Tremulous Forum
General => Feedback => Topic started by: BabyAlien on May 23, 2006, 03:54:36 am
-
One thing that might be very valuable and add to the gameplay of Tremulous would be to somehow track and indicate the skill level of players. One major factor in the outcome of a match is the balance of skill across teams. If you have a L33T player on the alien team, for example, they can rack up 6-7 kills in the first couple minutes of the game and rocket the aliens on to S2.
I actually experienced a match like this where a really good alien player, against a group of normal humans racked up 15 or 16 kills in the first two minutes killing off humans in their base.
As another example of this, I'm sure everyone experiences joining a game and seeing something like this...
DoodJ0bs 34 12 95
GumboJam 24 12 104
JimDiddly 8 13 86
TomTom 6 13 120
Bob 0 13 110
Billy 0 13 95
Bobby 0 13 96
Then the other team has kills like this: 9, 8, 6, 7, 5, 0, 0
So to cut to the chase, if there was some way of indicating the skill level of players so that when they join and when you size up the balance of the teams you can tell immediately that there are 2 killing machines, 3 moderate players, and 2 noobs on "Humans" and 0 killing machines, 4 moderate players and 3 noobs on "Aliens".
One reality of this game is that you have to get kills to go up stages, and the more players you have the more kills you need to get to the next stage. So a team with 10 alien moderate players vs a team of 2 L33t and 2 N00b, my money is on the latter team
-
This is a strategic game, so a builder with zero frags is still very valuable to the team. You already have the frag count + weapon/suit/alientype that is mostly the leet level. Morons dont play as Tyrant forever!.
Maybe frags can be altered, so indicate this on a more accurate way...
you kill a tyrant = 5 frags
your turret kill a drench = 1 frag
you are killed = -2 frags
-
it would be nice to see some accountability for deaths, whether it is a give and take thing like Teiman said or just a kill list. it is much more impressive in my eyes if someone gets 20 kills with 0 deaths than if someone gets 20 kills and 20 deaths. Also shows feeders for what they are.
-
Also shows feeders for what they are.
Mh, you could just get it wrong, either... ;)
An effective tactic I know (for good dretch players at least) is rushing the human base, doing a kill or damaging a turret and finally get killed by a turret.
You are able to stack up about 10 kills with 20-25 deaths in minutes on niveus if human defense is weak. Just strafejump in backway and aim for medipad at headlevel... and you are feeding less kills then you get. Just make sure you know the point when they finally got it. ;)
It does not tell you much about a player in such a case (and many other cases). It may also keep people from playing aliens because they see how often they actually died.
The whole highscore issue is actually not worth the discussion as stacking kills is not the goal of the game, just a way that may lead to victory. As Cata said in that highscore threat he nearly got 200 frags in one match but his team still lost it. By then dozens of frags are worth nothing, just testament for camping one spot and spamming a chokepoint way too long instead of actually hunting and trying to win.
Just my 2 cents,
Danny
-
But High frags are a display of your ability to keep the enemy down, if your team can't keep up you'll still lose.
-
I'd like to see deaths as well as kills on the score screen.
Only deaths to other players should count though - dying to turrets or gravity or whatever else isn't important.
-
Funny that these kind of games are of a team-based concept, but everyone talks about personal frags :D.
It's ok for me, but a little weird due to the fact that the team AS A WHOLE can win or lose. Also, it happens several times that you're full of money because you shoot and fight well, but don't have any frags because teammates 'steal' (mean word, sry for that) your kills :D .
-
I've seen it very often that the human team got more than twice as much kills than aliens, but in the end, they lost. Personal frags are really unimportant.
-
Personal frags are useful as a rough guess for when the oposing team will start changing into dragoons and to see if we are getting closer to the next stage than them.
-
Personal frags are useful as a rough guess for when the oposing team will start changing into dragoons and to see if we are getting closer to the next stage than them.
Teamfragcount has just the same benefits :).
-
I was actually thinking of some kind of way of rating players so that before a match begins it is easier to balance. For example, it is common to start a new match and if you know the names and skill of players you will know which team is going to win because two 'excellent' players are on one team and the other has a few 'good' players and lots of 'new' players.
So it would have to be something that would carry across games and go with you to different servers.
That's also why I used the word community in the topic name, because it would really have to be something adopted by the whole community that could be recognizable. Perhaps it could be self-adopted honor system type of thing. For example:
Skill level - Prefix / Postfix - example
----------- -------------- ------------
Master - Msta / 99 / X1 BabyAlien (msta), X1 - BabyAlien
Elite - Lt / Elt / X2 BabyAlien.Lt, EliteBabyAlien
Good - G / Playa / X3 BabyAlien-G
Lightweight - lite / X4 BabyAlien-lite
Noob - Nu / 00 / X5 NuBabyAlien, BabyAlien00
This is a poor example, but the community could put out some 'levels' and some agreed upon tags in a name that would indicate that level somehow.
One potential negative would be contention of levels. I could imagine a lot of flak on games where someone claimed to be 'msta' but had a lousy game and the whole team demands he change his tag to 'noob' or something. Or another team complaining about a master in noob clothing...
The potential benefit could outweigh any negatives, helping to balance out games so that masters get spread out and strategy can be adapted based on the skill of the team. It would be stupid for a team of 'good' players to rush out and try to mount up the kills when they don't have the skill for that....
