Notes on scoring and other stuff
by slugthog · in ThinkTanks · 08/23/2003 (1:36 am) · 8 replies
1) By my calculation the scoring in TT is cooked. I know that it is traditional in shot 'em ups to lose points when you die but, besides being an annoyance to old far... fellows like me, losing points with a zero floor also contains a nasty cook.
Hypothetical:
AA, BB and I are in a match. AA and BB are nearlly equal and quite good. I am I, i.e. not so hot. In the course of the match AA and BB each other often enough that by near end we are all at zero kills. (a place I know well) Finally AA & BB are in a slugfset to earn the winning point. I spawn within range, pop BB in the tush for a kill and a point just as the buzzer sounds. Final score: AA 0; BB 0; slugthog 1. Winner sluggy. (yeah, like that's going to happen).
With positive only scoring the final score is: AA lots and lots; BB lots and lots; sluggy 1.
Since gettng killed in the game is both easy and trivial, with positive only scoring a newbie can see his score progress more obviously from game to game. Think of it as an incentive for those of us with failing senses.
2) Lights still have too much ramming advantage. If we extrapolate to the real world, a risky business at best, we are seeing the equivalent of a 9 ton Humvee ( light tank) traveling at 60 mph colliding with 65 ton Abrams (heavy tank) traveling at 30 mph and driving the Abrams three vehicle lengths astern. In fact, the smaller vehicle would likely lose a lot of momentum, as well as length, while the larger might sjover a bit and need a quick touch up at Earl Shibe. I think it's time to re-evaluate our mv^2's. The problem might solve by cranking everyone's mass up a bit, well, maybe a lot.
3) How about a couple of arenas absent power-ups, save maybe the odd heal. Or for that matter, how about no power-ups on scrum?
4) Speaking of scrum, I was wasn't I, perhaps delaying respawn in scrum to reduce the advantage of dominant players just enough (along with nor power-ups). Or even team composition limits. Something like two lights( or a light and a ufo), two mediums and a heavy on each team. It would certainly give us all an incentive to become more familiar with all of the available vehicles.
5) Finally, I am throughly opposed to hacked vehicles (exception skins). Nothing will suck the fun out of the game faster than, say, Fandangodancer appearing with something that looks like a medium, accelerates like a light, floats like a ufo and maneuvers & shoots like a heavy.
Anyway, just the musings of a slowly fading intellect.
...rmk (slugthog)
Hypothetical:
AA, BB and I are in a match. AA and BB are nearlly equal and quite good. I am I, i.e. not so hot. In the course of the match AA and BB each other often enough that by near end we are all at zero kills. (a place I know well) Finally AA & BB are in a slugfset to earn the winning point. I spawn within range, pop BB in the tush for a kill and a point just as the buzzer sounds. Final score: AA 0; BB 0; slugthog 1. Winner sluggy. (yeah, like that's going to happen).
With positive only scoring the final score is: AA lots and lots; BB lots and lots; sluggy 1.
Since gettng killed in the game is both easy and trivial, with positive only scoring a newbie can see his score progress more obviously from game to game. Think of it as an incentive for those of us with failing senses.
2) Lights still have too much ramming advantage. If we extrapolate to the real world, a risky business at best, we are seeing the equivalent of a 9 ton Humvee ( light tank) traveling at 60 mph colliding with 65 ton Abrams (heavy tank) traveling at 30 mph and driving the Abrams three vehicle lengths astern. In fact, the smaller vehicle would likely lose a lot of momentum, as well as length, while the larger might sjover a bit and need a quick touch up at Earl Shibe. I think it's time to re-evaluate our mv^2's. The problem might solve by cranking everyone's mass up a bit, well, maybe a lot.
3) How about a couple of arenas absent power-ups, save maybe the odd heal. Or for that matter, how about no power-ups on scrum?
4) Speaking of scrum, I was wasn't I, perhaps delaying respawn in scrum to reduce the advantage of dominant players just enough (along with nor power-ups). Or even team composition limits. Something like two lights( or a light and a ufo), two mediums and a heavy on each team. It would certainly give us all an incentive to become more familiar with all of the available vehicles.
