Scoreboard and Score Point System Sugestions
- Thread starter Witzig
- Start date
Left to right, across (ie: horizontally!) the screen, half a screen for each team:
Name, Score, Kills, Deaths, Ping
EDIT: Score = Kills + Flag/Tank/Whatever Points (I haven't fully figured out the scoring system yet).
Doesn't take up much space, isn't overly complicated. And a full board can be scanned by a competent player in about a second - or less, if you're looking for something specific.
It also doesn't promote 'Lone-Wolf' play or 'Stats-Whore' behaviour. Those checking their scores frequently will tend to do worse as they are not helping the team by beatig the enemy back with every means at their disposal - they have to get somewhere safe to check the board, and checking it often means not injuring/killing/stopping the guy who is about to kill your teammate. Not helping the team means you get spotted as a 'tard pretty quickly and, dealt with.
On the subject of the scoreboard & such - can we have some form of background? It's very hard to read at certain times (end of the round in particular) when the text blends into the view behind.
The same for the Death messages and such - a simple border to the text would do - just to separate it clearly from the rest of the screen.
PS Before anyone says it, I rarely check my score. I find that I play better not checking it - I focus more on "help team, don't die" as opposed to "gotta kill, gotta kill". Although it's nice to compare at a round's end - I like to see if I'm proving my play, or being a complete hinderance to the team & need to shape up.
Name, Score, Kills, Deaths, Ping
EDIT: Score = Kills + Flag/Tank/Whatever Points (I haven't fully figured out the scoring system yet).
Doesn't take up much space, isn't overly complicated. And a full board can be scanned by a competent player in about a second - or less, if you're looking for something specific.
It also doesn't promote 'Lone-Wolf' play or 'Stats-Whore' behaviour. Those checking their scores frequently will tend to do worse as they are not helping the team by beatig the enemy back with every means at their disposal - they have to get somewhere safe to check the board, and checking it often means not injuring/killing/stopping the guy who is about to kill your teammate. Not helping the team means you get spotted as a 'tard pretty quickly and, dealt with.
On the subject of the scoreboard & such - can we have some form of background? It's very hard to read at certain times (end of the round in particular) when the text blends into the view behind.
The same for the Death messages and such - a simple border to the text would do - just to separate it clearly from the rest of the screen.
PS Before anyone says it, I rarely check my score. I find that I play better not checking it - I focus more on "help team, don't die" as opposed to "gotta kill, gotta kill". Although it's nice to compare at a round's end - I like to see if I'm proving my play, or being a complete hinderance to the team & need to shape up.
Upvote
0
... i just wanted to get rid of those IDeas when i posted them Oh, I forgot about the column for soldier-type. An icon would suffice.
So the scoreboard could be like this:
Icon, Name, Score, Kills, Deaths, Ping.
And, if needed (for an admin to identify a player easily), a player ID at the left or right, like this:
ID, Icon, Name, Score, Kills, Deaths, Ping.
So the scoreboard could be like this:
Icon, Name, Score, Kills, Deaths, Ping.
And, if needed (for an admin to identify a player easily), a player ID at the left or right, like this:
ID, Icon, Name, Score, Kills, Deaths, Ping.
Upvote
0
I'd like to see "% of reinforcements you used up" for your team. No kill/death, just how much each person drained the reinforcements. It would be a nice offset to the "total points".
Especially on maps like Berezina where for example the russian reinforcements are a precious commodity!
Especially on maps like Berezina where for example the russian reinforcements are a precious commodity!
Upvote
0
The only people who are motivated by thier score are score-whores - the type of people who decrease the realism, play Rambo-style, resort to gamey tactics, and ignore team objectives in favor of deathmatch play.
If you made the score actually MEAN SOMETHING, then you could consider it a motivator for people to work toward certian objectives.
But with the scoring system as nonsensical, unbalanced, and inconsequential as it is, changing to how many points a certain action gets you will do nothing.
Best option: Remove scoring altogether. With nothing to play for except the win, people will stop running up their scores and start capping objectives.
