• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Score system

I would rather just have the server run everyone's performance through some complex algorithm that takes into account a number of different factors, and at the end of the round, instead of seeing your score based on kills and points and whatnot, you get a combat rating out of 100, like grades for school

The algorithm should be class-dependant too, like snipers recieve higher ratings if they kill MGs, SLs and enemy snipers, and assault troopers get higher ratings for taking objectives
 
Upvote 0
I would rather just have the server run everyone's performance through some complex algorithm that takes into account a number of different factors, and at the end of the round, instead of seeing your score based on kills and points and whatnot, you get a combat rating out of 100, like grades for school

The algorithm should be class-dependant too, like snipers recieve higher ratings if they kill MGs, SLs and enemy snipers, and assault troopers get higher ratings for taking objectives

Jup that is my stance as well, the display should be easy but the all things it takes into effect should perhaps be slightly hidden which makes it less easier to exploit said settings.

however for competitive matches I would prefer a scoreboard that shows individual details. Such as caps, kills, deaths, time played etc. Without any form of factorization.
 
Upvote 0
Yet another score system thread? :eek:

Rather than re-re-re-hash my thoughts, I'll just speak toward a server side option. I would like:

a server sided option to show only which side won the match. Or some other simple score table as in RO:OST. Just an option for nothing too elaborate.

And yet, though the server operator may choose a score screen that is sparse and minimal, if TW chooses to track all sorts of things then allow that information to pass through to whatever mechanism they use to track them. That may be a database server or on the client.

The server gets to show scores and attract the players that it wants, but the player still maintains and gets credit for any other data maintained.
 
Upvote 0
I'd say give points for MG resupplying only after the MGer requested it.

And have only the winning team receive the points they've built up during the round...so you get feedback from playing well, but have it in the back of your mind that none of the points matter unless you actually put in the effort to make the win happen.

There's too much of that BS these days...you lost BUT HERE'S A BUNCH OF POINTS FOR TRYING. No, you didn't try hard enough because you didn't win, you dimwit. You were trying to get a good K/D ratio and refused to rush the capzone. Go die in a hole.

A fun game is about winning.
 
Upvote 0
I have yet to reply to one of these score threads so I'll give my two cents.

FH2 has one of the best scoring systems I've ever seen in a MP game. The entire system is based around the difficulty of kills, not only what you kill. The system takes into account what you got the kill with.

For instance, taking out another soldier with your rifle will give you one point. Taking out another tank with a tank gives you one point. Taking out a plane with another plane gives you one point. But if you take out a tank with an AT rifle, bazooka, or an AT grenade as infantry, you get more points (2? can't remember exact number). If you take out a plane with a tank, you get more points. If you take out a plane with an infantryman's rifle, then you get a good number of points, because this is basically impossible to do.

I really like the system because it's dynamic and rewards people for the difficulty of their kills. That way, a successful AT soldier gets rewarded more for his AT efforts than some tanker mowing down defenseless infantry out in the open with his MG.
 
Upvote 0
I have yet to reply to one of these score threads so I'll give my two cents.

FH2 has one of the best scoring systems I've ever seen in a MP game. The entire system is based around the difficulty of kills, not only what you kill. The system takes into account what you got the kill with.

For instance, taking out another soldier with your rifle will give you one point. Taking out another tank with a tank gives you one point. Taking out a plane with another plane gives you one point. But if you take out a tank with an AT rifle, bazooka, or an AT grenade as infantry, you get more points (2? can't remember exact number). If you take out a plane with a tank, you get more points. If you take out a plane with an infantryman's rifle, then you get a good number of points, because this is basically impossible to do.

I really like the system because it's dynamic and rewards people for the difficulty of their kills. That way, a successful AT soldier gets rewarded more for his AT efforts than some tanker mowing down defenseless infantry out in the open with his MG.

That sounds cool, but then we'd get people trying to get extreme kills for more points, kind of like Bulletstorm.
 
Upvote 0
I have yet to reply to one of these score threads so I'll give my two cents.

FH2 has one of the best scoring systems I've ever seen in a MP game. The entire system is based around the difficulty of kills, not only what you kill. The system takes into account what you got the kill with.

For instance, taking out another soldier with your rifle will give you one point. Taking out another tank with a tank gives you one point. Taking out a plane with another plane gives you one point. But if you take out a tank with an AT rifle, bazooka, or an AT grenade as infantry, you get more points (2? can't remember exact number). If you take out a plane with a tank, you get more points. If you take out a plane with an infantryman's rifle, then you get a good number of points, because this is basically impossible to do.

I really like the system because it's dynamic and rewards people for the difficulty of their kills. That way, a successful AT soldier gets rewarded more for his AT efforts than some tanker mowing down defenseless infantry out in the open with his MG.

That actually sounds pretty nice.

But I'd be most satisfied if we get a scoreboard that lists exactly how many enemy infantrymen, tanks & other vehicles you've killed, how many cap zones you've captured as-well as the times you've perished yourself along with the points you've been awarded for this. IMHO it should give 1 point for every enemy infantryman taken out, 2 for every vehicle, 5 for every tank and 10 for every cap zone captured, listing the summed up points on the far right.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Well in mentioning the FH2 system, I wasn't saying that RO2 should adopt it exactly. For instance there will be lots of team-oriented points awarded in RO2 that simply don't exist in FH2, such as following squad lead's orders, defending objectives, attacking objectives, resupplying MGs, and all sorts of stuff.

I was simply saying that the general concept of rewarding people for the difficulty of their actions is a good idea, and could be applied in a way that suits RO's needs.
 
Upvote 0
I think that it shouldn't depend so much on difficulty of the kill but more on the importance of a kill.

Like killing an enemy in or going to the cap zone is of higher importance than just an enemy. Killing an enemy that is continuously killing your team mates in or going to the cap zone is more important than just an enemy.

Basically more like awarding more points for putting down a target that is really stopping your team from advancing. Being both people directly into the cap zone, and people outside the cap zone that are killing the people in and going to the cap zone.

I think in the end people shouldn't try to make difficult kills because they earn more points. People should aim for the easy kills unless its very important that a certain target gets taken out.
 
Upvote 0
In the interviews, it does sound as though TW is taking a look at different scoring systems and mechanisms for awarding points. (See, they do read the forums...:p) It will be interesting to see what they can develop and end up coding. Hopefully, just the thrill of playing the game correctly will supercede the need to justify one's performance through scoring some have.
 
Upvote 0
Just want to throw in my thoughts on scoring:

I would like to see some detailed, general team stats displayed at the end of the battle. For example:

--- # Soldiers lost
--- # of Tanks lost
--- # of Light vehicles lost

Axis:------------------- Soviet

Casualties: ----------- Casualties:
270 soldiers----------- 180 soldiers
14 tanks ---------------21 tanks
6 light vehicles --------12 light vehicles


This shows some nifty "oh cool" general kind of information about the battle itself. The Germans had a 3:2 infantry lost ratio, a 2/3 tank lost ratio and a 1:2 light vehicle ratio. I really think seeing this "overall" kind of score could help put people's individual efforts into perspective of the overall battle, and might give clues to which side was better organized/commanded on a larger scale. It also shows the effectiveness of certain divisions, and in this case the Axis tankers could feel pretty confident about inflicting more vehicle losses on the Russians, whereas the Soviets could be more pleased in their infantry fighting.

Even more fun, but more of a bonus in my opinion, would be to list types of tanks/ light vehicles disabled, i.e.
-Soviets casualties sustained: 22 T-70's, 46 T-34, 88 light vehicles
-German casualties sustained: 15 Pziii, 35 PzIV, 62 light Vehicles and 3 recon planes :eek:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Exactly! I think the problem with a lot of scoreboards now is that they only offer individual scores and have little to indicate team-scoring. They always seem egocentric (focusing on personal K/D), but the general flow and scale of the battle is lost! I think it would be beneficial to help foster the feel of the battle as a whole, potentially by including detailed global stats (as stated above), but then maybe taking this further by including detailed squad stats to reflect the effectiveness of each squad.


Okay, I might be getting a little ahead of myself, but I truly think squad stats could help generate a feeling of unity between you and your squad, as you are fighting together for the same score. It's not just your individual score that matters, but those of your squad mates too, encouraging more tactical interaction between players. I think a lot of people would find this interesting because it would show how effective you were as a team, but more specifically, how you worked cohesively as a unit.

This could also help foster a degree of competition between squads, which puts pressure on the commander/squad leaders to excel in their strategies, think on their feet, and really ponder the tactics available. People will remember a successful squad leader from other rounds and be more willing to follow. Alternatively, a commander who led his squad to suffer terrible losses might result in some wary apprehension from anyone following.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Maybe I just missed it in RO while it was there, but mention the server name and the map name please!

In all modern games (except Bc2) I miss these two mentioned.
When I want to tell my bro in what server I am, I have to open console just to check what server I am in. Also I play RO for a month and since loading screens are random (afaik) I have no name-map association...
Remembering map names is easier when it is mentioned in the scoreboard or at the end of the match. I never get why these are absent in nowadays games:confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miro!
Upvote 0
In regards to the MG issue.

I think a player should have selectable loadouts. One of the possible loadouts could be a belt of ammo. If they want 5 pts fine, but no nades for you or something to that effect.

Also, isn't it strange that a MG can give ammo to another MG, but not to himself? I mean cmon...that and the fact that everyone swinging d*ck magically carries a belt, mag, drum of MG ammo, etc.

this game should encourage teamplay not point spamming.
 
Upvote 0