• 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/

Advanced Scoring (point system)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
When everybody has only got 1 life, someone that is killed is gone for good. In which case an absolute kill/death ratio showcases pretty well what one person did in terms of help and destruction towards the enemy team. Next to that you can pretty much only play entire full rounds, if you join halfway through you need to wait to the next round to join.

This is not the case in RO, players you've killed return to the battlefield in under a minute. Next to that an individual cap zone must be capped within a time limit of about 5 minutes, so yes you are in a race for time. So a kill/death ratio doesn't cover the ground you need in a respawn based game. Beside that not all players play a map for the same length of time, making it impossible to compare the scores.

In such a scenario a kills/minute ratio means more to the team than a kill/death ratio, as a death means a penalty of being 1 minute out of the action, and being out of reinforcements mean you cannot kill. Someone with a 5:1 kill death ratio but with 0.5 kills/minute is less useful to the team than someone with a 2:1 kill death ratio but with 1.5 kills/minute. The time penalty of 1 minute for dying cuts in pretty heavily in a kills/minute ratio making it automatically that someone that dies a lot doesn't get the top ratio.

Kills/Minute in terms of kills a player does, shows in terms of kills what player has been the biggest help to his team. And in order to get people to be additionally careful for their life, the kill/death ratio could be multiplied into it. (Aka the kill/death only steers people to value their life more, where a kill/minute is an indication how helpful a player has been to his team is destroying the enemy forces.

If you read the entire suggestion this would just be a form for a factorization how much points you get for killing an enemy. Aka these ratio's wouldn't be displayed on the scoreboard. (Although it could still be nice to optionally allow a server admin to show this information).

What is displayed on the scoreboard in my opinion should be up to the server admins of the server. But for the default score rather than absolute points what I think works best again is a factorization, but in this case: Points
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#22
That is all fine and good, Zetsumi, but that fits your definition of "help to the team". And too, the question begs to be asked, "For all gametypes?" (I'll ask it rhetorically ;))

In my defense, I did read the entire thread.
I began reading it about 5 days ago. I don't know about your line of work, but in my typical 14 hour day I have a ton of crap (application formula's, yields, costs, labor issues, purchase orders, etc.) that crosses my desk and mountains of hands-on field work done out-of-doors during the daylight hours. If I'm lucky, I'll get to spend about an hour total (scattered throughout the day) catching up and reading various forums. This time of year I work seven days a week. So I if "lose" my place in a convoluted thread that began almost a week ago, I apologize.

Early at one point using the K/D was included in the calculation for points. Later it appears to be suggested that it is a seperate scoreboard item.

Again, everyone has their personal suggestions and opinions about scores, stats, etc. I'm not going to try and debunk anyone's suggestions or ideas. But in my personal opinion, I could care less about personal scores in RO. The more convoluted the system, the harder to maintain it is, the harder to quantify (different gametypes, weapons, maps, etc), and ultimately the less true meaning any given stat has. Put whatever spin you want on it.... any scoring system will never be all things to all people. Simple suffices for me.

Whether any scoring systems for personal points/stats are used in the game or not I seriously doubt that it will affect how I play (as long as the team wins). I am of the opinion that there are more important things that valuable cpu cylcles could be spent on.
 
Upvote 0
#24
It depends on what you want with a score system. Simple can be better, but if a scoring system is so simple that the number it stands for doesn't have any reference to how someone plays its useless to use as a ranking.

Ideally what I would be for is showing multiple different variables in the scoreboard.

Like Zones captured, Kills, Deaths, Minutes played. With the scoreboard arranged in something like an alphabetical order so players can deduct for themselves who they think was the best or not.

But in the case a single score is displayed and it is used as a ranking, and perks and statistics decided on those stats. Then such a system should try to implement as many variables that effect such a score, and could steer people to somewhat play in the way you prefer.

Do you and me care for our score perhaps not. But loads of people do care for their stats, score and ranking, and that can be used to actually steer people in to playing slightly in the method you want people to play. Which in this case would be winning the map by capturing the objectives and working as a team.

Good predictive systems, take into account loads of variables that can have an effect on the outcome. The suggestion I made is not even scratching the surface but simply factorize in some of the main independent variables needed for winning the map.
 
