Quote:
Originally Posted by Laaba 80
Completely agree with you. People always try to compare different games to give their opinions in rules. Like you say, they are different games. I would say it is more like comparing football to rugby. They are similar, but have very different gameplay.
|
Exactly. I was trying to get a round-about idea of how many cells you can expect to lose.
I didn't just decide to use 2008 as my proxy on a whim, I picked 2008 because the scoring style was similar:
-There were no big one-time finish bonuses to give lopsided victories
-Your score was linear based on how many tasks you completed, whether it was hurdles or laps
-It was a fairly high-scoring game.
2003 had multiplicative scoring. 2004 had capping as a doubler as well as the 50pt chin-up bonus. 2005 had lots of bonuses for the geometric arrangement of pieces. 2006 had a huge autonomous bonus. 2007 had exponential scoring. 2008 was the best stand-in for the scoring style we'll see in lunacy, though its autonomous bonus was still big.
However, 2008's usefulness as an upper-bound of how many cells a team could expect to lose still stands. Almost all the variations between Overdrive and Lunacy tend to make it so that an Overdrive score will be MORE lopsided than a Lunacy score. Therefore, we can probably predict that super-cell losses will be somewhat less than this thread predicts. At the very least, an analysis like this is a little better than the back-and-forth with very little evidence that exists in other G14 threads.
Though you give me an idea to check to see how similar scoring distributions are between years...