n-ice.org OpenTTD Forum
Administration => Complaints => Topic started by: Geert on July 25, 2012, 11:31:57 am
-
I dont know if this belongs in Complaints or suggestions
I really dont understand how points are rewarded for games and I dont think its a fair system after I Finished at least 15 long server games now.
2 weeks ago at the admin tournment I worked my ass off and played like 8 hours in a row with only minimal brakes to get it done. I made like 700 mil a year with asiastar trains only and got rewarded with 348 points (oke thats not bad)
At that point I didnt understand why i didnt get much more points for a in my point of view a more impressive game then other games i played that week.
2 days ago I started a game with no intention to win and I was very lazy. Only build one pax line with 8 stations and about 50 trains. And had some planes. Thats only 1.5 hour of building. AFter that I was afk for about 30 game years and when I waked up the next morning I was surprised my company was still there. Changed my line to maglev and made almost 300 mil with a year. AFter that I left again for work for almost 20 game years. When I got back I won the game.
I got rewarded with 397 points for almost doing nothing!! I was I think 60 game years afk of the 80 years my company existed and most of the play time I was chatting with other players.
The difference between those game is so enormous that I had to write it down here.
hard labour + high income + fast game = relative low points
Sleeping and talking + mediocre income + long game = high points
-
as you might imagine the score system works with mathematical formulas. it's a bit hard to tell why the algorithm didn't find a specific game as "impressive" as you, basically because it does not know a term such as "impressive" :P
but let's be serious. what i will do is look at the exact values that were used to calculate the score for both games (later when i got access to the database) and compare them. then i might be able to explain the scoring in these two cases and maybe use this knowledge to improve the formula.
i will report my findings here.
-
some types of "lazy" games are only possible because found_town = 1. This create a gameplay where players don't adapt theirselfs to the map (towns/cities in this case) making only some towns like this (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/48606680/Selection175021577.png) and tracks connecting them (imo, this layout makes difficult a effective competition on towns). Don't have a clue if it's possible to adjust the formula for this, only saying how it's possible to make "lazy" games... ;D
So, maybe the solutions could be:
- xOR finds a way to balance the formula (I've no ideia how)
- Change to found_town = 0 (personally I don't like to "only" disable things... but it's a option) - Edit: The same principle applies to #8)
- Forbid town founding in player own roads and/or somehow avoid the "town cutting" stations
For now this is what i can think off. Other ideias are welcome
-
in my last game I didnt fund any towns so I ''used'' the map
the town you see there was only really small when i started my stations there so thats not the point
and with the system i use I dont ''own'' more then 50% of a town like the rules state
If i build 2 stations like that on any other city without using tunnels like other people do!! would that be better?
-
+1 to Geert. I guess he got so many points because he used only 80-85 trains.
some types of "lazy" games are only possible because found_town = 1. This create a gameplay where players don't adapt theirselfs to the map (towns/cities in this case) making only some towns like this (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/48606680/Selection175021577.png) and tracks connecting them (imo, this layout makes difficult a effective competition on towns). Don't have a clue if it's possible to adjust the formula for this, only saying how it's possible to make "lazy" games... ;D
You can do same with the original cities, exactly as Geert did. As for competition, he didn't took more than 50% on that screenshot. Yes, other players can't place the station as great as he did, but he was there first, so he deserves the best spot. It's like covering two mines with one station, while other players can cover only one at the time. On the screenshot, there is a lot of room for several big stations.
If i build 2 stations like that on any other city without using tunnels like other people do!! would that be better?
No, because normally stations block the city, your road tunnels under the stations only help to grow the city further, so the other player can compete with you.
-
in my last game I didnt fund any towns so I ''used'' the map
the town you see there was only really small when i started my stations there so thats not the point
and with the system i use I dont ''own'' more then 50% of a town like the rules state
If i build 2 stations like that on any other city without using tunnels like other people do!! would that be better?
I still have to disagree on this:
- If was a small town and you've built all those roads around it - trusting the original town roads was max 9x9 tiles, viewable in the center - isn't it more then 50%?
So, this is preciselly the point (or one of the...)
-
now you are going on about my ''lazy'' game but thats not the point I could easily made 300 mil with other trains (other goods). Maybe I need 30 more trains for that but still i would have a big lazy game.
Lets say I only use what is of a village the 9 x9 what in the centre, build the 2 big station beside it and wait. I will only take about 2 years longer to grow that big.
