Ladder season 2 ended

[jetigig]

They will have access to the translation tools so it would be good if they can keep the english language correct since we make misstakes here and there.

Mistakes like misspelling mistakes! Mistakes only has one s! I'd love to be a moderator. Count me in.

[piranha]

LP: Will write it down. It's a good idea since big FFAs can take while longer than 1on1 on lonely island .

Jetgig:

[KGB]

The calculation is based on this:
15 points per city.
1 point per unit per level
1 point per 100 gold
2 points per building
3 points per hero, 1 per level
(Available in the wiki for ladder)

Why not just base the points entirely on gold value since we know the cost of everything or will assign costs to everything eventually in 0.9 or later.

1 gold = 1 point
hero value = cost to buy (500 for initial hero, whatever you paid for all others so you have to track the cost of each hero). Then add +25% value per level so a L2 hero is 125% of cost to buy, L3 = 150% etc. You are already in 0.9 going to allow buying leveled heroes so what ever formula you use for the level up cost can be the extra gold value if +25% isn't what you planned.
unit value = cost as an ally (right now this is something like 150 for a Wizard and 500 for RD etc). You'll have to put costs on all other units that aren't allies. But you'll be doing that anyway since you plan to offer mercs for hire so just work out a base cost of each unit as an ally/merc. We have months to tweak it once we know the costs of the current allies.
city value = rebuild cost (500 gold+income*5) For the sake of keeping things simple you can ignore wall level in the same way I assume you aren't going to count defense towers/lookout towers. Plus you'd need to track exactly whether the walls came that way from the neutral / another player or were upgraded by the current owner.
city production = 50% of cost to buy (based on 50% pillage). Also I would only credit players for production *they* bought and not for found production in neutrals. Or if you must credit found production credit it at a rate of 25% of cost to buy.
income site = income*5 (same as city income value on a rebuild).
items = cost to buy / value to sell. Many players asking for ability to sell items / buy items so eventually you'll probably add this feature too so why not go ahead and place a gold value on each item. Again there is months to get it all right.

KGB

[Moonknight]

I like that idea KGB, the only thing I'd argue on is the production. Most of the time, cities that come with higher production are *usually* heavier guarded meaning that they are harder to take over. They also provide a significant enough advantage in the long run of game to determining winners.

[KGB]

MoonKnight,

I'd actually argue that higher production cities tend to have fewer defenders. The reason being most players buy good production in their back lines where they need only 1 defender rather than on the front lines where they might be captured. Unless you mean neutral cities with heavy defenders. But in that case don't know if the current city owner is the one who had to kill all neutral defenders or if they just happened to arrive after someone else did the job and they merely killed 1 unit (or found it empty).

I agree such cities *do* provide advantages. But that should already be reflected in the better units in your army (if they produce units like RD/Archons/Devils etc). For example it costs 2400 to buy Big Red. He's valued at half (1200) as city production. If each Big Red unit is worth say 400 gold, then by the time you produce 3 you are break even and after that turning a profit on your investment (assuming all are still alive). So to me the production value at 50% seems right.

KGB

[smursh]

I don't think you can differentiate between production you buy and production that comes with the city when you capture it. Otherwise you get a situation where players who plunder a city, then but something of equal value now have greater value for there city than somebody that just takes a city over. In terms of who is winning the game it doesn't really matter how you got it. The same way a late game hero you pay 1200gp for is worth the same as if you paid 500gp.

[KGB]

Smursh,

You can differentiate. Just keep track of production bought vs production that was there. For example lets say you find a spider city. Spiders cost 800 so 25% value for found production = 200 gold total toward winning. Now if you plundered the city at 50% plunder you'd get 400 gold. But if you then re-bought spiders it would cost 800 (so you are at -400) but the value of bought production is 50% which is 400 so you are even overall for winning points (but out 400 gold in actual game terms). Thus it's better to keep found production than plunder which is true in normal games (games not ending on turn 15 at end of ladder seasons) unless its the last turn before the game ends and you want to plunder at 50% instead of only get 25% value for found production.

If you don't differentiate then you run the risk that someone who gets a bit luckier in what they find in neutral city production gets a big boost thanks to counting all production at 50%. That's why I want to count it at only 25% so it counts less on the winning total.

Heroes will always be worth what you paid. So if you bought a hero for 1200 gold he will be worth 1200 gold. If you bought him for 400 gold he is worth 400 gold. The game will just track the initial cost paid for a hero which is trivial to do.

KGB

[LPhillips]

I don't see enough value in tracking which unit production was purchased by whom (or found initially). That sounds like an area ripe for untrackable bugs and mistakes. I find it highly unlikely that it would be easily programmed, and also unlikely that it would go off without a hitch. The return seems pretty poor. What's the necessity of differentiating in this case? If you scout and take a valuable city then you've earned all of its returns and elements of value. Other players will have equal opportunity or it's a matter of flawed map design.

Essentially all you've suggested is that players who focus on looting ruins and gaining cash should have an advantage over those who choose the strategy of capturing territory first. I really don't think that is justifiable.

I would suggest a 40% overall (actual pillage rate in this game) rather than 50%. Most production is found in any case on most maps.