LOGIN
User Name
Password
Remember me


> Not a member yet?
> Forgot your password?
Main menu
Preferred site
Get Firefox!
Forum Message
City:Delft NL
Personal Data:Male, born: June 20 1977
Membership22years 70days ago.
Last Login17years 148days ago.
Last Move18years 149days 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 - 21years 237days 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

21years 244days sven_r [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
21years 244days CdtWeasel Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
21years 244days Nick Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
 21years 241days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
  21years 241days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
  21years 241days Nick Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
   21years 241days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
    21years 241days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
     21years 240days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
      21years 239days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
       21years 239days dr.falko Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
        21years 238days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
         21years 238days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
          21years 238days dr.falko Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
          21years 237days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
           21years 237days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
            21years 237days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
             21years 237days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
              21years 237days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
               21years 232days LiverMike Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
                21years 232days von Trishoven Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
                 21years 223days sven_r Re: [WS&IM][TOUR] statistics
Page generated in: 16.79688 milliseconds.