Tremulous Forum
General => Feedback => Topic started by: Medic on January 12, 2008, 04:10:18 pm
-
Anyone knowledgeable agrees that the scoreboard shouldn't just display kills and it would be nice to assign a score or a value based on kills/deaths/structures destroyed/strucutres built, the problem is balancing that. If you do it just based on enemies killed and enemies' structures killed, the builders don't get any recognition and a good builder is worth more than half of the team most of the time. You can argue having a factor to score based on buildings built and healed, but then you'll have that retard who just moves stuff or bleeds the buildings and then repairs it and says he's so valuable. Everyone agrees something should change, but what? We have the mystats available so you can see your killing/feeding/deaths scores and your buildings destroyed/healed (maybe healed? I don't remember), but it would not be good for everyone to see these stats.
This brings me to a few ideas I had for redoing the scoreboard. I was not thinking of posting this on tremulous.net but I have been talked into it.
Note beforehand: I'm trying to award points in tremulous based on the things that I believe are important to the game. These include destroying the opponent's base, staging up, not feeding, draining the other team of creds/evos, and good building.
So, here's a couple of preliminary ideas I was thinking about:
Have 2 broad categories, building/repairing (BR) and kills/deaths/structures killed (KDS)
For S1, S2, and S3, you have a maximum score you can achieve and each stage is individualized and averaged at the end of a match for your overall score.
6 categories of scoring: Poor, Fair, Average, Above Average, Good, Elite(? I don't like that word but it fits).
Maybe: E D C B A S
If there is a numerical score, it might be hard to average with a builder, but if we have a guy who is a A class builder for the entire time, he gets an A or if we have a guy who builds A for S1, is a B KDS guy for S2 and a C KDS for S3, we give him an overall combined rating of B. Not to go in circles all day, but I realize there are those that might not like just a letter so a score is also possible, just harder. The letters would be based on a score, but right now, letters and words are used because I need to into excel and work on how I would want to weight the scores.
Where the points you earn per round earns you your letter rating. A +/- system can be used for averaging.
Where you recieve a rating for each stage that will average into your final rating. (Yes, I'm thinking there should be a point cap per stage (the S rating), maybe it would have some sort of carry over bonus or modifier)
At each stage, everyone is going to start off as average or zero, I don't know which right now because awarding points to determine a rating is tough in theory. (I would love to have some game data to play with this)
At stage 1, we award structure kills the most points, kills that advance the stage average points, and feeds as negative points.
At stage 2, we weight everything about same because S2 is a transitionary stage and can be very brief.
At stage 3, we weight structure kills highest, have a hierarchy of points based on class of thing you've killed (dretches and unarmoreds being worth very little and suits/rants being higher) and substract deaths from the point total. I realize there is no more stage upping at S3, but it is annoying to have that retard that feeds everyone into rants and suits.
Now the tricky part, building. I was thinking that we can make builder ratings seperate or award partial points for building. Maybe this is unclear, but I'm saying KDS is one way to score you and builders can get a seperate but equivalent rating based on your BR score.
I'm thinking this will have to be done based on the length of time one is a granger/ckit. Say you're a ckit for 10% of the total time of a stage, your score defaults to your KDS score but you get a small point bonus towards your KDS (kills death structures) score which helps you get a higher rating. Weight this small bonus based on % time builder (I'm thinking linearly but who knows, maybe we'll have to use a function of X^1/2 or X^2). For anything over 50%, I'm thinking this is where we award points primarily on buildings moved/repaired. Now I know you can say, but I deconned the RC/OM for X to build it, he's just going to get the points. For something like that, I'd say both people should be awarded points if the same structure is built within X seconds of the first structure being deconned. That way team base moves are actually encouraged and supported. Repairs will get their own points based on repairing. And obviously TKing a structure will always earn anyone negative points.
Obviously, the balance won't be perfect, but you can always have a base number of points for ckit held for X% time.
But that is also why I was thinking about the letter ratings idea that are equivalent to points of someone reaches the 50% builder time. You can then rate building seperately on it's own point scale and average that letter in with the other two letters. And just award a certain number of bonus points to the kds scale. After all, a good builder can win/lose it for a team.
But there's still much to be figured out when your building time is 50% and you go and do KDS type stuff, but I don't see why a modifier can't be applied an extra points awarded.
Anyways, this is just some ideas that came to me this morning. I'd love to hear from coders about the feasibility of this, to hear about what other knowledgeable people think to add/remove suggestions, and anyone that can supply me data to put into excel if we decide we'd like to go with some sort of structure like this.
Also, I tried to concieve this based on the data collection that is already done with Lakitu7's mystat functions or with data collection that doesn't exist, but could be created based on what Lakitu7 did with mystats. Example, he has it record the time someone is near the base, well, couldn't that theoretically be changed to how long you hold a kit/be a granger?
-
For the builder, it's very hard to set up a scoring system. What about buildings built, how much damage those structs dealt, minus how much the structures took, and how long a structure is in one place before being decon'ed or taken down. And maybe a score bonus to the builders at the end for winning.
I'd stay away from more points closer to base kind of ideas. Because I've seen some very effective forward bases. While they are not often they do happen. As well as moving base requires building farther away from base.
While these are good ideas, and the builder one is harder to do.
I'd prefer if there was no scoreboard. This would stop people from running around like crazies just killing everything or camping a spawn. Or even sitting outside the enemy's base.
Oh. And subtract points for whining.
-
It wouldn't be a bad idea at all. Since trem is more an strategy game, it would go well knowing who did the best for the team, no matter the killings.
-
Might also help with the people who, upon seeing the scoreboard at the end, brag that they're "#1" because their name is on the top of the list. I've seen quite a few games where the person in the top slot, and sometimes the top couple slots, did very little to win the game except maybe help to increase the stage counter. But without the others below them - the builders, the rushing team that takes out the base, etc - the game would've kept going until the opposing team got to the point where they overtook the killwhores and won. Too many people don't understand that "kills" does not equal "skills".
-
I want to warn V-Caveman that this thread will be Gestapo-style policed by me and your whining will not be allowed here. Add 'constructive' input to this discussion or shut up.
Lava
aha?
Now we are in a time where we either have to post to your liking or get the posts deleted?
-
I wouldn't know, I don't read the trem forums much as I never seem to find useful information. This isn't team deathmatch, the scoreboard needs to be better. I can get access to data and coders. I've actually be reviewing the feasibility and the complications of this current suggestion and I'm reworking my idea. I believe this is a worthy endeavor so I will pursue it until it is deemed a failure.
-
The idea of a rating column on the HUD scoreboard was actually present on FooBar's server Avalanche some time ago. Unfortunately, the server now seems to be down and FooBar inactive, but his patch can be found here. (http://www.mercenariesguild.net/patches/?do=details&task_id=14&histring=scoreboard) As I remember, the changes were quite contentious and caused more grief than appreciation. His rating system was much less complex than what Medic has proposed, but the framework is there for additional variables to be computed into the overall player score. Personally, I'm somewhat sceptical about rating systems - you can't gauge a player's worthiness by numbers alone.
-
All i'd really like to see is a damage dealt/received and deaths(Hehehe, Identify the feeders) in scores.
-
...Too many people don't understand that "kills" does not equal "skills".
