I've made an update to the way team score is calculated for stations score. It should be in the next patch.

Previously the score was based largely on the total shield bank of bases. It wasn't a great gauge on the strength of a team's bases before, but now with the base shield capacitors its really not very good. Most people with weaker bases are just giving them very large shield bank to make it take longer to kill them. It is artificially changing the stations score.

Now, the stations score is based exclusively on the tech of bases a team deploys. It is not an average, so the more bases of a higher tech that a team deploys, the higher their score.

The current formula is



This code allows for higher tech bases using the same number of slots to always give more stations score.

Station management twenty will give a person four tech twenty and one tech nine base. That will give 32729 points to the stations score. If you choose to go with lower tech stations, five achilles bases will fill the same amount of slots, but will only give you 29160 points.

If you have f2p bases, it would take 30 accounts filled with tech six bases to get the same score as a single character with tech twenty bases.

So now if you want your stations score to go higher, build higher tech bases. If you see any way of abusing this new way for scoring stations score, please tell me.

We are looking at updating all of the team scores so that they give a more accurate representation of team strength. If you have any suggestions of ways to calculate any of the current scores, or new scores that you feel would be important, please list them here.



The administration wants to get emperor runs back in the game. One thing we are considering is to make emperor runs dependent on team score instead of population. Population will still have any effect, but it won't be the sole deciding factor. Post suggestions here. Remember to keep it as simple as possible.

Nice job :]

I think that since it will still be based off of bases that there will be only one deciding factor - pants / traders who wants to pay more so they can run?


I think there should be a massive reward for stopping an emp run, and an even bigger reward for actually completing the emp run.

Looks good and solid, this means higher base building gets promoted. The ppl who take more risks and costs will get rewarded.

I still believe Population should play an important factor, just not as much (Maybe about 15% or so)

This seems like as good a palce as any to post this question - does Member strength include all the people on the list on the team roster on the SS team registry? Because a significant number of those people are not on pants any more but show up on the registry list presumably becasue they never joined another team. If team score will actually mean something I'd like to know what "member strength" entails. It's currently supposed to be a metric of team size, and I theorize it has people that left team counted if they haven't joined another. I'd like to see it count only those people that have logged on in a universe really since some 1/3 of all the chars on pants are people who are inactive with plans to return.

Player scores could be:

Alt score = Alt_level + (Tech_level_highest_tech_ship * diff_mod) + (Tech_level_next_highest_tech_ship * diff_mod) + (Tech_level_next_highest_tech_ship * diff_mod) + (Tech_level_next_highest_tech_ship * diff_mod) + (Tech_level_next_highest_tech_ship * diff_mod) + (100 * sum_of_all_skills / Fudge_factor)

Where diff_mod is a modifier that is used for ships that can't be bought in AI stations. And ships bought in AI stations have a deff_mod = 1.

Where Fudge_factor is TBD for game balance.

Only the 5 highest tech level ships are considered. More could be used if needed for balance.

The team score could be the average of all characters on the team. Or it could be the sum.

Thummper what ever you say is like reading chinese

Anyway there;s some thing's that need to be taken out like

.Outside Trading
.Age
.Member Strength


-Minch-

I think average lvl should be an important factor, it would further encourage the need to lvl alts.

I Think Population and Ownership are key factors as well. ownership should be calculated as a fraction of buildable ownable space and as a percentage of the total population of the uni.

Your new station score sounds great, run with that.

I think mining is trivial and has nothing to do with how strong a team is, I feel it should be removed.

The trading would take alot of work to make balanced I feel. It would have to revolve around a percent of commods etc sold as a whole uni to be balanced, but that is unrealistic to log all trades into calculations, so having them go towards some huge set number would be better.

Loyalty and age are important and help define many teams, however, they should not have as much clat as they do. I can't honestly say taht how old a team is has to do with how strong they are, many teams were older than toxic or JAWSS, but few are stronger. Loyalty on the other hand is a funny topic because it really is a huge factor in how strong a team is, however loyalty isn't merely the difference of leaving or getting booted... I Think loyalty should be related to the amount of each position on the team. If there are hundreds of peons and no officers than it would be low, all officers and ops would be much higher because is shows more trust, trust so great that the teams with scores over 400 don't even mind loosing exp tithe to have officer ranks ; )

Glory rocks, if it is calculated as the average glory of the Ops+ I don't think that it should take in account the up and comers of the teams. As Ops+ glory score isn't important enough to deny good standing players op position.

Now I personally feel that this is how the various scores should be calculated, but I also think that the various scores should be weighted in accordance to true strength of team.

60% of score should be made up of population and ownership and statiosn with about a 20/25/15% respectively. Having alot of galaxy does put you in a very strong position of power because even if they are weakly defended galaxies they are gals where other teams/rivals can't get

Player Strength should make another 15% Although a player's level does not directly relate to the "strength" of a player it does demand a certain amount of respect, and in many cases does symbolize power and strength.

Trading/wealth should make up another 5/5% The ability to make money has a very large impact on a team. If Trading is to count in all base related trades/colony sales it will be a great way to chart wealth and trade aspects of the game.

Loyalty/Glory/Age would make up another 5/5/5%



As it stands now there are 11 categories, meaning that each factor makes up about 9% of a teams score and puts everything on the same lvl where as mine scales what really makes a team strong and there are only 9 skills all of which are actually obtainable and meaningful.


THAT'S MY WORD

Member strength is the total of all the levels of everyone on the team (who are actually on the team) and a lower total gives a higher score. This is to encourage teams to try to do more without being too gigantic.

That being said, I really think we need a team size cap in this game pretty soon so that we can get more smaller teams, rather than the gargantuan behemoths that we are getting now.

Then nerf all ubers? A single very well equipped team should be capable of doing any given Uber ingame...

They already can, pretty much every uber in the game except UZ can be done with like 5-6 players from what I've seen.

hell most of em can be solo'd cept maybe bana from what i have seen/been told

maybe a players score ie made up from the combined skil levels or each member ie w20 p20 s20 dd20 etc

and maybe a uber score ie if if a team memer gets the kill shot of bana queen then thats added to the uber score maybe reset at every new uni
plus maybe include dg boss kills but based on the boss lvl too so no camping low df's to up score this and above would take away a fair bit of base building required by teams just to get a score

DC, Barbe Nior, Albatros, Bana, Lunacy. None of these are solo'd by people that don;t have infinite tweaks. and if UZ gets nerfed it will be too easy to do the lower lvls.. but if team caps are in place emp/lions prolly need a little "balancing"

and even with huge teams you still see new teams get big and old giants die. Imperium is dead, caps is nearly dead, shields, oly, lc, kmk are nothing like what they once were. In their place TFC, JAWSS, Mercs, Toxic have all flourished, although merks are dead now too, traders and pants have been strong forever, and a team cap would likly hurt pants more than anything.. cause as many great players as they have, half arn't on enough to be worth keeping, but if they leave they risk going somewhere against pants etc, lol, basically a team cap would just be a huge nerf to pants, and maybe LC and their f2p chars.