SP multiplier for maps and scenarios

There's been a lot of talk about SP farming and maps/scenarios that encourage it. About SP being devalued because of certain scenarios (for example, UN games). Well, in collaboration with Moderators, we have devised a system to balance SP earning. Both maps and scenarios now have SP multipliers that can be set by Moderators to 0% - 150%. But default, currently, all maps and scenarios are set to 100%.

If both map and scenario have multipliers, they are applied separately - for example, if both have SP multiplier of 150%, the total for the game will be 225% (150*150/100). If the map multiplier is 25% and the scenario multiplier is 150%, the total will be 37.5% (25*150/100). If one of them is 0%, the total will always be 0% (no SP earning at all).

The multiplier is displayed in individual map and scenario details, as well as in game info in the lobby and in the SP pool tab in the game.

We hope you understand the reasoning behind this addition. Please be patient with (or try to assist) Moderators in their hard task of balancing maps and scenarios for SP earning.

Cheers!

Ivan | 18.10.2014

Comments page 2 / 2

Comments: 69 Visited by: 470 users

International Posts: 1365	21.10.2014 - 02:03 International Ridiculous scheme... sigh Ivan, full power to mods is a really bad idea. Moderators, and people in general, are rarely fair if they tried, and from the comments here, several are not even trying to be. Hazardouz, administrating bans can't really be done well by a computer. How do you program the game to gauge the severity of rudeness? That is why I have refrained from complaining about it. SP reductions can be done by a program. Writing an algorithm for it shouldn't be that hard. Ivan, I beseech you to leave SP reductions to a fairer judge! Loading... Loading...
Tundy Salt Industries Posts: 5885	21.10.2014 - 06:35 Tundy Written by International, 21.10.2014 at 02:03 Ridiculous scheme... sigh Ivan, full power to mods is a really bad idea. Moderators, and people in general, are rarely fair if they tried, and from the comments here, several are not even trying to be. Hazardouz, administrating bans can't really be done well by a computer. How do you program the game to gauge the severity of rudeness? That is why I have refrained from complaining about it. SP reductions can be done by a program. Writing an algorithm for it shouldn't be that hard. Ivan, I beseech you to leave SP reductions to a fairer judge! A mod can ban your ip and account permanently with no reason what so ever, and you worry about one of them reducing the sp of a map by 25%? Loading... Loading...
Safari Victorious Secret Posts: 2545 From: Austria	21.10.2014 - 07:23 Safari Written by International, 21.10.2014 at 02:03 Ridiculous scheme... sigh Ivan, full power to mods is a really bad idea. Moderators, and people in general, are rarely fair if they tried, and from the comments here, several are not even trying to be. Hazardouz, administrating bans can't really be done well by a computer. How do you program the game to gauge the severity of rudeness? That is why I have refrained from complaining about it. SP reductions can be done by a program. Writing an algorithm for it shouldn't be that hard. Ivan, I beseech you to leave SP reductions to a fairer judge! I agree with you, that no human being can make totally fair decisions. But we try it and for now this system is good enough. It works good and we didn't have to wait long, because it is a small feature. I personally can just imagine a very complex solution to make it totally fair. Therefore I prefer the current one. What kind of algorithm for balancing the SP multiplier are you suggesting? ---- Loading... Loading...
Safari Victorious Secret Posts: 2545 From: Austria	21.10.2014 - 08:56 Safari Written by clovis1122, 21.10.2014 at 07:58 One that compare the amount of cities and reinforcements with the available ones in default map maybe? Sounds good, but I would not let the income influence the result, since the battle system doesn't care about your income. It just takes all battles into account (more reinforcement = more battles). But we can add some penalties if the income is too high. Let me give you an example of how I would do it: revenue = avg( dr ) / avg( cr ) dr ... default map reinforcement --> the sum of all reinforcements of all cities on the default map or ... compared map reinforcement --> the sum of all reinforcements on your map example default map has 100 cities with 450 reinforcements alltogether and yours 30 cities with 150 reinforcement revenue = (450 / 100) / (150 / 30) = 0.9 --> your map has a value of 90% If we want to add the income to that then i would do it afterwards and now do the same calculation with the income as we did with the reinforcement and just subtract the difference to 1 example part 2 default map has an overall income of 20k and yours 7k income_revenue = (20k / 100) / (7k / 30) = 0.86 final_revenue = 0.9 - (1 - 0.86) = 0.76 Additionally I would add an upper limit of 120%. So that people are forced to make their maps more similar to the default map according to values. ---- Loading... Loading...