Indeed. I completely agree with that.
2¢
Another attempt to bring stats to trem?
What is new/different than in the last couple attempt that failed as no one really wanted kill-stats keyed by _single player_ in a _team game_?
If you read the OP's post properly, you knew. This is a strategy game. Why would only the kills matter for the score. Indeed, in trem, builders are of the most importance. Medic's idea has substance, unlike others (that you may mention).
I guess reading is better than using the search button, isn't it?
...Personally, I'm somewhat sceptical about rating systems - you can't gauge a player's worthiness by numbers alone.
You have a point there. Although numbers don't measure the player's worthiness, the more info you have in a scoreboard, the more properly you can evaluate a player.
All i'd really like to see is a damage dealt/received and deaths(Hehehe, Identify the feeders) in scores.
I must say that deaths may not reflect the skills either. Especially in a LAN game where the players of the opposing team are all pointed at you. However, I agree that deaths should feature in the scoreboard.
-
I have stickied this in good trust that Medic and his friends are making an actual attempt at getting this done. I for one hope they succeed.
-
Just to give an update, I have a proposal in the works and it will be forthcoming just as soon as I edit it and review it as it it currently close to 2000 words long. I would like to clean it up and tweak a few of my examples.
-
Just to give an update, I have a proposal in the works and it will be forthcoming just as soon as I edit it and review it as it it currently close to 2000 words long. I would like to clean it up and tweak a few of my examples.
That might not be a bad idea, considering the attention span of the average forum visitor...
-
Just to give an update, I have a proposal in the works and it will be forthcoming just as soon as I edit it and review it as it it currently close to 2000 words long. I would like to clean it up and tweak a few of my examples.
I'm looking forward to see your idea on Tremulous v1.2.
-
Hi, I agree with Knowitall66... In my personal opinion just adding a "dead" statistics as in other shooter games may help to know how much others (or myself) are feeding, or a relation dead/kill value.
I think when builders are good, it is not necessary to award them (I like to play as builder most of the time), usually you can recognize a good built base from a bad one, and builders know that. Obviously, as expected a builder don't get many points, such as a "defense" position in many sports.
= Save Energy =
-
The real challenge lies in trying to get a system working that rewards everybody who positively adds to the team. This is why also builders should recieve some kind of praise on the scoreboard.
-
I'll go a bit out of my way here and just say that Medic has finished a draft and it is currently being reviewed, expect it being posted by Medic here soon.
-
Scoreboard Proposal
This is a proposal to change the scoreboard display to provide a rating instead of just a killcount. Based on the objectives and the gameplay of Tremulous, a killcount is an inadequate way to judge one’s worth in a match. The killcounter gives people this idea that we’re playing team deathmatch. I’m not saying the proposed system will be perfect, but rather it will be substantially less flawed than kills. If you’ve played on a server with the Lakitu7 QVM, then you’ve probably seen the /mystats function in console. This provides a wealth of knowledge that only the player can see. We’re not here to debate why/why not that is the case, but rather, I bring it up because there is good information already there that can worked into a scoring system. The point being that I know these functions work and it will ease the amount of coding that needs to be done on the project. My other ideas were made without an understanding of the feasibility of implantation. Thus, I submit a practical, implementable way to rate a player on the way Tremulous should be played.
Basically, the amount of damage done to structures (friendly or otherwise) and players (friendly or otherwise) is recorded and yields a bulk number. The general idea is to have a formula where the basic equation looks something like this:
Score = {A*(damage to players) + B*(damage to structures) – C*(damage to friendly structures) – D*(damage to friendly players)}/E
Now, to answer the concepts and the variables (A,B,C,D,E) and I will answer the building questions in a later section. It is possible to record all of the damage done to the above mentioned items. Now, instead of just taking kills, we have all this all data on damage but I’m adding modifiers. The reason being, Tremulous is a game where you’re supposed to destroy the spawns and the last remaining players of the opposing team. A base exists to protect the spawns and aid the opposing team. The base and structures are the important things to destroy, so modifier B would be a multiplier greater than modifier A. This would be done to encourage people to attack structures instead of padding their killcounter while still rewarding a player for getting kills. It will also reward human players for killing bigger aliens since bigger aliens have more hp and can take more damage. Also, since points can be subtracted from the score and the modifier can be made large, it will discourage team damage, especially on structures. Now, the reason I’m using letters for modifiers is well, I don’t know what they’re going to be. I’d like to know what the tremulous community thinks before I pour lots of time into establishing these. Although, I do know what kind of modifier E will be, it will be a power of 10. The point being, the score displayed will be a number from -100 to 100 with 0 being the reference point. Say player Z has a numerator equivalent to 100,000. His score will be divided by 1000 and he will have 100 for a score. E will not be different for each player. This divider is determined by the player with the highest score. If Z has 100,000 and Y only has 100, Z’s score will be 100 and Y’s will be 0.1. Y’s contribution is relative to Z’s but it is still on an absolute scale.
This explains how the first part of the score will be made, now for part two which includes what I intend to do with builders.
Well, to put it bluntly, trying to score building fucks up everything. It is extremely difficult to make building comparable to a score that is ever inflating. How do you award points for a good decon when you help in moving a base? How do you even code that? You can record time for ckit held or time granger, but just because you’re a granger or have a ckit doesn’t mean you’re doing anything. Humans can repair restructures, grangers cannot. Does that make the alien builder less deserving of a score? What do you do about that guy that sucks at building; his putting up structures doesn’t solve anything? What about someone who would just decon and build a turret all game? These are all epically problematic and I’m not going to be the guy who solves that. So the best I can offer our tremulous builders is just recognition on the scoreboard. If you build the most structures (in the case of human, build/repair), you will get a B next to your score. I am talking to people to find out if it’s possible to hide that B until the end of the match, you don’t want the opposing team to know who’s building after all. Also, secondary builders will also be rewarded with a B if they did F% as much construction as the primary builder. Once again, F is used because I do not know what to make this yet. I’ll be the first to say, that’s not perfect, but tough shit. At least builders will finally be recognized with something. Also, for those who say “but Medic, why should I repair or build if it won’t show up on my score because I need F% for it to?” Well, hopefully you’ll decide that repairing/building when necessary to save your team is worth picking up a ckit or being a granger for a minute or two.
So, here’s an example:
Say that as a goon I kill 10 people and 3 turrets. For now, assume every person and turret had full hp; also for right now, say that B is equal to 2 and A is equal to 1. Which means that I'm saying killing structures is 2x more important than killing people, so my score would be 2,080. This would be divided by 100 to give me a score of 20.8. Say a teammate of mine killed 1 turret and 5 people. He'd get 360 for the turret and 500 for the people which would equal 860. Well, the divider is 100 so his score would be 8.6. But, say this teammate decided to put up the Overmind and a few eggs and the rest of the base. Well, he’ll get a score of 8.6B to show his efforts as a builder.
A few notes for editing purposes if I did not cover or something is suggested:
Note 1: Score is separate for each team.
Note 2: If you need your killcount that desperately, mystats will show it to you.
Note 3: Deaths being factored into the equation has been thought about and open todiscussion
Note 4: This is feasible and there is a coder/code that can make this happen.
-
Indeed, this is feasible.
Very well written too, It seems fairly stable, and alas, the building is bloody compluicated.