Upvote 0
#26
I feel the advanced scoring system as per other games with their uber numbers and ratios would do more harm than good with the RO faithful.

The high learning curve of the game is what makes it differ from the other games out there.
Hopefully the new game will continue in this vain........this is what gives RO the wow factor rather than the shiny baubles of stats and achievements found elsewhere.

Making more stats available and showing who's the King Of The Kessel would serve as pure self gratification for the sad and the lonely for the most part.

The existing scoring system works pretty well, everybody's familiar with it and apart from a few tweaks to give points for work that tends to go unrewarded as is I think it works fine.

As an aside, the webadmin facility allows the kill death ratio to be seen........if a clan felt like puosting this up weekly they could do so thus quenching the thirst of those who wish to see more stats.

The scoring system within the game aint really broken, just a few minor tweaks would supercharge it imo.
 
Upvote 0
#27
It is broken in the sense that it doesn't show who helps the team the most. Someone can have the top score when destroying all of the teams reinforcement continuously running into artillery. And pretty much only trying to give the teams mgs ammo.

People that support a cap from outside of the capzone are just as important as people inside the capzone, yet they do not get supported by the point system.

When you're in a server half the people join halfway through the game. So those people will have half the score they could have had otherwise.

Normalizing results and taking in factors that affect make a point system more fair. If a score is displayed it will be used for gratification, and it would better show a number that means something then. Otherwise just don't show any score at all is my opinion.
 
Upvote 0
#28
People will join and leave at will Zets, as they do anyways.
I get your suggestion about rewarding players who get involved as teamplayers so perhaps a simple formula would be thus.

Important roles within the game that require proper dedicated support roles imo are as follows


Machine Gunner
Sniper

Sniper team and mg team roles with points for whatever caps your team achieves whilst you're doing your job.

Squad leader support would be as is , the easy five points for resupply dissapears from the rabble and I honestly think it would encourage better involvement........want five points for resupply?.........head for the cap zone and get ten.
 
Upvote 0
#29
Nagels said:
People will join and leave at will Zets, as they do anyways.
Click to expand...

Yes and that is the exact reason why its nice to divide the points by the time someone has been playing. So someone that has been playing for half an hour can be compared to someone that has been playing for 15 minutes or a full hour.

Sure it can be that you can earn more points in the first half, than the second half of a map. But it would be a lot more representative than an absolute score.
 
Upvote 0
#32
Nagels said:
People will join and leave at will Zets, as they do anyways.
I get your suggestion about rewarding players who get involved as teamplayers so perhaps a simple formula would be thus.

Important roles within the game that require proper dedicated support roles imo are as follows


Machine Gunner
Sniper
Click to expand...

While I agree on the MGer, I think it's been said before, the "sniper" is more of a platoon level marksman - which didn't really get sent out on sniper teams, as we known them. So I don't think they'd necessarily have support / spotter.
 
Upvote 0
#33
Mormegil said:
While I agree on the MGer, I think it's been said before, the "sniper" is more of a platoon level marksman - which didn't really get sent out on sniper teams, as we known them. So I don't think they'd necessarily have support / spotter.
Click to expand...


It's a way of rewarding teamplay Morm, think of it as allowing the sniper to concentrate fully on his role......having a team member close by would allow this.

They both get the benefit of mutual support and point reward for covering their teams advance.
 
Upvote 0
#35
Personally i think spotters are not that useful
Click to expand...
Zetsumei said:
It is broken in the sense that it doesn't show who helps the team the most. Someone can have the top score when destroying all of the teams reinforcement continuously running into artillery. And pretty much only trying to give the teams mgs ammo.
Click to expand...


Here's my problem with these comments and they both point to the crux of the problem with any scoring system. The debate has been around since day one.

1)How is "Who helps the team the most" defined? Who determines the criterea used? Is "Rambo", the guy who runs around and wipes out 90% of the opposing team the guy who helped his team the most? Or is it the last remaining player on that opposing side who ultimately gets the last and winning kill for his team? Suppose this last kill was his only kill, and it was Rambo he killed? Or what if it wasn't Rambo he killed? Who should get the higher score?