5) Finally, I am throughly opposed to hacked vehicles (exception skins). Nothing will suck the fun out of the game faster than, say, Fandangodancer appearing with something that looks like a medium, accelerates like a light, floats like a ufo and maneuvers & shoots like a heavy.
Anyway, just the musings of a slowly fading intellect.
...rmk (slugthog)
About the author
#2
FP
08/23/2003 (10:29 am)
I dont think its possible to hack those changes from the client side slughog ive changed some files and made a heavey a light but i am the only one tht sees it I dont think we have to worry about hacked tanks.FP
#3
Making the game harder for seasoned vets?
That may have been implicit in my suggestions and I suppose I do support the idea. Increasing the difficulty for vets would, IMHO, serve a couple of purposes.
Firstly, it would tend to keep the game challanging for all players. I see this as a good thing. I used to be a chess player, never pay for my drinks tavern player. As my skills improved I became less and less willing to engage in games with novices. Easy victories have little flavor. On the other hand, when I began to play Go, which has a handicaping system, I found that both my interest, as the novbice, and the interest of the experienced players whom I challanged remained much higher. Handicappng levels plalying fields and level playing fields can be significantly more interesting.
Secondly, it should reduce the level of bullying in the game without the need to impose other restrictions on play. Bullying seriously reduces the level of enjoyment of the game for bullied players. Soon after I began playing on line I stopped because some ill mannered experienced players consistently took advantage of my ineptness and prevented my interaction in the games. I will concede that this benavior seems to have declined significantly since my return to on line play but there are still those who take advantage.
BTW:
6) I would like to see the option for players to view a game in progress. Perhaps invisibly. I know that I could enjoy watching a bunch of players,e whose reflexes still operate in real time, scrum.
...rmk
BTW,I prefer slugthog or sluggy to slug if you don't mind, of if you prefer TOF (The Old Far...Fellow) will be fine.
08/23/2003 (11:07 am)
In response to Tally:Making the game harder for seasoned vets?
That may have been implicit in my suggestions and I suppose I do support the idea. Increasing the difficulty for vets would, IMHO, serve a couple of purposes.
Firstly, it would tend to keep the game challanging for all players. I see this as a good thing. I used to be a chess player, never pay for my drinks tavern player. As my skills improved I became less and less willing to engage in games with novices. Easy victories have little flavor. On the other hand, when I began to play Go, which has a handicaping system, I found that both my interest, as the novbice, and the interest of the experienced players whom I challanged remained much higher. Handicappng levels plalying fields and level playing fields can be significantly more interesting.
Secondly, it should reduce the level of bullying in the game without the need to impose other restrictions on play. Bullying seriously reduces the level of enjoyment of the game for bullied players. Soon after I began playing on line I stopped because some ill mannered experienced players consistently took advantage of my ineptness and prevented my interaction in the games. I will concede that this benavior seems to have declined significantly since my return to on line play but there are still those who take advantage.
BTW:
6) I would like to see the option for players to view a game in progress. Perhaps invisibly. I know that I could enjoy watching a bunch of players,e whose reflexes still operate in real time, scrum.
...rmk
BTW,I prefer slugthog or sluggy to slug if you don't mind, of if you prefer TOF (The Old Far...Fellow) will be fine.
#4
This would be cool. I've always liked being a spectator in various games that allow it. Return to Castle Wolfenstein's implementation is cool: you can fly around in spectator mode and view the action from all sorts of angles, uninhibited by walls and other obstacles. Or you can latch on to a player and view the game through their eyes as they play.
I don't know what limitations such a thing imposes, especially concerning the number of players in a game or framerates/lag, etc.
Re: bullying
Definitely can be a problem. It's going to happen in a large group of people, no matter what, especially when those good players need some easy points to get above their peers. Getting the easy point (and it's often me :) ) doesn't bother me as much when it's part of gameplay and not just part of some strange virtual vendetta or some kind of real bullying/griefing, etc. They'll be there, though. I've found the best thing to do is ignore whoever it is and play the game as best you can. Move on to another server if need be. If they follow you there, I've found that leading them into confrontations with the better players works wonders. :) Just trundle your tank over to the high scorers. The high scorer will likely take you out, but then they'll go to work on your bully, and you don't even have to ask them to do it. :) A few like that and a bully's target will often change.
