Update the Scoring System

[jm82792]

I see an issues with your score because it's a combo time and kill to death ratio based.
Why not say the time, kill ratio(1.0 is 1 kill for one death. 2.0 is 2 kills for one death.....)
then score?
It would be helpful to see how good your doing,
I know for the first 5 minutes the ratio would jump around a bit but after that it would be very stable and make great sense.

[tucho]

Something was written here but I think I misunderstood you so I deleted it so I don't sound stupid

[F50]

I partially agree with you. Such information would be nice to see, even if only through /mystats (a modded command). However, you don't understand the current scoring system. It has nothing to do with deaths. each kill of a naked rifle/dretch is about 4 points IIRC. You get more points for more advanced aliens, but only for your part in the action (taking half the hp of a dretch gives you half the points). Structure kills are worth a lot. Building gets you free points (not like that matters though).

The thing I like about the current score system is that it really encourages the point of the game: killing enemy structures.

[jez]

One thing the current scoring system lacks is a disincentive to feed like crazy. Even if you're actually being a huge drain on the team there is often little reflection of this in the score.

I know it might be a little disheartening for noobs to end up in minus numbers a lot of the time, but it would probably give a fairer indication of what's good and what's not if you lost and gained points based on evos/credits earnt/fed (with some stuff for structures too).

[Plague Bringer]

One thing the current scoring system lacks is a disincentive to feed like crazy. Even if you're actually being a huge drain on the team there is often little reflection of this in the score.

I know it might be a little disheartening for noobs to end up in minus numbers a lot of the time, but it would probably give a fairer indication of what's good and what's not if you lost and gained points based on evos/credits earnt/fed (with some stuff for structures too).

This has been said before, but:
Losing isn't a disincentive?

[jez]

Losing isn't a disincentive?

Lol, quite.

Well my point is your score could be more of an accurate reflection of your contribution. So if you caused your team to do worse by supplying the opposition with free credits, then you would have a poorer score than a less suicidal player.

[CorSair]

So if you caused your team to do worse by supplying the opposition with free credits, then you would have a poorer score than a less suicidal player.

This one would be great to add. However...

There should be way to see, how much kills/deaths and structures destroyed to your team/enemy.

[F50]

One thing the current scoring system lacks is a disincentive to feed like crazy. Even if you're actually being a huge drain on the team there is often little reflection of this in the score.

Sure, but how else are you to learn how to fight (especially as a new alien dretch) without feeding like hell? Being at the bottom of the score list is enough, no need to go into negative score to dishearten people.

[mooseberry]

This isn't related really to the OP but I figured I'd add it here. It always mildly bugged me that the in-game scores and tremstats don't match up. Yeah, tremstats isn't that serious or whatever, but if you are "going" for score in-game shouldn't score be shown on your tremstats page? Something like average score per death, average score, total score, whatever. Kills with and by each weapon/alien is nice, but it always seemed a bit odd to me that tremstats shows kills and deaths while the new scoring system in game seems designed almost specifically to avoid that kind of mentality.

[Meisseli]

I wouldn't mind the score going down when I get killed... Would tell more of what I'm really doing for the team than the current score system.

But I doubt it's going to get changed.

[Cadynum]

A scoring system with a bias (such as the current one in gpp) is inherently stupid since it tries to measure your contribution to the team.
Does it matter how much you have died if you win the game? No. Does it matter that you killed 20 stray structures when you failed to deliver the final blow and the opposite team won? No.

That's why I think the ultimate scoring system would be nothing. Failing that i would do it like in 1.1.

[rotacak]

1.1 scoring is good for campers in base/jetpack with md and cornerwhoring. I saw many lamers, whose absolutely not helped to own team, just gathering kills while they had 2000 credits/evo and then they lose.

[F50]

While the current scoring system may not be all that meaningful, I think it is more *helpful* than just kill ratio, which is in turn more helpful than kill count. Kill count might be more meaningful, but it sure isn't helpful. Rotacak explained why.

[Cadynum]

A killratio score is stupid when the best tactic as a dretch in a lot of cases is mindless spamming/feeding.

[A Spork]

A killratio score is stupid when the best tactic as a dretch in a lot of cases is mindless spamming/feeding.

This.

[Kiwi]

Agreed, I like it the way it is..

[Cadynum]

One thing that doesn't make too much sense is that builders slowly get some useless points.
What on earth is that for?

Btw, separating the points you get from killing opponents and the ones you get from killing structures is something i really think should happen.

[jm82792]

It's to get people building.
I hate it when say I'm defending base,
we are falling back.
I say build or whatever,
they can't fight worth beans and won't build....
This issue would be much worse if nobody got a few points for building,
yeah you want the team to win but after you spent your 10 minutes building it's nice to get a reward.

[Kiwi]

Yeah, I think the points are there to encourage people to build, which I guess is fine

[Meisseli]

Losing isn't a disincentive?

I wonder how this isn't enough for builders to build though...

[Cadynum]

Yeah, nobody was ever building in 1.1 without those points. :)