-
Well, there could be some sort of skill counter. A few Czech Counter-strike servers had something similar back in 2002/2003. Balancing hit-based skill counter won't be any problem (just a bunch of equations on 2 skill numbers with a few equipment/evo modifiers). The only problem I can see is rating builders... By structure lifespan and usage/turrets kills perhaps?
The feeding counter is also a good thing. Not just deaths but actual stage-counted deaths.
-
For example, it is common to start a new match and if you know the names and skill of players you will know which team is going to win ....
That's just not true. 2 excellent players can apply a lot of pressure on the opposing team, but if their own team doesn't fill the vacuum they leave behind their 'excellency' will not have much of an effect on the outcome of the game.
Personally I've come to fear the dreaded "Hey, let's move to elevator room" (tactical suicide, imho) or "moving reactor" right when you have the opposing team almost down on their knees - completely destroying momentum and usually turning the tide of battle :roll:
Edit: typos
-
For example, it is common to start a new match and if you know the names and skill of players you will know which team is going to win ....
That's just not true. 2 excellent players can apply a lot of pressure on the opposing team, but if their own team doesn't fill the vacuum they leave behind they 'excellency' will not have much of an effect on the outcome of the game.
Personally I've come to fear the dreaded "Hey, let's move to elevator room" (tactical suicide, imho) or "moving reactor" right when you have the opposing team almost down on their knees - completely destroying momentum and usually turning the tide of battle :roll:
Yes, this is true. But if you don't have at least the semblance of balance to start with then you will not really have a game. I have played enough matches where one team advances quickly to s3 and tactics never really come into play at all.
So the idea would be to get a semblance of equality to start with.
The other factor would be that overall the ratings shouldn't be based on kills but rather overall goodness, i.e. teamwork and strategy as well. On the other hand, community ratings could be more specific..
For example, slayer and builder ratings might lead to something like:
BabyAlien - S2B4
.. Slayer level 2, builder level 4 (out of 5)
-
I think of a system like this:
- One floting-point number representing overall skill (maybe with building skill counted as a part of overall skill number)
- Every hit inflicted to building or player should be evaluated for skill value and put into queue of skill claims with inflicted damage, when the building or player dies, the queue will be passed through and claims will be assigned to attackers up to the maximum health of dead player/building (any skill claims beyond maximum health will be cancelled and partial skill claims - like 10hp claim with 5hp remaining to max health - will be adjusted to fit max health). Simply, if you let the enemy heal/repair, you don't get your skill.
- When an alien egg dies, it's skill claim list will be compacted (skill claim list will be truncated to maximum health of egg and all skill claims of each player will be added together) and copied to a special creep claim list of all alien buildings within creep range. When some building loses creep and starts losing health, lost health will be added as skill claims with NULL attacker. These claims will be divided among all players in special list of creep claims. The same will be for human buildings that get powered down (with repeaters and reactor instead of eggs), but aliens get skill for the period of time those buildings stay powered down.
- Builder gets skill points for repairing buildings (humans only, the amount should be equivalent to skill claims cancelled but attackers don't lose skill), every use of building (every player that spawns in a telenode or egg, every item bought at armory, every evo point spent while OM exists, every assigned skill claim by turret etc. and some extra points for every building staying up and running. Builder gets points only for buildings he personally built even after he gets a weapon and goes fighting.
- Builders lose skill for time without reactor/overmind (there should be enough time to rebuild reactor/OM without any penalty - no penalty for well planned move). If the reactor/OM is destroyed by enemy, equivalent of skill lost by builder is divided among attackers.
- When a building or player dies, skill claims will be added to attackers' skill number and substracted from skill of the dead player/builder of destroyed building.
- Winners should get some extra skill, losers should lose a little, no skill gain or loss for stalemate.
- General modifiers of skill claims: team balance (team player count ratio), skill balance (victim/attacker skill ratio, only for PvP hit, not against buildings), attacker's equipment, victim's equipment (inverted), number of turrets in active range (even blocked ones).
- Alien evo modifiers:
Granger - 2
Advanced Granger - 1.5
Dretch - 1
Basilisk - 0.9
Advanced Basilisk - 0.8
Marauder - 0.7
Dragoon - 0.6
Advanced Marauder - 0.5
Advanced Dragoon - 0.4
Tyrant - 0.3
Human modifiers:
Builder/unarmed (only blaster) - 2
Soldier with blaster - 1.5
Rifle, no armor - 1
???
Lucifer cannon, battlesuit - 0.3
This means if you slaughter grangers with lucifer in battlesuit, you get almost nothing but if you kill tyrant with blaster on your own as unarmored builder, you get lots of skill points.
-
Calculated numbers are an interesting option, but in the meantime there could be an opt-in system where people are encouraged to display their own ratings based on their skill. The problem would be from new players who are starting to think they are good but haven't yet realised that they really aren't. :)
-
Calculated numbers are an interesting option, but in the meantime there could be an opt-in system where people are encouraged to display their own ratings based on their skill. The problem would be from new players who are starting to think they are good but haven't yet realised that they really aren't. :)
A fix for that is to create "patrol groups", where you recieve orders from your leader in a special way. And your teammates are marked on the radar, too. Maybe even add 3 tiny "cameras" to see what your teammates see. This way you leader will be still be your leader, even If you score better and more than him. And you still follow orders. :D
-
For me, there is no well working way to measure "skill" in a game like Tremulous. Because you can be a "specialist", so you build, support your team, move base and this can't be measured in any AI-way.
The best way to measure skill atm is to play lots of games and get to know the community.
