Lemmings Forums

Hey guys (if anyone's still around),

If there was a theoretical points system, which acted as a function of number of lemmings saved and time remaining, what would (in your opinion) be the best balance.

def getScore(self):
        if [all lemmings need to be saved]:
            return 5000+10*[time remaining in seconds]
        else:
            return 1000 + int(4000*([number of lemmings rescued] - [number of lemmings needed to be saved])/([number of lemmings in total] - [number of lemmings needed to be saved]))+10*[time remaining in seconds]

(flagfall of 1000 points, + up to 4000 points for saving additional lemmings, + 10 points per second left on the clock)

That is the current unpolished mechanism that sitting in my clone (which will be released once I finish my yearly academic spadework). The aim is to give a reasonable score that fully takes into account the difficulties involved with completing that level. This could be used in cumulative totals, average scores, etc., for each difficulty/game set, as well as providing a single number that's easier to gloat about  :winktounge:

Of course, my current "saving additional lems" bonus is biased against levels which force you to sacrifice a couple and reflect this in the level requirements. And I'm worried about the time modifier, as it is linear rather than proportional (thus racking up huge advantages for levels with surplus time). And inserting another variable for the current difficulty level would be good.

So, I ask the question, roughly how valuable is saving lemmings over saving time?

(and no, this isn't going to completely replace percentage/time highscores)

Hmmm... clever, but what about those levels where you can only save, say 6/10 max?

I'm going to throw in another variable without answering your question, covox, but what about unused skills? If you plan on doing a scoring system, certainly economy of skills should come into play.

Quote from: STT on October 29, 2006, 08:51:25 PM
Hmmm... clever, but what about those levels where you can only save, say 6/10 max?

I don't see this as being a huge problem; it just means you can't get points for saving more than the requirement on those levels.

It's just a matter of finding the right balance.... levels can have up to 9 minutes, which is 540 seconds, but it should *never* be possible to finish a level with more than about 5 minutes (300 seconds) to spare (except in very rare situations like optional multi-tasking -- 10 Tricky); if it is, the designer has allowed too much time. So 10 points per extra second seems reasonable enough.

I'd make the basic score for completing a level depend on the rating category; perhaps 1000 points for completing a Fun level and an increment of 500 or even 1000 for each category above that? That may sound like a lot, but it does compensate for the fact that earlier levels tend to have more spare time and lower save targets.

Instead of a separate formula for 100% needed levels, I'd allow some points for number (or percentage) of lemmings saved, but more points for saving more than the minimum. That way, you don't create a needless difference between "100% needed" and "all but one needed, 100% impossible anyway".

A simple mechanism would be (25 x percentage of lemmings needed) + (50 x percentage of lemmings saved above requirement), so you'd automatically score 2500 on a 100% needed level but could get up to 5000 by saving more than the minimum. Perhaps saving 100% when not required could have a fixed score of 4000 and you get this or the score from the above formula, whichever is greater.

Forget unused skills -- the highest number of skills on a standard level is 320 but a user-defined level could have up to 792, so even 10 points per skill would unfairly swamp out the lemmings saved and time bonuses, while any fewer would make the scores from best play on a level with fewer skills available not worth having.

Quote from: Nuntar on October 30, 2006, 01:28:52 PMForget unused skills -- the highest number of skills on a standard level is 320 but a user-defined level could have up to 792, so even 10 points per skill would unfairly swamp out the lemmings saved and time bonuses, while any fewer would make the scores from best play on a level with fewer skills available not worth having.

Why are you assuming that the score must be such a simple function? What if you got a bonus for the *percentage* of skills that you have leftover. Then you have no such problems for high numbers of skills, since you can set a hard cap. Make it very low, sure.

The point is, if two people save the same number of lemmings, and have the same time remaining, the person who used fewer skills should get a better score!

--------------------

The problem with any such scoring system is that it only makes sense in the context of a single level. In my mind, the best theoretical scoring system would be where each level had an equal "perfect" score (most saved, minimum time, minimum number of skills used), and you *deduct* points from that score for every imperfection.

Of course, this has several implementation problems. For one, who determines the most possible saved, the minimum time possible, and the minimum number of skills used? Surely you might think you have the best solution without actually having it. Two options:
1) A dynamic retro-active scoring system could solve this issue. If you save more than the max thought to be possible, then the max is set to the new max. Etc. for the other possibilities. [This would work best with an online hall of fame.]
2) Just add a small bonus formula, so you can get higher than the "perfect" score. (I would not really recommend using the negative version of the deduction formula, because for instance in a lose 2 level where lose 2 is thought to be the max possible, saving 100% would result in an explosion (or divide by zero, or something of that nature) of that part of the score.) [This would work best with an isolated single player game.]

Another problem, precedence for scoring would have to be set up properly. What is "more perfect", having more time left over, or using fewer skills? Is saving one second better than saving 10 builders? And even within skills, is saving 2 climbers better than saving 1 builder? For the most clarity, the precedence should be clearly defined, so that for instance, saving 1 second IS better than saving 10 builders, OR that saving 1 builder IS better than saving 2 minutes. And probably each skill should be treated equally for simplicity.

So probably deduct the most points for a lemming lost, less points for a skill used (can certainly use a percentage based system here), and single points for each extra second used (or use a percentage based system, but then you are liable to run into ties when scores differ only by 1 second in long levels).

The system probably sounds a bit complicated, but it has the advantage that the maximum score the player is striving for is clearly defined, and that all levels would carry the same weight. This value could be multiplied by the difficulty rating, so that Fun levels are worth at most 5000, Tricky 10000, Taxing 15000, Mayhem 20000... Or whatever (and if you use the bonus system for exceeding expectations, of course you can go over those maximums slightly). Then when you see that you got 18240 score on a Mayhem level, you know that you can do better... and if you get 14997 on a Taxing level, you probably used the intended solution, just slightly slower. (And very high scores above the "perfect" score would instantly flag a backroute!)

Quote from: Shvegait on October 30, 2006, 02:09:41 PMWhy are you assuming that the score must be such a simple function? What if you got a bonus for the *percentage* of skills that you have leftover. Then you have no such problems for high numbers of skills, since you can set a hard cap. Make it very low, sure.

Actually, I did consider a percentage bonus system and decided it would run into the same problem. However, I suppose it could *just* work if you make it 10 x percentage of skills unused for a maximum of 1000; then saving one skill on a level with, say, 20 skills in total is worth the same as saving five seconds on the clock. That still seems to have the problem of overvaluing unused skills on levels with a large number of surplus skills while undervaluing them on levels with very few, but it's up to you whether you think even that's better than not counting unused skills at all.

Phwoar, there have been some brilliant ideas mentioned. Base score, remaining skills, hmmmmmm...

def getScore(self):
    baseScore = 1000 + [difficulty, 0-3]*500

    if [all lemmings need to be saved]:
        rescueScore = 4000
    else:
        rescueScore = 4000*([number of lemmings rescued] - [number of lemmings needed to be saved])/([number of lemmings in total] - [number of lemmings needed to be saved])
   
    skillScore = 0
    for skill in [every possible skill]:
        if [the skill was empty to begin with]:
            skillScore += 300
        else:
            skillScore += 300*[amount of skill remaining]/[initial amount of skill]

    timeScore = 10*[time remaining in seconds]

    return (baseScore + rescueScore + skillScore + timeScore)

Here's a possible way it could pan out. So far, the bonus hierachy is:
Extra lemmings > Extra skills > Extra time

I like the idea of a glass ceiling depending on difficulty, however it'd be impossible to hit the maximum (if you throw time and skill use considerations in the mix). An online ladder would be nice however that's slightly ambitious at this stage, never mind how delightfully easy it would be to hack.

Quote from: Nuntar on October 30, 2006, 01:28:52 PMInstead of a separate formula for 100% needed levels, I'd allow some points for number (or percentage) of lemmings saved, but more points for saving more than the minimum. That way, you don't create a needless difference between "100% needed" and "all but one needed, 100% impossible anyway".

The "if" fork in the first formula was to prevent a nasty divide-by-zero error (it determines the bonus using the number of extra lemmings saved. which of course is zero when you're obligated to save 100%  :winktounge:)

Quote from: covox on October 30, 2006, 03:00:45 PMAn online ladder would be nice however that's slightly ambitious at this stage, never mind how delightfully easy it would be to hack.

If you wanted to prevent hackability, you would have the client (game) record the user's solution to the level, then this would be submitted (along with the score, if you want to assume good faith) and the server would verify that the solution's score by replaying the recording.

Of course, this would mean a lot of work for you, so I don't expect this to ever happen. :D

Quote from: Mindless on October 31, 2006, 12:04:52 AMIf you wanted to prevent hackability, you would have the client (game) record the user's solution to the level, then this would be submitted (along with the score, if you want to assume good faith) and the server would verify that the solution's score by replaying the recording.

That's actually not a bad idea. Emulating is maybe a bit over the top; replaying every single recording might be a bit taxing on my poor server, and the code would have to get by using nothing Pygame-related at all. However there's nothing stopping an audit of the demo (i.e. see if the correct number of lemmings get released, submit the X position of the entrance and exits, see what skills get used, regenerate the score again etc).

Of course, it's not bulletproof by any means, and if the user base ever gets big enough there will be one smartypants, willing to dig through miles of obfuscated Python source code, just to see their name next to a 1 with eight 0s trailing behind. Still, if the demos are put on display, it'll become quite obvious who's been telling porkies (perhaps through a hot-or-not voting system)

Quote from: Mindless on October 31, 2006, 12:04:52 AMOf course, this would mean a lot of work for you, so I don't expect this to ever happen. :D

You underestimate how childishly easy Python CGI scripts are to write. Perhaps for the third release milestone :P

Hi everyone, I'm back! :smiley:

I really like this scoring idea.̆ Thanks, Covox, for coming up with it!̆ However, I agree with Shvegait's comment that that the systems that have been suggested so far are more complicated than they need to be.̆ I've created a much more simple system, using some of the ideas mentioned in this thread:

If the minimum save percentage is not reached, the level score is automatically zero.

Otherwise,
Lemmings Saved Bonus = 200 points for each percent saved
Time Bonus = 1 point per second left
Unused Skill Bonus = 10 points per skill
Rating Bonus = 0 for Fun, 500 for Tricky, 1,000 for Taxing, and 1500 for Mayhem

I think this system creates a good balance between the bonus categories.̆ Each percentage point is worth the same as twenty skills, and each skill is worth the same as ten seconds of time.̆ The only major flaw I see with this system is that there is no "perfect" score, but with new records still being set and broken on occasion, that is not all bad in my opinion.̆ Feel free to disagree with me, though.

Here are some examples of my scoring system in use:

Fun 1: 100% saved with 260 seconds to spare and 9 diggers remaining
Level Score = 200*100 + 260 + 9*10 + 0 = 20350 points

Tricky 15: 70% saved with 275 seconds to spare and 2 bombers remaining
Level Score = 200*70 + 275 + 2*10 + 500 = 14795 points

Tricky 21: 100% saved with 250 seconds to spare, using 15 of the 528 skills given
Level Score = 200*100 + 250 + 513*10 + 500 = 25880 points

Mayhem 3:̆ 100% saved with 5 seconds to spare, using 6 of the 8 skills given
Level Score = 200*100 + 5 + 2*10 + 1500 = 21525 points

Mayhem 20:̆ 98% saved with 200 seconds to spare, using all of the given skills
Level Score = 0 points (the minimum save percentage is 100%)

Quote from: LemSteven on October 31, 2006, 04:06:16 AMEach percentage point is worth the same as twenty skills, and each skill is worth the same as ten seconds of time.

I still say that radically overvalues unused skills -- especially on levels like your example of Tricky 21 where there are hundreds of skills you have no reason to use. Why not give one point per unused skill?

Come to think of it, I think you have the points for lemmings saved way too high as well -- you can see from your examples that it makes the category bonus negligible. Why not 25 or 50 as I suggested?

One point of interest is whether you also want to compare scores from a set of levels (i.e. "Who has the best score in the range of e.g.  Mayhem 1-10") or only between single levels (i.e. "Who has the best score on e.g. Taxing 18"). I suppose the former would be even harder to achieve, the latter might be not that bad.

Just some thought how I'd do it, it'd be an approach for the latter:
First, some 'level' score: lv = [rating value] - constant_l*(p - q) + 2*constant + 1;
p and q being either 1 or 0; p being 1 if the level allows to lose more than 4 lemmings; q being 1 if the amount of all skills (except for the builder) is equal and higher than 9. I consider p and q effects which apply mostly to less difficult levels. 'constant_l' being a constant devaluate/revalue the impact of p and q on the level score.
[rating value] is 0 - 3 from Fun to Mayhem, 0 for Tame, 2 - 5 from Crazy to Havoc.
Therefore the 'level' score is always at least 1, and at maximum depending on the constant, e.g. for constant = 1 it is 8 for Havoc with none of p and q true.

