Score Issues

[Roflcopter]

Many people accuse us of camping and the truth is we do on several maps. Take ac_depot for instance, it has only two main paths (main and tunnels) from flag to flag. Frequently well-coordinated teams on this map will not concede any flags to the enemy team. This leads teams like us to simply try to amass frags and win without taking flags. Obviously this is boring and we've received alot of complaints about it so I have a proposal...

Simply change the score system to be based only on flags. So if two teams score the same number of flags, regardless of their frags, deaths or score, that should be counted as a tie. This would make going on the offensive a necessity for every game.

At the end the game currently just shows the score board and states "intermission: game has ended". It would be quite nice if that was replaced with some rephrasing of "CLA wins", "the game was drawed" or "RVSF wins".

Now of course this method of deciding results doesn't have to be enforced by the game but it would likely lead to disputes if some people adopted this method (while others didn't). So it's far better if the game clarifies the result and there of course many nice ways that could be done.

[Xenon]

I like the idea but it could be completely lamely used, what happens if it is BOPE vs MyS or something and they tie on flags but lose by like 100 kills? :D

[Roflcopter]

...

The aim of the game is to get flags. I would say in that case the hypothetical MyS didn't majorly outperform them. After all, if a team really is very weak they will concede flags to a strong team.

[Luc@s]

Why don't you just consider it yourself as tie ?

[titiPT]

"Poll: Should the score system be changed to rely solely on frags?"

Flags?

[Roflcopter]

Lucas, as I said the game doesn't need to enforce it but it's highly desirable. At the moment the game is rather hands-off -- just providing the raw information (flags, frags, deaths and score) and sorting the teams by flags, frags, score and then -deaths. I think it needs to be universally decided. If not it leads to disputes, and generally ambiguity. People all need to be playing the same game!

Many games even go as far as hiding frags and deaths to discourage "ratio-whoring"; I just propose you eliminate them from the criteria for winning so there is an incentive to attack.

"Poll: Should the score system be changed to rely solely on frags?"

Flags?

Yes, can the mods please fix that typo ("frags" -> "flags"). Now fixed. Thanks!

---

Also I should point out the analogy to football. When teams get 1-1 in football it doesn't matter which team had more possession or more yellow cards. Those stats are interesting, and hence they are often provided in match analysis, but they don't affect the result.

It's also simpler in some sense.

[jamz]

Assuming this was applied only to match mode, it makes sense. But, then, I don't play matches, so I'm not sure how much my opinion counts.
I'd hate to spend 15 minutes in a pub game, defending my heart out for my team, only to see them win, but have my score on my screenshot say '0'. When I'm reminiscing, years from now, the screenshots would have lost all meaning.

[ExodusS]

flags frags deaths points that's all

[Orynge]

I made a post regarding it here ( http://forum.cubers.net/thread-16-post-6...l#pid60632 ).

[Roflcopter]

I made a post regarding it here ( http://forum.cubers.net/thread-16-post-6...l#pid60632 ).

I quite like some elements of that method. It avoids a draw completely while ensuring a game should end after a while. It is a bit complicated though.

[#M|A#Wolf]

Why can't we all just realize that the winner is the team at the top of the scoreboard... Some people have the idea that points doesn't matter, and yadiyadiya, who gives a f*ck?! At the end of the game, the winner is the team at the top of the scoreboard, unless every single type of score is tied (flags, frags, deaths, points); if so it is considered a tie. That's the way it is, that's the way everyone should look at it, and if you don't like it then argue with the game for placing the other team on top of your team.

[Fate]

Why can't we all just realize that the winner is the team at the top of the scoreboard...

F1

[No1sPerfect]

it shud be about points, since FLAG, FRAGS and deaths affect them so the team has to care about both KDR and flags that way

[asthenia]

I've personally always viewed score as a way to gauge your individual contribution to your team -- becuase getting tons of kills and deaths doesn't do nearly as much for your score as covering/defending/capturing flags does. Sure, it's possible to amass a huge score from having a great KDR, but, like I said, it's a metric for your own team cooperation in the current match. I don't think it should be used to gauge which team wins a match or pub. It's not even something you can gauge from game-to-game -- different maps/modes played with nearly similar performance don't always result in similar scores, either. It's just a number to compare yourself to the rest of your team.

