Revisiting In-Game Player Scores in Standard WOK

All about the online version of classic WOK games.

Moderators: Duke, trewqh, korexus

User avatar
Brykovian
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA ... Clan: Scholars
Contact:

Revisiting In-Game Player Scores in Standard WOK

Postby Brykovian » Thu May 31, 2007 3:34 pm

Korexus posted the following in a thread about the new online Advanced WoK ...

korexus wrote:For anyone interested, the Standard WoK score is done by
POP + 2 * WOK + 4 * LEV * ARM + 20 * DEF + 10 * MIS + 8 * SPY

which takes no account of TEC and doesn't weight LEVed armies enough imho.


I've always felt that MIS are too strongly represented in the current scoring scheme, and that TEC, EFF and Number of Provinces should both play a role in the score.

Here's my attempt at a change:

(POP + (2 * WOK) + (5 * Average LEV * ARM) + (10 * Sum of All Provinces' DEF) + (4 * MIS) + (4 * SPY) + TEC) * (.75 + (EFF / 400))

That's not perfect either ... but might be a good place to start a conversation.

-Bryk
Matt Worden Games ... Gem Raider, DareBase, Castle Danger, Keeps & Moats Chess

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2768
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Postby korexus » Thu May 31, 2007 3:53 pm

I would prefer the LEV to be more strongly represented, armies at level 2 are far stronger than armies at level 1. If we're going to go for formulae, mine would be something like.

POP + (2 * WOK) + (4 * LEV^2 * ARM) + (10 * DEF) + (5 * MIS) + (4 * SPY)
Calculated individually for each province and added up, then
* (TEC + 50)/50 * EFF/100

On the basis that having more tech points commands a far larger advantage for larger players than small ones. I do like Bryk's idea of only weighting the EFF one quarter though, so players can't hide their strength with lowe EFF then trade in TEC just before a fight.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Brykovian
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA ... Clan: Scholars
Contact:

Postby Brykovian » Thu May 31, 2007 3:59 pm

I can see where you're going.

You put your province + tech parts together with my (.75 + EFF/400) thingy and I could go along with that.

The LEV squared seems a bit strong ... but I'm not sure how else to give an accelerated increase to it ... so I could live with that.

-Bryk
Matt Worden Games ... Gem Raider, DareBase, Castle Danger, Keeps & Moats Chess

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Postby trewqh » Thu May 31, 2007 4:19 pm

My thoughts:
1. It seems reasonable that WOK have a *2 multiplier and ARM have a *4 multiplier because that reflects the transformation ratios and each of these types of units has it's own abilities, that's fine
2. ARM - it's good that LEV is taken into account, but there should also be the EFF factor included here. I also think that maybe ARM's multiplier of *4 should be even higher since ARM win games.
3. DEF - It seems the number of provinces you own does not matter, since that DEF in the formula is an average not a sum. I'm not sure that 20 is too big a multiplier for DEF, what I am sure is that it should also be multiplied by EFF since PDEF is influenced by EFF
4. MIS - That *10 multiplier causes scores to go over the roof when someone starts amassing missiles. Is it possible to think of a reasonable relation between the multipliers for ARM and MIS by calculating the probability of destroying 1 ARM with 1 MIS? Any how EFF has to be taken into account.
5. SPY - Players rarely own many spies. Spies also very often are used
during the same turn that they are produced. So even though intelligence is right next to diplomacy in order of things necessary to win a game, the number of spies one has does not really reflect what one might do with them. And spies are affected by EFF.

And Han suggested at some point:
[POP] + [WOK X 3] + [(ARM X 8 ) X (LEV + {4 X <LEV - 1>})] + [AVG DEF X 50] + [MIS X 3] + [SPIES X 8] + [TEC X 4] - all X EFF %.

