"Summary of battle" calculation

[erjin999]

Has anyone any idea about how the game calculates who comes at the top of this summry screen, the one that shows at the end of a battle. It assigns a score to everyone, and occasionally the players who performed the best comes around the middle or even the bottom, with people who retreated from the begining to watch being ranked near the top.

I know we dont pay much attention to it but it has been a question I wanted to ask lately.

[attachment archived by Gobalopper]

[Marcel71]

I don't know either. I only watch the dead count..

Most of the time i have the most KILLS  ;D

[erjin999]

I love the kill count IN the game, it looks nice (esp. when I am winning !) but when you go to the summary screen and see your losses are high, it puts a damper on things.

[KALONY]

yerah, sometimes i ve the most kills, the less looses, and most econemy, but im only 2th or something else....duno how it counts.

KALONY

[leo]

I've noticed that if the host was in the team that won he's always gonna be 1st in the summary.

[erjin999]

How shure are you of that leo ?

Maybe I can test this with my bro. Make lots of games with different scenario's....

I was really hoping the modding crew had seen something that indicated how the cummary was calculated.

[Voodoo Daddy]

I have wondered about this as well. And here are two more to ponder. In the lobby when you look at the hosted games, next to the name there is a fraction, 3/157 for example. obviously the three is the number of players, but what is the 157?

Next, when you are in a team game, and you get killed (like what usually happens to me :P) the "puter tells you both in writing and with a voice that "your forces have been defeated" So obviously it recognizes that fact. If it can tell you that, I wonder why it can't include that info in the fed2k ladder? So you could look and see, ahhh, there it is, game 13057998888, team 1, defeated, defeated, defeated. instead of looking at them and wondering what the hell happened.

[erjin999]

Point 1)

157 is the max players allowed in. I will forgive you for not getting that as its a stupidly high number of players, but if we did ever get 157 players online, at once, we could accommedate them. Comforting thought, eh ?

Point 2)

It does show you who won. Red named players lost. Green won.  :D :D

[atrd3m0n]

the game calculates rankings by the amount of losses taken

[desertway]

No one has mentioned buildings yet either. I think it may add in number of buildings you destroyed as well as the number that you built. Even if all these things were taken into account, there is still something wrong with the way it's done. There have been cases where in every measurable category someone has best stats, yet they still are not 1st place. I have also noticed what leo said in that the host tends to get preferential treatment in calculations. I have also been in games where I quit and just watch. Then at the end I end up in 2nd place. That is just too funny to end up 2nd when all you did is retreat. There should be an exception to points and ranking to anyone who retreats or quits. They should automatically get knocked to last place...IMO

[Voodoo Daddy]

Ahhh, ok, Thanks Nunu

[fedaykyn]

It appears to be the won who has the less loses that always wins. It seems to not take into account how many kills you may have..

Weird  :O

[erjin999]

I am shure spice has an effect too as I have seen people with huge economies but crap armies who go on to lose badly still do very well with only their money situation being above others...

I dont think its only losses.

[Schorpie]

IMO : ur points are only based on ur losses

[erjin999]

Can you guys post a few screenies here in games with lots of players (i.e. 3 vs 3/4) so we can see if you are right. I will do the same. If that is correct, the players should be ordered by losses, least first.

[Dragoon Knight]

My friend and I were having this discussion not long ago.  No matter what he did in the LAN games we played, he always came second and I came first.  Even in situations where all of the displayed stats indicated that he did better than me, he would still come 2nd.

There was one game, though, which was really quick.  That time he came first and I second... so it can't be 'host preference'.  I think it has something to do with how much your units are on the move, or how long units stay on a certain terrain type.  Or it could be how much damage you do in proportion to how many units you have.  If the game uses fractions to calculate either of these things, then that would explain how people who have small armies and do little damage can still come out on top, or how someone who retreated at the beginning of the battle can still have a better score than most.

Does everyone see what I mean?  Just my opinion, but I think one of those is the reason for the messed up scores. :)

[erjin999]

Amount of damage compared to the size of your army makes sense. Except it isnt any of the items listed in the summary screen.

If you mean kills then I don think that is the only thing that counts. In fact I think it is obvious it is more then one of those items listed in the summary screen...

[Dragoon Knight]

OK, I gave it a little test.  It seems that my theory does have something to do with the battle calculations.  I didn't manage to get a screenshot... I remember reading somewhere that you need a seperate program to get screenshots from Emperor... but here's the jist of the battle.

I purposely created a small army and defended my base against attack, with occasional excursions.  My friend on the LAN made a huge attack force and went around killing all 6 A.I. with only minor defensive tactics.  The end battle scores still showed that I had a small advantage.  We switched roles in a second game, and it turned out that he was now first.

Here's an example of how I think it works... the numbers might be a bit crazy, but it would still apply for realistic figures.

Person A's Army Size: 500

Person A's Kills: 1000

Person B's Army Size: 100

Person B's Kills: 250

Person A's "Multiplier" = 1000 / 500 = 2

Person B's "Multiplier" = 250 / 100 = 2.5

You see what I mean?  Even with a huge army and killing everyone, you can still be beaten by someone with a small army who kills less.  Bloody ratios. :P

[erjin999]

Losses compared to kills ? Makes sense. What about spice. I will try to test how much spice makes a difference.

I know its not just losses becuase I played a game online and cb had less losses then spazelord but came second.

Edit

---

Something to look at. Notice the game where I come out on top Spaze has done better all around, but I still am number 1. I did host that game.

The other game, notice G0lemsxxx does better on losses and kills, but not on spice, and so I think spice has a big effect. The host gets preferential treatment. The losses and kills do count.Other then that, its one weird system.  :D

[attachment archived by Gobalopper]