Few questions about points

  • 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/

snakedude24

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 16, 2006
1,042
0
0
Thing is, points are important. If I see that our sniper has 2 points after 10 minutes, I'm promptly going to ask him to switch roles. Points have their use.
 

Red*Star

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 19, 2006
14
0
0
Sweden
If you kill a player who is capping you get an extra point. So a kill is 1, killing a capper is 2, killing an officer is 2, killing an officer who is capping is 3.

This is the best solution IMHO. Simple, easy to undestand, easy to implement.

Also, I agree to give 2 or 3 points for every thing you blow up with a satchel charge.

Further, I'd like a few points for destroying a tank (even with no people inside it), and at least 1 point for destroying a transport vehicle. (Sorry if this is already the case, I'm a bit of a n00b.)

Finally, I suggest the number of points for resupplying a gunner to be reduced from 5 to, say, 2.
 

Red*Star

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 19, 2006
14
0
0
Sweden
On the subject of the score-board, there is one thing I dearly miss from Call of Duty: The number of times you have died/respawned. Because to me personally, the most important thing is not how many other guys you have killed, but rather the ratio between how many you killed and how many times you died yourself. Ideally, I'd like it if you could see one column for score, another for "enemy soldiers killed" and a third for "deaths". And why not a fourth showing how long time you have been active (alive). Then it would be much easier to spot who is doing well and who is not.

As a n00b, I die pretty often. :) However, I often end up in the top 1/3rd of the score board, because I'm pretty decent at collecting points. However, the current score board doesn't give an accurete reflection of my (lack of) skill. For example when I gain 10 points for helping secure an easy objective early in the round, and then get killed 10 times in a row without killing anyone, I don't feel more skillful than the guy who's lived the whole round and picked off 9 enemy soldiers...
 

Bobdog

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
1,916
218
0
Texas
While I think it would be cool as hell to have 'defender points', it would be kinda hard to implement. What do you do about the machine gunner who is set up perpendicular to the enemy's angle of advance? If he's continually mowing down enemy troops before they get to the objective, isn't that defending just as well as the SMGer who's hanging out right under the fountain/large rock/train car/whatever? Or the person who's 75m behind the objective, but consistantly picking off anyone who sticks their head up just a little too high. They're defending too. Or the arty that comes down on a side avenue, forcing to enemy to come in from one angle. That's defending for sure on the part of the commander, but he might not even get kills for it, how do you go about rewarding defense points?

Good idea, but the implementation would be too tricky to make it worth the time involved.

Points for blowing objectives though could probably be done easier, and it's much more uniform across the board (either you blew it up, or you didn't) for rewarding points.

While reading this thread I came up with this idea:

Note: As a prerequisite to even considering this idea you have to accept the fact that the average player cares what his score is. I know there are people like you, Velcro Warrior, who as you said "could care less if I had -20 or 200 points", but you are not the majority.

If you agree that points are an important aspect of the game, you can skip all the rest of the yellow text. (it got a little bit longer than I originally thought it would be). If not, here's why having a score is important AND useful:

A score in a game is there specifically to provide a numerical measure of how well a player is performing. Take a game like counterstrike for example. The guy on your team on the top of the scoreboard is performing the task the game wants him to do (completing setting/defusing the bomb and/or killing the other team while minimizing dying, for example) better than any other player on your team.

More often than not, this player is not doing it for the glory of his team, rather he is doing it for personal satisfaction; that's the reason we play videogames in the first place.

As we know, RO is a team-oriented game and to some, helping the team win is more important than getting a high score. But I submit to you that if in fact, if someone is helping their team out, they should have a high score, whether or not is serves as their motivation. If you are doing a good job capturing objectives and killing the enemy, you should, as a matter of course, have gathered many points while playing.

For this reason, people tend to care what their score is; it isn't necessarily because they want proof that they have "1337 skills", but more that they like being able to look at a score or K/D ratio in relation to other players on their team or server in order to evaluate how much they are helping their team. And think about it: Even if a player could care less about his teammates but has an amazing level of skill and almost carries an entire team by himself, is he not contributing to his team's winning?

