all improvements take place before construction happens on turns ending in a 1. You won't have any use for them in the Last 10 turns, and they'll take up space you could put a Monolith III on, generating more resources for you. (and a higher score!)

-Drake

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

I haven't used any planetary engineering fac's in the contest. I figured they take to long to build enough of them to make a difference before the 150 turns.

Of course I thought the same thing about ringworlds. laf

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Did I say planetary engineering? Silly me, what I meant to say was umm Shrines, yeah that's it. Be sure and fill your planets with nature shrines on every planet and scrap everything on your final turn. You people will love you for it, and tha's what really counts, right?

Yep, since the game doesn't warn you that other nature shrines are in the system, you must be getting the benefit from all of them! No need to check this yourself, truuuust me, heheheh. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

-Drake

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Actually I was evil enough to test nature shrines in an earlier game so that I know (no they don't both work but you don't get a warning either). However there is a cheat ( I notified Twingalaxies and Malfadore about this already though http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif ). System Robotoid facilities and Time shrines do stack even though they say they don't. You don't see it on the planetary resource screen (because all system adds are shown on the Empire screen) but if you build both and scrap the time shrines your production goes down. Maybe other overlapping system facilities also do this but I haven't tested any others yet.

[This message has been edited by Tomgs (edited 08 February 2001).]

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Hmm, I never bothered trying to build the time shrines, I just figured they wouldn't stack, and were inferior to the sys robot fac. I noticed that gestation vats and medical labs don't add the %, so I figured it was working correctly across the board. Doh!

I'm wishing I hadn't gotten religious tech - It's good for an early boost to planet %s, but I'm thinking it was a waste of 1500 points. Ah well.

-Drake

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

But nature shrines stack up with planetary value and climate improvement facilities making 0.6/year improvements.

Re: Does anyone know the formula SEIV uses to calculate score?
 

Yeah, that's what I thought the big bonus was as well, but you and I have made an important and incorrect assumption in that reasoning. We say to ourselves, "Well, that effectively doubles the improvement rate, so it's a good deal!"

Thing is, notice what you DON'T see on the info on a planetary eng. facility that you do see with a robotoid facility and the like. No only 1 per planet effective limiter. You can compensate for not having a nature shrine by building 1 extra value facility per planet (and climate, if you care). I play with organics, so the only real benefit from my POV was the +x% to value. Granted, it's very very expensive to build lots of these....

-Drake

[This message has been edited by Drake (edited 08 February 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Drake (edited 08 February 2001).]