If you had just too much time you could take a line of sight measurement of the turrets and work out how much of that % is not blocked by other buildings/walls/mapobjects.
Ex. Player builds 1 turret up against a corner of wall, roughly 75% line of sight lost.
Player builds turret in middle of large open room, turret retains 100% of vision
Another turret is built beside this turret, losing the original turret (say) 10% line of sight.
Now both turrets are at 90% LOS.
You could divide the percentage by 10 to give a score, or by 100, or you could make a seperate column for "Builder Score".
The rest of the buildings I think should just be lump numbers, no matter where you put it. Keeps it simpler.
-
Looks very reasonable. Would need some variable tweaking like you say but the idea behind it is simple and effective. Although rating building is, indeed, still fucked up.
You could give seperate score points per hp for healing buildings as a human although you'd have to make sure the variable is equal to or less than the structure friendly fire variable to prevent pointwhoring there. Structure placement is dependent on so much it's even harder to reward.
Which leaves the alien building which is in all actuality even worse since that's all a granger can do, build. Only thing I can think of is something involving the time bp >7 is within the main pool. So if there's a lot of bp in the pool for a long time a builder would get a lot of points for building structures, if there's little he would get little or none. Don't know if it's possible since this might also encourage some form of point whoring in leaving structures down but if you're a granger and there's bp available and you're not building for more than a minute start detracting points again?
Last thing to finetune is the relation between damage dealing over course of a match between two teams. I can entirely see the aliens doing a lot more damage than humans in the early stages while the humans get a lot more damage in late hs2 and all of hs3.
-
I'm looking forward to see this implemented. At least this will be a discouragement to kill whores and campers and will encourage team work. Trem is like DotA, so team play is very important. You should also consider the "friendly structures built" and "friendly structures repaired" variable for builders.
So, modifying Medic's equation a bit:
Score = {A*(damage to enemy players) + B*(damage to enemy structures) – C*(damage to friendly structures) – D*(damage to friendly players) + E*(friendly structures built - friendly structures removed) + F*(friendly structures repaired)}/G
Thus if you only relocate a structure you don't win points. Repairing structures by its turn will make those points permanent, and also accounts for some use that the structure has (strategic placed defenses are prone to have more damage, and thus are more prone to be replaced). If the structures are destroyed by anyone you don't loose any points. The "structures removed" variable refers to structures removed by you both using the kit or using a weapon.
Just one question. Will all those values appear on the scoreboard as well, or just the calculated score?
-
For ease of display, I would think only the calculated score would appear. The rest would be available through /mystats in the console for each user interested in the breakdown, as it partially is now on servers running Lakitu's QVM.
-
How about adding a new command.
/playerstats
Displays the new scoreboard. Noobs wouldn't bother with it, and experienced players would know how to use it.
-
I concur with the idea of tracking who built what and how much damage it does.
Adding to cumesoft's equation:
Score = {A*(damage to enemy players) + B*(damage to enemy structures) – C*(damage to friendly structures) – D*(damage to friendly players) + E*(friendly structures built - friendly structures removed) + F*(friendly structures repaired) + G*(damage caused by structures built)}/H
-
The problem with the structure equation is that anyone that decons loses points and the guy who builds just gains according to that formula. Also, just because you put a structure up does not mean it's effective. Finally, if repairs are factored into score, it gives any human player's score a boost since a granger cannot repair structures. Due to these issues, I left building out of the score and was hoping that a B for builder in the score would serve as a good reference for the builders.
Does everyone hate the idea of just getting a "B" as a badge for building?
As far as damage dealt by a structure, I believe that would not be beneficial to the gameplay because then you can earn a score from camping, people will try to build forward bases on servers with regular bp, people will constantly take someone else's structure's down to put their own up, the data tracking will be harder, and we'll have a bias on what structures are built. Garaunteed there will be more hives/acids and less trappers because trappers aren't doing damage. It would be nice to get a dev's opinion on this topic as well, but I do not have any plans to factor damage done by buildings into the equation.
To answer the score desparity between humans and aliens, each score is recorded per team when the relative factor is applied.
/Mystats is probably equivalent to what Paradox wants in /playerstats since /mystats shows, well, all of your stats.
-
My idea for the score, is that instead of dividing by a power of ten, maybe divide each players total points by their death or something, so that you can see an average points per life sort of thing.
-
The problem with the structure equation is that anyone that decons loses points and the guy who builds just gains according to that formula. Also, just because you put a structure up does not mean it's effective. Finally, if repairs are factored into score, it gives any human player's score a boost since a granger cannot repair structures. Due to these issues, I left building out of the score and was hoping that a B for builder in the score would serve as a good reference for the builders.
I believe someone above mentioned having the game track the time between a decon and a build to see if it was a move(a maximum of 10 seconds between the decon and the place?). You could then add a build point to both people, and remove the decon point from the deconner.
As far as damage dealt by a structure, I believe that would not be beneficial to the gameplay because then you can earn a score from camping, people will try to build forward bases on servers with regular bp, people will constantly take someone else's structure's down to put their own up, the data tracking will be harder, and we'll have a bias on what structures are built. Garaunteed there will be more hives/acids and less trappers because trappers aren't doing damage. It would be nice to get a dev's opinion on this topic as well, but I do not have any plans to factor damage done by buildings into the equation.
True. I hadn't looked at it that way. I can't seem to think of a way out of that, except maybe tracking trapper hits and giving them a higher point multiplier than damage done by buildables built by that player. This should be fine since trappers that are placed correctly will hit humans more, and used with acid tubes/hives will create an even higher score than just using one or another. As for forward bases, they'll get eaten alive too quickly to gain very many points for the builder.
Yes, getting around these problems will require much more coding, but I believe it's worth it to create the most accurate point system.
-
@Matt
If it's feasible to be coded (going to have to bother a coder) the decon/build of a structure could be added to the score and a modifier imposed. I will conceed that to you. The next part is where I need community feedback. Here's a case study, I go painsaw the Overmind, Joe 1 back at the base decons the RC and Joe 2 puts it up. Which action was worth the most points? That's something that a dev or the community needs to weigh on in. Balancing the modifier is fine, but determining worth to comparable actions is not for me decide. Now to take it a step further, say I die from a dretch while the RC is deconed (yes, this has happened to me) so now I can't get another weapon and try to end the game because building is going on. In this case, building is hurting the team despite being of later value to the team. Next case study, we're on Tremor and a granger moves us to the basement or the wide open crate room. The match ends in 5 minutes but the entire base get's moved. You have builders with massive scores that just ruined the game for their team. Building provides a lot of conditional statements that can't be assigned a numeric value.
As for your forward bases, the last thing I want is people building disposable shitty forward bases with feeder eggs or leaving less turrets at my base to make the RC even more hoppable than it already is. Also, there's still the issue of builder fights to make structures to add to their score. I really don't see building kills adding to a more accurate kill system.
I think for kicks, it would be funny to see how much damage structures do to people and apply that to the scoring system and give the buildings a score down at the bottom. I'm sure the defense structures would have a higher score than a lot of people.
@Mooseberry
Kevlarman also has taken issue with the power of 10 issue and this was pointed out to me, every time someone gets a score of 100, everyone's score will be divided by 10. I didn't really see this as a big issue, but I'd like to know what people think or if there is a better workaround for it.
