Why does the score not count units built/killed as highly as eco?
-
After a game, I always see eco players gain score 10x that of frontline players, who build and kill far more units. To me this seems like an unreasonable weighting because after all, eco is only the means to build units to destroy enemy units. It is basically the goal of the game.
Why is it that eco is scored this highly and could we ever see this weighting adjusted?
-
Not talking from a developer-perspective which can tell you how it's weightened.
Imo ecoing on most maps is way harder than just braindead-spam. While upgrading mexes you have to build as many units as needed so your side doesn't fall. The risk of stalling is also extremely high since the mex upgrades are just expensive (especially early on referring to energy) so overall it's way harder to keep a good balance of ecoing and building enough units to not lose your side.
It's also important for fullshare since the bases get transferred to the players with the highest score. Imagine a frontplayer getting killed (which happens frequently as you know). Who do you think can handle the base better? The other frontplayer with 30 mass income and spam or one of the back dudes having 80+ income at the same time?Generally spoken ofc the score at the end is not as important as the game impact a player had, but I think that's clear anyway.
-
U ever win an air battle?
-
I think they are weighted the same, building and killing, it is just you are building way more mass worth of stuff if you are ecoing than someone who is actively fighting, also you lose score for losing units so if your units are dying then you are losing score.
Also power counts towards score and therefore an air player will have far more score than a front player on the same eco building land.
-
Power might be what causes these high scores, which I really don't think is reasonable because it is really not that hard building a lot of power generators.
Also early on you can just build a few t1 pgens and thats it for eco. Ecoing is not hard. What is hard is ecoing and fighting at the same time but the fighting part isn't rewarded nearly enough.
In teams where the efforts are split, for example on Dual Gap there is a player who only really does eco in the early and middle game, they gain much higher score even if the frontline players are pushing the enemies back. Sure, the team shares the economy and eco also deserves credit but destroying enemy units seems more important for the game.
I think the numbers when generating power are just a lot higher and also continuous than when dealing damage or killing units. So I think maybe this should be weighted differently. After all the numbers for power, mass cost/generation, HP, damage are all pretty arbitrarily related to each other anyways. So to have the score represent game performance more fairly I think damage dealt and kills should definitely score higher.
-
I'd say score is quite decent at measuring where games are generally lost or won rn and that's what it should be focused on to me.
-
Power is a heavy lifter in the score system, and should be tuned down a bit. The score has in most games no meaning anymore, except who has build the most power generators early on.
Kills, mass income, reclaim amount and energy should be key factors, not solely based on energy.