-
For me, there is no well working way to measure "skill" in a game like Tremulous. Because you can be a "specialist", so you build, support your team, move base and this can't be measured in any AI-way.
It can't be measured directly but there're enough indirect ways to measure it accurately. Badly designed bases don't survive long, well designed bases do. Badly designed defences don't kill many enemies, well designed defences do. The other team would have to suck really hard to change this. And if it does, bad builder won't get much skill points because the game will be over soon.
-
i know this is very dificult, but can the master server keep track of users, and give them a "rank" like halo 2 has.
-
i know this is very dificult, but can the master server keep track of users, and give them a "rank" like halo 2 has.
It might also be great to have some kind of approval system, where people can give positive or negative points to someone. Basically, if you are new but try hard, listen and learn, you will pretty much always be an asset to a team. However, if you are inclined to making life difficult for others, don't listen and are inclined to abusive language and behaviour, it doesn't matter how good you are, you aren't a desirable team member.
One thing about a central server is that you would never have duplicate names, which could be annoying on one hand.. but good on another.
-
i like BabyAlien's second idea... SxBx...
i don't think an official AI ranking is needed... if a S1B1 says they're S5B5, it'll become obvious pretty soon, and someone will probably ask them to change it.
S1.5B2... to be generous to myself
8)
-
i know this is very dificult, but can the master server keep track of users, and give them a "rank" like halo 2 has.
It wouldn't work very well without some central ranking point. If you'd start with no skill rank each time you connect to a server, this system would be useless.
One thing about a central server is that you would never have duplicate names, which could be annoying on one hand.. but good on another.
You can as well keep skill rank against player UID, not only name. Wolf:ET for example uses player UID-based temporary bans.
-
No, what I mean is the central server tracks rank, from server to server, day to day.
-
I'm not really sure what you want to do with player rankings, but I see only two options:
1) Force balanced teams based on rankings. People will really not like being forced to play a certain team, especially the ones who only play humans. This just wouldn't work because there'd be no way to prevent intentional rank degradation and if the rankings aren't accurate the system will just be forcing people to play a certain way for no reason
2) "Elective" team balancing, wherein people voluntarily balance teams. The assumption is that all people want balanced games all the time which just isn't the case. Most people want to win, because winning is more fun than losing, and trying to shoot for a close victory is a lot harder than just stacking teams. It takes skilled, responsible players just to pick the side that a map doesn't favor.
I'm afraid there's no getting around this for public servers. An automatic rating system would not be able to judge the skill level of anyone that doesn't play their best every single time they join a server and you certainly can't force people to play well to avoid intentionally lowering their rank.
Any such system will only benefit people who don't know who they're playing with anyway, unless you're forcing teams. Nothing beats just playing with people and judging them for yourself; regular players already know who can carry a team. Adding a few more raw statistics to the scoreboard would improve this, but it'd be a mistake to have a computer try to do something we can accomplish incomparably better.
-
I dont believe in any ranking system in Tremulous :
First it is impossible to make a fair ranking :
If you take into account the number of frags or the number of deaths, campers behind turrets will get a high rank despite the fact that they are poor players. A good player dont feed unnecessarily, but knows when it is time to take risks.
If you try to take into account the base building you re in trouble because it is all about teamwork :
- A good base without defensers goes down
- Good players can protect a loosy base (or win the match before the base starts to be really useful)
- A good player can have trouble building the base he wants if a noob that doesnt want to listen is building at the same time.
- A griefer ruin any base in 1 min. So much for the ranks of the real builders.
Moreover being able to play as a teammate is not something you can rank...I prefer a poor killer that listen to his teammates and do his best to follow their advice than a skilled player who think he is the only one to know how to play and do as he wants.
Second how you make the ranking and show it to other players ?
The SxBx system is based on the good will and honesty of other players.
Anyone could put in his nick a S5B5, if the guy isn t too bad it might get unnoticed that he is not as good as he said. To enforce a ranking system you would have to be sure that each player has his nick (it s easy to take the nick of someone else) and that the rank is given by the server rather than the player.
2) "Elective" team balancing, wherein people voluntarily balance teams. The assumption is that all people want balanced games all the time which just isn't the case. Most people want to win, because winning is more fun than losing, and trying to shoot for a close victory is a lot harder than just stacking teams. It takes skilled, responsible players just to pick the side that a map doesn't favor.
That's actually happening : When teams were really unbalanced i often saw the best players switch team. It s not a given, but i often noticed it.
-
The last couple of posts state the problem quite nicely.
Any solution would have to be adopted by the community and bought into by players.
It is up to the individual players to balance out the teams and often players just don't care.
Rankings would only be an aid, or guide to assist in the balancing of teams. (if desired)
Of course, one thing that has been largely ignored in my SxBx ranking is tacticts & strategy. I have seen players who are SuperSlayers (S5) but don't have great tactics, to the point of watching matches where one team has 5 times the kills of the other and is S3 vs S1, but still doesn't finish it because they are too focussed on getting kills.
Another thing that has been ignored is alien vs. human. You can be a human killing machine but a lousy alien.
It is true that as you play on a server you get to know players by name and what they are capable of. Perhaps the real benefit to player rankings would just be to raise awareness of how skill levels affect the game and to help new people to get their bearings.
-
Might be something like Player Ratings, where you have a compiled list of players, preferably by some unique ID, and their most used name. Then have a section for that player so people can leave rep comments and rate that person as a player. Granted it wouldn't have much use apart from as an out of game reference point.