In some pretty common objective-based multiplayer shooters, kills & deaths are shown, but they don't factor into the team's final standing. That's solely determined by "flags" (or objectives, etc.). In AssaultCube flags should come first in determining wins, and then by total frags, then by deaths, just like they do now. But score? Score should not count for deciding wins. It's inconsistent and not completely finished being tweaked yet.

Relevant: .ExodusS*'s image

[Lantry]

Relevant: .ExodusS*'s image

I get that the image is supposed to be a joke, but you can see that |oNe| had less deaths but they both tied for frags, which means that |dR| got more headshots, which are worth more points. Voicecom does factor in, but (even if it actually was used) it wasn't the deciding factor here.

[Mael]

I get that the image is supposed to be a joke, but you can see that |oNe| had less deaths but they both tied for frags, which means that |dR| got more headshots, which are worth more points.

Thought that is usually correct you would have to take suicides into consideration to know for sure. There is no "more death, more headshots" law.

[#M|A#Wolf]

dR was at the top of that scoreboard for a reason. The game just doesn't place them there cause it wants to, the game has a way of determining who is winning, and at the end of that match, dR was the winning team.

EDIT: And by the way, you don't receive point by doing "Cover me!", "Affirmative". You have to do this, and if the person that said affirmative actually did cover after that he received extra points, which is a bit silly, but oh well.

[V-Man]

I've personally always viewed score as a way to gauge your individual contribution to your team

This.
We'd been clamoring for ages to have a way to measure and encourage teamwork, let's not neglect it now that we have it.

[Roflcopter]

@|BC|Wolf You seem to be arguing that we should accept that the team shown at the top wins (except with identical flags, frags, deaths and score). I agree with that, and that's how it currently is, but I am proposing a change. You say "[t]hat's the way it is" but I think it matters more whether it's "the way it should be" which your post didn't address.

I've personally always viewed score as a way to gauge your individual contribution to your team

This.
We'd been clamoring for ages to have a way to measure and encourage teamwork, let's not neglect it now that we have it.

Score is fine for public games, but useless and never intended for matches. Having stats like frags or deaths count towards score rewards "ratio-whoring". Score is not representative of much, especially not in matches where teamwork is much more subtle than covering the flag carrier, and would also encourage camping and some other things I believe.

In contrast, if two teams do have the same number of flags after 15 minutes then clearly the match was very close. I don't think it's very meaningful to say "team A got more frags so they did better" since one could also argue that "team B didn't kill as much and did as well so they must have coordinated better".

The game should have clear objectives (in CTF that's flags) and stop allowing us to win CTF like it's DM with longer respawns. We beat By3 yesterday on ac_depot this exact way: 0-0 flags, we won on frags. We never even tried to pick up their flag.

[SovietAk47]

i like HSing on depot in main :D

on topic :

nah bad idea ....
just like wolf said

Why can't we all just realize that the winner is the team at the top of the scoreboard... Some people have the idea that points doesn't matter, and yadiyadiya, who gives a f*ck?! At the end of the game, the winner is the team at the top of the scoreboard, unless every single type of score is tied (flags, frags, deaths, points); if so it is considered a tie. That's the way it is, that's the way everyone should look at it, and if you don't like it then argue with the game for placing the other team on top of your team.

IM agree :p

but the idea with "CLA wins" ... is c00L :)

[Roflcopter]

nah bad idea ....
just like wolf said

...

IM agree :p

Wolf didn't even comment on my proposal. If you think it's a bad idea at least give a reason!

[V-Man]

Score is fine for public games, but useless and never intended for matches.

I must insist that score is meant for matches, but if it is useless in matches as you say, then it needs to be adjusted in whatever way is necessary so that it becomes useful there.

[Roflcopter]

I must insist that score is meant for matches, but if it is useless in matches as you say, then it needs to be adjusted in whatever way is necessary so that it becomes useful there.

Computers can't understand what is good play and what isn't. Score will always be inherently arbitary. Whatever formula you use for a metric to use secondarily to frags it will always be exploitable on maps where flags are difficult.

It's simply not desirable to have such arbitary metrics as a significant part of win conditions.

[#M|A#Wolf]

I just don't like the fact that only flags would show, since when there's a match on "noobs" vs "pros" the noobs will just rifle-sprint stupidly to the enemy's base, since they know they have no chance in individual skills, and flags will be closer than they should, or the "noob" team may even win because of this.