And besides when i use a city like this it grows so fast at the start that i only have more than 50% the first 3 years I use a city after that other people come and build airfields and stuff
The city on the picture has like 90% free space to use for everyone
When i fund a city this way most of the time 10% of the buildings are already at the free side of the station at the start and cities expand really fast trough all sides.
-
then i'll add a new suggestion option:
- decrease the town_growth_rate value (can be combined with previous ones, not exclusive)
meanwhile, "lazy games" was a expression used at the moment... I make them a lot too :P
my intention here is to balance things (for now, passengers are totally unbalanced) and I'm not against your station's style but i can't agree with all roads around the town's original ones. Or we can create a exception: - 50% of free space don't count on small towns!
now I'll use Batt's words: "other players can't place the station as great as he did" <<-- this is unfair, when you think that actually happens in towns and industries.
-
Boys with toys...what to say...
ofc, geert is right at some point, but i don't think that the problem is a 'lazy' game or a spectacular one... maybe the 'awards' system needs some modifications...i dunno how to explain this...so don't mind my opinion :)
-
Doing a fast search on DB I find two interesting things about these games. In your lazy game you took 78 year to reach the goal, a difference of 11 years when compared with Admins tournament(67 years). So you took 78 with 82 trains and 67 with 241. But the main difference between both is that, in admin T., your played with batt and in you lazy game you played alone.
-
just wanted to start investigating but Myhorta was faster, good ;)
i don't see that he played with batt, both games were only with 1 member. but the ratio of vehicles to the time you needed to win is the important factor here, because taking "only a bit longer" with "significantly less material" means more efficiency and efficiency is what gets you better scores.
imagine there would be a noob plastering the map with 2000 stations that are working really bad while you are placing only 200 but with a very good design. you both make the same income. if we weren't looking for efficiency that would mean the noob would get a 10 times better score than you. he was "working harder", right? not being lazy.
but that's not what it is about. we care for results, not how much you were sweating on the way to the result ;)
-
Myhorta, i have to disagree with u on just one thing: he played alone in the admin tournament, he played against me&alex, batt, st2&der_herr
-
Myhorta is right. Btw St2, i don`t agree with Found_Town=0 because if you start the game in 2000 (after 40 years) the number of industries dramatically decreased so basically you need to fund industries and you can`t start searching all over the map on where are the places where industries dissapeared so you can fund a new.It`s simpler to fund a town and then fund an industry even if...it`s quite expensive. However, i would agree with Town Growth Rate decrease.
As for Geert`s complaint, i would advise him to record his data more accurate (no of trains, duration of game, duration of his company.......) and the answers will come themselves
-
after the admin game I played the map alone and changed everything to maglev 4
with the same tracks I made a whopping 1.4 billion a year with only 300 trains
I think I would have made at least 500 points if we started our tournment in 2020 with that amount of work
The point I try to make is this. Its harder to get points with slower trains (the 450 asiastars) while the game ends very fast its not possible to be efficient.
Playing good at the start of the game is not awarded
Doing a fast search on DB I find two interesting things about these games. In your lazy game you took 78 year to reach the goal, a difference of 11 years when compared with Admins tournament(67 years). So you took 78 with 82 trains and 67 with 241. But the main difference between both is that, in admin T., your played with batt and in you lazy game you played alone.
it took me 53 years with 450 trains (not 67 years)
it took me 78 years with 74 lev4 trains they made 300 mil a year
the 450 asiastars made 700 mil
I played in both games alone
-
have you seen my above explanations? as i have pointed out scoring is much about efficiency. and yes, we all know that the newer trains are more efficient. so you're right about your observations, that's just a logical consequence.
i could counter that in the algorithm by making it so that a later start date gets you some penalty. but you should keep in mind: the longer the game is running already the lower the chance a player will still start a company and join the game. it's a general problem with OpenTTD that servers are often getting empty at the end, because they don't attract any more players. so lowering the score for them would even be an additional penalty.
it is of absolutely no use if a player joining late would know "oh well, if i had started earlier i would get an advantage". he is here to play NOW and he cannot travel back in time anyway. the question is only whether he is attracted to still join this advanced game (maybe even completely without winning chances) and fill the server for some more competition or he leaves again. an extra score penalty for him is the wrong thing here.
also you can't rely on situations as you had them before: you can join and be afk most of the time but another player who is playing more actively might come and win the game when you only reached 40%. no winner bonus for you and only 40% - gone is your theory about making big scores the lazy way all the time.