08/24/2003 (8:09 am)
Quote:6) I would like to see the option for players to view a game in progress. Perhaps invisibly. I know that I could enjoy watching a bunch of players,e whose reflexes still operate in real time, scrum.
This would be cool. I've always liked being a spectator in various games that allow it. Return to Castle Wolfenstein's implementation is cool: you can fly around in spectator mode and view the action from all sorts of angles, uninhibited by walls and other obstacles. Or you can latch on to a player and view the game through their eyes as they play.
I don't know what limitations such a thing imposes, especially concerning the number of players in a game or framerates/lag, etc.
Re: bullying
Definitely can be a problem. It's going to happen in a large group of people, no matter what, especially when those good players need some easy points to get above their peers. Getting the easy point (and it's often me :) ) doesn't bother me as much when it's part of gameplay and not just part of some strange virtual vendetta or some kind of real bullying/griefing, etc. They'll be there, though. I've found the best thing to do is ignore whoever it is and play the game as best you can. Move on to another server if need be. If they follow you there, I've found that leading them into confrontations with the better players works wonders. :) Just trundle your tank over to the high scorers. The high scorer will likely take you out, but then they'll go to work on your bully, and you don't even have to ask them to do it. :) A few like that and a bully's target will often change.
#5
Practice practice practice. Play some quick play rounds against the bots or shoot some demos until you can dominate games, or at least hold your own against Humbot. If you start getting bullied, then watch the bully and learn from him/her... or just leave that particular game. There is no crying in Think Tanks.
Find *cowboy*... he occasionally runs a game in which he shares some of his tips and tricks for the newbies. Check out the fan websites such as Tank Dork's, Nathan's, etc. Links at:
www.geocities.com/lc50tank/Links.html.
Cheers,
LC50
08/24/2003 (8:45 am)
Slug,Practice practice practice. Play some quick play rounds against the bots or shoot some demos until you can dominate games, or at least hold your own against Humbot. If you start getting bullied, then watch the bully and learn from him/her... or just leave that particular game. There is no crying in Think Tanks.
Find *cowboy*... he occasionally runs a game in which he shares some of his tips and tricks for the newbies. Check out the fan websites such as Tank Dork's, Nathan's, etc. Links at:
www.geocities.com/lc50tank/Links.html.
Cheers,
LC50
#6
I don't know who are but you have absolutely no sympathy from me.
To use your chess analogy, if I want free draught beer from the tavern, I would play on a server with novices. But because I like Grey Goose martinis, I choose to play with my peers.
Why are you so concerned about the interests of the experienced players? So we can all get along and make your life easier? Sorry Eliza Doolittle, this ain't My Fair Lady and I am certainly not your Henry Higgins.
All great games - and ThinkTanks is one of them - have a challenging, learning curve. Our refined taste didn't happen overnight. Why should it be any different for you?
jangles
08/24/2003 (1:45 pm)
Slughog,I don't know who are but you have absolutely no sympathy from me.
To use your chess analogy, if I want free draught beer from the tavern, I would play on a server with novices. But because I like Grey Goose martinis, I choose to play with my peers.
Why are you so concerned about the interests of the experienced players? So we can all get along and make your life easier? Sorry Eliza Doolittle, this ain't My Fair Lady and I am certainly not your Henry Higgins.
All great games - and ThinkTanks is one of them - have a challenging, learning curve. Our refined taste didn't happen overnight. Why should it be any different for you?
jangles
#7
For instance. There is a dominant strategy in battlemode. Killing a tank with a higher score than yours is worht more ponts than killing one with a lower score. Killing a tank with zero score increases your score by exactly one point. Killling a tank with an equal or higher score not only increases your score by a point but it decreases his score by a point making the difference between your score and his change by two not one. The dominant strategy is simply: Always attack the leaders; Never kill a tank attacking a leader until the leader has died then only kill the other tank if its score is equal to or greater than your score; and if you are a leader take easy kills.