Also, the points/score system should be taken in account, specially in matches and even before considering the frags and deaths! Why is that? Imagine a situation where Player 1 just ratio whores the entire game, get's 1 or 2 flags, but he never really stole them, he just got them from dead teammates. Then there's Player 2, he's a great fragger and coverer, and kept helping his teammates score the flags by covering and defending his base, he ended with a ratio below 1.0.

Now which one of these two players would get the higher score? Player 2 of course. The score system is made to encourage teamwork and to reward the player by doing so. Player 1 just went ratio whoring and didn't really help his team, while Player 2 actually helped on reaching their goal (getting flags and not getting yours stolen) and helped recover and defend some flags; he was the one with the highest score for that reason.

That's why I think the system should stay the way it is, and why score should be taking into consideration way before frags and deaths. By rewarding the top fraggers with low deaths, you are rewarding ratio whoring, and the guys that actually worked their ass trying to help the team are left in the mud.

To conclude, I would like it if things stayed the way they are, and for score to be taken more importantly than the frags and deaths in the future. I'm not sure if the engine takes score before frags and deaths (I think it does?), but if it doesn't, doing it would be a great step forward.

[Joe Smith]

if its only flags, then it takes away from defense. If the flags are tied and then frags are a 50+ difference then the one with more frags would win.

- 1 because they took their time and strategically made there way to the enemy flag killing the enemy several times before getting there, instead of rifle sprinting every time.

- 2 if its a 3v3 or any match for that matter, there is usually one main defender and 2 offense depending on how that clan plays strategically, so with at least one main defender, there is going to be camping from that person and those kills should not be nulled just cuz he is not getting flags, flags is not the defenders purpose.

So only having it be based on Flags takes away from the strategy and defense that is being use by the clans that are playing. you see some clans are more offensive based, so they kill only when needed and have a strategy just to get the flag, and others are more based on defense so they take their time getting the flag.

If its just based on Flags and not defense and strategy, why not have matches just be, no shooting and just going after the flag, see who cna do it the fastest.

[Roflcopter]

...

In this hypothetical match of "noobs" and "pros" you suggest that they would just rifle jump to an enemy's base to obtain flags. But if those players are indeed "pros" that "strategy" would surely fail. Overall the example sounds highly unlikely. Also how would my proposal help these "noobs" win as you suggest is possible?

Your second example describes a very unstructured team or public team not representative of an average team. And although I follow how their scores should in theory vary, I don't see any conclusion tying that to victory conditions.

I thought frags were checked before score, but it makes no difference in the end. We could easily exploit the score system the same way although we'd just have to be more careful to stop them picking up our flag while trying to perform certain sequences to maximize our score. At the end of the day we can always exploit any system relying on these additional metrics -- especially since I can read the source.

Now my counter to all this. If it is a bad idea, can anyone find a convincing example where a team under my proposal would draw when it deserves instead to win?

[Xenon]

Scores are bullshit, that is a draw, not a win to me, i used a voicecom or hit 1 pistol bullet, that means I win does it.... lol, score is lame

[V-Man]

You don't seem to have read the explanation of how Voicecom is used in the scoring system.

[jamz]

If you and Undead are happy that it's a draw, it's a draw. The only possible extra score you could get in that mode would be for a combo (+5). Therefore, all other things being equal (which they clearly were), you, Xenon, were the slightly better player because you managed two combos, where Undead only managed one.
24 frags @ 10 pts = 240
24 deaths @ -4 pts = -96
total = 144
combos are worth 5 pts each.
It's quite possible for the result to be a draw, and you simply use the score as an indicator of who put in the better performance. I guess the argument is that having the score a) visible and b) ranking the players/teams at the end is enforcing the idea that this is somehow the official way to decide the result.
Since the poll seems to be heading away from removal of the frags/deaths/score, but with the majority going with some kind of change, how about having the score presented less significantly (smaller font or slightly greyed out - I don't know if these are possible) and not using it to rank?

[ExodusS]

I get that the image is supposed to be a joke, but you can see that |oNe| had less deaths but they both tied for frags, which means that |dR| got more headshots, which are worth more points.

Thought that is usually correct you would have to take suicides into consideration to know for sure. There is no "more death, more headshots" law.

Suicides are tacticals in CTF or other flags mode.