Scoreboard Ideas

[smartalco]

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

[player1]

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.

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!

[Medic]

I'm starting to think much of this thread is going unread or misunderstood.

[player1]

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

[smartalco]

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

[player1]

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?

[smartalco]

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 , thought it'd be obvious enough that I didn't mean just building buildings

[player1]

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

[Lava Croft]

I'm starting to think much of this thread is going unread or misunderstood.

It was worth a try...

[player1]

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...

[+ OPTIMUS +]

...I believe this is a worthy endeavor so I will pursue it until it is deemed a failure. 

[player1]

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?

[Lava Croft]

I think he got tired of your bullshit, player1.

[+ OPTIMUS +]

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.

[Lava Croft]

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.

[+ OPTIMUS +]

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...

[smartalco]

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'

[player1]

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:

@smartalco:

[+ OPTIMUS +]

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.

[Lava Croft]

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

[+ OPTIMUS +]

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...

[player1]

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. 

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. 

[Lava Croft]

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.

[smartalco]

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)

[Lava Croft]

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.

[The MC Horton Crankfire]

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

[Lava Croft]

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.

[smartalco]

^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

[+ OPTIMUS +]

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.

[player1]

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?