From this piece of information we can extrapolate some scoring changes that render bullying unprofitable. An interesting adjunct to these changes is that they require a higher skill level to remain in the lead, reduce the effect of players who are ignorant of the dominant strategy (those fellows who shoot you in the back while you are engaged taking down the leader) and make bullying profitless. Removing the cost of dying also reduces the value of bullying.
A) Score one point for killing a tank with a higher score and no points for killling a tank with a lower score.
B) Score two points for killing a tank with a higher score and one point for killing a tank with an equal score and no points for killing a tank with a lower score. This variation is nice because it encourages the dominant strategy and rewards facing off against peers at a slightly lower level.
C) Score CEILING(diff in scores / number of players) for killing a tank with an equal or greater score and zero for killing a tank with a lower score. This variation encourages ganging up on leaders and discourages attacking those with low scores. This one is cute. It can make the first couple of kills very valuable but keeps later scoring low. For the computationally handicapped:
your score 2 his score 17
in a 6 person game this yields ->
17 - 2 = 15 CEILING(15/6) = 3
in a 10 person game it yields ->
17-2 = 15 CEILING(15/10) = 2
So you see some very minor changes in scoring will tend to reduce the effect of two of the most annoying aspects of playing on line, bullying and ignorant players.
A couple of other variants:"
How about Smear the Guy With the Flag? Instead of scoring for taking the flag into the goal score for holding onto it. Say one point per 12 seconds or some such. I know that some people have been doing this ad hoc as a team scrum variant but it would also be amusing as a scrum variant. Experiencing the code from the outside this seems a minor change.
Or Nanee Nanne Nannee You Can't Hurt Me. Once you kill someone you can't score for killing them again until they kill you.
...rmk (slugthog)
08/24/2003 (2:16 pm)
I was not suggesting that bullying particularly bother me but that it can be controlled by something as simple as modifying the scoring algorithm.For instance. There is a dominant strategy in battlemode. Killing a tank with a higher score than yours is worht more ponts than killing one with a lower score. Killing a tank with zero score increases your score by exactly one point. Killling a tank with an equal or higher score not only increases your score by a point but it decreases his score by a point making the difference between your score and his change by two not one. The dominant strategy is simply: Always attack the leaders; Never kill a tank attacking a leader until the leader has died then only kill the other tank if its score is equal to or greater than your score; and if you are a leader take easy kills.
From this piece of information we can extrapolate some scoring changes that render bullying unprofitable. An interesting adjunct to these changes is that they require a higher skill level to remain in the lead, reduce the effect of players who are ignorant of the dominant strategy (those fellows who shoot you in the back while you are engaged taking down the leader) and make bullying profitless. Removing the cost of dying also reduces the value of bullying.
A) Score one point for killing a tank with a higher score and no points for killling a tank with a lower score.
B) Score two points for killing a tank with a higher score and one point for killing a tank with an equal score and no points for killing a tank with a lower score. This variation is nice because it encourages the dominant strategy and rewards facing off against peers at a slightly lower level.
C) Score CEILING(diff in scores / number of players) for killing a tank with an equal or greater score and zero for killing a tank with a lower score. This variation encourages ganging up on leaders and discourages attacking those with low scores. This one is cute. It can make the first couple of kills very valuable but keeps later scoring low. For the computationally handicapped:
your score 2 his score 17
in a 6 person game this yields ->
17 - 2 = 15 CEILING(15/6) = 3
in a 10 person game it yields ->
17-2 = 15 CEILING(15/10) = 2
So you see some very minor changes in scoring will tend to reduce the effect of two of the most annoying aspects of playing on line, bullying and ignorant players.
A couple of other variants:"
How about Smear the Guy With the Flag? Instead of scoring for taking the flag into the goal score for holding onto it. Say one point per 12 seconds or some such. I know that some people have been doing this ad hoc as a team scrum variant but it would also be amusing as a scrum variant. Experiencing the code from the outside this seems a minor change.
Or Nanee Nanne Nannee You Can't Hurt Me. Once you kill someone you can't score for killing them again until they kill you.
...rmk (slugthog)
Tally Ho
reply to 1).
if you see two guys going at it exclusively (which rarely rarely happens in scrum with multi players), then why dont you just leave them alone? Regardless, all three of you will know you didn't really win. Scoreboard is on your side, but are you feeling good about that?