clovis1122 Epic Clan Posts: 9043 From: Dominican Republic	21.10.2014 - 09:03 clovis1122 Written by Safari, 21.10.2014 at 08:56 Written by clovis1122, 21.10.2014 at 07:58 One that compare the amount of cities and reinforcements with the available ones in default map maybe? Sounds good, but I would not let the income influence the result, since the battle system doesn't care about your income. It just takes all battles into account (more reinforcement = more battles). But we can add some penalties if the income is too high. Let me give you an example of how I would do it: revenue = avg( dr ) / avg( cr ) dr ... default map reinforcement --> the sum of all reinforcements of all cities on the default map or ... compared map reinforcement --> the sum of all reinforcements on your map example default map has 100 cities with 450 reinforcements alltogether and yours 30 cities with 150 reinforcement revenue = (450 / 100) / (150 / 30) = 0.9 --> your map has a value of 90% If we want to add the income to that then i would do it afterwards and now do the same calculation with the income as we did with the reinforcement and just subtract the difference to 1 example part 2 default map has an overall income of 20k and yours 7k income_revenue = (20k / 100) / (7k / 30) = 0.86 final_revenue = 0.9 - (1 - 0.86) = 0.76 Additionally I would add an upper limit of 120%. So that people are forced to make their maps more similar to the default map according to values. I totally support this way of do. Oh about the default map, the available reinforcements is 1943, and the income in total is 34,825. More information here... Loading... Loading...
International Posts: 1365	22.10.2014 - 06:15 International The Kingmaker, as I have said earlier, the reason I don't complain about moderators' ability to give bans is because I don't see any better authority to give bans. Computer programs are a very poor judge for this sort of things. Safari, in a few hours, you already have a decent start to developing such an algorithm. I think that if you continue that discussion with Epic_win with more players, you'll answer your own question in under a week. Loading... Loading...
clovis1122 Epic Clan Posts: 9043 From: Dominican Republic	22.10.2014 - 07:05 clovis1122 Written by International, 22.10.2014 at 06:15 Safari, in a few hours, you already have a decent start to developing such an algorithm. I think that if you continue that discussion with Epic_win with more players, you'll answer your own question in under a week. However, until there is an algorithm, the next suggestion can really reduce the amount of unfair SP multiplier: •) No boost any map. •) Discussion between Mods before apply SP multiplier - this is happening now. •) Warn the MapMarker before charge his SP multiplier. 12 hours or 3 days would be a reasonable time. And making a poll in forum about an scenario would be good as well. Loading... Loading...
Warmonger Dak Warmongers Inc. Posts: 335 From: USA	22.10.2014 - 10:15 Warmonger Dak This is good and all, but there seems to be discussion on putting limits on how map makers can make their maps. I do not agree with this. I am making maps for fun, not sp, I play games for sp. I do feel one map should not gain you more sp then another map, and sp should be balanced between maps. As well your actions and how you play the game should be what gains you more sp from one game to another, instead of being determined by which map you play. I do not feel putting restrictions or forcing mapmakers (to quote Safari) on how to make maps is a solution to the sp factor of the game. Mapmakers should be free to create whatever map they want, how they want and somehow, such as an algorithm, should what keeps the sp balanced between maps, not willy nilly mods and mapmakers. ---- "The edge is never very far away, when you're hanging on by your fingernails." © Loading... Loading...
Tundy Salt Industries Posts: 5885	22.10.2014 - 10:30 Tundy Written by clovis1122, 22.10.2014 at 07:05 Written by International, 22.10.2014 at 06:15 Safari, in a few hours, you already have a decent start to developing such an algorithm. I think that if you continue that discussion with Epic_win with more players, you'll answer your own question in under a week. However, until there is an algorithm, the next suggestion can really reduce the amount of unfair SP multiplier: •) No boost any map. •) Discussion between Mods before apply SP multiplier - this is happening now. •) Warn the MapMarker before charge his SP multiplier. 12 hours or 3 days would be a reasonable time. And making a poll in forum about an scenario would be good as well. Warning a map maker before the map gets nerf serves no purpose, can you state any positive outcome from doing this? Its most likely gonna result in the map maker trashing the mods in forum. fixing the map? Changing the reinforcements, income and cities; will destroy any balance that the map maker had in place, the SP nerf is faster, more accurate, and can always be overturned. Loading... Loading...
Tundy Salt Industries Posts: 5885	22.10.2014 - 12:15 Tundy Written by clovis1122, 22.10.2014 at 11:25 Written by Tundy, 22.10.2014 at 10:30 Warning a map maker before the map gets nerf serves no purpose, can you state any positive outcome from doing this? Its most likely gonna result in the map maker trashing the mods in forum. fixing the map? Changing the reinforcements, income and cities; will destroy any balance that the map maker had in place, the SP nerf is faster, more accurate, and can always be overturned. Yes, because: 1) If the MapMarker got warned and he didnt charged his map, then is his own fault. That mean, the SP multiplier will not be arbitrary anymore. 2) If it had any balance then the MapMarker can argue about the % of SP. He can also bring statics and comparions with default map and his map. 1) he can't, balancing is not easy, ask any good map maker. 2) balance =/= sp Loading... Loading...
