So, just played a match, where I as english, started dark age maa push, then got fast castle, and then build a lot of maa and archers to just overflow enemy bases. Game lasted near 30 minutes, because after I destroyed the teal player, the pink and yellow player didn’t surrend, inmediately. But here are the stats:
Score has nothing to do with what you do with you army. Even if you have an idle army but have the most expensive one you will get the highest score. Since military score =20% of the total ressource cost of your army. (Not sure how this interacts with French discount on cavalry though but it might reduce their score if it works just like with Delhi Tech score).
Edit: and this is how sometimes the most useless player in the team can end up having the highest score not just military. Just ignore the score thing, and don’t think of it as a real metric especially if it is a late game final score when even players with shit macro could have caught up and ended being at max population.
Also ignore KDA as it means nothing, you could have high KDA and lose the game to English spamming MAA all day long and letting them die like zergs while you could see a player spamming knights and only taking favorable trade or just harassing villagers.
It is not possible. To be honest, I feel you are like obsessed with scores and would like to have something that makes you feel happy “oh I got a highest score therefore I am better than the others” or “my teammates sucked look at their score at the end of the game and that is why we lost”. Better focus on improving yourself than comparing to others.
I personally like the way score is right now except for a few caveats that are quite hard to fix (say the score includes ressources gathered and not spent, it is possible that you did spend your ressources well but were too ahead in economy that you couldn’t spend your ressources late game, but you would use them to insta-reproduce your army whenever needed, in which case including them in the score might make sense, but there are situations in which you didn’t spend your ressources because you were not good enough/had bad macro in which case the score should not include ressources gathered and not spent as you did nothing with them.
In any case the score shouldn’t be a BS metric that promotes stupid behavior like Blizzard’s stats in heroes of the storm and their MVP garbage which rewards players for playing for stats, and competing with their own teammates on stats rather than playing optimally to beat the opponents, on top of that it gives a very false feedback to the bad player who gets “MVP” validating his bad gameplay and making him think he did super well.
Also you are requiring an algorithm to assess your performance better than say a pro watching your game? even if you watch your game yourself you can evaluate your mistakes (unless you have a big Dunning Kruger syndrom ) etc and get better feedback than the score no matter the algorithm.
It is the average lifetime of all units not just army. Not sure if it ignores in the calculation fresh units that you produced just before the enemy surrenders (which would bias the metric downward). Still in general it is a pointless metric just like KDA, a noob trap for people who like things that makes them feel happy after a game just like “badges, achievements, whatever”. If you play against an Abbasid you beats you up Zerg style face tanking everything and using trash units while losing troop he will have a relatively low unit average lifetime but you still lost and nobody cares about your units having a higher lifetime. A French spamming horses and avoiding trading them will have a high lifetime.
Someone with 150 villagers who didn’t get harassed will have a relatively high lifetime even if he is trading armies compared to someone with 50 villagers (in low leagues, it can happen that someone has 50 villagers but still 150 army, in principle he was supposed to have lost the game way before reaching 200 pop)
The score screen is just completely bugged. It’s not calculating 20% of your army value or anything obvious like that. Often the most aggressive players score lowest. It’s stupid. Not that score means anything but even the statistics are all bugged. Since release these issues have been noticed but never fixed. It’s super annoying.
Research % is bugged
Largest Army is bugged
Military Score is bugged
Society Score is bugged
Villager count is bugged
Relic count is bugged
Units and buildings lost is bugged
Timelines are bugged
Max gold per minute is missing completely
It’s a ####### #### show.
Here’s one of my examples
I topped every military statistic except for the super bugged one, yet got less score than the AI and an ally.
Please don’t make personal judges about me, you don’t know me and you will not.
I am not obsessed with score, I just want to know how it works. Also I am asking because the way score is calculated is totally a mistery to me, because as @Heftydogg says, it seems to be totally bugged, or just there are too much variables hidden.
I wasn’t judging you but in your original post I felt like you were complaining that the guy who “didn’t do much” (this wording gave me that impression you didn’t say the guy with few kills) got a higher score than you… As if you were caring so much about who gets a higher score than who which shouldn’t be the point of the game. That is how it sounded to me.
So it wasn’t what I was trying to express. I’m not english native speaker and maybe I will not express myself as good as I wish.
The unique intention of the post is trying to understand how score works. The comparison between me and the other guys was only to point out that despite a player can have “better” singular statistics than others, that player can have a much lower score.