Re: Continuous scoring

[Dave Ahn <ahn@vec.wfubmc.edu>]

On Sat, May 06, 2000 at 06:41:19PM -0700, Tom Holub wrote:
> In article <8evoac$hdg@northshore.shore.net>,
> Ken. Hanson <mirror@shore.net> wrote:
> )
> )
> )   The way that this would be done is as follows:  Each team would
> )begin the game with zero points. The server (or the bot) would, at 
> )the end of every minute of the game, check the current planet count. 
> )For each planet that a team holds at that point in time one point 
> )would be added to that team's score.  Therefore, for a 90 minute 
> )game the total points possible would be 1800 (i.e. 20 planets times 
> )90 minutes); if neither team took a planet the entire game, the end 
> )score would be 900-900. 
> 
> Dave Ahn mentioned a similar, more complicated proposal on the
> vanilla-l and inlcouncil mailing lists recently.  I think both proposals
> are well-intentioned but based on flawed assumptions.

Well, my assumptions are that 1) we keep the 90+30 minute game; and 2)
do nothing to change the game mechanics; 3) want to make the first
half of the game more meaningful for end-game; and 4) still use end-game
planet results as part of the winning condition.

> Another problem, the core of what both proposals are trying to
> address, is that much of the game doesn't matter.  I think this is
> almost wholly a function of the games being too long.
[...]

> I think shortening INL games to 60 minutes would help a lot of things.
[...]

A lot of people share my opinion that we shouldn't reduce the game time
to address the problem.  And even with a 60 minute game, there is no
incentive to be aggressive.  Teams would still stash for 45 minutes for
a final push in the last 15.

> If you look at successful sports and games, they all have obvious
> and fairly simple scoring systems, and they all have the ability for
> people who are behind to come back and win.

Yes, but up to a point.  A team that lags far behind for most of the
game will be behind by so many points that even a perfectly executed
strategy wouldn't allow them to win in the end.

In netrek, it's entirely possible for one team to be completely dominated
5-15 for 80 minutes of the game to end up winning 11-8-1 simply because
they successfully delivered 25 stashed armies for the win.

> I think Ken's proposal
> is reasonably simple but doesn't give people a chance to come back;
> if you get ahead 13-7 and hold it for 5 minutes, the game's basically
> over.  I think Ahn's proposal is too complicated to work in practice;
> it would not be possible to make informed decisions near the end of 
> close games because of the complexity of the system.

I agree that making informed decisions with my proposal is harder.
Assuming that there are no other problems with the idea, we can use the
point system to change the winning condition at end-game so that the
system is translated to the familiar planet-count method.

Let's divide the game into opening, mid-game and end-game.  At the 30
minute mark, the team point count can be tallied and the winner can get
a handicap towards the final score.  Same deal at the 60 minute mark.
This means that if one team completely dominates the other team for 2/3
of the game, then the lagging team must come back to win by, say, 12-7-1.
The size of the handicap would require fine tuning, of course.

-- 
Dave Ahn <ahn@vec.wfubmc.edu>        |  "When you were born, you cried and the
                                     |  world rejoiced.  Try to live your life
Virtual Endoscopy Center             |  so that when you die, you will rejoice
Wake Forest Univ. School of Medicine |  and the world will cry."  -1/2 jj^2