-
How about ranks dont mean anything, but a number by your name.
-
Trust me guys, I've seen a similar ranking system work and it worked very well.
First it is impossible to make a fair ranking :
If you take into account the number of frags or the number of deaths, campers behind turrets will get a high rank despite the fact that they are poor players.
As I have already said here, the skill system would have to be based on actual damage inflicted rather than kills and deaths. If some turret hugging hippie gets lots of kills while turrets do most of his work, he gets almost nothing compared to what he loses when aliens come to wipe him out along with his turrets.
A good player dont feed unnecessarily, but knows when it is time to take risks.
Measured indirectly.
- A good base without defensers goes down
In that case, skill balance will make sure that the good builder does not lose too much skill because of bad low-skill teammates.
- Good players can protect a loosy base (or win the match before the base starts to be really useful)
Again, skill balance kicks in and the builder gets very little from turret hits.
- A good player can have trouble building the base he wants if a noob that doesnt want to listen is building at the same time.
Once the base goes down, it won't be the good builder who loses lots of skill. It will be the noob who reconstructs everything.
- A griefer ruin any base in 1 min. So much for the ranks of the real builders.
If some loser tries to deconstruct the base, he'll lose LOTS of skill by doing that.
Moreover being able to play as a teammate is not something you can rank...I prefer a poor killer that listen to his teammates and do his best to follow their advice than a skilled player who think he is the only one to know how to play and do as he wants.
Such player is often on the winning side and has his own share of credit measured indirectly by total damage he inflicts during the game. You do not have to kill someone to get skill. You just have to hit him and make sure someone else finishes him off before he can heal.
To enforce a ranking system you would have to be sure that each player has his nick (it s easy to take the nick of someone else) and that the rank is given by the server rather than the player.
Once again, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO IDENTIFY PLAYERS ONLY BY NAMES! Server-generated unique client IDs work much better. And if you want to reset your skill counter, you just delete your old ID and get a new one.
-
You'd need to store them away from players, as someone could easily snoop someone else's ID.
-
You'd need to store them away from players, as someone could easily snoop someone else's ID.
The UT way is that you need both the correct name ( ID in that case then ) and the correct password to modify the stats of a player.
-
Trust me guys, I've seen a similar ranking system work and it worked very well.
How can a ranking system ever be accurate if people don't always play at their actual skill level? If it's not accurate what use is it? Even if it were accurate, how many people will tolerate not having a choice between teams (because why bother at all if it's not forcing teams)? And what similar ranking system are you thinking of?
Setting aside the serious and numerous implementation issues, I don't see this being at all useful except in strictly competitive games that don't involve organized teams (i.e. clans).
-
Trust me guys, I've seen a similar ranking system work and it worked very well.
How can a ranking system ever be accurate if people don't always play at their actual skill level? If it's not accurate what use is it? Even if it were accurate, how many people will tolerate not having a choice between teams (because why bother at all if it's not forcing teams)? And what similar ranking system are you thinking of?
Setting aside the serious and numerous implementation issues, I don't see this being at all useful except in strictly competitive games that don't involve organized teams (i.e. clans).
True words!
-
How can a ranking system ever be accurate if people don't always play at their actual skill level? If it's not accurate what use is it?
Ranking system is supposed to show how the player plays, not how he can play if he wants to. If some 1337 player decides to play like noob, his skill counter will reflect his choice. If he decides to play as well as he can, again, his skill counter will reflect it.
Even if it were accurate, how many people will tolerate not having a choice between teams (because why bother at all if it's not forcing teams)?
You don't have to force teams by skill in order to make the ranking system useful. Seeing someone's skill rank should give you general idea how he can or can't (doesn't want to) play. Without seeing his skill rank, you have to spend hours playing with and against him to get the idea.
And what similar ranking system are you thinking of?
You'd have found it here (http://tremulous.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=6361#6361) if you read this topic carefully.
Setting aside the serious and numerous implementation issues, I don't see this being at all useful except in strictly competitive games that don't involve organized teams (i.e. clans).
I do. Mainly because I saw something similar work and be useful.
-
Why not make the frags HP based!
Example:
Human dies = -100%
Human kills dretch = +20%
Human kills a Dragoon = +200%
-----------------------------------
Human Fragrate = +120%
As the game already records who does the most damage, i guess you can get the percentage of damage you did for a kill.
Next to fragrate (killing) there should be a buildrate too ...
(not sure about the HP points!)
Human succesfully build a turret = +(160/2)% = +80%
Human decon a turret = -(160/2)% = -80%
Human destroys an acid tube = +(120/2)% = +60%
------------------------------------------------------------
Human buildrate = +60%
-
Human succesfully build a turret = +(160/2)% = +80%
Human decon a turret = -(160/2)% = -80%
Human destroys an acid tube = +(120/2)% = +60%
------------------------------------------------------------
Human buildrate = +60%
Good builder decons a turret the noob builder put in a bad location
Good builder wait till the decon time ends.
Noob builder notices there are some points available.
Noob builder build a new turret in a bad location.
etc...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Good player gets screwed...
Human dies = -100%
Human kills dretch = +20%
Human kills a Dragoon = +200%
-----------------------------------
Human Fragrate = +120%
Jetpackers with mass driver and campers 1 or 2 m away from their turrets will love this...
-
I agree on the noob builders, but thats why communication is important. If i am going to decon a bad placed turret, i do not only decon it, i EXPLAIN why and SHOW how it should be done. That way, you both got someting out of it. The noob learns, step by step, and you won't be frustrated anymore because of his lack of sence ...
