Very interesting. You have recently changed the victory conditions due (in part, at least) to a statistical analysis of which races are scoring higher than others. This adjustment should reduce the effect of fighters on mil score, and decrease the relative standing of the fighter races to the torp races.

Do you intend to review your analysis and re-consider the transition to the planet-based victory conditions?

Thanks again for all your work, the site is fantastic, even with little hiccups like this.

Its a good question Yakies. The thought flashed through my head when we discovered the problem. But there are many reasons for the change to the planet based system and while I expect this will improve the accuracy of the Military Score system it will almost certainly not affect our decision to change the default win conditions. But now we may have a decent alternative for some games.

Planet based is frankly better. Man o man is this going to change current games. Well people, we signed up for a beta so no complaining.

We've seen a few swings in some games, for example beta 5 and beta 9. But both games still show a similar trend, but even out the situation where someone was busy building fighters.

I think the new planets scoring will be better. Beta 5 and 9 give a good example of why. In both games the leader has built a shed load of fighters and is winning, but that does not mean they are actually doing a lot in the game. In beta 9 I have been well ahead (Robots) since about turn 5, BUT other than taking out the EE I've seen very little combat. It should not be possible to win a game simply by sitting back and filling hulls with fighters. If this game was scored in the new system the Privs would be winning due to the fact he has nearly twice as many planets as me.

Its similar in game 5, The leader is well ahead, but with only 79 planets. Infact its possible he will just get to 65% due to the fact that he can continue to build fighters and fill his Q-tankers?. I'm in second place in this game and will be pretty gutted if he manages to hit 65% without actually engaging any other significant race.

I'm looking forward to the new scoring system. In most games it would drop me back down the scoreboard, but I think its a fairer reflection on the way the game should be played and scored.

Pobs

The Crystals are definitely getting screwed in that game. We will have to change the name of the game to "VGA Type lfm."

I wondered why building a Nova and fully equipping barely move my military jump. Same with a fully loaded virgo.

Will the changes be reflected in the military score history as well? Or only in new turns from now on?

Only in new turns from now on. So all players in all games will get a slight or large increase to their scores. It will just look like everyone suddenly built a lot on their respective turns.

Lol.. I kinda like this new scoring:

http://vgaplanets.nu/games/3388

I have no complaints. I see the improvements on a regular basis. I have wondered about the scoring though and these responses confuse me a little more.

What is the "new" scoring referred to?
What is planned for the Alpha version or if not decided what are the options being considered?

Nevermind. Should have read the previous article first.

as a Lizard player I have built a good fleet but it just would not raise my score. will wait for next host to see what changes.

if you stay with 250 planets as win condition you must not let alliances win with 250 planets. A lone player can win with 250 but if you form an alliance you should have to control more than 250.

at the very lest only two races should be able to allie together. 3 is just going to make people drop out of the games. Why deal with 3 races allied. dealing with 2 is hard enough.

YES YES

I think that the planet score is the best, but in this way at the end everything would be to make the best alliance to obtain 250 planets.
In the game that I´m playing now I had an alliance with the cyborg for 20 turns, after that supposedly we would start to figth (the funny part), but now, I suppose that we will maintain the alliance to try to obtain the 250 planets... I have the fear that the play could start to transform in too much alliance and little fight. Some players will consider not to atack a big opponent because this will produce a drop of planets to him and alliances between 2 big players attacking small opponents will start to appear.
In some private games that I play with friends (1 guy is the host and send the emails personally) we put a 101 individual planets goal. We also put a 80 turn limit. It work almost well but some times one player growth too fast and win quickly. There are too much free planets. However using a 151 planet objective could be better and could maintain the fight high . I don´t know, is just an idea.
Play.

PS: sorry my English...

Our games are 125 planets with a 90 or 100 turn limit. With a full slate of players it has worked very well for us.

I aloso like planet score. I never liked the Mil score. We did sign up for Beta but I have been playing based on the Mil score as it was. I even posted about the seeming advantage of fighters. Onve thei si all worked out I think everyone should be able to resign with no penalty from the Beta games and devote time to real games. I suddenly feel like my work on my fighter races has been somewhat waisted but alas,.... Bata