2nd Best: Make it possible to get a high score without launching suicide mission after suicide mission. (Or make it IMPOSSIBLE to score high with this method.) That is to say, make it actually matter when you die.
3rd Best: Reconfigure the scoring system so it rewards teamwork, realistic play, and working toward team objectives. Running into a cap zone at the last second before your team caps should not earn you as many points as killing 10 advancing enemies from just outside the capzone.
I would love to see these happen, but the devs are in love with their goofy scoring system, and most players don't give a squirt about their score.
If you made the score actually MEAN SOMETHING, then you could consider it a motivator for people to work toward certian objectives.
But with the scoring system as nonsensical, unbalanced, and inconsequential as it is, changing to how many points a certain action gets you will do nothing.
Best option: Remove scoring altogether. With nothing to play for except the win, people will stop running up their scores and start capping objectives.
2nd Best: Make it possible to get a high score without launching suicide mission after suicide mission. (Or make it IMPOSSIBLE to score high with this method.) That is to say, make it actually matter when you die.
3rd Best: Reconfigure the scoring system so it rewards teamwork, realistic play, and working toward team objectives. Running into a cap zone at the last second before your team caps should not earn you as many points as killing 10 advancing enemies from just outside the capzone.
I would love to see these happen, but the devs are in love with their goofy scoring system, and most players don't give a squirt about their score.
Upvote
0
OK this was supposed to go in the other thread but it got locked so its going here instead. This is how I think the point system should be:
There should be points for defending a cap zone. Killing attackers that are currently in the cap zone should count for extra points if the attacker had been there for a certain percentage of the cap. 0-33% you get 1 point, 34-66% = 2 points, 67% - 99% = 3 points. This is to encourage defenders to not be cowards and defend the cap zone better.
Attackers should get extra points for being in a cap zone for a certain % of time. Why should some that stays in a cap zone from 0-99% get nothing, while a guy that finally decides to get up and move in gets 10 points for 1% of the cap. It happens so often that people decide to move up once they think its inevitable that we will get the cap, rather than helping in the initial attack. 0-50% of total cap time (can start at whatever time you join the cap) should be 2 extra points. 51-99% of total cap time = 1 extra point. These would be in addition to the final cap points that everyone gets that isn't dependent on their total time spent in the cap zone (6 or 7 points). Killing people from within the cap zone should also get you extra points depending on how long you have been in the cap zone for. Any kill from inside the cap zone gets you 2 points, but if you have been in there for more than 50% total cap time then you get 3 points.
MG's and snipers should get 1.5 points per kill to account for them not getting the extra points for being in the cap zones. A certain amount of riflemen should also get the 1.5 points per kill when outside a cap zone (they would be like a separate class and get no grenades and the amount would depend on the map). They would sit outside the cap zone and cover the attackers with the MG and sniper and get no points for caps like the others. Other riflemen (attacking ones that get the extra points for being in a cap zone) could get a pistol perhaps?
5 for resupplying MG is OK, but a little high I think. Especially because theres a bug that allows you to resupply German MG's even when they already have full ammo. 2 - 5 points is fine.
There should be points for defending a cap zone. Killing attackers that are currently in the cap zone should count for extra points if the attacker had been there for a certain percentage of the cap. 0-33% you get 1 point, 34-66% = 2 points, 67% - 99% = 3 points. This is to encourage defenders to not be cowards and defend the cap zone better.
Attackers should get extra points for being in a cap zone for a certain % of time. Why should some that stays in a cap zone from 0-99% get nothing, while a guy that finally decides to get up and move in gets 10 points for 1% of the cap. It happens so often that people decide to move up once they think its inevitable that we will get the cap, rather than helping in the initial attack. 0-50% of total cap time (can start at whatever time you join the cap) should be 2 extra points. 51-99% of total cap time = 1 extra point. These would be in addition to the final cap points that everyone gets that isn't dependent on their total time spent in the cap zone (6 or 7 points). Killing people from within the cap zone should also get you extra points depending on how long you have been in the cap zone for. Any kill from inside the cap zone gets you 2 points, but if you have been in there for more than 50% total cap time then you get 3 points.