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Re: Revisiting In-Game Player Scores in Standard WOK

Postby trewqh » Thu May 31, 2007 4:33 pm

Brykovian wrote:(POP + (2 * WOK) + (5 * Average LEV * ARM) + (10 * Sum of All Provinces' DEF) + (4 * MIS) + (4 * SPY) + TEC) * (.75 + (EFF / 400))

Why do you want to include the number of provinces? The only thing they do is drain EFF. Oh, and it's harder to locate your resources, but I don't think it's that important.

korexus wrote:POP + (2 * WOK) + (4 * LEV^2 * ARM) + (10 * DEF) + (5 * MIS) + (4 * SPY)
Calculated individually for each province and added up, then
* (TEC + 50)/50 * EFF/100

Why do you (both of you) want to multiply POP and WOK by EFF? I.e. you have no ARM or MIS or DEF and a low EFF, but you have 999 POP and 250 WOK, increasing your EFF will not make you any stronger until you trasform those POP and produce something with WOK.

I like the way you treat TEC, korexus, concentrating on the number of attacks rather than the potential to transfrom TEC into something else, BUT I don't see why it should influence the overall score.

User avatar
Brykovian
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA ... Clan: Scholars
Contact:

Postby Brykovian » Thu May 31, 2007 4:49 pm

You make fair points, Trewqh. :)

-Bryk
Matt Worden Games ... Gem Raider, DareBase, Castle Danger, Keeps & Moats Chess

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2768
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Postby korexus » Thu May 31, 2007 4:59 pm

If I have 999 POP and 1 EFF, I am much weaker than if I have 999 POP and 99 EFF. Granted I need to convert them into ARM before I can do anything, but that is much easier than converting them into ARM and magically finding 98 EFF.

If I have more attacks, then my armies are stronger, I am in a better position to wipe someone out, I should have a higher score.

We could just multiply ARM, DEF, MIS and SPY by EFF in the score (as they are directly affected by the EFF level) but my 200 WOK making more MIS are also affected by the EFF level as they're pretty useless if none of the missiles will hit and my POP is less use to me if my armies won't be able to defend it because my PDEF is 1.

EFF is the single most important value in Standard or Advanced WoK and that's why I think the whole score should be multplied by it in some way, not just parts of it.

I think Bryk wanted to include the number of provinces because someone with a bigger empire is probably doing better. Granted he will probably have more resources and so push up his score anyway, but someone with 20 provinces and 1 army in each is harder to kill than someone with 1 province and 20 armies...

I agree that squared seems a bit strong, but that's just a number. It's the power that is the key change there, how about LEV^(3/2) * ARM? (Does someone want to do a bit of research into how important level is compared to number of troops in a few battles?

How about

[SUM {POP + (2 * WOK) + (4 * LEV^(3/2) * ARM) + (10 * DEF) + (5 * MIS) + (4 * SPY) } ] * {1/2 + (TEC + 50)/800 + EFF/400}

I know this formula can be written more neatly, but I'm hoping that layout will show where my numbers are from.


I could see an argument for TEC only affecting the ARM part of the score. It's not the only thing which it affects in game, but it is the main part.

I also like the LEV * (LEV - 1) idea, it would be another way of weighting higher leveled armies, without completely overpowering strong armies...
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Saladin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Saladin » Thu May 31, 2007 5:54 pm

I have to agree with Trewqh in that i don't see a reason to include the eff modifier to pop and wok.

The score gets calculated at the end of a turn, so if at the end of a turn you have 200 wok on missiles than eff has no effect on that.

Only when you get the missiles than the eff comes in to it and gets used to correctly calculate the value of the missiles.

Wok and pop always perform the same no matter what the eff is. You can't simply add the eff modifier to something that you presume will happen (like pop transformed in to armies). As at the moment of the calculation it's not the case yet.

Hmm...reading that back it's not as clear as i had it in my mind...oh well. :)

Anyway could you explain what you mean with this part:

Code: Select all

* {1/2 + (TEC + 50)/800 + EFF/400}
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."

"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."

User avatar
Lardmaster
Commander
Commander
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 8:00 am
Location: The Big Smoke

Postby Lardmaster » Thu May 31, 2007 6:21 pm

(Isn't going to get involved as he thinks scores should be hidden anyway)

:lipssealed:
Question everything.

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2768
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Postby korexus » Thu May 31, 2007 6:57 pm

Saladin wrote:I have to agree with Trewqh in that i don't see a reason to include the eff modifier to pop and wok.

The score gets calculated at the end of a turn, so if at the end of a turn you have 200 wok on missiles than eff has no effect on that.

Only when you get the missiles than the eff comes in to it and gets used to correctly calculate the value of the missiles.

Wok and pop always perform the same no matter what the eff is. You can't simply add the eff modifier to something that you presume will happen (like pop transformed in to armies). As at the moment of the calculation it's not the case yet.


What about my workers on SPY. During next turn, they are going to make the spies, which I will then send into your provinces to get vital info on you. Those spies will come and go within the turn so can't affect my score, but the number of workers I have making them and my EFF will decide how well I do out of it.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that someone with 500 POP, 200 WOK and 1 EFF is equally strong as someone with 500 POP, 200 WOK and 99 EFF. The score should reflect this.

Anyway could you explain what you mean with this part:

Code: Select all

* {1/2 + (TEC + 50)/800 + EFF/400}


Sure, I was borrowing from Brykovian's idea. A player is at maximum potential if he has 350 TEC and 100 EFF at this point the multiplier is 1 (yes I know your EFF stops at 99, but 100 is a much nicer value and anyway, who says?)

If you are working at less than full potential, your score will be reduced to show this, if you have a buffer (more than 350 TEC) then your score will be inflated. However the 1/2 means that no matter how low your TEC and EFF are you your score will not drop towards 0 if you have resources available. Currently EFF and TEC are equally weighted, but numbers are always up for being changed.)

Basically it stops people dropping their score by reducing EFF while they have enough TEC to buy it straight back again. (Although I have realised that with my numbers, this would actually raise the score, which isn't right. {3(TEC + 150)/5500 + EFF / 440} would make it balanced. (Please don't ask me to justify that, it just took me an embarasing 30 minutes to get the numbers...))
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Postby trewqh » Thu May 31, 2007 7:13 pm

Ditto to Sal's arguments.

My general philosophy is that we shouldn't try to put our tactics into the scoring and give a bigger bonus to what COULD give you an edge. I am against scoring the potential to give you something. We should score what one has.

korexus wrote:If I have more attacks, then my armies are stronger, I am in a better position to wipe someone out, I should have a higher score.

Yes, I didn't put it clearly. I meant what you wrote yourself later that this one should affect ARM only. As above TEC should only give points for the bonus attacks since we should not give points for the potential gains of trading in TEC. Once you trade you get the points.

korexus wrote:EFF is the single most important value in Standard or Advanced WoK and that's why I think the whole score should be multplied by it in some way, not just parts of it.

Then give a bigger multiplier to the things influenced by EFF and leave POP and WOK alone.

korexus wrote:I think Bryk wanted to include the number of provinces because someone with a bigger empire is probably doing better. Granted he will probably have more resources and so push up his score anyway, but someone with 20 provinces and 1 army in each is harder to kill than someone with 1 province and 20 armies...

Harder to track down, but actually it's easier to to kill these armies one by one. :)

korexus wrote: * {1/2 + (TEC + 50)/800 + EFF/400}

Apart from the fact that both TEC and EFF would influence everything else (which I disagree with), I don't like that this part of the formula will often be below 1.

[/i]
Last edited by trewqh on Thu May 31, 2007 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Postby trewqh » Thu May 31, 2007 7:19 pm

korexus wrote:What about my workers on SPY. During next turn, they are going to make the spies, which I will then send into your provinces to get vital info on you. Those spies will come and go within the turn so can't affect my score, but the number of workers I have making them and my EFF will decide how well I do out of it.

Having them does not decide how well you will do out of it. Player skill does. We're not taking that into account.

korexus wrote:I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that someone with 500 POP, 200 WOK and 1 EFF is equally strong as someone with 500 POP, 200 WOK and 99 EFF. The score should reflect this.

Until they make those transformations they are as strong (or rather weak). Once they make the transformations the situation becomes clear.
It's as easy to RIP a player with no ARM and 99EFF as it is to RIP a player with no ARM and 1 EFF.

User avatar
Vortan
Commander
Commander
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:00 am
Location: Valn Ohtar, English Office
Contact:

Postby Vortan » Thu May 31, 2007 7:25 pm

Go Trewgh :luxhello:

That sounds like 1-0 to Trewgh.