-
Myhorta is right. Btw St2, i don`t agree with Found_Town=0 because if you start the game in 2000 (after 40 years) the number of industries dramatically decreased so basically you need to fund industries and you can`t start searching all over the map on where are the places where industries dissapeared so you can fund a new.It`s simpler to fund a town and then fund an industry even if...it`s quite expensive. However, i would agree with Town Growth Rate decrease.
As for Geert`s complaint, i would advise him to record his data more accurate (no of trains, duration of game, duration of his company.......) and the answers will come themselves
Only to clear out my opinion/suggestions:
- lets seperate primary industries from secundary industries among other important things:
* primary industries decrease production because not served... if on the "delete" level, they'll disappear, as you noticed and I've warned you about a situation - it's a "some" random code stuff --;
* -- Same random stuff that makes a 0 pop town grow up, even if have 5 named stations transporting coal; (this parts are funny, but real :P)
* secundary industries disappear after some time if not served;
* if you start late, where do you have cash to fund a town and a industry to get a propper profit, as you stated?; (lets NOT give unfair advantages to late starters - they started late... must adapt to the game);
* continuation of the previous point: what you build for late starts? Pax service! (hope you're getting my point now);
* it's not other players fault that you'd started in late years, with all advantages of new trains (actual loan allows you that). So, lets try to make game with some advantage to older companies (logical) but with oportunities for new companies;
I could continue and give many reasons... but no need, i think...
-
Myhorta is right. Btw St2, i don`t agree with Found_Town=0 because if you start the game in 2000 (after 40 years) the number of industries dramatically decreased so basically you need to fund industries and you can`t start searching all over the map on where are the places where industries dissapeared so you can fund a new.It`s simpler to fund a town and then fund an industry even if...it`s quite expensive. However, i would agree with Town Growth Rate decrease.
As for Geert`s complaint, i would advise him to record his data more accurate (no of trains, duration of game, duration of his company.......) and the answers will come themselves
Only to clear out my opinion/suggestions:
- lets seperate primary industries from secundary industries among other important things:
* primary industries decrease production because not served... if on the "delete" level, they'll disappear, as you noticed and I've warned you about a situation - it's a "some" random code stuff --;
* -- Same random stuff that makes a 0 pop town grow up, even if have 5 named stations transporting coal; (this parts are funny, but real :P)
* secundary industries disappear after some time if not served;
* if you start late, where do you have cash to fund a town and a industry to get a propper profit, as you stated?; (lets NOT give unfair advantages to late starters - they started late... must adapt to the game);
* continuation of the previous point: what you build for late starts? Pax service! (hope you're getting my point now);
* it's not other players fault that you'd started in late years, with all advantages of new trains (actual loan allows you that). So, lets try to make game with some advantage to older companies (logical) but with oportunities for new companies;
I could continue and give many reasons... but no need, i think...
geez, ST2, u think too much(answer to the challenge)
-
geez, ST2, u think too much(answer to the challenge)
yup, better than the opposite :P (re-answer to the challenge)
-
lol
geo.ro is right about you thinking too much ;)
But I agree on decreasing pop growed especialy on server 8
Before I started this topic I knew it would be very hard change anything. Its not like I wanted things to change now but I only wanted to give give stuff for you to think about.
I think the penalty thing is a good idea on longer server, most players who play on s5 or s8 dont bother with the end at all because they dont know how to make a 100 mil a year anyway.
-
I think the penalty thing is a good idea on longer server, most players who play on s5 or s8 dont bother with the end at all because they dont know how to make a 100 mil a year anyway.
For the 'most players' I must add that they don't care about winning the game, but they are enjoying that it is a long server and their stuff and effort won't be lost after several years as any Cossack or ST2 will come on the short goal servers. It's not fun for a lot of players to start over every hour, if they're not competing directly :)
* if you start late, where do you have cash to fund a town and a industry to get a propper profit, as you stated?; (lets NOT give unfair advantages to late starters - they started late... must adapt to the game);
* continuation of the previous point: what you build for late starts? Pax service! (hope you're getting my point now);
So, +1 for the slight penalty. It may seem that starting late is harder because resources are depleted, BUT... there are two cases:
1. It's a late game, but there are active companies who developed resource production ->> compete them for resources
2. It's a late game and server is empty with no resources ->> !voterestart and play. This will attract more players by the way.
In the 1st case it's even easier. Cities are usually grew too. Lot's of resources, fast trains = easy game.
-
In the 1st case it's even easier. Cities are usually grew too. Lot's of resources, fast trains = easy game.
I don't want easy games for some when others had lots of work... "Points system" was the original subject and since that's directly connected to server balance, Batt, what's your suggestion(s)?