Tundy Salt Industries Posts: 5885	22.10.2014 - 12:50 Tundy Written by clovis1122, 22.10.2014 at 12:22 Written by Tundy, 22.10.2014 at 12:15 1) he can't, balancing is not easy, ask any good map maker. 2) balance =/= sp I am sure he can do the try You are clearly trying to impose your opinion in a matter that you have no idea about. Ask ANY map maker, its easier to implement a SP reduction than to change the map manually to suit the expected SP, and the reduction has no permanent effect unlike manually changing city values in the map. I provided you with reasons why notifying the map maker won't work and it would just be a waste of time, yet you insist in defending your stance, even when it doesn't benefit anybody but your ego. Loading... Loading...
Tundy Salt Industries Posts: 5885	22.10.2014 - 16:05 Tundy Written by notserral, 22.10.2014 at 14:43 We have the average SP per player of all maps, so we tweak the maps towards more reasonable SP gains. clovis, the masters behind the curtain have already made a decision, it doesn't matter how much you lobby for RP and Ancient World, you can't cheat the mods. At the end, the average folk wins, not some Narb that holds grudges towards the competitive community and high ranks. If what pulse says is true, reducing SP won't need discussion because a calculation independent from any mod bias will be the one that decides the SP needed to be reduced. Loading... Loading...
clovis1122 Epic Clan Posts: 9043 From: Dominican Republic	22.10.2014 - 16:21 clovis1122 You have failed to provide reasons about why no. My argument stands as long as there is only 1 MapMarker that would fix his map for adjust it to the SP. In the same way you can review your exam if you think the teacher is wrong. But since you want to keep arguing about off-topic I'l just leave you alone Loading... Loading...
Tundy Salt Industries Posts: 5885	22.10.2014 - 17:31 Tundy Written by clovis1122, 22.10.2014 at 16:21 You have failed to provide reasons about why no. My argument stands as long as there is only 1 MapMarker that would fix his map for adjust it to the SP. In the same way you can review your exam if you think the teacher is wrong. But since you want to keep arguing about off-topic I'l just leave you alone Iies, i already provided you with reasons, you choose to ignore them. Besides there is no wrong method to nerf SP, but some methods are less effective than others. Your method happens to be the least effective. Your example is terrible because the student is not correcting the answers, he is merely checking that the teacher's method is right. Using the same context, this would be a better example: One teacher graded the tests of all students in group A. Most students of group A got at least one answer wrong, he needs to find an effective way to help students from group A, get a perfect score. the teacher returned all the graded tests to the students in group A, but he removed the checkmarks in a way in which none of the students can tell which answers they got right or wrong. He has two options: Option A) he gives all the students an answer sheet. Option B) he allows the students to make changes to their test and submit it until eventually they get all the questions right. Which option do you think is more effective? Loading... Loading...
Quantum027 First Order Posts: 1201 From: USA	23.10.2014 - 11:52 Quantum027 Reporting mod input bug, adog's RP map is set at 50% but since its played using the neutral scenario it boosts it to 56%, this makes me laugh, just letting yall know if you want to fix it Loading... Loading...
Google Shadow Aces Posts: 2705 From: USA	08.11.2014 - 09:25 Google Amok should concider making the SP multiplier automatic, so then there won't even be this debate. Although it would be difficult, It would be a few valueble thing to have. As far as I know, I trust the mods ---- Helpful Guides Loading... Loading...
Black Shark Account deleted	09.11.2014 - 05:19 Black Shark Account deleted Written by Quantum027, 23.10.2014 at 11:52 Reporting mod input bug, adog's RP map is set at 50% but since its played using the neutral scenario it boosts it to 56%, this makes me laugh, just letting yall know if you want to fix it 75 now Loading... Loading...
Quantum027 First Order Posts: 1201 From: USA	09.11.2014 - 10:44 Quantum027 Written by Google, 08.11.2014 at 09:25 Amok should concider making the SP multiplier automatic, so then there won't even be this debate. Although it would be difficult, It would be a few valueble thing to have. As far as I know, I trust the mods problem is that maps need to be looked at to determine SP multiplier, just having some set value doesnt work because every map is different. Loading... Loading...
Google Shadow Aces Posts: 2705 From: USA	09.11.2014 - 18:21 Google Well having some sort of formula to determine the units cost/attack, countries income, starting income, ect. Although it would be difficult, It would be a few valueble thing to have. ---- Helpful Guides Loading... Loading...

Hits total: 107887 | This month: 1106