The campers, well, there's nothing you can do about that. If they kills a dragoon which is hurt for 80% by turrets and 20% by the camper, they deserve the 20%, no?
-
Human succesfully build a turret = +(160/2)% = +80%
Human decon a turret = -(160/2)% = -80%
Human destroys an acid tube = +(120/2)% = +60%
------------------------------------------------------------
Human buildrate = +60%
Good builder decons a turret the noob builder put in a bad location
Good builder wait till the decon time ends.
Noob builder notices there are some points available.
Noob builder build a new turret in a bad location.
etc...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Good player gets screwed...
Even worse :
Good builder deconstructs turret : -80
Good builder builds new turret, probably in new base : +80
Now we have 2 good players, one removing the old base, and the other building the new one and one of them gets all the negative points.
-
Even worse :
Good builder deconstructs turret : -80
Good builder builds new turret, probably in new base : +80
Now we have 2 good players, one removing the old base, and the other building the new one and one of them gets all the negative points.
That's exactly why the skill system I have described earlier reduces skill for long lack of necessary building or its destruction by enemy. Not just for deconstructing it.
-
Even worse :
Good builder deconstructs turret : -80
Good builder builds new turret, probably in new base : +80
Now we have 2 good players, one removing the old base, and the other building the new one and one of them gets all the negative points.
That's exactly why the skill system I have described earlier reduces skill for long lack of necessary building or its destruction by enemy. Not just for deconstructing it.
I don't think you can measure the 'goodness' of a builder based on what is built, how long it survives or anything like that. For example a good builder for aliens will have a new base up and going very quickly after the old one is blown up, anticipating the need. Or they will be able to keep the team alive when humans sweep in and wipe out everything.
A good builder communicates, anticipates, builds in ways that keep the enemy on thier toes, may build 'disposable' buildings, can build faster than others, masters different locations on all the maps, knows how to use all the buildings the best way etc etc etc.
Ultimately a builder can probably only be rated by his teammates.
-
I don't think you can measure the 'goodness' of a builder based on what is built, how long it survives or anything like that.
You can't measure good builder just by counting how long his buildings survive. But you can measure bad builder by this because his buildings ussually go down very quickly. Read the skill ranking system description carefully. You don't get anything just for the time your buildings survive. You lose points for buildings you built that got destroyed. And every builder will slowly start losing points if some necessary building is not available for long time.
For example a good builder for aliens will have a new base up and going very quickly after the old one is blown up, anticipating the need. Or they will be able to keep the team alive when humans sweep in and wipe out everything.
A good builder communicates, anticipates, builds in ways that keep the enemy on thier toes, may build 'disposable' buildings, can build faster than others, masters different locations on all the maps, knows how to use all the buildings the best way etc etc etc.
Ultimately a builder can probably only be rated by his teammates.
And he WILL be rated by his teammates. Every single teammate that uses some building (ie. spawns from telenode/egg, buys ammo/weapons/armor/items, heals, gets poison from booster etc.) will create skill points for the builder. If some stupid builder builds booster deep inside alien base, he'll get nothing. If some good builder builds good forward base with booster, he can earn a lot of skill points.
-
Plus, you have to rate girlz and normal players differently.
-
But you can measure bad builder by this because his buildings ussually go down very quickly. Read the skill ranking system description carefully. You don't get anything just for the time your buildings survive. You lose points for buildings you built that got destroyed. And every builder will slowly start losing points if some necessary building is not available for long time.
Your base is under attack, aliens destroy front row turrets all the time, you rebuild them as fast as possible only to have them destroyed moments later again.
Stop building and you lose, continue building and be rated as a bad builder?
Not quite an abstract setup, is it? I see it almost every round I play...
Danny
-
Megabite"]Your base is under attack, aliens destroy front row turrets all the time, you rebuild them as fast as possible only to have them destroyed moments later again.
Stop building and you lose, continue building and be rated as a bad builder?
Not quite an abstract setup, is it? I see it almost every round I play...
Danny
If aliens get enough kills and evo points to bite through human defenses, humans suck and skill balance will minimize loss of skill for builders. If humans don't suck, they'll finnish aliens wounded by turret fire and builders will get slightly more from turret skill claims than they lose for destroyed turrets. And don't forget spawning and buying. Once humans start getting slaughtered, builders start getting much more skill points because the entire team heavily depends on its base. It's only a matter of calculation balance.
-
Any alien that tries to rush past turrets would be a bad alien lol. The standard tactic is just to wipte out turrets, so the base is defenceless and then rush in.
Turrets would be a huge drain on builder score. I should know i've been an adv goon plenty of times, and its so easy to snipe buildings with your 3 barbs.
-
Any alien that tries to rush past turrets would be a bad alien lol. The standard tactic is just to wipte out turrets, so the base is defenceless and then rush in.
Works for goons, not for maras :wink:
Turrets would be a huge drain on builder score. I should know i've been an adv goon plenty of times, and its so easy to snipe buildings with your 3 barbs.