2) In their effort to reward teamplay and team support, TW made sure the MG supplier got a lot of points. Sadly the Axis supplier scoring was broken or perhaps the scoring might have been a little more useful. Yet this brokeness brings to light the problem with personal scoring in general. Some players routinely resupply the MG'er as they run past (whether they need it or not). We all know who they are. They do it every map. "They" have to have the highest score. I guess in their own minds it makes them feel good, but everyone knows how it was obtained and discount it. The point is.....regardless of the scoring system used, people will find a way to "exploit" it so they come out on top. They will play however they need to play to get that top score. Whether they actually benefit the team or not.


In summary, the game maker determines their definition of reward and "winning". Presumably they base that definition upon their vision of how the game is won, how the game should be played, or how the game would be most enjoyable to masses and tally a score in those respects. Regardless of the method used, if individual achievements and rewards for solo "heroics" are given precident over team-oriented goals, undoubtedly many players will worry more about their scores than the goal of the teams. I'll even go so far as to submit that any "solo oriented stats" (whether teamplay explicitly wins the game or not) will encourage players to wing it on their own if that will get them highest score.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#36
Rambo's die so they do not help the team. Rambo's die so much that they cannot even attain the highest kill/minute ratio. The top 20 people with the highest kill/minute ratio in the mod were all rifleman, because when you die and walk back to the action you loose too much time. My preference with kill/minute is not because it looks the best, but in the mod where you knew every player it came the closest to listing what people most people considered to be the best players. Which were primarily pt and suomi players at that time.


If a player only kills the last person what has he been doing the entire match? Even if he makes the most important final kill, if he's done nothing the entire match he's not much of a help towards his team. And likely was one of the persons causing the team to nearly loose in the first place. The way points for teamwork related things are given scores compared to kill related things would be up for TWI to decide.

The reason why I think spotters are not useful is because there is a limited amount of classes. Sure you can make a spotter a wanted class but I cannot imagine the class actually making a player perform better. If there is a support class i'd rather have a guy that could be like a mobile ammo supply. Carrying some rifle,mg,smg bullets. And a dedicated medic, not one that can survive but basically one that is good at bandaging.

There are no snipers in ROHOS just specialized marksman. And I doubt the mg will fire at ranges of 1000+ meter on a lafette etc to need a spotter. So you could make mgs share points with a spotter.

Yes people will always try to make the max score which is the exact reason why i want a score representative of the end result that you want. That if people maximize their score they are actually helping there team.

Although I don't mind if individual scores would get removed, it just wont happen as a big chunk of people just want to see how well they are doing. And the score displayed should simply mean something in the way how a person performs.

The score systems suggested doesn't focus on individual performance. Thats the idea of points, its giving an individual a reward or stimulation for doing what the devs want him to do. Currently there are just big issues in the scoring system that make it neither show an approximation of who the best teamplayer is or not. For instance defending should pretty much be equally rewarded as capping.
 
Upvote 0
#37
i know for me personally, i don't ever go out of my way to resupply mgs unless they are calling for it. although if an mg spawns right in front of me and that message pops up in my face, "resupply mg" is bound to my last mouse button so of course i'll click it. do i get 10 points if that happens? sure. i'd be retarded to not give it too him. but does it hurt the team? no. for one thing he's got ammo in case people never actually go find him when he needs it, i'm not wasting time on the mg by having to run around to find him, and finally, it does give our team more points....seeing as the tie breaker is based on team points (in ROOST).

perhaps for mg resupply, just remove the text notification "press 'x' to resupply ROPlayer". that way people will never know that he needs ammo until he calls for it. additionally, you could make it trigger that an mg can only be resupplied if he requests a resupply....like by pressing "i need ammo" etc.....
 
Upvote 0
#38
I think ammo giving should be disabled in HOS until first bullet from the MG has been shot. It's not even realistic to be able to run with even more ammo while his MG is already heavy. Usually in RL the ammo would be given when MG is already set up so this way MG gunner won't be surrounded by all teammates at spawn cause everyone try to give him an ammo to get some xp points :D
 
Upvote 0
#39
The problem with all games is that they give XP for just turning up....I'd like a system where You lose XP for being a "Camper, Stat Whore, Grenade spamming suck, generally anyone that sits back and lets everyone else do the the hard work and then shouts "Yay Team....Ain't I 1337" in global Chat
.....But I'm bitter and twisted...there should be a positive XP.....But most imporantly a Negative XP....I just love to see the Script Kiddies Spew:D;)
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu