Hope this will spark some discussion;
The scoring system is still a little simple IMO. I enjoy playing the larger maps, it takes longer and usually requires a little more experience/skill. However, the scoring system does not take the extra time and effort into account.
Here are a few statistics I threw together to show an Idea for weighting the games based on the map chosen;
Map, Countries, Resources, Ratio(%/Total/Avg), Size(Ratio-sq.root), Ratio Totals(rounded off)
Bizzaria, 3/9 (33%), 6/18 (33%), 1/1/1, 28 x 32, (1), 1, ( 1 )
Emerald, 4/13 (30.8%), 9/30 (30%), 1.09/1.67/1.38, ~24 X 24, (~.8), ~1.14, ( 1.25 )
Antarcticus, 4/15 (26.7%), 9/35 (25.7%), 1.26/1.94/1.60, 28 x 32, (1), 1.6, ( 1.5 )
Noble Rust , 5/17 (29.4%), 13/44 (29.5%), 1.12/2.44/1.78, 44 x 48, (1.54), 2.74, ( 2.75 )
Anubis, 6/20 (30%), 16/58 (27.6%), 1.15/3.22/2.19, 44 x 50, (1.57), 3.44, ( 3.5 )
Wasserland, 6/22 (27.3%), 16/60 (26.7%), 1.22/3.33/2.28, 56 x 64, (2.0), 4.56, ( 4.5 )
New Paradise, 7/26 (26.9%), 18/66 (27.3%), 1.22/3.67/2.45, 56 x 64, (2.0), 4.90 , ( 5.0 )
This would probably require a re-evaluation of points required to reach a rank but would also make it more interesting and benificial to choose larger maps.
eg ;
Map Points (winner/loser)
Conscript loses;Marshall loses
Bizzaria 4/1 40/10
Emerald 5/1 50/13
Antarcticus 6/2 60/15
Noble Rust 11/3 110/28
Anubis 14/4 140/35
Wasserland 18/5 180/45
New Paradise 20/5 200/50
Anyone have some other ideas for weighting the Maps?
_________________ Dulce bellum inexpertis - War is sweet for those who have not experienced it. (Pindaros)
|