Turrets are the first targets and are not usable by players so they should cost the builder only a few skill points after destruction compared to what they protect. Look at this list:
Reactor - lots of lost skill points for its destruction, lots of lost skill points for no active reactor
Telenodes
Armory
Medistation
Defense computer - moderate skill lost for destruction, no skill lost for no active DC but much skill lost for every inactive tesla
Tesla - little skill lost for destruction, no skill lost for no active teslas
Turret - even less skill lost for destruction, no skill lost for no active turrets
Repeater - no skill lost for destruction, lots of skill lost for every building powered down
-
It's extremly easy to destroy turres with maras and even easier with adv. mara. All you have to do is circle around them. In oeder for turrets do defend corretcly, thay have to be able to defend each other as well. A turret wall can be destroyed by one good mara without too much hassle. That's why I want to shoot anyone making these large clusters of turrets that dont do anything and get killed in a minute or so.
-
It's extremly easy to destroy turres with maras and even easier with adv. mara. All you have to do is circle around them. In oeder for turrets do defend corretcly, thay have to be able to defend each other as well. A turret wall can be destroyed by one good mara without too much hassle. That's why I want to shoot anyone making these large clusters of turrets that dont do anything and get killed in a minute or so.
One lonely turret is annoying, not dangerous. But 3 turrets will give you hell before you take them all down with mara (especially if some builder has nothing better to do than repeair them all the time and you can't kill him). You can't move around them and they can kill you in a second. It's better to simply ignore them and go inside human base to wreak some havoc.
-
Wait a sec. I just want to get this clear. If you are a really good builder and build an awesome base but you lose, it sounds like this automated system would have you lose goodness points or get the same points as a lousy builder who has a lousy base and you lose.
-
It's extremly easy to destroy turres with maras and even easier with adv. mara. All you have to do is circle around them. In oeder for turrets do defend corretcly, thay have to be able to defend each other as well. A turret wall can be destroyed by one good mara without too much hassle. That's why I want to shoot anyone making these large clusters of turrets that dont do anything and get killed in a minute or so.
One lonely turret is annoying, not dangerous. But 3 turrets will give you hell before you take them all down with mara (especially if some builder has nothing better to do than repeair them all the time and you can't kill him). You can't move around them and they can kill you in a second. It's better to simply ignore them and go inside human base to wreak some havoc.
Depends on the position of the turrets. if it's a non skilled builder, he'll build a cluster. Since all the turrets move in the same dirrection you circle and take them all out. I do agree about rushing the base but I like to have a goon help out. If 3 turrets are blocking the passage, we will get killed much faster them me and wont be able to take out even one of them.
I've done this many many times, turrest have become easy for me as mara since I perfected this. However, a good builder wont build a cluster so there is not much one can do there but ignore them.
-
All that talk about giving good and bad points in the game are moot. All that matter is to know who won the game. Remember, if it's stupid but works, then it isn't stupid ! :D
-
Wait a sec. I just want to get this clear. If you are a really good builder and build an awesome base but you lose, it sounds like this automated system would have you lose goodness points or get the same points as a lousy builder who has a lousy base and you lose.
If you build an awesome base, you'll gain lots of skill points during the game (lots of turret skill claims, few buildings lost and lots of use points during the game) and lose very little when aliens smash it. If you build lousy base, you won't gain as much during the game and possibly lose much more on turrets and other buildings (few turret skill claims, lots of turrets lost, lots of base structures lost during the game).
-
Your whole thoery for good and bad builders is broken. In a lousy base a single Marauder can jump in and kill teles, armoury, and even reactor without having to kill a single turret. So bassically a bad builder will score just as much as a good builder, if not more since aliens don't have to destroy any defensive structures, while dretches will most likely get killed by them. And for alien builders... have you ever seen a lumberjack run? in s1 you can pretty much take care of OM and eggs in a single run if you've got team support.
I agree with norf, theres really no possible way to 'rate' a good tremulous player, the game is just too complex for that. And a big time fragger doesn't make a good trem player anyways.
-
Your whole thoery for good and bad builders is broken. In a lousy base a single Marauder can jump in and kill teles, armoury, and even reactor without having to kill a single turret. So bassically a bad builder will score just as much as a good builder, if not more since aliens don't have to destroy any defensive structures, while dretches will most likely get killed by them. And for alien builders... have you ever seen a lumberjack run? in s1 you can pretty much take care of OM and eggs in a single run if you've got team support.
I agree with norf, theres really no possible way to 'rate' a good tremulous player, the game is just too complex for that. And a big time fragger doesn't make a good trem player anyways.
My talk all the time! (just had to say that^^)
-
In fact, all rating systems used to rate players between them work best when the players have no choice on the matter. As soon as they can do things like chose their fights, switch teams etc ... the rating systems fails and can be manipulated.
Myself, I'm against any kind of flawed rating system ( which probaly means against all rating systems unless someone finds a good idea ). A flawed rating system will only cause most players to play for the rating and not for the current game which is a bad thing. We'll see things like people switching to the winning team, people refusing to complete a losing team ( heck, it happens already ! ), people disconnecting when they feel like they'll lose the game ( with the small trem comunity, you just need to see the rooster to get a good idea of which team has a good chance to win :) ) etc ...
So, death to all flawed rating systems !
-
Your whole thoery for good and bad builders is broken. In a lousy base a single Marauder can jump in and kill teles, armoury, and even reactor without having to kill a single turret. So bassically a bad builder will score just as much as a good builder, if not more since aliens don't have to destroy any defensive structures, while dretches will most likely get killed by them. And for alien builders... have you ever seen a lumberjack run? in s1 you can pretty much take care of OM and eggs in a single run if you've got team support.