Even if the player is solely out there to get a high ranking on the scoreboard, a good scoring system can use this to its advantage by being structured in a way that a player MUST cooperate with his team on some level in order to gain points. Think: Does it really matter if the player 5 feet on your right helping to defend an objective is thinking "I'm here to help my fellow players hold this position by killing the approaching enemy" versus "I'm here because I know the enemy will come this way and I can get some kills"? No. Either way he's still standing there throwing lead at the enemy. Regardless of his mindset, he's still helping the team out.

In designing a scoring system for a game, the best way to implement it is in such a way that a player is awarded points for what the developer "wants" the player to do. Basically, if you want your players to do something, you throw them points for doing it.

For (a somewhat extreme) example: Imagine the devs go completely insane and release a patch tomorrow that awards points for teamkills. Now you (meaning people like Velcro Warrior who care not for their scores) would still play to the "goal" of the game, which is capturing/defending objectives from the enemy. However, many "regular" players who care about their scores would probably just tk for points since it's an easy way to get them.

Conversely, by giving players points for something you want them to do (capturing objectives, killing the enemy, resupply MG'ers, ect.) you give them a reason to do that action.

What I'm really saying here is that having a score in a game has been an element since pong. And unless something MAJOR occurs, it's here to stay. And since we're going to have scores anyway, we might as well award points in a way that encourages players to work towards winning a map in a realistic manner. And for people like you Velcro Warrior, no offense, but you shouldn't really be in this argument because as you said, you don't care what your score is, so any changes to the scoring system are irrelevant to you. I'm not saying you're not allowed to comment on my or other people's ideas as well as posting your own, I just mean that saying something like "points don't matter" isn't going to change anything.

People will ALWAYS care about their score; rather than looking down upon them for this we should use it sculpt their play-styles.


And now, for my idea:

I propose that there be a kill-score multiplier be applied to everyone who is within a certain area around a capture zone that increases the longer the point is defended uninterrupted.

Here is a simple example map:

mapyg0.png


The Germans are defending against the Russian advance; as the Russians capture objectives the latter objectives become available for capture; Germans are unable to recapture. (Obj. 1 captured--> 2 & 3 become available)

Now here is an illustration of the objective's capture zone and defense multiplier zone:

map1kh3.png


The capture zone is in blue; anyone (German or Russian) inside the blue square is actively affecting the capture meter of the objective. The defense multiplier zone is in the green and includes the blue box as well. Any Germans in this zone fall under the influence of the defense multiplier but those who are in the green rather than the blue do NOT affect the capture meter of the objective. My reason for making the defense multiplier zone larger than the capture zone is that there are many positions on a map that one can take that are not necessarily in the capture zone, but still can contribute to its defense; for example, a sniper in a nearby tall building would not be in the capture zone, but would still be contributing to its defense. Of course, this zone can be any shape the mapper desires to make it, and could even be separated into "islands" for instances where a machine-gunner or sniper would be likely to set up far away from the capture zone but the ground in between is lacking in cover.

Notice: Only the first objective has a defense multiplier zone as it is currently the only objective that is captureable. Once it is captured, the defense multiplier zone around and including it will disappear and new zones will appear around those newly capturable objective(s)

"Well," you must be thinking, "all these pretty graphics are well and good, but you have yet to explain how this whole multiplier thing will work."

Well, today is your lucky day as I was just about to do just that.

Here goes:

First, you need to take into account that the multiplier will affect scores from KILLS and KILLS ONLY. Re-supplying Mg'ers does not count, using satchels (for destroying objects only) does not count and artillery kills may.

In all normal areas (brown areas of the map) as well as outside of active defense multiplier zone(s) as well as in inactive zones scoring for kills operates as it does now. Killing a regular enemy grunt gets you 1 point, an officer, more. Outside of active defense multiplier zones, this will ALWAYS be the case.

Inside an active zone, however, points awarded for killing enemies will have a "bonus multiplier" applied to them, starting at 1 x score. As the defenders successfully hold a position longer and longer, the multiplier will slowly increase. Let's start a hypothetical game.

So, the map loads, team Germany spawns behind objective 1 and has to run there to take up defensive positions. They arrive and barely settle in, and the Russians are attacking. Objective 1 is meant to be that first, somewhat easy victory for the Russians to afford them a foothold; the map is so designed that most of the time, the Russians will have a fairly easy time capturing it quickly. So, the shooting begins. For the first 2 minutes the multiplier is set at 1 x score, and the defending Germans receive points normally. Now for this map, 2 minutes is a reasonable amount of time for the the Russians to overwhelm and push back the Germans. But in this particular instance, the Germans are more organized than usual, and manage to hold the Russians back. Once the timer rolls over the 2 minute mark, the Germans are rewarded for their perseverance by having the defense multiplier go up to 1.5 x score. This means that after 2 minutes of defending has passed, all Germans within the defense multiplier zone will receive 1.5 times the normal amount of points they would get for a kill for every kill they make after the 2 minute mark. If they continue to hold the position, the multiplier will continue to increase. For example, if they were to succeed in holding it an additional 3 minutes, thus bringing the total time of defense up to 5 minutes, the multiplier would move up to 2 x score and they would receive double the amount of points for kills made after the 5 minute mark.

As soon as the Russians capture the objective, the multiplier for the Germans on that objective disappears and they revert to getting normal amounts of points for kills made in that area. Conversely, if the Germans could manage to shut out the Russians for an excessive amount of time, such as for the ENTIRE span of the round, they could eventually reach a very high multiplier value such as 5 or 10 x score for each kill.

However, there should be a maximum multiplier value for most of the objectives, with the maximum getting lower and lower as you go to later and later objectives. For example, it takes a great amount of skill and teamwork to hold the attacking team back from its first objective which it is meant to easily capture, whereas keeping them out of the last, well defended and entrenched objective is a much simpler task. Therefore you would see a maximum limit of something like 5 or 10 x score for an objective that would be almost impossible to defend the entire round whereas an intermediate objectives may be capped at a number such as 1.5 or 2 x score and final objectives get little or no multiplier at all, being capped at perhaps 1.2 x score

In my opinion, this system, if it is even possible for it to be implemented would reward defending players better and better as they defend more and more proficiently. A defending team that manages to shut out or to have a standoff with the attacking team on the early objectives will be rewarded with very high scores, whereas a team that just barely manages to hold on to the final objective, while still winning, will have less massive scores.

Well, that sure took forever to write; I hope you guys understood it.

So what do you think? Questions, comments, criticisms?
 
Last edited:

Bobdog

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
1,916
218
0
Texas
Can't read it? Ok I'll change the color to yellow then.

And with that, I shall go to sleep.

I'll check this tomorrow and answer questions and such :)
 

_KaszpiR_

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 7, 2006
205
2
0
Poland, Warsaw
nvt.prv.pl
hmm, system is not perfect - notice that sometimes snipers are far away and they help their teammates by taing down enemy players - i bet thhen ht esniper would not be in extra point zone

i would rather see that killing enemies that are within specified zones would cause to change the point scaling factor - it would be then true defense, because its the enemy trying to attack the place, and you defend it
 

Bobdog

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
1,916
218
0
Texas
hmm, system is not perfect - notice that sometimes snipers are far away and they help their teammates by taing down enemy players - i bet thhen ht esniper would not be in extra point zone

i would rather see that killing enemies that are within specified zones would cause to change the point scaling factor - it would be then true defense, because its the enemy trying to attack the place, and you defend it

Well, like I said, the mapper could choose to shape it in any way they like; you could have a small section (like a sniper or mg nest, as I said) that is otherwise far away and unattached to the main zone that gains the bonus at the same rate. This is what I meant by having an "island".

Like here:

map3bv0.png


The purple box represents a sniper's nest, such as a tall building that is far away from the objective itself but could still be used as point of defense. While it is not physically connected to the main zone, its multiplier would be the same since it would be in defense of the same objective. A defender in the main zone would get a score bonus, a sniper in the secondary zone would get the same bonus but those in the land in between would not.
 

dogbadger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 19, 2006
3,230
553
0
here to kill your monster
Also, have the devs considered some kind of defending point system?
dunno but a while back it was mentioned, as well as the capping points too.
I think-
Cap starting from under half taken - get 10 pts
Cap when over 50% already in your control (ie. finish it off) - 5 pts
Die or leave cap zone and your contribution is frozen for, say 5 secs (you still score if the rest of the team finishes it off on you absence)

Bring cap back to full control get 10 pts, unless-
When you contribution starts enemy only has less than 50%- then its 5 pts

Also recon killing enemy who is in cap zone should score double.
 

K Rohm

FNG / Fresh Meat
Not to throw water on Bobdog's idea, but what do you do about the guy in the Tiger who is outside of all cap zones and 'multiplier' zones- and not even, hypothetically, making any kills- but yet is still providing a powerful deterrent to an enemies who *might* travel that route? And how do you account for the roving artillery observer, other than basing his points on whatever his strikes eliminate?

If either of tham are channeling enemy forces into a 'kill box' he's performing just as valuable a function as aiding in the destruction itself, yes?

I still must maintain that as a PERSONAL measure of success the kill:death ratio is the best all-around system, but as far as the BATTLE is concerned it all boils down to fulfilling certain Victory Conditions, detached from individual scores.

For instance, if a team gets very few kills yet still accomplishes their mission do they not deserve just as much credit as a team who gets megakills? As long as the mission is accomplished it matters not how many of the enemy were taken out (unless, of course, the mission is force-on-force carnage).

Scoring is such a convoluted subject- many systems, many opinions...and not enough solutions!
 

Bobdog

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
1,916
218
0
Texas
Hey, I'm glad to see people pointing out flaws in my idea; the best way to make something better is to recognize its flaws and address them.

_KaszpiR_ , what you said about possibly reversing the zones (killing enemies who are in a zone, rather than making kills from a zone) is a good idea; I hadn't really considered that possibility.

K Rohm, yours is a good point as well. To be honest, I don't know how you could award points for something like deterring the enemy without creating possible scoring exploits. If you can think of way, great. I'm sure the devs would love to see your input.

I don't really care if my idea "wins" and get implemented; I just want it to be considered along with everyone else's ideas. If the devs don't like it, fine. If they want take this part of my idea and that part of your idea and some other parts of 3 other people's ideas, and glue them together and implement them, that's great. I don't claim to have made a perfect system here, just a "blueprint" if you will of a possible defensive scoring system.

Regardless, I don't think we should expect any of our ideas to work perfectly the first time around if they were implemented. Rarely anything does; just look at the many features that have been added to RO throughout its development from the earliest betas through today. Half the time, when some new gameplay element was put in, it was buggy, unwieldy, and not up to the same level of quality as the rest of the game was. Do you guys (who were here at the time) remember when tanks were first put in? They slid down hills a lot, 2 hits anywhere was all it took to kill an enemy tank, ricochets were rare, there were no coaxial machine guns. Tracks couldn't be taken out, there was no locational damage model, the list goes on. But since then, every revision has gotten better and better. You may not think that tanks are perfect now. They might not be, there's always some room for improvement. But what I am saying is that none of our ideas have to be 100% perfect the first time we post them. If any of them get implemented in any way, I'm sure that the first release with defensive points will have its share of bugs and problems. But over time, whatever system the devs might choose to use will get more and more fleshed out with each release.

This is the first thread in a long time that I have read that actually had an original idea that was good. I'm not trying to insult my fellow forumers, I'm just saying that since I have been reading and commenting on these forums since around the 2.0 release, most ideas now that people post have either been discussed some time in the past and discounted or have been implemented. For example, every few months you're bound to have an "Add Medics" or a "Put in the FG-42" thread. I'm not saying they are inherently bad ideas, I'm just saying that they have been discussed back and forth a hundred times, and at this point, for me, they are no longer worth even reading.

Because I think having some sort of defensive scoring system ingame is such a good idea, I feel that we should do our best to show the devs that we think it would make a good addition to Red Orchestra by working together here to try and give them ideas for possible defensive scoring systems.
 
Last edited:

K Rohm

FNG / Fresh Meat
In order to award points for defensive actions, there must be identifiable markers that define that defense- such as holding a certain area for a length of time (such as the Soviets must on the Black Day map), or maintaining control of certain zones (much like on Stalingrad Kessel and such). Without having a benchmark of what constitutes 'defense' any point system is going to be pretty much arbitrary I should think.

Having defined defensive characteristics such as the Black Day map (hold the line until X hour- represented by the timer) eliminates the need for even calculating points for each team- if they don't accomplish the mission, it doesn't matter HOW many of the enemy they kill along the way. I've seen many BDJ battles end with the Soviets having mad point scores- far above the German score- but still lose because they failed to properly secure their lines. To me, THAT is the essence of defense- fulfilling whatever conditions are set regardless of enemy action.

The same thing applies to the offense, in my view; the team must fulfill certain conditions to be able to claim victory- and if they don't accomplish the mission it's a loss, plain and simple, just as in Real Life (tm). Using the BDJ map again as an example, the German have to break the Soviet line in a specified amount of time- and if they fail in that (regardless of how many Reds are killed) they've lost, period.

Unless the intent of the scenario is simple attrition of opposing forces, I'd say base the win/loss on the achieving (or not) of defined objectives. If a team is given the mission to, say, destroy all the German-side bridges in East Field (Orel) it's up to them to accomplish that mission as best they may- if it takes the whole team swarming the field in T-34's to clear and hold it until the bridges are down, so be it. BUT if by the same token they manage to slip in one or two Clown Cars and get the job done, the result is the same. 'High Command' very likely doesn't CARE how many Germans are killed in the process- only that the process is completed satisfactorily.

Now the problem with all this is the $64,000 question: how to incorporate this objective-based type of scoring into RO without a massive overhaul. Honestly I don't know how- only that it's been done at a basic level on the BDJ map (and certainly others) and it doesn't seem that far of a leap to discard personal points as a measure of the team's victory (or defeat) for selected engagements.
 

dogbadger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 19, 2006
3,230
553
0
here to kill your monster
The thread starter raised-
Also, have the devs considered some kind of defending point system? I think Battlefield 2 had something like this if I don't remember too wrong.. Basicly, you'd get a point or two when you manage to stop the enemy from capturing the zone and get the bar on your side full again

- I dont recall BF2 but I agreed and mentioned that I had before suggested very similar- about points for bringing a cap back to your control. Lack of comment suggests ppl think it's a poor idea, unless i have expressed myself badly-sorry. I appreciate ppl's ideas and efforts, so no offense but I'm just confused by all the 'multipliers' , 'identifiable markers' , 'main zones' and diagrams that remind me of Bouderdash on the CMB64, when the answer seems to stare me in the face.

So -
In order to award points for defensive actions, there must be identifiable markers that define that defense- such as holding a certain area for a length of time
To me the game has this already - the capzone/defending it when it's threatened. You just award points for it. Thats how it can work on an individual level. The time factor is the bigger picture- your team winning or losing.
The same thing applies to the offense, in my view; the team must fulfill certain conditions to be able to claim victory- and if they don't accomplish the mission it's a loss, plain and simple,

Isn't that describing the game as it stands now?


Hey I'll be honest- sometimes i do like to rack up points so if say North field arad is under attack I think let em have it (providing we wont lose of course)- i'll try to take South field from them and come back and retake North. Poss 20points - nice one. If there was a points incentive to clear them out of North in the first place i might be more inclined to do just that.
I know i'm pretty team oriented, but if you think i'm not cos sometimes I've got an eye out my score no worries - I bet im not the only one..

Now the problem with all this is the $64,000 question: how to incorporate this objective-based type of scoring into RO without a massive overhaul.
you can't can you? - aren't you fundamentally changing the game?

I feel that we should do our best to show the devs that we think it would make a good addition to Red Orchestra by working together here to try and give them ideas for possible defensive scoring systems.
I strongly agree - but lets not confuse them and the players with complicated systems.
Keep it simple- anything else won't make it in.
 

Velcro Warrior

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 24, 2005
647
19
0
Wisconsin
www.maporchestra.com
Points aren't a very good indicator of how well a player is doing either; I've sat idle in an objective, to return to my computer and discover that I had accumulated 50 points. For hiding in a capture point. So that means I'm doing well because I have more points than 3/4 of my team?