• 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/

My thoughts

We should eliminate the kill count from the scoreboard, and make it "time survived" instead. Kill count makes it feel like a contest and the higher levels try to score as many kills they can, I know they do because I find myself doing it sometimes and I don't like it. I don't even realize it until I look at the scoreboard and I'm 100-150 kills ahead of the guy in second place with 300-350, then I feel like a kill stealing a-hole. If this is done then myself and the other level 6 sharpshooters can stop stealing all the kills and focus on taking out the high risk zeds before they kill somebody. Also, if they do this then people might be less likely to start popping shots off at FP's with the 9mm or flamethrower with the thought "Hurrrr my kill!!" going through their mind

Reduce the recoil on the SCAR just a tiny tiny bit so it's manageable at lower levels. I just finished level two commando and when I had a scrake or FP coming at me I had to go automatic, I could barely keep the dot sight on his head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salad Snake

I'm not looking for something client side, I'd like to see the kill count replaced all together.

I decided to get on KF right after I made this thread, managed to find a server on Farm through the thousand Doom maps, I get in and there's a sharpshooter running around picking off every clot/stalker/crawler while a firebug stands right there next to him going "STOP STOP." Then the FB got run over by a fleshpound, shortly after so did the sharpshooter.

I see this way too much and unfortunately when I host a server for my friends, they all lag too much. Same when they host, so that is out of the question... If the kill count got taken out, people like that sharpshooter that only cared about getting the most kills would stop and actually shoot at the things that are a big threat and leave the large mobs to the perks better suited for handling them. Without unnecessarily nerfing/buffing all the perks and spending forever trying to rebalance the game with hundreds of angry players.
 
Upvote 0
Well its been discussed alot before and I remember making this suggestion a while ago. I still think its a suitable scoreboard and the easiest to code.

Very simple Scoreboard idea:

Total money earned through the course of the game = Player Score:

- players with large numbers of small specimen kills will see they have earned a decent number of points
- someone pickng off larger targets will have more points due to high value target elimination
- anyone who heals their team all the time will also earn points as well
- surviving the round factors in, more points for each teammate that survives the round when another dies and tonnes for being the sole survivor and clutching it for the team.

Its a very basic, simple to code score. Note the difference between "Total Money Earned = Points" and "Money = Points". Total money earned represents the value that player has made regardless of weapons he buys, how much he drops or lack there off, etc. So money hoarding does bugger all to your score, because you will earn money all the same.

Edit: Rest of the post is invalid. Issue has now been fixed since money is awarded by damage dealt instead of kills now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
If the kill count got taken out, people like that sharpshooter that only cared about getting the most kills would stop and actually shoot at the things that are a big threat and leave the large mobs to the perks better suited for handling them.

No, they wouldn't. While removing the scoreboard might make it less fun to rambo, the base problem is that people CAN rambo. I don't want a game like l4d where teamwork is forced down your throat, but if you can run around the map like the newest Norse god, why wouldn't you? But if you feel like every enemy is liable to give you a lobotomy if your friends don't help out, then maybe you won't go part the zed sea.
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
No, they wouldn't. While removing the scoreboard might make it less fun to rambo, the base problem is that people CAN rambo. I don't want a game like l4d where teamwork is forced down your throat, but if you can run around the map like the newest Norse god, why wouldn't you? But if you feel like every enemy is liable to give you a lobotomy if your friends don't help out, then maybe you won't go part the zed sea.
Some will still do it, but I believe that overall, less people will. If the kill count isn't there for people to check every 3 seconds then there will be less kill hording to get past the next guy up on the scoreboard.
 
Upvote 0
Some will still do it, but I believe that overall, less people will. If the kill count isn't there for people to check every 3 seconds then there will be less kill hording to get past the next guy up on the scoreboard.
You want to remove the way people self-assert they are superior. Instead if you frame it as them working together rather than a contest of kills, then you will want to make it so they NEED to work together. In suicidal you could die at any moment, but it is more of a "woops, I'm dead" thing. If your weapons are less effective and you could take more hits, then you can feel the slow build of the pressure from the specs and will naturally work together more.
 
Upvote 0
You want to remove the way people self-assert they are superior. Instead if you frame it as them working together rather than a contest of kills, then you will want to make it so they NEED to work together. In suicidal you could die at any moment, but it is more of a "woops, I'm dead" thing. If your weapons are less effective and you could take more hits, then you can feel the slow build of the pressure from the specs and will naturally work together more.