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Postby trewqh » Thu May 31, 2007 7:30 pm

OK, bottom line is I like any of the mentioned formulas better than the current one and I hope we manage to agree on something this time and not get discouraged by the long discussion. :wink:

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2768
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Postby korexus » Thu May 31, 2007 7:33 pm

Almost all your points come down to a philosophical point between us. You think the score should be to show how strong a player is, I think it should show how much of a threat a player is. I don't see this as being an argument either of us can win, so I'd prefer to go with the view of the community (even if they go against me!) on which method we go for. I'll set up a vote once we've finalised two different scoring formulae.

That being said, I have to pick up your point about player skill. That can be applied to everything equally. If I have a load of missiles, but don't fire them or fire them where there are no targets, they are equally useless. Having the missiles gives me the potential to do great harm to my enemy, it doesn't actually make me harder to kill (as having many ARM would) unless I know how to use them...

The one point which doesn't fall under this philsophocal divide is
trewqh wrote:
korexus wrote:
* {1/2 + (TEC + 50)/800 + EFF/400}

[...] I don't like that this part of the formula will often be below 1.



Sorry, but this is just plain, old fashioned, fear of numbers. I wouldn't expect it from you! The point of this part of the formula is to modify the points gained by the players for having stuff to use by their ability to use it. The ratio is unimportant. Would you be happy if the formula went {5 + (TEC + 50)/80 + EFF/40)} (apart from the TEC being in there). This would always be greater than one, but has made no difference, save multiplying everyone's score by 10...


korexus.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2768
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Postby korexus » Thu May 31, 2007 7:37 pm

Vortan wrote:Go Trewgh :luxhello:

That sounds like 1-0 to Trewgh.


Vortan, it's trewqh, with a q. Also, note the lack of capitalisation in both mine and trewqh's names (actually, that goes for pretty much all of you!)


I must be getting old, I'm complaining more and more...

~korexus.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Postby trewqh » Thu May 31, 2007 7:42 pm

korexus wrote:Almost all your points come down to a philosophical point between us. You think the score should be to show how strong a player is, I think it should show how much of a threat a player is. I don't see this as being an argument either of us can win, so I'd prefer to go with the view of the community (even if they go against me!) on which method we go for. I'll set up a vote once we've finalised two different scoring formulae.

I love it when we're being so positively-looking-into-the-future-in-their-constructive-argument. :D

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow though, gotta run finish the you-know-what.

trewqh

User avatar
Vortan
Commander
Commander
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:00 am
Location: Valn Ohtar, English Office
Contact:

Postby Vortan » Thu May 31, 2007 7:46 pm

:lol:

Now ... you have got to be a teacher of English because that sooo reminded me of reading comments in my exercise book.

The inclusion of capitalisation is, in point of fact however, grammatically accurate me thinks. I believe that the 'rules' are that proper names should always be started with a capital letter.

I therefore shall continue to refer to you both as Korexus and Trewqh with the minor adjustment to my spelling of Trewqh's name as it is only ... well proper.

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2768
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Postby korexus » Thu May 31, 2007 7:55 pm

You are, of course, correct that proper names should be capitalised. However, it may suprise you to hear "korexus" is not my proper name :!:

Yes, I know how pedantic that sounds. I'm a pedantic sort of person.

And actually, I'm a teacher of Maths, but they had a mantra they drilled into us while training.

"Every teacher is a teacher of English, every teacher is a teacher of English" So we got brainwashed into picking up bad grammar when marking books, even though it wasn't our job. Some of that spills over sometimes, sorry.

koreus
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Saladin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Saladin » Thu May 31, 2007 8:08 pm

Korexus (yes with a capital K) teaches math i believe and Trewqh teaches English, right Trewqh? Add to that me teaching History then we have half the school curiculum covered. :)

Hey, i was wondering about something. Here in Holland you get, Dutch, English, French and German. And if you want you can add Latin and Greek.

I was wondering what other languages they standard teach in the UK and the US besides English?

And what do they do with all the hours that they have 'left' compared to the Dutch system that not get spent on foreign languages? What does that get spend on?
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."



"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."


Return to “STANDARD WOK - New / Running games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest