New scoring proposal

[ektemple]

I'd like to propose a new system of keeping score that would do a better job of representing the progress in a game (or "round") of Kerkerkruip. Rather than calling the score the number of games won successively, I recommend that we score each game independently, using a simple system along these lines:

• Each power absorbed is worth n points, where n is the level of the enemy.
• Killing Malygris is worth 12 points (sum of all the other monster's levels minus 1)--totally negotiable
• The sum of the first two points is multiplied by the difficulty level, calculated as it currently is.

So, if the player manages things right and manages to kill every leveled monster, he would get:

1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 4 +12 = 25 points

If he manages the same thing on difficulty level 2, he would gain 50 points. At level 3, 75 points, and so on. (If you ever see a score of 250 points, you'll know the player was on quite a roll when he got that score!) The multiplier also means that every kill is worth more in distinguishing scores at higher levels. At level 4, a score of (1 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 12)_4 = 80 describes a very different win from a score of (1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 12)_4 = 100.

This method of scoring would maintain the original focus on the high-wire act of beating Malygris continually, via the multiplier. But this scoring system also allows folks--like myself--who will probably never beat M twice in a row the chance to compare their performance with past runs. I think it would be fun to present a high score list of the best 10 runs, e.g.:

Killed Malygris with the glass cannon 25 (level 1) Killed Malygris with the rapier 19 (level 1) Killed by a blood ape 15 (level 1) Killed by the tentacle of Tooloo 9 (level 1)

I haven't studied the code, but I think that it wouldn't be too hard to gather and store this information in the right format for a high score list.

Now, I've chosen to present this particular formula largely because it's pretty easy to calculate and understand. But the best system would be one that encouraged the style(s) of play that we consider the most fun or strategically best. (I think that's what I dislike most about the current scoring system: it encourages me to get so good at that game that I can "win" it over and over again--but once I get that good, I'm more likely to just stop playing! Who wants to win all the time--especially a roguelike?!)

I'd be interested to hear if anyone has ideas about the latter. Maybe the best score is actually the sum of the power-levels the player possesses at the time he dies, since this indicates how well he has managed to do in strategically acquiring powers. So if I've killed Malygris and I've got one level 4, one level 3, one level 2, and one level 1 power, I've scored as high as I can on a given level.

Or maybe the score rewards players who kill Malygris more if they've managed to do it with less. If I kill him with just a level 1 power, don't I deserve more points than if I had leveled myself fully?

[ektemple]

For reference

Scoring in Nethack prioritizes killing monsters, identifying items, consulting with oracles, collecting gold etc., reaching deeper dungeon levels, and some weird random stuff that doesn't really belong there: http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Score

Scoring in Powder is simpler and emphasizes killing monsters, delving deeply into the dungeon, doing so quickly, and earning experience points: http://www.armoredtactics.com/powder/index.php/Score

[curiousdannii]

Let me just say that I quite like these ideas!