If the score were based totally on your income then it would make complete sense - it basically says your score = your chance of winning if the game didn't end on turn 99. (A player with an income of 20,000 should be able to beat a player with an income of 5,000).

However this isn't quite right if the resource buildings no longer produce anything of use in the game. The score won't be accurate because players will simply ignore Gem Ponds, Mines, etc in favour of Castles, Gold Mines and resource piles.

Then a couple turns from the end, the players will race round picking up the resource sources in order to max their score.

So, I reckon it should just convert all the income from Gem Ponds etc straight into gold, at whatever rate is determined by the players current Market technology.
Your score should quite simply be your income. (gold and tribute combined).

Perhaps add on an a small allowance for the money you have invested in armies, experience, technology, buildings, etc. (but the value of a fixed asset should be much less than an income-producing asset, in the region of 1%)
Examples:
A castle is worth 1000 (gold) plus 900 (tribute) = 1900.
A gold mine = 500 (750 if it is upgraded)
A Gem pond = 360 (20 tribute * 18 gold/tribute)
A Woodmill = 144
A level 1 Spearman = 20 (2000 * 1%)
A level 1 Falchioneer = 50
A level 1 Maceman = 120
Higher level troops are adjusted in the same way as their att/def/hp/dam are adjusted (online manual says +5%/level, but it lies)
Other assets (techs, buildings, etc) simply valued at 1% of their cost, with the exception of assets which increase your income, which are ignored as their value is taken into account already (eg. Market techs, gold mine upgrades)
So an outpost = 5, barracks 25, Snow Travel 20 ,etc

Obviously troops of less than pop 10 have their score value reduced and any gold in the bank can also be included at 1% (so 24,000 gold in the bank is worth 240)

if you (req) plan to change resource buildings into cities/villages, id have a suggestion: re-implement population. cities should produce different ammounts of population per turn. population could be used to recruit new troops. that way a player would have to conquer cities in order to get more armies and expand his kingdom. the way it is now (just to pay gold) is too simple imho. with population re-implenmented it would be much more challenging.

cheers!

Req, last night I finished a duel owning all the resource on the swamp king map, except fot one that was taken back on my opponents last turn.
I had destroyed half his castle; he had one barracks he had just built 4 of 5 turns previous; i had destroyed 4 others within his walls.
I had him pinned withen his castle over half the game.
And i lost the duel.
How does this make sense?

Lol, Im the one who beat Zues. It was unfair for him but I am happy.

I looked at the scores for that game and it was very close.
How did Shinra get so much tribute if Zues had all the resource buildings?

Probably by killing.

Yep. I killed 4 squire stacks, a mine, a commander stack, and 2 scout stacks as well as took over a mine (giving me two mines since I still had one other before the last turn). I only lost one stack of troops the last turn so I managed to come out on top.

hmm, interesting.

i have removed any Tribute given for kills or destroying buildings. they give gold only now.

this means tribute is from resource buildings only.

Just noticed that even if I destroy a pile it says I get a certain amount of tribute but the tribute does not increase ?

same thing happen to me,no increase...

Last Edited : Tuesday, 9 June 2009 - 03:04

Just as Req said, only resource buildings give trib now, everything else gives gold

a pittance of gold, could stand a boost of 500%.

Just another two cents worth on Tribute based on net worth...

It seems to me that luck will be more of a factor than actual skill. As we all know, many who sign up for a campaign, forget or never return to participate in the campaign. This leads to the unfair free inactive castles placed all over the map. Whomever retains the most free land will earn a substanial lead and greater income, without ever drawing a sword in some cases. Realistically there should be only one castle for each active player. After say four turns of inactive play at the games beginning, all inactive castles should disappear. The grey foundation of the castle should also disappear. Leaving the space vaccant of value as well. This way if the game/lead is based on net worth, then you need to earn your net worth, by taking over castles the old fashion way. "WAR" against real players. This takes the luck out of the game and will revive the skill factor.

Just an example from a game in proving grounds

2 SIMONSAYSDIE 1507 / 24 Tribute>1726 (+0)

1507 kills and I've only lost 24 troops! Yet I remain in second place because someone else has had more luck taking over more empty castle's... Battling skills have no signifigant value.

I understand this is from proving grounds where many go inactive. It is just an example of how luck has taken over.

I think increasing all gold/resource values will give good reason to venture from your castle. But finding free castles shouldn't determine the games leaders.


SSD

I agree.
Perhaps slight modification. All castles of players that never move dissappear - no income or points.

For those players that do take some turns, the income from the castle when it is taken over increases depending on how long the player stayed in the game. Let's say 100/turn, so a castle captured from a player that played 10+ turns would potentially be worth 1000, but if a player only played 2 turns it would be worth 200 max.

Just to make things more interesting, when a player takes a castle, it starts "damaged" (like gold mines are when you take them over), with income of 25% of the max. A player would have to use Commandeer actions (about 3 I reckon to repair a 250 income castle back up to 1000.

This also means that "rushing" the castle of a novice player that left it unoccupied near the beginning of the game gives a player less gold than a proper castle taken by force after several turns fighting.

Also, barracks in the castle are destroyed when it is taken over (a good player should operate a scorched earth policy here - we don't want a player to benefit because he is lucky and starts near a novice or inactive).

I also think that the government..empire tech builds should removed. Spending the money is a no brainer but many novices might not do the maths. Perhaps ramp up income, so income from your own castle increases the longer you have held it.

There is a kind of "damage" factor attributed to castles atm.

When you take over a castle the buildings within it are only at 80% strength or so (despite the fact it says 63% when you hover over or click on them). This factor also applied to the points generated by the barracks and is not restored until the barracks / buildings are repaired.

In addition, captured barracks are reset to the default troop types (sword, scout, spear, com) & a base of 4 points when previously a captured barrack retained all the troop techs it's previous owner had bestowed on it (at great expense).

While I agree that inactives give an advantage to those lucky enough to be near them the resetting of inactive castles to be all walled means that you have to devote time and resources to breaking in and eliminating the troops inside - which is a type of penalty and in the early stages of camps can leave you vulnerable.

What I do not agree with is giving all the tribute points for resource buildings that are merely taken over. This eliminates the need to invest in comm stacks to go round & repair them and means all you need to do is send out cheap scout stacks to scoot round and do a simple takeover to get max points.

Yeah I see you point about the castles converted to stone walls - but - it is the castles that newbies vacate, then quit or go inactive that are the real "lucky prizes" for people that happen to start next to them. Reducing the value of these is essential for balance in campaigns.

W.R.T. Barracks, no I think you'll find that you get the upgrades when you take them over (at least when I have taken over a castle I've received the upgrades in the barracks)

W.R.T. Resource buildings - I agree that they should be worth the damage % of their max worth, but I think Req should just change all resource buildings to produce gold, then score it on Gold income.

At the moment the rankings table is a very poor indicator of how well the players are actually doing - it reflects castles, but not gold mines, whilst indicating how many resource buildings the player has bothered to take over. These are useless until the last turn, when they suddenly become all important as they determine your score.

i agree 100% with blood. i really don't like it at all.

the score should be based on how many ppl u kill and the exp u get from killing it.

Said by a true warrior!

Let those bathed in the blood of their enemies be the victors.... except if all they did was wipe out inactives!!

:-/