-
I don't want easy games for some when others had lots of work... "Points system" was the original subject and since that's directly connected to server balance, Batt, what's your suggestion(s)?
1. Suggestion is to add a penalty for the late starts.
2. As for the initial question, my suggestion is to take quarterly pure income (it's possible to extract this, right?) into account together with vehicle count.
I think it's a great sign of the overall efficiency. E.g. 250 mil income / 400 trains vs 75 mil income / 80 trains. It will be 0,65mil vs 0,93mil factor, the difference is not that mad if comparing to only 400 trains vs 80 trains.
-
2. As for the initial question, my suggestion is to take quarterly pure income (it's possible to extract this, right?) into account together with vehicle count.
I think it's a great sign of the overall efficiency. E.g. 250 mil income / 400 trains vs 75 mil income / 80 trains. It will be 0,65mil vs 0,93mil factor, the difference is not that mad if comparing to only 400 trains vs 80 trains.
taking the income at time X has some problems. what if you do a monorail conversion and have all your services stopped while another player wins the game? your income would be really bad at this time and your score would suck.
so we would need to maintain an average value of all quarterly incomes over time. the problem is that you cannot query historic data from the OpenTTD server, only the current value. xShunter would have to query the current value every quarter and track it. i didn't implement such things in xShunter for a simple reason: when we got a crash of xShunter and it is restarted e.g. 1 game year later you got absolutely no data of that year anymore (and even the historic data needed to be saved and restored after the crash, not an easy task). so score calculations could get affected by operational/infrastructural problems on the server - something that we don't have now and i'd also like to avoid in the future.
as for the vehicle count: that is already considered (and the reason why Geert got more points for his "lazy" game). it also works as penalty, because before we had this some players cheated the score system by buying lots of unused vehicles at the end of the game to boost their company values.
-
taking the income at time X has some problems. what if you do a monorail conversion and have all your services stopped while another player wins the game? your income would be really bad at this time and your score would suck.
so we would need to maintain an average value of all quarterly incomes over time. the problem is that you cannot query historic data from the OpenTTD server, only the current value. xShunter would have to query the current value every quarter and track it. i didn't implement such things in xShunter for a simple reason: when we got a crash of xShunter and it is restarted e.g. 1 game year later you got absolutely no data of that year anymore (and even the historic data needed to be saved and restored after the crash, not an easy task). so score calculations could get affected by operational/infrastructural problems on the server - something that we don't have now and i'd also like to avoid in the future.
I mean there is a graph in the OpenTTD that counts only the pure income, not the company profit. It is stored as 'income' in the CompanyEconomyEntry structure. As far as I understand, you're already taking CV and perf. score from the current CompanyEconomyEntry, that is calculating quarterly. If you're taking two values from there each quarter, I thought that you can take the other one too.
-
it seems you haven't read my text. read again ;)
-
;D okay, I just misunderstood why do even need to keep track of it.
Number of points does matters only at the end of the game. Income is like the perf. score, that goes up and down. No one stops the service or converts rails right before the end, since you can't win when you're not delivering cargo. I think perf. goal is a good safeguard in that case.
-
No one stops the service or converts rails right before the end, since you can't win when you're not delivering cargo
it was rather about "right before someone else wins". maybe you missed the last goal announcements because you're focused on the game and you didn't notice how close another player came to winning the game when starting your conversion.
it only needs to happen once and we will have just the same thread like this one, where someone does not understand what has happened and complains about wrong/unfair score calculation.
Income is like the perf. score, that goes up and down.
it might go up and down but not as much as income in some certain situations.
another thing is that i think the income idea misses the task you want to accomplish. the income has the same problem as all other values: you can raise it faster when you join later and start with better trains.
furthermore it would be redundant. we already measure the income indirectly by taking the time you needed to win the game into account. if you get 50 million in 10 years and someone else needed 5 years for 50 million apparently he had twice your income (average over time) - which makes later-joiners benefit who naturally need less time to get the same income, as they can start right away with better trains, hence get a better score. now if you additionally consider the income you increase the advantage of the late-joiner even more.
let alone the fact that i still don't agree with the idea to penalize late-joiners in general. Geert has only shown one special case where apparently he wasn't being competed during his AFK time. ofc this can happen but special situations will lead to special scores, nothing unusual about that. he just got lucky i guess.
what Geert has shown is that you get a better score when
- you're in luck that the server just started (and/or is empty) the moment where you still got some time to set up some good lines for 1 our 2 hours before you need to go AFK (school, work, sleep...)