MG's and snipers should get 1.5 points per kill to account for them not getting the extra points for being in the cap zones. A certain amount of riflemen should also get the 1.5 points per kill when outside a cap zone (they would be like a separate class and get no grenades and the amount would depend on the map). They would sit outside the cap zone and cover the attackers with the MG and sniper and get no points for caps like the others. Other riflemen (attacking ones that get the extra points for being in a cap zone) could get a pistol perhaps?
5 for resupplying MG is OK, but a little high I think. Especially because theres a bug that allows you to resupply German MG's even when they already have full ammo. 2 - 5 points is fine.
Upvote
0
I am not really score orientated so, my point of view is maybe a little different. I do realise however, that many people are score orientated.
And this is where I will pick up on the MG suggestion of melipone. As a very keen MG'er when the time arises, I am really pleased when someone resupplies me with MG ammo. Because if I run out of ammo, it means that I have to get up and run to the nearest ammo resupply, which isn't usually nearby. This means that my team has an MG out of action for a considerable amount of time. I think 5 points is plenty encouragement for people to resupply me, (for people that do care about their scores) so wouldnt want the points reduced. Its easy points for someone. But more importantly from the team point of view it keeps the MG as a lethal force in the middle of the action.
And for all you riflemen that lie beside MG's in the battlefield, and give us close covering support, as well as ammo, while also missing out on the capture points etc. Thanks. Great team players. Its really appreciated. As melipone says, you guys should get points as well.
And this is where I will pick up on the MG suggestion of melipone. As a very keen MG'er when the time arises, I am really pleased when someone resupplies me with MG ammo. Because if I run out of ammo, it means that I have to get up and run to the nearest ammo resupply, which isn't usually nearby. This means that my team has an MG out of action for a considerable amount of time. I think 5 points is plenty encouragement for people to resupply me, (for people that do care about their scores) so wouldnt want the points reduced. Its easy points for someone. But more importantly from the team point of view it keeps the MG as a lethal force in the middle of the action.
And for all you riflemen that lie beside MG's in the battlefield, and give us close covering support, as well as ammo, while also missing out on the capture points etc. Thanks. Great team players. Its really appreciated. As melipone says, you guys should get points as well.
Upvote
0
Spot on Melipone.
Glad i found your post because i wanted to suggest similar. I thought of splitting the cap meter in half, to keep things simple.
Cap from when less than half way point till end and get 10 points.
Finish cap off from after half way point and get 5
Likewise for defenders;
Bring a cap back fully to you team's control from over half lost would yield 10 points
If opponent had less than half capped when you arrive and help re-secure it and you get 5
Why should someone get full 10 points for diving in zone last second after his teamates have fought long hard to swing the cap their way?
I was thinking about idea of crediting people if they contribute to a cap but die/leave before completion - but this seems complicated. The info might be have to be stored for some time (caps can be contested for prolonged periods) and you might re-enter the cap zone to finish it off after respawning and confuse matters.
Maybe best solution is if your contribution would be 'held on record' for say 5 secs after death or leaving and you still score points outlined above if team finishes job in this time.
This seems fair that you posthumously get credit for your brave capping effort under fire, and also you often you leave a cap zone early to get a better position when it's clear the team is overrunning it en mass.
I recon killing an enemy which is in an active cap zone should score more points as well- 2 being an obvious figure. I had it in my head that this was the already the case- but i might have been imagining it or phaps a beta was that way. I expect this has been mentioned before somewhere.
MG resupply is a tricky one- some cases the effort is vital should be highly rewarded, but other times it can be a cheap point builder. MG-s who call for ammo but keep running create a mini Benny Hill show sketch.
I crack-up when i see MG chasers . Sometimes i'm one of them...
Upvote
0
I like all of the ideas being presented here, but epecially like the idea of knowing exactly how many times you died. I think it has the possibilities of encouraging players to play more carefully and tactically. So each individual soldier is hopefully much more concerned about not knocking down their teams reinforcements by just playing carelessly.
Upvote
0
Not sure I'm into this death count idea myself, especially with regards an attacking team.
