Player Scoring

[cysten]

I was playing and while looking at the player stats for my team, I realized "Wow! There are some really good people with really high kill scores." Then another thought came to me.... "But how many kills have they given to the enemy team?" If they have 50 kills... but gave the enemy team 100 kills... then they suck.

So I was thinking it might be good to include a player's death tally also to discourage feeders. Or maybe have a feeder score that tallies the number of deaths or points that player has given to the enemy team.

Thoughts?

[Asvarox]

Are you talking about 1.1 or GPP?

In any case, the fact that someone has 50 kills and 100 deaths doesn't really gives good impression how good the player is in Tremulous. Such statistics might mean that said player suck, but it might as well mean that he rushed enemy's base a lot, thus made his team win. Adding "Deaths" or "Feeds" column would make false impression.

Score system in GPP where you get points from killing buildings works IMO pretty well, doesn't need any change.

[KillerWhale]

Shaming people who die generally isn't a good idea, as it will discourage players from rushing bases and doing risky things that advance the game.

Look at what the kill/death ratios from Tremstats have already done to players.

[cysten]

Ok so a player attacks, destroys a few turrets/acid tubes. The player gets killed giving a large quantity of points to the enemy team. The buildings get rebuilt a few moments later. How is this a good thing?

I'm not discouraging base attacks, but the point is to slowly wear down a base and not get killed. If you do get killed it means that the next time they'll have something bigger and badder. Only if you knock out a critical structure while dieing, AND that allows your team to win does it matter. In which case the game is over and that one death doesn't matter. 

It wouldn't discourage risk taking, it would discourage stupid risk taking. If you have a 50/100 kill/death ratio you are a liability. Not an asset. Sure you might have destroyed a few building. But think of all the luci/rants your teammates have to face because of you. How is this a good thing?

[David]

Nobody cares how many credits you feed to the turrets.
And if they are building 2 or 3 buildings faster than you can get back there then you've got half their team tied up with building, which is very handy.

[cysten]

Ya, but unless they newb they'll be having one or two people in base shooting at you. So even if the turret kills you it doesn't matter. Unless you attack 10 turrets at once most of the dmg is from those players and they get most of the credits. No?

You have a point about the building, but still with those credits things are now much worse.

My main reason for suggesting a death or feed tally is because we've all been in situations where our team is behind in tech stage and purchasing points. So the smart thing is to pull back play conservative and let them come to you. I just got out of a game where the entire team was reduced to rifle and no armor against 3 or 4 rants. They kept rushing out in one big group and got nowhere.

The problem with playing conservative, is that there's always 1 or 2 d*** f***s who run out there and feed them. So instead of gunning down all the rants and moving out against dretches, the rants just keep coming. So there needs to be some measure of feeding so a person learns not to do it.

How is being able to see how much you feed a bad thing?

[David]

Because deaths != feeding?


Maybe if it was credits earned / credits fed then I wouldn't care so much.

[Asvarox]

Just curious - what will you do when you are able to see who's feeding? Swear at them? TK/bleed them? Kick them?

I'm not discouraging base attacks, but the point is to slowly wear down a base and not get killed. If you do get killed it means that the next time they'll have something bigger and badder. Only if you knock out a critical structure while dieing, AND that allows your team to win does it matter. In which case the game is over and that one death doesn't matter.

By suggesting adding feed/deaths field you do. And from what I remember in 1.1 (I guess you are talking about it) camping was one of the major problems and was making the game extremely boring in many cases. "the point is to slowly wear down a base" is the point of SD. When both teams are "even" and can't destroy each other bases in a rush. The problem is that they rarely try.

[janev]

Some food for thought:

The teams are not always balanced skillwise or financially... If that is the case 50 kills and 100 deaths is perfectly acceptable. If I kill 50 tyrants and feed 100 shotgun lightarmour combos I will call it economical gameplay and actually be helping the team. The team will be better off financially and teammates will meet tyrants less frequently (due to the inherent cashflow problems with 5 evo classes and trem-onomics). There is nothing worse then being that 50-100 guy while the rest of the team whines at you for not camping feeding from the comfort of the base. A game is won by killing the enemy base, not by defending your base at all costs for 1 hour or having a nice k/d ratio against dretches.

Camping is another thing all together. Deaths are not a bad thing, as long as you are playing the game to the best of your ability. You said in effect that the counter to a better team is camping until they quit or try to bruteforce you.... I call bullshit on that. The answer is playing the game, losing and having fun while doing it. Next round chances are the composition of teams will change for a more balanced game. Public play is not about winning at all cost, that gets boring reaaaally fast.

p.s 50 kills is not good anyway.
p.p.s use the /mystats command

[jellicle]

Nobody cares how many credits you feed to the turrets.

With the system as it stands now, if you do 1 point of damage to a dretch, who later dies in the turrets, you get full credit (180 credits) for having killed it.  As an alien, the only way dying in the turrets is NOT feeding is if no human ever put a single bullet into you during that life.  If any human damaged you - the humans get full credits for your death.  I should check, but I think they even get full credits if you /kill or jump into the lava or something.

So, don't feed.

[Conzul]

Nobody cares how many credits you feed to the turrets.

With the system as it stands now, if you do 1 point of damage to a dretch, who later dies in the turrets, you get full credit (180 credits) for having killed it.  As an alien, the only way dying in the turrets is NOT feeding is if no human ever put a single bullet into you during that life.  If any human damaged you - the humans get full credits for your death.  I should check, but I think they even get full credits if you /kill or jump into the lava or something.

So, don't feed.

This is a bug that will hopefully be fixed soon.

[Norfenstein]

This is a bug that will be fixed hopefully soon.

FTFY

[Conzul]

This is a bug that will be fixed hopefully soon.

FTFY

Chill. I'll do it if it's such a bother.

[Norfenstein]

I read your statement as suggesting it might not be fixed.

[Kiwi]

I think that a good ratio to be displayed on the scoreboard would be an average score/life.

[Conzul]

I read your statement as suggesting it might not be fixed.

Mea Culpa. Was aiming for soon and missed.

I think that a good ratio to be displayed on the scoreboard would be an average score/life.

+1
Except that builders would always be at the top, due to getting steady score from relative safety.

[Celestial_Rage]

How about score/time? For those stat conscious folks, that means, you actually have to leave base and kill stuff instead of camping on turrets so you can get a high kill count per death.  Also, builders won't get their score padded too much, but I guess, it will save their stats from falling too much.