'time' score: time_scr = factor_t*([time left]/[time given])

'lemmings save' score: save_scr = factor_s*(lv + constant_s_lv)*(1 - ([lemmings lost]+constant_s)/([maximum amount of lemmings that may be lost]+constant_s))
constant_s_lv devaluates the effect of the differences between the 'level' scores; constant_s devaluates the score if all lemmings have been saved and not all have been required.
I added the 'level' score here because it's usually more difficult to save more lemmings on more difficult levels.

'skills left' score: skills_scr = factor_sk*(lv + constant_sk_lv)*(1 - .125*sum(([skills of that kind used] + constant_sk)/([skills of that kind given] + constant_sk)))
constant_sk devaluates the effect of using none of the skill of a kind.
Level score added because it's usually more difficult to save skills in more difficult levels.

The overall score is the sum of these scores.
constant_s_lv should be smaller than constant_sk_lv, because that way the amount of lemmings saved gets a more quickly increasing impact on the overall score with an increasing difficulty level than the amount of skills left. For the time, I left the level score out, which is equal to using infinite for constant_time_lv.
That way, the amount of lemmings saved in easier levels has (relatively) much less impact on the score than in harder levels, the amount of skills left (relatively) not as much less impact, and the time has (relatively) equal impact always.

Setting some proper values for the factors and constants the system would approximately work the way I want, which is not necessarily the way you want it to work.
So, these are just my (quite complicated) thoughts. :wink:

This sounds like a good idea, so I'll give my thoughts for what it's worth. There's some complicated ideas here, but I agree with LemSteven and Shvegait that a more simple formula will do just fine.

This is all based on the idea that the number of lemmings saved is the ultimate decider on how well you've done, with skills used and time used the 2nd and 3rd comparisons respectively. If you make time/skills used too important, you'll end up with a situation where you can earn more points saving less lemmings than saving as many as possible, which surely shouldn't be allowed to happen?

Base Score - IMO having a base score based on difficulty is needless. We all know the levels aren't ordered correctly anyway, and saving more than required is much harder on some early levels than it is on later ones (Cascade anyone?). Can you justify giving All Or Nothing the same base score as Save Me?! It doesn't really matter whether it's used or not, but it's unnecessary since everyone will be given it anyway, making the extra points completely worthless when comparing scores.

Lemmings - it makes sense to use the save percentage rather than the amount saved here, which everyone seems to have agreed on already. The fact that some levels aren't 100%able is irrelevant - the more you save the more points you get, simple. I don't see why it should matter if there's variation in the max possible scores for each level, since trying to judge if you're better at one level than another is fairly pointless anyway.

Skills - the huge amount of excess skills in some levels can be ignored by removing points for those used rather than adding points for those left. Using the percentage of those used (as suggested) is okay, but it still means the unnecessary skills are earning you points, which they shouldn't. This way, you're only judged on what you actually use.

Time - again, simply removing points for time used is the only way I can see that makes sense. There are plenty of levels that give a ridiculous amount of unneeded time, and this extra time should not be earning you points.

My suggestion then;

([Save %] * 100) - (10 * [Total Skills Used]) - ([Time Taken In Secs])

This is a ratio of 100:10:1 for Saved:Skills:Time.

I've not really tested these figures, but the general idea should be fine. I realise this makes the time taken a fairly negligible number, but it doesn't matter. It's not the score that's important, it's the score compared to other scores that is. Saving 3 seconds might not make much difference to the actual score, but the time is only considered as a final decider when everything else is equal anyway.

Just think of it as say, Minutes:Seconds:Tenths. One tenth in a 10 minute race seems negligible, but it makes all the difference in a photo finish :tongue:

LemSteven: Perhaps dumping the base score isn't too bad. It does seem disproportionate giving out points for lemmings which have to be saved though; it makes most scores padded out to the 16000 mark. Would it be possible to just use the fraction extra?

geoo89: Oh my word. :mikehuh2: Isn't seven symbolic constants a little bit over the top for a score generator?   

SgB: I agree with the "less is better" philosophy when calculating score; if there are too many extra tweaks then the end result isn't very meaningful. However, it would appear that the formula you proposed would generate mostly negative scores :P

Quote from: covox on November 01, 2006, 03:26:56 AMSgB: I agree with the "less is better" philosophy when calculating score; if there are too many extra tweaks then the end result isn't very meaningful. However, it would appear that the formula you proposed would generate mostly negative scores :P

How's that? Assume you save only 50%, then your base score is 5000. If you take a whopping 10 minutes, your remaining score is 5000 - 10 * 60 = 4400. You'd have to use > 440 skills to get a negative score! Maybe you didn't follow the formula carefully, it seems quite reasonable.

Quote from: covox on November 01, 2006, 03:26:56 AM
However, it would appear that the formula you proposed would generate mostly negative scores :P

I've done a little testing, and I think you may have read the formula wrong :winktounge:

As far as I can see the lowest save requirement on any level is 10%. Even if you took 9 minutes to complete it you'd still need to use at least 47 skills to go below 0 points;

(10*100) - (47*10) - (540) = -10

Unless of course you're referring to attempts where you fail and only save say, 1/80, in which case an automatic zero for failing would solve that.

If you applied scoring to custom levels though, then I guess there might be a problem in some extreme cases. But the normal levels in both Lemmings and ONML all work fine.

Quote from: covox on November 01, 2006, 03:26:56 AM
It does seem disproportionate giving out points for lemmings which have to be saved though...Would it be possible to just use the fraction extra?

The trouble with this is the same as with skills and time - many early levels have stupidly low save requirements (even some Mayhem levels have requirements that are far too low - you can kill up to 20 in The Fast Food Kitchen for example...).

On the other hand there are levels that require a high %, but can be done 100% (e.g. Taxing 1). You'd recieve very few points on levels such as these if you only looked at lemmings saved over the required amount. Sure, it'd be the same for everyone playing the level - and the points for saving required lems are worthless - but IMO you'd run into more problems by removing these points than by including them.



EDIT: didn't see your post Shvegait  :P

... why didn't it occur to me 11 hours ago that the percentage could be a number from 1-100 rather than a decimal  :mikeXD: That's what happens when you study engineering for too many evenings in a row, erodes your common sense.

Maybe some sort of common benchmark is needed to compare how "nice" scores look. Ideally you shouldn't be able to pass a level while gaining a negative/zero score, but there should be a reasonable spread between low end (i.e. barely passing) and high end (i.e. master player).

I think SgB's subtractive theory is looking good at the moment, all it needs really is some sort of foolproof mechanism of avoiding negative/zero scores -at any cost-. (bonus points if it doesn't involve adding another number)

Quote from: covox on November 01, 2006, 02:20:44 PMI think SgB's subtractive theory is looking good at the moment, all it needs really is some sort of foolproof mechanism of avoiding negative/zero scores -at any cost-. (bonus points if it doesn't involve adding another number)

The only levels with a 10% save requirement are 1, 2, 3 and 5 Fun and Cascade. Of these, 5 Fun has the most skills (50) and it has five minutes. The lowest possible score would be 1000 - 500 - 300 = 200.

The only level on which negative scores would be possible is 4 Tricky: 20% required, 320 skills. But let's face it, realistically if you pass that level at all there's no way you actually would save only 20%. I suggest you simply have a default score -- perhaps 200, as the lowest possible on any other level, would be appropriate, or maybe 1000 -- and if you pass a level but score less than the default you get the default instead.

Quote from: Nuntar on November 01, 2006, 07:30:44 PMThe only level on which negative scores would be possible is 4 Tricky: 20% required, 320 skills. But let's face it, realistically if you pass that level at all there's no way you actually would save only 20%. I suggest you simply have a default score -- perhaps 200, as the lowest possible on any other level, would be appropriate, or maybe 1000 -- and if you pass a level but score less than the default you get the default instead.

Or, we can simply bump up the weight for number saved so that instead of 100:10:1, it's something like 200:10:1 (leading to 40000 - 32000 - 480).̆ This also makes it even more unlikely that someone can tradeoff number of lemmings saved with skills used or time (not that it's a realistic option for most levels anyway).

Hmm, that raises a thought. What is the current record for biggest difference between number of skills needed to save 100% and number of skills needed to save all but one? My first thought is Mary Poppins' Land but I don't know the figures.

The other alternative would be to decrease the points for number of skills; I already said I think the "1 skill = 10 seconds" equation overvalues skills somewhat.

Quote from: Nuntar on November 01, 2006, 08:10:44 PM
Hmm, that raises a thought. What is the current record for biggest difference between number of skills needed to save 100% and number of skills needed to save all but one? My first thought is Mary Poppins' Land but I don't know the figures.

I have to do some calculations, but levels worth examing in this regard include:

- The Boiler Room (Mayhem 2)  [especially since the 100% also takes up more time, in order to lump the lemmings in the crowd very close together]
- Turn around Young Lemmings!  (Tricky 22)

Still, with a 20:1 ratio (under my proposal) in the number of lemmings saved vs. skills trade-off, and the fact that all-but-1 entails a minimum of 2 percentage points in % saved (79/80 -> 98%), we are talking about requiring 41 less skills used (or some significant amount of saved time) to make up the loss of one lemming.

Quote from: ccexplore on November 01, 2006, 08:22:50 PMStill, with a 20:1 ratio (under my proposal) in the number of lemmings saved vs. skills trade-off, and the fact that all-but-1 entails a minimum of 2 percentage points in % saved (79/80 -> 98%), we are talking about requiring 41 less skills used (or some significant amount of saved time) to make up the loss of one lemming.

That's true. Still, it would be interesting to know from the theoretical point of view of "how many skills is saving one extra lemming worth?"

Quote from: Nuntar on November 01, 2006, 08:37:58 PM
That's true. Still, it would be interesting to know from the theoretical point of view of "how many skills is saving one extra lemming worth?"

That exactly was what I was considering when I presented my idea for a points system (which, incidentally, also has a 200:10:1 ratio).  Ideally, I would want to make a 100% solution score more than a 98% solution, regardless of how many extra skills or time is used; however, this would require an enormous save bonus which would effectively render the other bonuses insignificant.

As for the skills to time ratio, I wouldn't object to lowering the value of skills.  As long as skills are worth something meaningful, I don't really care.

Quote from: Nuntar on November 01, 2006, 08:10:44 PM
The other alternative would be to decrease the points for number of skills; I already said I think the "1 skill = 10 seconds" equation overvalues skills somewhat.

That all depends on how covox wants the scoring system to work and how a level performance should be judged. My idea was based firstly on lemmings saved obviously, and if that's equal then skills, if still equal then the completion time is compared. In this sense 10:1 might not even be big enough.

A smaller ratio should ensure a little more variety and force you to be creative,  but how much time would you suggest 1 skill is worth? It's much less cut-and-dried than the first option, and you'd need to know the workings of the formula in order to decide how to maximise your score.

I prefer the simpler option myself - since both will still result in high scores being determined by time taken once the 'best' solution has been found anyway - but I can see why the other might be considered better.

(LemSteven, you posted just after I'd finished typing that. Don't think I'm ignoring you :tongue:)

Another idea about how to handle the skills problem: how about a logarithmic scale for determining the skills amount?

Normally with base-10 logs the value increases with the number of zeros ( so log(100) = 2  => 10^2 = 100 ,  log(1) = 0 => 10^0 = 1). However, the idea here would be to change the 10 to give us a reasonable range.

Let's pick an arbitrary skill threshold for "just too silly". It's highly unlikely that someone will use more than 40 skills in a level, so when we use 40 skills we want the penalty to be... 8.

x^8 = 40  => x = 1.585833

So the final formula will be: log([skills used])/log(1.585833)  (also known as the base-1.585833 logarithm of [skills used])

Under this system, using:
1 skill = 0
2 skills = 1.50
5 skills =  3.49
10 skills = 4.99
20 skills = 6.50
40 skills = 8.00

This value could then be used with another multiplier, perhaps 50 or something.

I don't really think this would help to be honest. The main problem now seems to be deciding on the Saved:Skills:Time ratio, and using something like this would make it impossible to set because it would be changing every time you used a skill.

Even if this were to be used, it would over value skills on levels with few of them and undervalue them on levels where you have to use lots.

2 skills = (1.5*50) = 75
40 skills = (8*50) = 400

In theory that makes sense I suppose, but saving two builders on King Of The Castle is surely at least as valuable as saving two blockers on Fun 3? :tongue:

IMO before any final formula can be made, it needs to be decided whether;

* lems saved should always be worth more than any amount of saved time or skills. I think we're all agreeing this should be the case?

* skills used should always be the second decider if lems saved is equal, with time only coming into it when skills are also equal. This is what I believe it should be, but it seems Nuntar ,and maybe others, don't agree. Until this part is decided on I don't think you're really going to get anywhere, since people will want different ratios according to how they want the scoring to work.

Perhaps we should vote :winktounge:

A weighting of [Lemmings saved] > [skills used] > [time used] is fine by me. Are there any objections?

Quote from: covox on November 01, 2006, 03:26:56 AM[...]
geoo89: Oh my word. :mikehuh2: Isn't seven symbolic constants a little bit over the top for a score generator?   
[...]

Probably it is...it's just caused by my overly complicated thinking. :wink:

If everyone agrees on amount of Lemmings saved a ultimate decider, then why not simply make it two separate scores with the first one being the amount of lemmings saved and second one being the tie-breaker? If you look up the challenges thread, almost all challenges are about the amount of lemmings, almost only in case there's a definite maximum there are challenges considering the amount of skills used (mostly builders), and almost never time.
Then there's just to wonder about skills and time evaluation, an maybe the evaluation between the certain skills (e.g. is saving a builder worth more than saving something else?).

Quote from: geoo89 on November 02, 2006, 04:46:24 PM
(e.g. is saving a builder worth more than saving something else?).

On some levels yes, on others no, which is why this sort of thing should be left alone in my opinion. Ranking the skills in order of importance can only be done in the context of a single level, not the whole game, so assigning different points for each wouldn't work.

Quote from: SgB on November 02, 2006, 11:09:01 AMEven if this were to be used, it would over value skills on levels with few of them and undervalue them on levels where you have to use lots.

2 skills = (1.5*50) = 75
40 skills = (8*50) = 400

In theory that makes sense I suppose, but saving two builders on King Of The Castle is surely at least as valuable as saving two blockers on Fun 3? :tongue:

Is that really relevant?  I thought we mostly agreed that it isn't very meaningful to compare a score from one level with a score from another level, since it's just too hard to have a fixed formula that can generate such comparable scores across all levels (you'd have to know, essentially, what the "perfect" score is for each level in order to calibrate).

What could be relevant though is how this logarithmic scaling of skills would compare against the time penalty (ie. it is no longer simply 1 skill = 10 seconds; the number of seconds a skill is worth [as if that's even meaningful to speak of] varies with the level]).

Quote from: geoo89 on November 02, 2006, 04:46:24 PMIf you look up the challenges thread, almost all challenges are about the amount of lemmings, almost only in case there's a definite maximum there are challenges considering the amount of skills used (mostly builders), and almost never time.

As the person that did most of the challenges, I need to point out that my criteria for challenges is really more about "interesting solutions" than any particular weighting of % saved, skills used or whatever.  Of course Lemmings being Lemmings, saving as many as possible is always interesting, hence most challenges are about that.  The no-builder challenges I think is somewhat started by LemSteven and I just kinda continued that trend.

So in other words the challenges are biased towards what I find interesting, which is really why (for example) time is not something I focused on as much (but that said, some time-related solutions are interesting to me, such as the one someone found for solving Mayhem 7 in under a minute).

Quote from: SgB on November 02, 2006, 05:20:17 PMOn some levels yes, on others no, which is why this sort of thing should be left alone in my opinion. Ranking the skills in order of importance can only be done in the context of a single level, not the whole game, so assigning different points for each wouldn't work.

I agree.  That being said, I do think perhaps we can consider the idea of an extra bonus for each skill type that is left completely unused (eg. a builderless solution), for a total of 8 bonus opportunities.  Just a small bonus though (eg. I wouldn't want to rank the crazy builderless solution to Tame 20 as being "better" scorewise than the more straightforward and less fuzzy solution that does use builders).  The bonus would be same for any of the 8 skill types.

Quote from: ccexplore on November 02, 2006, 08:05:41 PM
Is that really relevant?

The way I'd written it, no...

Quote from: ccexplore on November 02, 2006, 08:05:41 PM
What could be relevant though is how this logarithmic scaling of skills would compare against the time penalty (ie. it is no longer simply 1 skill = 10 seconds; the number of seconds a skill is worth [as if that's even meaningful to speak of] varies with the level]).

... but that's what I was trying to get at  :wink:

This to me would be over-complicated. Personally I'd much rather be able to just open up any level and know exactly what everything was worth without having to work it out.

Regarding the bonuses you suggested, I like the idea, but the only problems I can see is how you'd score it, and that it would remove the less-skills-is-better idea. Perhaps that's not necessarily a bad thing, but is say, a no-blocker so solution always going to be better than one that uses more skills but less in total? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, and we're back to whole 'context' thing again.

Maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way though...