Final scores should add up to a number less than zero

[AtomicPlayboy]

In games where two players each destroy about half of each other's population, they still have a positive score. Since one of them really just lost by the least amount, the scores should reflect that.

Or maybe that would make the whole experience just too depressing and morbid.

[xander]

In games where two players each destroy about half of each other's population, they still have a positive score. Since one of them really just lost by the least amount, the scores should reflect that.

Or maybe that would make the whole experience just too depressing and morbid.

Oooo... I like that idea!

xander

[Corbeau]

I totally agree.

[GeneticFreak]

I don't get what you mean?

You mean like survivor mode but with 0 as start?

Or make 2 score negative for losing citizens and only 1 score for killing?

Either way its gonna make the game more defensive.

[Corbeau]

Yeah, it would. After thinking more, I can see why even survivor mode was done the way it was done.

Still, a mode where you got 1 per kill and lost 2 per death would be a nice middle ground between Survivor and the other current game modes.

[AtomicPlayboy]

You mean like survivor mode but with 0 as start?
Or make 2 score negative for losing citizens and only 1 score for killing?

No, that would be bad. I'd hate it if survivor mode were the only way to play. I usually win by playing genocidal in late-game. I'm no pacifist :j I just think the horror element of the game should punch you again at scoring time. Plus, I -love- the byline of the game - "...nobody wins. But maybe - just maybe - you can lose the least."

Either way its gonna make the game more defensive.

Well, having scoring be -2 for loss, +1 for kill /M would, since it would change the balance. I think the current balance is fine. The people who come out ahead now should still come out ahead, and for the same reasons, even if those reasons include hiding their subs while most of their population is vaporized, then sneaking out and turbo-nuking in the endgame.

The simplest way to do this would be to take the total number of megadeaths worldwide and subtract it from everyone's score at the end, or some ratio of that like 1/2 the total deaths. People would have the same relative scores, but the final score would be soul-crushingly depressing instead of just being horrifically depressing. Especially if -all- the scores were negative. Yeeks.

[Canton]

I like that idea AtomicPlayboy -- given the tagline of the game, I really think that the best possible score should be 0, and evenly subtracting from all players would retain the balance. Having an optimal score of 0-0 is amusing because it invokes the prisoner's dilemma, even though they're not actually going to have the option to cooperate (this is war afterall, not diplomacy).

[furtim]

I like that idea AtomicPlayboy -- given the tagline of the game, I really think that the best possible score should be 0, and evenly subtracting from all players would retain the balance.

Hah! Or, keep the points scoring exactly the same as it is now... Only, at the end of the game, you subtract the winner's score from everyone's score. So, the winner gets 0 points, and everyone else is negative.

Or! Flip the sign on the points. In default mode, losing 1M counts for +1 and killing 1M counts for -2. So it ends up being like golf, where the one with the lowest score is the winner. If everyone starts with 0 points, as well, in most games all the players will end up negative. If you really insist on positive scores, you could give everyone a starting score (par?) set by either the starting population of their country (since everyone starts with the same) or the number of nukes they have at the start or some similar factor.

[yop]

tbh i'm wondering what would be the point?

[furtim]

"Everybody loses, but maybe you can lose the least."