Once again, you didnt even bother to read all I said about rating builders. So here's the list of skill lost for destroyed buildings again:
Reactor - lots of lost skill points for its destruction, lots of lost skill points for no active reactor
Telenodes
Armory
Medistation
Defense computer - moderate skill lost for destruction, no skill lost for no active DC but much skill lost for every inactive tesla
Tesla - little skill lost for destruction, no skill lost for no active teslas
Turret - even less skill lost for destruction, no skill lost for no active turrets
Repeater - no skill lost for destruction, lots of skill lost for every building powered down
Lost turret? No problem. Lost telenode? There goes your 1337 skill, learn to build bases first.
I agree with norf, theres really no possible way to 'rate' a good tremulous player, the game is just too complex for that. And a big time fragger doesn't make a good trem player anyways.
That's exactly why my idea is NOT based on frags.
Ans Stof, joining the losing team might also mean you get 5 times the skill for full kill claim than in the winning team. I'm really sure some people would fight each other just to get into the losing team :wink:
-
By all means do it ! If it is so easy for you to detect the losing team like that at anypoint in the game, I'm sure you can also instantly give a correct rating for each player as soon as they join the game :D
Note that giving bonus points for playing with the losing team is so abusable it isn't funny. I mean, with that you can have probably bad players that get better scores than good players because with whatever bonus you give to him he ends up with more points even losing !
-
By all means do it ! If it is so easy for you to detect the losing team like that at anypoint in the game, I'm sure you can also instantly give a correct rating for each player as soon as they join the game :D
Note that giving bonus points for playing with the losing team is so abusable it isn't funny. I mean, with that you can have probably bad players that get better scores than good players because with whatever bonus you give to him he ends up with more points even losing !
The easiest way to find the losing team is simple average team skill comparison. And no, bad player can hardly get above good player only due to skill balance bonus. As he gets closer, the bonus is lower and lower so he'll eventually reach a point at which his skill is accurate, because he neither loses nor gains skill compared to other players.
-
I think a system similar to how America's Army would be nice. You get points for achieving goals (in this case killing structures) and for gettingf frags. You lose points if you tk. When you get a certain ammount of points, you move up to the next honor. Users start at honor 10, and the max is 100. That would work for attackers, and there could be a seperate point system for builders. Then before each game starts, the players with the highest honor could pick teams, which would make the teams slightly more even. Instead of having a forced team thing, do old style pick teams, that way, if a player did really good the previous round, but doesnt have a high ranking, he won't confuse the system and be counted as a bad player during the picks.
-
OBSOLETE:
I really like the idea of having 2 separate stats. One for builder and other for arcader. Because with this setup you not only know how good is someboy, but you learn to respect a good builder AND yo be impresed by a good builder that is also a good arcader.
Anyway I suggest the better usage of this stuff sould be to make the game mor e fun. I dont really care about accuracy tags.
Other than that, I will love to see a way to make "Squads", and the ability to designate "your boss", so good players will pick his boss as better players, and noobs will not be designated. With this idea you militarize a war game, that can be a good or horrible idea, but interesting :D
UPDATE:
I need to think more about the subject.
-
One thing that might be very valuable and add to the gameplay of Tremulous would be to somehow track and indicate the skill level of players.
I do agree with this idea as such, but I also don't think that simple kill/death ratios or construction heuristics can represent reliable information about players.
Some days ago I attempted to write a python script that parses the console output and stores all relevant data in a SQ-Lite database file. But soon it dawned on me that such encounter is rather silly.
But what about a rating system that allows players to rate each other ? The amazon.com site, which allows users to post reviews of books, might be a role model for such implementation.
Maybe simple ASCII text which describes a player's behaviour is a bit too loose, but what about allowing players to give their teammates (or opponents) certain awards (such as: "good teamplayer", "great builder", "skilled fragger", etc...) which are then, in turn, stored in a central database (tjw's GUID system would make it possible to uniquely track players).
I, myself, am not familiar with the Q3 codebase (in my past I've only dealt with anti-cheat stuff for the unreal engines), but from my perspective a modified server binary which has these features, would not be *such* a complicated task. Maybe it could even be compiled as a tremulous-mod. But, as I said, I'm not familiar with Q3 coding.
-
BTW if you intend to have this rating to balance the teams, you'd better have a seperate skill figure for each team, otherwise a person who is a 1337 alien gets put on a hummie team and that lowers the actual skill of the team.
EDIT: Obviously a global skill level would soon strike an average between your alien and hummie skill, but that still isn't really useful.
I think a democratic skill level system might work:
Every player starts as level 1.
You can rate any other player up or down, but they only get pushed up or down proportional to your level.
Lvl 1 players' votes have no direct affect on level, but can be viewed by mods.
All mods have a level 1 higher than normal to start it off.
(This prevents people from flooding users to rate someone up. Even if there is someway to get round "1 UID, 1 vote")
It would give a quick overview of who has actually just started, who is a n00b (Lvl 0 or below), who is uber1337 etc.
You could also add different catagories: Slayer/Builder, Alien/Human
You could also have user requested rankings, for things like Sniper/Feeder/Weapon skills/Alien type skills, and also clan ranks. (Making it easier to tell if someone is actually in a clan, or just flying the banner)
Another very important catogory would be conduct
(Which would start at a reasonable level, so you can tell they difference between a n00b, and a newbie. :P)
EDIT: This is mainly me thinking with my keyboard, so feel free to criticise. In fact I'd feel left out if no one flames me :P
-
I wonder if the ppl have read the previous 2 pages of discussion, and that all those "suggestions" were allready made and are not doable.
