Points system in general

[Geert]

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
 

[YorVeX]

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" 

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.

[ST2]

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 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... 
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

[Geert]

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?

[Batt]

+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 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... 

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.

[ST2]

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...)

[Geert]

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.

[ST2]

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 
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.

[geo]

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

[iSoSyS]

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.

[YorVeX]

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 

[geo]

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

[alex879ro]

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

[Geert]

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

[YorVeX]

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.