- you're in luck again that when your AFK time ends the game is near the end and you just need to do one last big coup like conversion to mono or maglev
- you're in luck once more that nobody has been competing you during AFK time
- you play on long run servers (it really doesn't make a big difference on shorter servers)
there is so many things that just have to match by good fortune that i still don't see why i should change a formula that has calculated thousands of games in a way that complaints are relatively low. actually the fact that issues are only found on such special cases confirms me that the current formula is good (there exists no such thing as a perfect algorithm that has some disadvantages in specific situations).
whatever change i make to this formula has a big chance of breaking fairness in hundreds of other games - only for fixing this one thing Geert encountered. i have yet to see a good reason to take that risk.
-
well thanx for the answer Yorvex
I can live with that :)
I am glad its been discussed anyway, now I know some answers about how things work, or why things are working like it does.
-
I have thought of a solution for the lower points for bigger games.
Sell 2/3 or 3/4 of all the trains short before the end and you will be veery ''efficient'' and get a crap load of points :)
-
Well, WTF from South Africa did that. And ST2 banned him....and i agree with that...if i`d caught someone selling his trains right at the end just to score more points , i`d ban too.
As for your idea of penalizing late entries...I just got one question....WHY?
It`s hard enough for a player having to catch up....but being penalized....seems totally unfair...and also will ruin the number of players that actually try to catch up even if the oponent is far ahead.
Beside...xor is right...as soon as he changes the calculation formula ,a new thread will appear asking him to get back to the old formula.
-
In the 1st case it's even easier. Cities are usually grew too. Lot's of resources, fast trains = easy game.
I don't want easy games for some when others had lots of work... "Points system" was the original subject and since that's directly connected to server balance, Batt, what's your suggestion(s)?
St2, you were the one to propose all the changes on server 6. I agreed with you cause you play there so you know better. And now...just cause server 6 is hard, you think all the others have to be? Our most popular 3 servers are 3,5 and 8 , none of them being hard. So making the settings harder on them will mean one thing: Losing the players.
-
Well, WTF from South Africa did that. And ST2 banned him....and i agree with that...if i`d caught someone selling his trains right at the end just to score more points , i`d ban too.
As for your idea of penalizing late entries...I just got one question....WHY?
It`s hard enough for a player having to catch up....but being penalized....seems totally unfair...and also will ruin the number of players that actually try to catch up even if the oponent is far ahead.
Beside...xor is right...as soon as he changes the calculation formula ,a new thread will appear asking him to get back to the old formula.
dont worry alex
my pride of having a nice system full of trains is bigger then my will to score an extra 50 points ;)
-
Well, WTF from South Africa did that. And ST2 banned him....and i agree with that...if i`d caught someone selling his trains right at the end just to score more points , i`d ban too.
As for your idea of penalizing late entries...I just got one question....WHY?
It`s hard enough for a player having to catch up....but being penalized....seems totally unfair...and also will ruin the number of players that actually try to catch up even if the oponent is far ahead.
Beside...xor is right...as soon as he changes the calculation formula ,a new thread will appear asking him to get back to the old formula.
dont worry alex
my pride of having a nice system full of trains is bigger then my will to score an extra 50 points ;)
i think the case with WTF was before we had the logics that vehicles decrease your score and he did the opposite: buy lots of unused trains short before end. this boosted both his company value and the score. that's not possible anymore.
about the problem you described: you forget that you can't do that to the full extend. if you almost reached the goal and now sell most of your trains you will also lose a LOT of company value and suddenly reaching the goal isn't so close anymore. and without your trains you will also lose a lot of income so you won't get to the goal soon. and if you don't win until the end of the quarter all your performance scores will also drop. so yes, this can be used for cheating, but not as easily and as much as you might think.
also you can get caught easily. the cheating can even be seen 2 months later just by looking at the database. because i see with how many trains you finished and how long you took. with your trick your ratio of game length to the number vehicles you had will be obviously differing from the average, probably by something as high as 500%. i already have plans to search for such anomalies automatically and if we find your account ALL your scores will be reset. if you're lucky. otherwise you also get a ban and/or the whole account deleted.
so the risk is quite high.
i hope this all doesn't sound to you like i don't want to do changes to the score algorithm at all. it's just that it's not an easy thing and for every change with a positive effect on one side you can get a negative effect on the other (in worst case without noticing it). additionally a bigger change to the score system also means a score reset - obviously something we don't want to do too often. more explanations on that and also some good ideas are on this thread: http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum/index.php?topic=54.0