I don't want the 'need' to work together though, if I wanted a game that was based almost 100% on teamwork to survive a round I would play Left 4 Dead. People should still be able to go off on their own and survive. This is just a way to make that one d-bag stop picking off kills from in front of somebody that actually needs them or focusing all of his Lv6 Sharpshooter firepower on clots and start putting some effort in at killing the thing that poses a much greater threat to the team.
 
Upvote 0
No, they wouldn't. While removing the scoreboard might make it less fun to rambo, the base problem is that people CAN rambo. I don't want a game like l4d where teamwork is forced down your throat, but if you can run around the map like the newest Norse god, why wouldn't you? But if you feel like every enemy is liable to give you a lobotomy if your friends don't help out, then maybe you won't go part the zed sea.

It won't stop rambos completely, but it will help. In game design, making something less fun IS discouraging it. After all, why would you do something unfun when you're trying enjoy a game?

It would however stop people who view the game with a competitive mindset instead of cooperative one, like this guy:
No.

I love getting 900 kills as a medic on suicidal.

People who view getting more kills as a concrete way of proving you're the better, more skillful player. The game is fun for no one when one player tries to steal everyone's kills and in the process endangers the team (because he's going for the easy kills instead of the most immediately dangerous ones).
 
  • Like
Reactions: CandleJack
Upvote 0
People should still be able to go off on their own and survive.
As I stated earlier, I don't want teamwork where it is shoved down your throat, i.e. you MUST have another player present because it is impossible for you to deal with most threats.

But rather you should be able to deal with most threats, but you still need to be punished if you try to deal with ALL threats that appear. While this would cause cases where you die because someone else isn't properly doing their job, it would make most long-term players stick to their job. FPs, and to some extent scrakes, are the factors in-game that do this, but this means that half the game most perks should be able to solo and, therefore, rambo.

While removing the scoreboard would cause a decrease in unintentional positive reinforcement, a strong negative reinforcement is needed to bring in line the people who are intentionally uninterested in teamwork.
 
Upvote 0
It would still be possible to rambo in easy, and to some extent in Normal. Solo and mods are still available as well.

But if you have people that don't want to cooperate in a co-op game, hopefully a very small subset of the player base in a co-op game, then isn't them leaving a good thing? Unless you want to play a concurrent-play, slightly-competitive zombie survival game.
 
Upvote 0
I'm talking more about the douche-ish players who act like the team is around to serve them. As an example, L4D Versus is full of these. My theory is that these players are what happens when you take the super-competitive CS/CoD meatheads and put them in a cooperative game. They know the team has to work together, but expect for the cooperation to be 60-40 since they're the "better player". I'm sure we've all met this type of player.

Honestly, I don't think anything can be done to make it impossible to rambo in easier difficulties without making it not-easy anymore. Remember that teamwork is also a skill, and that easier difficulties are meant to cater to casual players who do not have as much skill. If you think about it, if you are an experienced player in a lower difficulty, then the game essentially becomes a kill contest since you no longer need to worry about survival.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Perhaps my wording was poor. I basically agree with everything you just said.

Teamwork would be optional in easy, helpful in normal, necessary in hard, and essential in suicidal.

I suppose that if you are looking at CS/CoD players, removing kills from the scoreboard would be off putting, though I still think that it is a fundamental flaw if teamwork is not required in a co-op game. The beta looks like it should help though.
 
Upvote 0
No need to even sort the list. Put the zerkers at the top, followed by the medics, then everyone else.

depends on the game.

Not every zerker is a god, you know. Most of them are among the first to die; it's just those few who have mastered the Art who we remember, despite their being in the minority.

However, the medic should always be at the top in time survived in any successful game, if he's playing as a medic.
 
Upvote 0
depends on the game.

Not every zerker is a god, you know. Most of them are among the first to die; it's just those few who have mastered the Art who we remember, despite their being in the minority.

However, the medic should always be at the top in time survived in any successful game, if he's playing as a medic.

I agree with you, and support your position.

I'm not a god at Berserker, nor am i the first to die. I'm an average Berserker and i'm happy with it.

And yes, Medic would be at the top of the timer, followed (in the right circumstances) by Sharpshooter.

I'll always support this version of the scoreboard though:

Perk Points. You get points for doing your perk's role; SS headshots, Medic healing, Support SG damage/welding, etc.

Being the highest scoring player when you do your job is something people should strive for.

Imagine all the zerdics actually running around healing people because they want to be the top scorer. They'd be doing their job, albeit for the wrong reason.
 
Upvote 0