Scoring on Empire Standings

[Haxus]

Should scoring on the empire standings pages be based on the number of worlds that have a base or a city?

Current scoring is based on loyal empire population. Mega buildings make that just a waiting game, to see how long they take to fill.

Loyalty is not a factor in new cities, atm. All citizens are considered to be loyal.

[Haxus]

I don't think it should be based on claimed worlds. That's too easy and it doesn't really reflect the extent of an empire.

[Deantwo]

For old-style cities it counted "Loyal Citizens", which was a good counter. But loyalty isn't implemented for new-style cities yet.

But if you are just talking about the number of "worlds" an empire own, then what is wrong with it counting as soon as there is either a city or a base? That is what the starmap shows too.

[xxqpxx--PMW]

I feel like this would take away from the game somehow. idk tho, I feel like a lot of the recent updates take something away. I liked the old ql/tl system. I liked being able to add floors to buildings.  It seems like this would end up with empires spamming small cities all over the place, unless I am missing something?

[OnePercent]

Maybe something based on a pseudo-gross domestic product? Like the size of an empires economy, based on city bulk trade and inter and intra-empire trade connections.

[zslayern]

I kinda like the old scoring method though(Not because I'm biased or anything), it was pretty simple and satisfying. But I have to admit it doesn't do justice to players with well-established empires like Mortius, Vectorus or Dean. But either way, I believe that the old and new scoring systems are both very lazy implementations, a truly fair and equal scoring system would be an amalgamation of the Economic, Military, Technologic and Diplomatic(?) power of an empire.
 (And also as xxqpxx has said this system can be as easily abused as well).

IMO if you wanted to reflect the territorial extent of an empire, shouldn't it be represented on the starmap? I.E. painting the map your colour is a very common and satisfying goal amongst many strategy games. A way this could be represented is that settlements could project empire influence into surrounding star, with the sphere of influence getting bigger as the settlement gets stronger(higher population/military presence?). This could also effectively shoo other empires from settling or coming near your empire. I.E. a good example of this would be pre-2.0 Stellaris:

[Deantwo]

Would be interesting if cities could score differently.

For example each world could be scored based on their population count, average technology level, oldest city age, and military power.
Could show the score in city reports, and maybe as a sensor reading on the starmap to rate how advanced each system is.

[Ripticus]

Hello Haxus,

To have a true ranking of empires reflecting their power in the game, it would be necessary to institute a point system a no and system based on the number of sector or the number of loyal citizens.

These points should reflect the whole action of an empire:

For example, an addition of several criteria:
0.1% points per resource produced on the empire
+ 1% of the number of citizens loyal to the empire
+ 10% of the total HP of the ships of the empire (not all ships built and destroyed, only currently operational ships of an empire)
+ 20% of HP total destroys ships of enemy empires
+1000 points per stable city created by an empire (with a minimum of 100 inhabitants and a minimum of morale)
+5000 points per capital area city (requiring at least two cities in one area)
+100 points per enemy enemy killed
+ 500 points per enemy soldier killed
+ 1000 points per captured enemy base
+ 5000 points per captured enemy city
+ 10000 points per captial captured enemy area
+ 20000 points by shipyards captured (it would be necessary for that we can recognize them)
+ 50000 points per captured empire capital.
+ 100000 points per won war (point that could only be awarded with the creation of a state war, armistice and peace treaty IG system)

In short, it would take such a system, fairly balanced (the figures I gave are just an example) so that the ranking is the true reflection of the power of empires.
In addition, it is easily achievable since there is currently in the game already an accounting system of this kind in order to make money to the players (government debt)

[Mr. Mortius]

The general system proposed by Ripticus sounds like it'd work very well. The main issue with the specific categories mentioned is that they might overly reward warfare instead of cooperation. In my opinion both should be rewarded equally, if it's possible.


One other thing to keep in mind is that one person can have multiple empires. This would make exploiting a system based on interactions with other empires very easy to do.

[Ripticus]

The general system proposed by Ripticus sounds like it'd work very well. The main issue with the specific categories mentioned is that they might overly reward warfare instead of cooperation. In my opinion both should be rewarded equally, if it's possible.


One other thing to keep in mind is that one person can have multiple empires. This would make exploiting a system based on interactions with other empires very easy to do.

Of course, all that I have proposed as categories are just examples that deserve to be completed.

With regard to the possibility of creating secondary empires to artificially increase the points, it is true that it would require precisely to seek to limit the creation of empire.

Shores of Hazeron is a very interesting game as you play several games. The small solo empires usually get tired of the players and they disappear, while to many, it is much more fun.

In my opinion, the creation of an empire should be paying, as for example $ 50, but with the possibility of shared the cost with several players. This would greatly limit the creation of a fictitious empire and force cooperation.