ACTUV Scoring Structure

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Decided to contribute instead of comment.

This is on Cat and Mouse and the scoring structure seems slightly different.

Time Score Sensor
1400 unk. PING!!!
1402 2395 HF
1403 2595 HF
.......2695 HF
1404 2895 HF
........2995 HF
1405 3195 HF
........3295 HF
1406 3495 HF
1407 3695 HF
1408 3895 HF
1409 4095 HF
........4195 PING!!!
1410 4394 HF
........4494

So it's giving 200 per minute of HF in this mission and 100 per minute of MF contact, but you are in contact on MF for 5 minutes after the ping.

So.....

If we get a 100 pts /minute for 5 minutes per ping, then fuel effeciency becomes more valuable than..... hmm...

I originally thought of this in a linear fashion.... hmmm.... But I think i figured this out.

Here's an algorithm I made for this. To be honest though, most of us just do this intuitively.




Some of you will argue that HF should be before MF. But since there is not a great reason why you can't establish MF contact once every 5 minutes, then return to HF tracking, MF should be a higher priority than HF. MF is a once every 5 minute thing (at least according to ML's number so far, and my numbers are starting to match up), while HF is constant.

[Molon Labe]

I haven't tested for it, but I'd have to imagine HF contact is also per 5 minutes. Or any other sensor for that matter. As long as the light is still flashing, you're getting the points (or if the light would be flashing, but is steady because you hold contact on another sensor).

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I haven't tested for it, but I'd have to imagine HF contact is also per 5 minutes. Or any other sensor for that matter. As long as the light is still flashing, you're getting the points (or if the light would be flashing, but is steady because you hold contact on another sensor).

That's probably a good hypothesis too. The bonus for HF is that it's "passive" (compared to the MF). So there's no penalty for using it.