I even asked timbo once for a very easy idea, to monitor the game-time and the first 5 hours you get a "N"-Tag (for NOOB), and he answered me he doesnt know how to do that.
So you think he can make such a complicated system like giving skill-lvls to players in a complex game like trem? Where the survival-time of buildings, humans, aliens doesnt give you ANY clue about the skill of a player?
Some examples:
some dedicated builder builds an awesome base, like moving stuff into lamer-room in niveus, but the other team-mates feed and he gets overrun. how to rate him? his buildings nerver survive longer than 5 minutes due to the lack of skill of the others.
Or we got an opposit, we have a noob builder that builds crappy tesla only bases where the DC is outside the base, but the team pushes so hard on the aliens they never get to the base. His buildings survive 60 minutes, is he a good builder?
Next we get someone like Henners, kickass dragoon, 85 kills in 20 minutes, plowing his way through enemy players, and still his team losses, because his team is shit. Is he a noob?
Or we get someone that has mostly only 10-15 kills in the game and dies a lot (like me) but in this time he builds, hunts eggs, supports teammates, and leads his comrades to victory because he is in the right time in the right place anytime, so is this player a noob?
How do we rate anyone in this game by only stats and numbers.
My (and i think the developers) last word:
there will be NO player-rating, not untill we get a true logical AI, and we are far away from it now.
On a vote system by players, just only one statement:
immagine DJ_Pong rating Lava_Croft, or Thorn rating Belier13
-end of message-
-
On a vote system by players, just only one statement:
immagine DJ_Pong rating Lava_Croft, or Thorn rating Belier13
I realise forum rivalries may affect how people vote in such a system, but that's still only one vote, and anyhow a decent player would just rate Belier13 down for conduct (Unless of course he is actually crap at playing, I have no licence to comment about that)
Perhaps it might even encourage people to be nicer. ;)
-
On a vote system by players, just only one statement:
immagine DJ_Pong rating Lava_Croft, or Thorn rating Belier13
I realise forum rivalries may affect how people vote in such a system, but that's still only one vote, and anyhow a decent player would just rate Belier13 down for conduct (Unless of course he is actually crap at playing, I have no licence to comment about that)
Perhaps it might even encourage people to be nicer. ;)
only one? you underestimate the community, a human rating system will sooner or later expand into flamewars.
Lava_Croft would get as much pro as noob voices (there was a poll about that), what would make him an average player (what would be bullshit).
And how do you rate ppl you never played with often? I couldnt rate like lets say a player i play with the first time. It shows nothing about his skill. This would lead to the point i would have to rate him every game, and i dont want to do this after a game on a 32-player server --> because i just dont care about a system that rates ppl, i will still have my opinion about them.
-
I rate Who-[Soup] -1235987243957423965234796587298654986798674596745985742985795367958769476093576093567309876043760954630956738763946709437603986720497624395724397862456054986243509782495627459762946395.5
-
Well tough, you've only got one vote!
-
This talk about ranking is really about education. There is really nowhere for people new to the game to learn. I came to this realization when a friend and I last night ended up on an empty server. He didn't even know that you can change to a ckit at the armory. I know that there is a tute mode, but REALLY, how much do you learn. Something I learned that as a Basilik you have to stop after you touch a human in order to grab them. One might think that this is basic, but no-one told me and the tute mode didn't say 'STOP'. there were other things that we learned but overall it was a worthwhile excercise.
All this talk about ranks and imbalances caused by new players could be solved I believe by tutorial map where newbies can enter and go through drills - like the beginning of mose games (eg Heavy Gear).
I understand that it would be boring for leets to do this, maybe it can be automated somehow. I don't know really, what do other people think?
-
@lava
shorten that long ass number that breaks the page and made my grandma cry!!
learn to use scientific notation!
All this talk about ranks and imbalances caused by new players could be solved I believe by tutorial map where newbies can enter and go through drills - like the beginning of mose games (eg Heavy Gear).
I understand that it would be boring for leets to do this, maybe it can be automated somehow. I don't know really, what do other people think?
Yes it needs to be done.. but without AI its a bit tricky. They were going to do it through videos you could watch.. but that fell through because it takes organization and time.
-
PIE,
My thought is this... AI is OK when u want to play a game against something half (or more) inteligent... if you want however to learn how to hold a human as a basilik say (using my own example) all you need really is a human to run around (perhaps randomly) while a small tutorial script scolls through some instructions The same goes for lightning as an advance marauder etc. Human training could be a bit more simplistic because, well, who hasn't played wolfenstein or doom :-) but should give an introduction to the various weapons and accessories
Most of the opponents in these maps can use generated instructions on a simulated server on your own computer. The interface to a random direction should be relatively easy, give the 'dumb' opponent directions and feed that into the V.server. The user might be able to specifiy if the opponent is wearing a Bsuit, or is constantly firing in the direction it is heading, what map to use etc.
Training map/s can/should be local only since who want's to make MAJOR stuff ups in game. There could also be small training sessions on building bases as human or alien.. maybe a firing range, who knows maybe someone out there has some good ideas. E.g. I didn't know that an aimed, fully charged luci can blast half a tyrants health away from him before a friend and myself blasted each other out of curiosity.
I realise that none of this will remove the stupid mistakes most newbs make since the game is truly a team game, but at least they will be able to understand how to use the various guns, accessories (esp jet pack), and evolutions a bit better. The only thing left is for them to hop on and get yelled at for feeding too much. ;-)
What do you think about this?
-
We need a Splatter Ladder (http://et.splatterladder.com/) of our own.