LOGIN
User Name
Password
Remember me


> Not a member yet?
> Forgot your password?
Main menu
Preferred site
Anno mille
Forum Message
City:Delft NL
Personal Data:Male, born: June 20 1977
Membership21years 114days ago.
Last Login16years 192days ago.
Last Move17years 193days ago.
sven_r is currently Offline!

Message header
Area/Game:Wooden Ships & Iron Men
1Topic:War at sea
Subject:Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
Posted by: sven_r - 20years 281days ago.
Message text
von Trishoven wrote:
Um...I don't think that's what I suggested

I suggested that you get points for damaging enemy blocks, depending on how much his ship is worth and how much yours is worth.

If he is worth 100 and you are worth 50, then your points are doubled for hurting a ship worth twice as much as yours.

If he has 10 hull spaces, and you kill 5 of them, you get 50% of the value of his ship.

Nice fair scoring.


The difference is that realistically a damaged opponent ship can get repaired after the battle. So if you donot win this battle, there is and was no benefit from damaging the opponent's hull.
Only COMPLETELY damaged/sunk opponent's hull should count.

On the other side to DISTINGUISH one gamer who wins the battle with all 5 of his ships afloat but with barely hull capacity to the gamer who wins the battle with 3 of his 5 ships afloat but with fairly intact hulls we need to input the own hull damage losses in the scoring.

Who is better ; gamer A wins by sinking 103 points of the opponent and 5 ships times 2 hull left. ..
(103 - 18/20*10 -24/26*26 -22/24*20 -9/11*10 - 18/20*22)/117 = 0,20

Versus Gamer B....
(103 - 10 -26 -2/24*20 -0/11*10 - 1/20*22)/117 =
0,55
..
Although one can argue what should be valued higher; saving as much ships as possible (so that lateron they can be repaired and be active again) Then gamer A is more successfull , or the fact that a less damegd ship can sooner be active with very little repairs (at sea) and thus be more effective to the navy than the salvaged but heavily damaged ships that need to go in dock and be noneffective for several weeks or months ??! Then Gamer B is better.
And my proposed system stresses the last idea of effectiveness.
Messages thread
Posting elapsed timePosted bySubject

20years 288days sven_r [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
20years 288days CdtWeasel Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
20years 288days Nick Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
 20years 285days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
  20years 285days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
  20years 285days Nick Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
   20years 285days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
    20years 285days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
     20years 283days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
      20years 283days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
       20years 283days dr.falko Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
        20years 282days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
         20years 282days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
          20years 282days dr.falko Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
          20years 281days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
           20years 281days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
            20years 281days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
             20years 281days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
              20years 281days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
               20years 276days LiverMike Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
                20years 276days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
                 20years 267days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
Page generated in: 18.75 milliseconds.