Im wondering about scoring balance,
For example, the rules state example:
(example : 25 tiles <= 1 times. 50 tiles <= 1.5 times. 75 tiles <= 2 times etc).
I noticed that the leaderboard currently returns:
Bot ID + percentage of the map the player controls,
Does this mean that regardless of what happened in the game, the player with the most Territory in the end wins?
If that is the case then rewarding players for taking more risk is meaningless.
I think it would be better to use an overall score at the end,
An Alternative thought is to maybe give users score every 10 ticks for all land the control.
So that endgame score is measured throughout the whole match.
I just noticed that the score does not seem to really have any weight,
This could be my own oversight as well.
I think three ways to go about this:
A) The player who controls most of the land in the end wins.
Pros: Players will push for territory.
Cons: Theres no benefit to risk, so strategy could fall flat somewhat.
- There can be victory snatching.
B) The Player who controls most land on average through the game wins,
Pros: Its more evenly spread, and no victory snatching would occur.
- One could even introduce a scoring system where all territory is “Harvesting”, So every 10 rounds you own a tile you can harvest from it, gaining points, bit if you lose it, it resets to zero, you get no points,
Cons: Theres no Benefits to risk, which could cause strategy to fall flat
C) Players can be rewarded for score as:
25 tiles <= 1 times. 50 tiles <= 1.5 times. 75 tiles <= 2 times etc
Pros: It adds massive Risk Reward challenges
Cons: It could undermine the value of holding lands, So a player could essentially win with a smaller amount of land control.
So my question is:
How does the engine determine the winner at this moment?
And is that fixed for the first event?
Will you use the first event to possibly assess win condition issues?
That first event is close and from the rules and my observations,
Its not immediately clear what the Win Condition is.