Re: [VANILLA-LIST:3128] changing the winning conditions for clue games

[Dave Ahn <ahn@vec.wfubmc.edu>]

On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 02:15:34PM -0600, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> 
> > Here is one possible formula:
> >
> > team1_points = (team2_army_def - team1_army_def) * 2 + team1_army_surplus.
> 
> > 4) Army stashing gives points, but using those armies gives a relatively
> >    larger number of points.
> 
> Whad I'd be worried about is seeing this encourage stashing even MORE than
> it is now.  As it stands, a team could choose between a guaranteed five
> points for leaving the armies on the planet, or a possible ten for dropping.
> (Or zero, if the count is taken while the armies are on board the carrier.)
> Maybe just adjusting the army_def multiplier upwards would be enough.

Well, we could include armies onboard to count towards army_surplus.  Also,
The upside would be 20 points since you gain 10 while the enemy loses 10.
And yes, we could adjust the army_def multiplier.  We could even remove the
army_surplus so that it gives no points at all, but I think some credit
should be given to a team that does ASW or bombing well.

> Obviously in any such scheme you'd want a very fine-grained timer so that
> you don't introduce a "playing the clock" factor where teams try to time
> their takes just before the score update.

I was thinking of updating every tick (10/sec) but the interval can probably
be reduced to once every 10 ticks (1/sec).  The results would be normalized
of course.  A score of 123,456,789 vs 123,456,788 would be a bit absurd.  :)

-- 
Dave Ahn <ahn@vec.wfubmc.edu>        |  "When you were born, you cried and the
                                     |  world rejoiced.  Try to live your life
Virtual Endoscopy Center             |  so that when you die, you will rejoice
Wake Forest Univ. School of Medicine |  and the world will cry."  -1/2 jj^2