Hanging back and camping is ok and a natural instinct for many but this idea would further encourage it by penalising bravery.
Yes survival benifits the team because death loses reinforcements, but the game itself benifits from people getting stuck in sometimes.
Want the scoreboard to reflect the player's true impact on the reinforcements?
Kill to death ratio, as mentioned by others here already.
Hanging back and camping is ok and a natural instinct for many but this idea would further encourage it by penalising bravery.
Yes survival benifits the team because death loses reinforcements, but the game itself benifits from people getting stuck in sometimes.
Want the scoreboard to reflect the player's true impact on the reinforcements?
Kill to death ratio, as mentioned by others here already.
Upvote
0
I would also like to see this.
I am fine with the way the game is right now...
Maybe have it server controlled, such as server admins can chose if they want it or not...
I am guilty on that one... lol
Upvote
0
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I'd like to see a change in where you fire your tank gun but get destroyed just as you fire but your round carries on to kill your target but you don't get credited for that kill. Can this be fixed?
I also like the idea of team points in tanks as I hate being a crew member with others in a tank if I'm driving or on the mg because I don't get any points for kills by the gunner. So this change may incourage more tank team work.
I also like the idea of team points in tanks as I hate being a crew member with others in a tank if I'm driving or on the mg because I don't get any points for kills by the gunner. So this change may incourage more tank team work.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I am all for overhauling the scoring system, but I'm not so sure of the 'confirmed kill' requirements- for instance, what about snipers? If they are 'doing it right' there shouldn't BE anyone near them normally unless they are filling a 'designated marksman'- type role.
As for tanker scores, I'm all for giving each crewmember full credit for kills made by that tank.
OTOH, I am very much in favor of a simple kill:death ratio for each player, with perhaps a notation made for the percentage of reinforcments used by that player.
As for each battle's win/lose determination, I think each battle should be rated in a three-step system using LOSS, MARGINAL VICTORY, or DECISIVE VICTORY as the final report. This would be determined by a survey of each team's accomplishement of Victory Conditions- which may not exactly mesh with those of the other team. For instance, on a map like Orel the Germans may have the task of controlling all three of the Heights cap zones in a specified amount of time...while the Russians' task may be to, say, destroy all the German-side bridges by a certain time and place a certain number of artillery strikes on North Bridge. Hypothetical, but it shows that each team doesn't have to have the same objectives to achieve victory- note that if one team fails to accomplish their mission it matters not what the enemy does- they've still Lost. OTOH if they manage to achieve their objective while denying the enemy theirs, it's a Decisive Victory. If BOTH teams accomplish their missions it can still be a Marginal Victory for both- or if they both fail, they both get a Loss.
(This sort of thing could be incorporated into an overall player 'ranking' system of sorts, with say a Loss counting as 0, a MV counting as 1 point and a DV counting for 3 points- and in order to be awarded these points, the player has to be present for a minimum of 80% of the time allotted for the round, and must be in-game at the finish of that round, either alive or respawning. If a player enters the round late or leaves early, no points.)
IMHO something like this would encourage even more team play, as individual rankings more or less go away (other than the kill:death ratio) and players rely on team objectives in order to gain 'ranking' points. (Still we would have the problem of some players hanging back and letting the go-getters do all the work; I don't know if there's any way to prevent that other than players recognizing who the 'malingerers' are and not playing with them on their team.)
Scores, rankings, points- it's all a very slippery slope!
As for tanker scores, I'm all for giving each crewmember full credit for kills made by that tank.
OTOH, I am very much in favor of a simple kill:death ratio for each player, with perhaps a notation made for the percentage of reinforcments used by that player.