Factoring kills into the equation is something that has been suggested to me. This is another issue where I would like dev or majority input. I've always been of the philosophy that it's better to feed and fight than camp. Also, sometimes you just have to sucide rush to break a base and deaths are inevitable. By leaving deaths out of the equation, I'm trying to promote more of a merit based system (demerits should be applied to TKers which is why it's in the formula), but I worry that adding a - (modifier)*(deaths) or score/deaths would cause people to worry about dying too much and camping because they don't want a negative or a small score. I also worry that new people are going to see a negative score, be like WTF after feeding and just leave. But the topic is certainly up for debate.
-
It is true what you said, but I think that a average points per death would show a more understandable, better information part. If you just divide it by a power of 10, than maybe one player on a team did really good, everyone else's score would look weird. If you divide by deaths however, you can: 1. Better determine individual accomplishments, by seeing your worth for that game, 2. Have a more "understandable" number, instead of saying "ok did I get this many points and was it divided by 100 or 1000, and what does that even mean really?" you get to see a representation of your skill, similar to kills per death, but with other factors involved.
Also, one thing I thought of, was that you would have to factor time in there, whether thats dividing by minutes, (which could actually discourage camping) or something else I don't know, but It doesn't seem fair for someone who has only been on for 5 mins to be compared to someone who played for 60 min.
-
The problem with score per death is that it isn't a quick way to show one's worth to the team. Everyone will have different deaths. You get a guy with 1 death who jettards the whole round, his score could look good. You get a guy that takes out an entire base but dies 10x and his score is terrible. Also, if you turn a corner and a goon chomps you in one hit or if you get sprayed by a luci, you know you just did shitty and it's going to hit your score big time. It's also utterly terrible for that guy that joins at S3 and get's nailed by a lucisuit or a rant a good number of times while he's trying to earn money. You need an absolute scale to tell how well you are doing and what I'm presenting has both an absolute and a relative scale. Someone's score should look "wierd" if player X takes out the opposing teams' base and murders people at a good rate, his score should be like 50.5 then useless camper Y's should look like 0.0039. 0.0039 compared to 50.5 is pretty understandable to anyone who knows how to use a >, a <, or an = sign. You can always see kills/deaths and damage done to structures in the mystats function anyways to adjust your playing. The score isn't about showing off how many kills/deaths you had, that's no better than the killcount being shown. The score needs to be a quick way to show your team worth. And you don't have to factor score into the formula I presented. If you got in late and didn't take out much, well, you didn't impact the team so your score should be small. In that regard, it's not so different from just kills but it is accurate.
-
To actually show how much has one helped his team, implement fractional kill counters. There should be a stored number of dealt damage for every player x player. A kill should be distributed evenly based on the damage that was dealt at the last time (neutral/world/building damage means noone gets cash/kills for that part; by the time someone heals up, his damage list will be cleared up).
That will be multiplied by the worthness of a killed class. Currently 1 evo = 175 cr = 1 kill. (When i say kill, i mean point.)
basic rifleman = 1 kill, 1 evo
human + 175cr equipment = 2 kills, 2 evos
human + 2*175cr equipment = 3 kills, 3 evos
dretch = 1 kill, 175cr
basi (worth +1 evo) = 2 kills, 2*175cr
marauder (worth +2 evos) = 3 kills, 3*175cr
etc.
On the other hand, one death should result in the negation of the same value, but not from the cash. So basically, a feeder will have a negative score, while one that helps his team will have a high positive value.
Questions... Maybe that should also be divided by the time. And what if there are players with only negative scores on one team, and new players join (with score 0)?
There are players who think that they are actually good, and rush the enemy base, damaging people and dying at the same time, and getting a lot of evos when the damages ones get killed, whilst receiving no negative score. Those players are actually not helping the team, but either helping the other team, or just making the game end faster. And then there are dudes that receive donations of evos/cash, get something big, and die repeatedly. The current score system doesn't correctly show what is actually going on.
-
we already have a great partial system for showing your worthiness, it just only applies to enemies right now and no one else can see it: credits/evos, humans get a percentage of credits for a kill equal to the portion of damage they did to the enemy, and the alien who did the most damage to a human gets the evo. Plus you lose some for tk's! (actually... this might be a server thing, but at least the code is already there to do it).
I think all the above proposed scoring systems for only the non-build part is great, so the rest of this post is going to be building related
first thought: +points for building/repairing, -points for deconning, although this wouldn't be a very true system, it would have some amount of effectiveness, as normally not all buildings are deconned, some are destroyed (either by enemies or teammates), so a move would yield zero point gain (unfortunately), a good builder who is sticking around repairing and rebuilding destroyed buildings would be able to rack up points as fast as the enemy can take them down
however, after mulling on that, someone could then just build buildings out in the middle of nowhere, they will immediately get destroyed (no point loss for builder), then they build again, rinse and repeat, racking up lots of points for absolutely no benefit for the team
so, why not factor in the time a building lasts? you don't get points for building, and you don't get negative points for deconning. For each x amount of time the building is there you get y points, if you only have one builder who constructs the entire base, they don't get any points for building it, but the longer that base lasts, the more points they get, and if it is immediately destroyed because of bad design they get very few points (maybe even have a small point penalty if it lasts less then say 2 minutes, denoting /horrible/ placement)
the problem with this is that someone could build the entire base, and make it very self-sufficient at that, and some random guy could come in, decon 1 building at a time, replace it with his own, and start gaining all the points for himself
to fix that, maybe have it so if someone builds in the same spot (not exactly the same spot, maybe if the old building and new building's bounding build box thing would have been overlapping) the original builder starts gaining points again for there original building that just got rebuilt by some random dude (however, if the building gets destroyed by an enemy ((NOT TEAMMATE)) and someone else rebuilds the building, the re-builder starts gaining those points, as the original was apparently not placed well enough to keep from being destroyed
another thought: i think damage done by rets/teslas/acids/hives/whatever should be factored in, just not to too large of a degree, otherwise we are back to people building rets/acids where they don't help defend the base at all just to get damage points, the system where you would lose points for short lasting buildings would curb this a bit, but adding points for damage into the equation helps fortify the need for well placed defensive structures
so, since im out of time to type at the moment, and i have exhausted most of my ideas, heres a basic equation for just the build points
PBS (player build score): (A*(Total time all buildings have lasted) + B*(damage done by buildings) + C*(amount repaired) - D*(number of buildings that lasted for less then E minutes))/F
-
Builder Rating = [A*(total damage done by structures built by player n) + B*(total duration of structures built by player n) + C*(total amount of player n's repair efforts) + D*(total duration of structures moved by player n after move)]/E
Where, as above, terms A thru E are predetermined constants or weighting values, and n, of course, refers to the single player whose score is being calculated.
Edit: I just reread the thread, and have to add a comment. Each player gets two ratings, which should be either on a scale of 1 to 10, or a positive percentage (one thru a hundred). (Negative ratings generate the word "NOOB", to discourage the positively evil from excessive grief rewards). One is your destruction rating (KDS). The other is your construction rating (BR). I'll get back to you on the destruction rating equation. :D
Yeah, that was hard. You posted it at the beginning:
Destroyer Rating = {[A*(player n damage to enemy players) + B*(player n damage to enemy structures)] – [C*(player n damage to friendly structures) + D*(player n damage to friendly players)]}/E
Additionally, deaths should be shown as well as kills on the main scoreboard (possibly as two numbers separated by a slash, in a column marked F/f [Frags/feeds], or just as the quotient generated by dividing the number of kills by the number of deaths - the Frag-per-feed ratio).