As for each battle's win/lose determination, I think each battle should be rated in a three-step system using LOSS, MARGINAL VICTORY, or DECISIVE VICTORY as the final report. This would be determined by a survey of each team's accomplishement of Victory Conditions- which may not exactly mesh with those of the other team. For instance, on a map like Orel the Germans may have the task of controlling all three of the Heights cap zones in a specified amount of time...while the Russians' task may be to, say, destroy all the German-side bridges by a certain time and place a certain number of artillery strikes on North Bridge. Hypothetical, but it shows that each team doesn't have to have the same objectives to achieve victory- note that if one team fails to accomplish their mission it matters not what the enemy does- they've still Lost. OTOH if they manage to achieve their objective while denying the enemy theirs, it's a Decisive Victory. If BOTH teams accomplish their missions it can still be a Marginal Victory for both- or if they both fail, they both get a Loss.
(This sort of thing could be incorporated into an overall player 'ranking' system of sorts, with say a Loss counting as 0, a MV counting as 1 point and a DV counting for 3 points- and in order to be awarded these points, the player has to be present for a minimum of 80% of the time allotted for the round, and must be in-game at the finish of that round, either alive or respawning. If a player enters the round late or leaves early, no points.)
IMHO something like this would encourage even more team play, as individual rankings more or less go away (other than the kill:death ratio) and players rely on team objectives in order to gain 'ranking' points. (Still we would have the problem of some players hanging back and letting the go-getters do all the work; I don't know if there's any way to prevent that other than players recognizing who the 'malingerers' are and not playing with them on their team.)
Scores, rankings, points- it's all a very slippery slope!
Upvote
0
I think the point system is great. The advantages:
1) It's simple
2) It encourages capping objectives and giving MG's ammo over killing enemies (killing 10 enemies is usually harder than capping an objective. Moreover, the best chances of killing enemies are near or in the cap zones)
3) It ranks players in the same team on the same map fairly
If you defend on Basovka, for instance, the only way to get points is to kill fascist invaders as quickly and efficiently as you can or supply your MG with ammo since none of the cap zones can be recaptured. This is not a problem since your team mates have the same chances for getting points and in the end the soviet team's scores can be compared to other soviet players scores on the same map.
It is annoying when you die just seconds before a cap is finished, but it actually happens so infrequently that it's a very minor inconvenience.
I haven't done any research on the matter, but I'd be willing to bet that the team that wins a round has a proportionally greater score than the losing side, which shows that "hanging back" and "not being a team player" are not winning tactics for people who care about their score even with the present system (which is fine).
1) It's simple
2) It encourages capping objectives and giving MG's ammo over killing enemies (killing 10 enemies is usually harder than capping an objective. Moreover, the best chances of killing enemies are near or in the cap zones)
3) It ranks players in the same team on the same map fairly
If you defend on Basovka, for instance, the only way to get points is to kill fascist invaders as quickly and efficiently as you can or supply your MG with ammo since none of the cap zones can be recaptured. This is not a problem since your team mates have the same chances for getting points and in the end the soviet team's scores can be compared to other soviet players scores on the same map.
It is annoying when you die just seconds before a cap is finished, but it actually happens so infrequently that it's a very minor inconvenience.
I haven't done any research on the matter, but I'd be willing to bet that the team that wins a round has a proportionally greater score than the losing side, which shows that "hanging back" and "not being a team player" are not winning tactics for people who care about their score even with the present system (which is fine).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've been on maps where the losing team had a much higher point score, but still lost the game based on cap zone control and/or time limits. See Orel or Black Day or Konigsplatz.
I don't know what the answer is in the end; I'd just like to see the Victory Conditions be more conducive to team effort than individual high scores.
(Maybe eliminate the scoreboard during the game, and tell everybody the results AFTER the round- that way Ivan (or Otto) isn't concerned with 'OMG only five minutes left- I have to kill ten more people to get the high score' or some such nonsense. Soldiers in wartime usually don't count the dead as a 'rating' system; all that matters is whether or not the mission was accomplished.)
I don't know what the answer is in the end; I'd just like to see the Victory Conditions be more conducive to team effort than individual high scores.
(Maybe eliminate the scoreboard during the game, and tell everybody the results AFTER the round- that way Ivan (or Otto) isn't concerned with 'OMG only five minutes left- I have to kill ten more people to get the high score' or some such nonsense. Soldiers in wartime usually don't count the dead as a 'rating' system; all that matters is whether or not the mission was accomplished.)
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