Also, only players above lvl 0 (that is, known players who have been setlevelled) would be allowed to toggle playerstats; unknown players cannot. Admin level for playerstats toggle could be set by server op.
Lastly, I feel that variable E might even be the number of respawns for both equations: destroyer and builder. Aliens, on paper, will look like big killers and non-fixing builders (I've always thought that grangers should have the healing aura, not rants or whatever it will be in 1.2, basis iirc). Humans may look like slightly more attentive builders. It won't be perfect, but it will be a step away from just having kills as the only score and then bitching about killwhores and noobs who don't understand what Trem is all about.
Three ratings. Destroyer, Constructor, and Frags-per-feed. No time-as-builder rating; that doesn't help the team. Do something as granger besides messing around. Build a useful structure or go kill something. No letter-value rating; this isn't school, it's not-school (well it may be school for many of us, bykwim). What makest thou of that then?
Edit: -ing can be fun!
-
I'm starting to think much of this thread is going unread or misunderstood.
-
no negative scale (rewards griefers)
no time-weighting (who cares how long you carry a ckit around not repairing anything?)
no stage-weighting (life is tough, and so is Trem)
no letter rating (just give me the figures, it's all just relative bs anyway, jptfg in the long view)
just damage dealt to unfriendlies minus damage dealt to friendlies (all) over number of respawns (Destroyer rating)
and
1) how deadly is your shiz?
2) how long do yo shiz lasts?
3) does you help fix shiz?
4) when you moves shiz, do it last?
5) does you dies a lot?
(Constructor rating)
no kills shown on regular scoreboard
just a frags-per-feed ratio
-
I like the idea of not having negative numbers now that I think about it, I was only thinking of those who would try to be rated high or those who don't care about rating (and currently don't care about kill score) and just play the game to play the game
I don't however like the idea of dividing your build rating by the number of deaths, quit often when you are building you don't ever die (depending on how well the rest of your team is doing) so a. this produces a divide by zero error b. if you happen to die twice and another builder who would have the same rating died once you now have half the score, in fact, if you were to build 3/4 of the base, die 3 times, and the guy that only built the other quarter died once, you would have the same score (plus, can you get information on when die as ckit vs not as ckit?)
other then that i like where player1 is going
-
agreed
E should remain some constant or weighted modifier, not the total number of deaths
I rescind that suggestion
however
the build rating is not how much you build
it's how long your stuff lasts and how much damage your stuff dishes out (and a little bit about whether you make wise moves or repair anything)
I'm starting to think much of this thread is going unread or misunderstood.
be specific
it's your thread
vagueness helps little
like what, f'rinstance?
-
however
the build rating is not how much you build
it's how long your stuff lasts and how much damage your stuff dishes out (and a little bit about whether you make wise moves or repair anything)
ya, I just didn't want to type all that out :P, thought it'd be obvious enough that I didn't mean just building buildings
-
Edits:
Builder Rating = [A*(total damage done by structures built by player n) + B*(total duration of structures built by player n) + C*(total amount of player n's repair efforts) + D*(total duration of structures moved by player n after move)]/E*(total duration of player n's involvement in that particular match), thus: do your structures deal damage, and are they persistent divided by how long did you play (slightly modified if you are a Human and you repaired something)
Destroyer Rating = {[A*(player n damage to enemy players) + B*(player n damage to enemy structures)] – [C*(player n damage to friendly structures) + D*(player n damage to friendly players)]}/E*(pick one: number of deaths, f/F ratio or total damage received by player n from enemy structures and players less any received from own team and structures), thus: damage dealt to unfriendlies (minus damage dealt to friendlies) divided by damage received from unfriendlies (minus damage received from friendlies)
f/F=feed-per-Frag
Yes, it's very imperfect. The only real score is who won. As you've pointed out, there are so many other variables to success, it's practically impossible to capture, catalog, quantify or properly weight and reward them. Please feel free to improve upon it/deride it/provide examples of how bad it sucks/totally ignore it and supply your own equation. Cheers!
P.S. I think we agree in principle on the damage rating (how much you dealt divided by how much you took or how many spawns you used or how badly you fed). I also think that the builder rating will always be very contentious, but something better than just a "B" would be useful. These "playerstats" can never tell the whole story of any match, and it seems that you are trying too hard to please too many people in your equation. By providing two ratings for each player at the end of the game, in addition to the Frag-per-feed ratio, you're giving a somewhat more holistic picture of the player's contribution to the team, but only that player and those who witnessed his in-game actions know the real story. Tremulous is won on the map, not on the stats pane.
Make it. Let's play with it. Then edit. Fiercely. Good luck. Sounds like a cool idea.
PlayerOne endorses any scoring changes that reflect the overall intent of the game
-
I'm starting to think much of this thread is going unread or misunderstood.
It was worth a try...
-
I think there's a great deal of consensus regarding the damage rating, or what the OP called the KDS rating. If it's not an open discussion, then why post it here? If the OP feels he's been misread or misunderstood, he can clarify or reiterate. If consensus and input are not what he seeks, then perhaps this is not the venue for this discussion. The name of the sticky is Scoreboard Ideas, not One Person's Scoreboard Ideas, Which Are Not Open For Discussion. I guess he got tired of talking about it. The weird thing is, he brought it up... :-\
-
...I believe this is a worthy endeavor so I will pursue it until it is deemed a failure.
-
I wish him well. Maybe he went to make it, and was sick of debating it. Hopefully he'll come back, when he's got a prototype. Anybody else got any nifty scoreboard ideas they want to talk about?
-
I think he got tired of your bullshit, player1.
-
I think he got tired of your bullshit, player1.
+++TROLL+++[img ]so much that it doesn't even deserve photoshopping on the 2nd thought[ /img]+++TROLL+++
constructive andmins stroking constructive forumers, that's what i LOVE at this place.
-
Since when is player1 considered constructive? Since V-Caveman was considered friendly? Since I was considered handsome and masculine?
If you people do not understand why Medic feels you haven't really read/understood his post, you might want to read his post again, and again.
-
I do think that he was constructive, at least by talking about this stuffs. And saying "Make it. Let's play with it. Then edit. Fiercely. Good luck. Sounds like a cool idea." is also a kind of support.
I beleive that if we'd start winking at you and caressing your ego, sooner or later you'd turn to be a hyperhandsome yet übermasculine figure by the confidence overdose u'd get.
just don't "bullshit" down the cheerleader...
-
how is player1's contribution not creative or how is it hurting this thread?
if Medic doesn't like it he can post and say so, the point of a forum is to /discuss/, not just post your ideas and say 'this is how it is and it is perfect, don't try to change it'
-
I wish him well. I hope it works.
I thought you left this sticky'd, LC, so that we could continue to kick around Scoreboard Ideas in the absence of the OP, who must've gone off to make what he was somewhat averse to talk about. It seemed like what he was proposing was somewhat worked out and in early stages of development, which he wanted to see thru rather than discuss ad nauseum. Can't say that I blame him.
Anyway, I thought some people might be interested in working out a similar formula for builders, since it seems to be quite the subject of discussion (TSME, Good Human Builders are Scarce, etc.). Hopefully, we'll see dude again, and the next post in this thread will be an actual progress report.
I guess we'll talk about Scoreboard Ideas in some other thread, more appropriately titled what I don't know. Other people who contributed to the early discussion seem to have lost interest in actually hammering out a viable equation. I was gone for about a month, and when I got back, this looked kind of interesting, since I totally agree: the scoreboard tells a very minimal story, one which only seems to exacerbate many people's limited idea of Tremulous's real objectives.
:)
Have a Lava-ly day. You've got plenty of your own bullshit, but thanks for calling me on mine. ::)
P.S. You are both handsome and masculine, but mostly in the same sense that I am constructive. ;)
@OPTI: :D
@smartalco: :)
-
Anyway i think the combination of Medic's bladerunning for builder's equivalence and player1's iconic showing of gameplay actions could be neat even at 1.2 as it is not requiring so much 1337ness i guess.
I'd like to see if the player is actually HOT on some project like killing/feeding/repairing/teamkilling/camping etc. quickly by seeing an icon with him both on statisctics and next to his name when he is visible by my view.
And after game, it would be nice to chew on detailed stats, in wich the most awaited is the one what shows wich kind of classes/equipments/buildings did i damage or kill. With this, Tycho's dream will come true and his epic Tyrant-chasing skills could bright our nights! And at the same time i would be forced to train my poor mara skills...
Also, i hope theese stuffs are going to be mixed somehow with present statistic programs like this Lakitu7 mystats that i never heard of, and the Dasprid's tremstats. 1337s should drink beer together.
-
The point is that at the core of Medic's idea is 'possibility', present in the fact that it requires very little work to get going, because most of the code is already there and that he has a coder willing to work it out. All the so-called constructive ideas here do not add to Medic's idea, they make it overly complicated and pull it out of the realm of 'possibility', into the dreaded realm of 'utopia', which degrades this thread to the same level as all those other threads full of wild ideas nobody will ever execute.
[edit] typos
-
you are like many of my ex-girlfriends who first have to yell and fight for half an hour to calm down but then they turn to be smart cute little angels who are able to talk with :-D
by the way people who can't do programming can't really decide how complicated an idea is, so don't blame them becuase that makes me a very sad panda.
anyway many wild ideas are already executed, such as the game Tremulous...
-
The point is that at the core of Medic's idea is 'possibility', present in the fact that it requires very little work to get going, because most of the code is already there and that he has a coder willing to work it out. All the so-called constructive ideas here do not add to Medic's idea, they make it overly complicated and pull it out of the realm of 'possibility', into the dreaded realm of 'utopia', which degrades this thread to the same level as all those other threads full of wild ideas nobody will ever execute.
[edit] typos
I disagree. Mostly what I have attempted to do is to state Medic's ideas as simply as possible, to remove from them the parts he said were controversial or problematic, and to strive for some community consensus as to what would constitute an agreeable standard.
Most of the data elements which I cite in my "equations" are as readily available as the ones which Medic strives to utilize.
Indeed, I only sought to codify his KDS rating, and to attempt to provide a builder rating drawn from similar data, while trying to illustrate the potential for realizing such a lofty goal. Such a plan could be implemented in steps, starting with that which most easily lends itself to quick workability, and providing a possible framework for future expansion.
Any other ideas I had regarding scoring I spun off into separate threads, to be dealt with on their own merits or the lack thereof. You've yet to comment directly or concretely on either of the edited equations I posted, Lava, and deliver the usual denigration from atop your administrative perch. But thanks for your own contributions to a discussion you found useful enough to sticky. To prevent any further discussion, just go ahead and lock it. What a rush of raw moderation power!
I was not thinking of posting this on tremulous.net but I have been talked into it.
Note beforehand: I'm trying to award points in tremulous based on the things that I believe are important to the game. These include destroying the opponent's base, staging up, not feeding, draining the other team of creds/evos, and good building.
So, here's a couple of preliminary ideas I was thinking about:
Have 2 broad categories, building/repairing (BR) and kills/deaths/structures killed (KDS)
Anyways, this is just some ideas that came to me this morning. I'd love to hear from coders about the feasibility of this, to hear about what other knowledgeable people think to add/remove suggestions, and anyone that can supply me data to put into excel if we decide we'd like to go with some sort of structure like this.
He says he had to be talked into posting here. He lists the things he thinks are important to the game: destroying, stageup killing, not feeding, draining the enemy of "wealth", and good building (which he is at pains to properly quantify). He defines his terms (builder & killer/destroyer), goes into some detail, and asks for input (while also stating it's just something he was kicking around in his head, that he hadn't really worked out too much, yet seems entirely married to, and will brook little discussion of, even though he expressly asks for such).
Maybe the OP is the one who hasn't read or misunderstands this thread. ::) ??? :-\ :laugh:
P.S. Read the entire thread again. I came in late, after literally dozens of arcane and byzantine calculation schemes had been proposed, in wildly unformatted, stream-of-consciousness, what-about-blank text. Sure, Lava, grind your personal axe and make me the villain, whilst expressing yourself in the most insulting, inflammatory manner possible. If this is "moderation", then the state of the Tremulous forum and community are self-evidently derived directly from its so-called "leadership".
And a lovely fuck you to you too. ;) :-* :P :laugh:
-
Maybe next time, before you actually post, read the entire thread first? That way you could have seen that a whole list of retarded ideas already had passed, and that your own ideas might just be another addition to that pile.
Why did I name you? If you look at the people who posted those crazy ideas before you, you will see clearly they belong to a group of people who I would not consider to be very bright. Until recently, I thought differently about you, and seeing you just hop on the retardwagon in this thread made me sad. That is why I specifically named you, player1.
I regret I talked Medic into posting it here. I guess it's much better off being decided by a small group of 'sane' people, than actually giving the forum community a chance, since they clearly have no idea what to do with that chance.
-
Maybe next time, before you actually post, read the entire thread first? That way you could have seen that a whole list of retarded ideas already had passed, and that your own ideas might just be another addition to that pile.
Why did I name you? If you look at the people who posted those crazy ideas before you, you will see clearly they belong to a group of people who I would not consider to be very bright. Until recently, I thought differently about you, and seeing you just hop on the retardwagon in this thread made me sad. That is why I specifically named you, player1.
I regret I talked Medic into posting it here. I guess it's much better off being decided by a small group of 'sane' people, than actually giving the forum community a chance, since they clearly have no idea what to do with that chance.
im going to take a step out of the norm (although i'm not on this forum much, so my norm has yet to be seen here) and say what the **** is your problem, although there are some stupid ideas in this thread, most would make quite nice additions, especially player1's, they for the most part are well thought out
as far as I can tell you are a troll that by some odd chance has been given a vote of authority (and possibly a killwhore who doesn't appreciate a good builder in the game, given your dislike of the ideas)
-
Maybe next time, before you actually post, read the entire thread first? That way you could have seen that a whole list of retarded ideas already had passed, and that your own ideas might just be another addition to that pile.
Why did I name you? If you look at the people who posted those crazy ideas before you, you will see clearly they belong to a group of people who I would not consider to be very bright. Until recently, I thought differently about you, and seeing you just hop on the retardwagon in this thread made me sad. That is why I specifically named you, player1.
I regret I talked Medic into posting it here. I guess it's much better off being decided by a small group of 'sane' people, than actually giving the forum community a chance, since they clearly have no idea what to do with that chance.
im going to take a step out of the norm (although i'm not on this forum much, so my norm has yet to be seen here) and say what the **** is your problem, although there are some stupid ideas in this thread, most would make quite nice additions, especially player1's, they for the most part are well thought out
as far as I can tell you are a troll that by some odd chance has been given a vote of authority (and possibly a killwhore who doesn't appreciate a good builder in the game, given your dislike of the ideas)
I have nothing to add to this insightful post.
-
Maybe next time, before you actually post, read the entire thread first? That way you could have seen that a whole list of retarded ideas already had passed, and that your own ideas might just be another addition to that pile.
Why did I name you? If you look at the people who posted those crazy ideas before you, you will see clearly they belong to a group of people who I would not consider to be very bright. Until recently, I thought differently about you, and seeing you just hop on the retardwagon in this thread made me sad. That is why I specifically named you, player1.
I regret I talked Medic into posting it here. I guess it's much better off being decided by a small group of 'sane' people, than actually giving the forum community a chance, since they clearly have no idea what to do with that chance.
im going to take a step out of the norm (although i'm not on this forum much, so my norm has yet to be seen here) and say what the **** is your problem, although there are some stupid ideas in this thread, most would make quite nice additions, especially player1's, they for the most part are well thought out
as far as I can tell you are a troll that by some odd chance has been given a vote of authority (and possibly a killwhore who doesn't appreciate a good builder in the game, given your dislike of the ideas)
I have nothing to add to this insightful post.
You don't know just how right you are. :D
-
You mean he doesn't know how wrong he is, since he said that to someone who is holding a Ckit about 80% of the time he plays Tremulous.
-
^likewise on holding the ckit 80% of the time, which is why pretty much all of my contribution has been builder based
and me nor anyone else in this thread has any idea why you hate the ideas in this thread
-
he played like 6 years of tremulous, of course he is accepting new things harder than the rest of us, as he already reached his climax and already had a chance to work on theese ideas but he just didnt.
but he can be smart if he trolls out his anger first, it just needs an estimated one and a half page of fighting, a locked thread and a couple fake troll threads to cool the situation down.
-
Since you guys are still hanging around, anyone wanna get back to this point in the thread and offer constructive criticism in a civil tone?
Builder Rating = [A*(total damage done by structures built by player n) + B*(total duration of structures built by player n) + C*(total amount of player n's repair efforts) + D*(total duration of structures moved by player n after move)]/E*(total duration of player n's involvement in that particular match), thus: do your structures deal damage, and are they persistent divided by how long did you play (slightly modified if you are a Human and you repaired something)
Destroyer Rating = {[A*(player n damage to enemy players) + B*(player n damage to enemy structures)] – [C*(player n damage to friendly structures) + D*(player n damage to friendly players)]}/E*(pick one: number of deaths, f/F ratio or total damage received by player n from enemy structures and players less any received from own team and structures), thus: damage dealt to unfriendlies (minus damage dealt to friendlies) divided by damage received from unfriendlies (minus damage received from friendlies)
Anyone? How about you Mr. I-Hold-a-ckit-80%-of-the-Time? Please comment on the builder rating equation, oh flaming god mod of noob-smiting insouciance. If you can find the time.
@Optimus: Can you offer a brief, well-thought-out, closely argued, correctly spelled, grammatically agreeable post to silence these naysaying thread-killers? Scoreboard ideas?
-
I already told Medic that I am happy with just a B next to my name, since any kind of formula for builder scores is prone to failure. I also already told Medic that his idea is good as it is and that I would love to see it implemented as soon as possible. I also opted to Medic that it might not be a bad idea to least let the forum visitors know about his idea, well aware of the nonsense that would most likely be posted in the thread.
You know, there is more communication being done that just via these forums.
@Optimus: If you have quarrel with me, make a seperate thread or just send me PM's. Stop hijacking threads with your comments about me. It does not hurt me at all, but it does make yourself look a bit questionable.
-
he played like 6 years of tremulous, of course he is accepting new things harder than the rest of us
Not that I particularly care or anything, but Lava has been playing on the MGDev server, and has been adamantly supportive of changes to the game that most of you cry out "OMG NERF SHITSUX I'M NOT UPGRADIN" when you heard about them. He's stated this multiple times in the forums. If you're going to make random attacks at people without knowing anything, you could at least try to make ones that aren't so obviously wrong.
Any equation that attempts to measure "imma gud bilder", which is largely a subjective opinion, and varies so wildly depending upon the situation in the game that it's difficult to find someone who knows what to do in most cases, nonetheless someone who can actually figure out new bases, is an exercise in futility. The killer equations are fine, and applicable, and codable, and good. The builder equations (and suggestions) are lofty, unwieldy, and ultimately ridiculous when it comes down to practicality anyway.
Just my two creds.
-
Lava,
I gathered as much from your earlier comments. Duly noted.
I know, there is more communication being done than just via these forums. (Although the carrier pigeons are a bit much, no?)
Optimus is, like Superman, a friend to the oppressed. Besides, aren't you guys spending a lot of time at the SwasTux thread anyway?
-
Besides, aren't you guys spending a lot of time at the SwasTux thread anyway?
No I am at the MS vs. YH thread in a war with Lava, the swastika must be why he is fighting on two fronts!
-
I already told Medic that I am happy with just a B next to my name, since any kind of formula for builder scores is prone to failure. I also already told Medic that his idea is good as it is and that I would love to see it implemented as soon as possible.
And your opinion always supercedes those of others here because?
I also opted to Medic that it might not be a bad idea to least let the forum visitors know about his idea, well aware of the nonsense that would most likely be posted in the thread.
You know, there is more communication being done that just via these forums.
So in essence the opinion of people who spend most of their community time in the forums and not in irc or the other means of communications are worth significantly less than those that participate in more?
he played like 6 years of tremulous, of course he is accepting new things harder than the rest of us
Any equation that attempts to measure "imma gud bilder", which is largely a subjective opinion, and varies so wildly depending upon the situation in the game that it's difficult to find someone who knows what to do in most cases, nonetheless someone who can actually figure out new bases, is an exercise in futility. The killer equations are fine, and applicable, and codable, and good. The builder equations (and suggestions) are lofty, unwieldy, and ultimately ridiculous when it comes down to practicality anyway.
Just my two creds.
Strange thing is, most of my posts get skipped it seems. Medic's main concern with the builder equations was the disconnect between human's repair ability and the aliens lack of it. I gave a proposal without equation, because I know it would need finetuning anyway. Yet nobody has responded to it.
The other thing is the disconnect between importance and thus scoring of building and fighting, how to compare these two is indeed messy, but who said they should be compared. Anyone who plays this game knows that building is important, but in a different way. Two seperate scores could do fine in making an offense ranking and a construct ranking.
-
Any equation that attempts to measure "imma gud bilder", which is largely a subjective opinion, and varies so wildly depending upon the situation in the game that it's difficult to find someone who knows what to do in most cases, nonetheless someone who can actually figure out new bases, is an exercise in futility. The killer equations are fine, and applicable, and codable, and good. The builder equations (and suggestions) are lofty, unwieldy, and ultimately ridiculous when it comes down to practicality anyway.
Just my two creds.
Strange thing is, most of my posts get skipped it seems. Medic's main concern with the builder equations was the disconnect between human's repair ability and the aliens lack of it. I gave a proposal without equation, because I know it would need finetuning anyway. Yet nobody has responded to it.
The other thing is the disconnect between importance and thus scoring of building and fighting, how to compare these two is indeed messy, but who said they should be compared. Anyone who plays this game knows that building is important, but in a different way. Two seperate scores could do fine in making an offense ranking and a construct ranking.
Sorry about that. I was only specifically responding to those who were tossing up big equations that aim to see who's the best builder, I'm not sure how that wording slipped in there. I don't find any particular issue with your suggestion (score based on time as builder during high bp times), or Medic's ideas (person who builds most gets a B, score for time spent as a builder in general), aside from the general problem that both could indirectly encourage team-disabling "score-whoring" for building (which you addressed in your original post). I don't think a system exists that can rectify this common problem with any attempt to score building.
The destroyer/killer ratings can be used to encourage destroying enemy structures and not TKing; the builder ratings, however, I can only see encouraging a form of bad building in attempt to get a "good builder" score.
-
EDIT: ----> moved to the topic
@Lava: there were no personal problems, as i only complained about the avatar and the trolling, not you. - as i got used to your supremacy issues. no use for PM. but you are welcome anytime :-D
@Eve: the only reason i take care of his trolling is that otherwise he plays a responsible and decent role in the community. if a noob would do what he does, Lava would be the first policeman there.
----------------
maybe if the +NEWS+ would be refreshed time by time we'd know more about dev's ongoing ideas... hmmm?
on topic, i'd prefer Survivor's idea about the separated stats.
player1's ingame-banner idea would be good to tell just enough about builders. as i imagine that the player could be marked if he is building a huge percent of game, repairing a significant quantity, or making a successful base moving. other point of views are just too subjective (well, even the moving is). i see you countings but i guess the separated icons would work better.
like if you moved base successfully, you could have a "mover" banner, and if you fight poorly after that, it would be still there to be happy with it.
but with your countings, this player would have a low fighting stat with a poor builder stat, as he didn't do any other building during the game. hmmm?
-
maybe if the +NEWS+ would be refreshed time by time we'd know more about dev's ongoing ideas... hmmm?
The Mercenaries Guild guys have been hugely helpful by working on experimental balance changes under the direction of Norfenstein. You can help out here by playing on their server, thus creating more balance data with which to further refine the game.
-
oh wow ty :-D
-
So far, everyone agrees that rating building is going to be a challenge that may never see a useful, non-arguable result. We also all seem to pretty much agree on how to rate damage. And we agree that if there ever were a way to rate building, it would have to be a completely separate rating from the killer/destroyer rating. Also, several schemes have been proposed, and hopefully we can take apart some specific quotes in a friendly fashion to see if we can find any room for agreement there. But let's discuss something else for the moment.
As Lava said, hopefully the interested parties have gone off to make the thing (since we can talk about it until doomsday), however, I think continuing to discuss it here shows an interest in the project, keeps it alive, and provides a repository of community suggestions for possible improvements/expansions/features/etc., if and when Medic and friends eventually return. I'd like to add that I agree with you, LC, their time is better spent making something actual, which is then critique-able, based on what it is, not what we dream it could be (although it would still be competing against our Ideal of itself, not against a slightly better version of itself), rather than listening to blather. But maybe we can have some ideas waiting for their return.
I also want to point out that while thinking about scoring, at least two other silly ideas occurred to me, both related to the Quake3Arena medals, and their appearance on the final tallies on the scoreboard. Like most of the Q3a code (including stuff like the railgun, I assume) I believe this is available for use in Tremulous (I'm sure the decision was made not to use it). If you'd like to comment on them, they are here (http://tremulous.net/forum/index.php?topic=7309.0) and here (http://tremulous.net/forum/index.php?topic=7329.0).
Please stop by those threads and let me know how much you agree, disagree, are offended by, or left unaffected by, those proposals.
@Surv, Atom Eve: your posts deserve a considered response, which I will have to defer to later. Non-virtual concerns here intervene.
@Lava: look, civil discussion among online gamers!
@Opti: I will parse quotes later, thanks for the response (I think I know what you are saying).
-
I've actually just been out of tremulous for a bit because my computer stopped playing trem for about 2 months. Despite lots of troubleshooting, help from all of MG, searching this forum, there was nothing that seemed to help. A couple days ago it started working again, why, I do not know. This is part of the reason why I hate software and electrics and love mechanical devices. But coupling that with the fact that I've started getting tasks at work and I'm on mandatory overtime, I just haven't been around much. I'm still here, I've looked at the forums. I was just interested to see if anything else would brew. The scoreboard discussion is kind of on hold because it isn't considered a priority. The 1.2 devs have not looked this over and thus it is going to remain in limbo until it is either blessed or cast into hell. Once again, I apologize for the disappearance but life has been hectic lately.
-
There definately needs to be a major penalty for TK, so that the people who do wouldn't whine about people stepping in front of them and learn to shoot. This is a major problem, as I left my favorite server because of one guy who couldn't hold his fire. Also, it would help to have score penalties and etc. for people who consistently whine and so on. I know this sounds hypocritical. However, the server I play on (at least, when I was on) does not mute for being a whiner. Maybe a vote 75%?
-
I hadn't seen this post but had some similar ideas. I posted them here:
http://tremulous.net/forum/index.php?topic=11549.0
I took a different approach. Here are some of the reasons:
- doing damage to someone/something that is subsequently healed/repaired does not benefit your team. Ideally, only people who die/things that are destroyed should count towards the points. So many rushes do damage to RC or whatever, but if it doesn't go down, it doesn't matter because someone will repair it.
- I based the score on how much money/evos had been invested, because that's really what matters, in a sense. In order to maximally benefit your team, you should: get kills (in stages 1 and 2), destroy the enemy's credits/evos (regardless of how they used them) and destroy the base. For example, let's say a human goes out with a helmet/armour and a rifle. Suppose another human has helmet/shotgun and luci. If I kill the luci I've done more for my team, but with this proposed system they would each be worth the same amount.
- Feeding really is bad, especially in s1/s2. It should be penalized. With my proposal we subtract less for a feed than you gain for a kill (unless you're killing a dretch/nude). This will make it easy to identify feeders because they are negative. Admittedly, this could promote camping, which I hadn't thought of. Still, there are times when camping is the right thing to do (e.g. as3 vs. hs2)
I actually like the idea of a builder badge. Maybe instead of a B is should be a logo of some sort (e.g. a ckit icon/granger icon)
-
Perhaps you could simply deduc points for deconstructing something? Let's say that building a structure is worth 10 points. Deconstructing deducts 15, HOWEVER, building a structure AFTER decocnstructing one, would reward 15 points, so that someone who thinks they decon a building then rebuild it, over and over in order to gain points, will be quite dissapointed.