Author Topic: Scoring that encourages the fight (Read 1186 times)

Clifra Jones · « **on:** May 10, 2005, 02:08:37 PM »

After reading all the posts regarding toolsheders, scorepotatos, furballers, ... the list goes on. I have given this some thought as to how we can engourage people to actually engage in combat and try and keep everyone happy.

While this is not a be-all-end-all solution and I have not given it all the thought is really needs here are some of my ideas.

Award points to individuals/squads for capturing and HOLDING land. (holding being the catch word)

1. Bases would have a graduated value based in their strategic value. This would be determined by the type of base (small, med, large), location and elevation. The elevation factor would encourage the taking of the "high ground". The value would change depending on the fluid nature of the MA.

2. Points would be awarded for the taking and holding of contiguous land. The more adjacent bases you hold the more points. If you capture a base that has enemy bases between your other bases you get points for that capture but you are awarded additional points when you capture the bases that connect this base to your other holdings.

3. Additional points are awarded for retaking of lost bases while the "owners" are on line. This would encourage the other side to fight back to retake thier bases. (See #5)

4. Teamwork would be encouraged due to the fact that land must be held. Bases taken by a squad are awarded to that squad. Individuals not in squads can gain points for joining missions planned by squads. Multiple squads can gain points by forming joint missions thus sharing in the base ownership.

5. Points are lost if bases are lost. This presents some issues as to the 24hr/day nature of the MA. Some quotent of the base "owners" must be online for the loss of points to take place. Below this quotent no loss is incurred. This encourages players to defend the bases the "own"/"have taken" while they are online but does not penalize them for not playing 24/7.

We would obviousloy need some kind of system to know if a base is currently under "ownership", therefore making it of more value. Once the quotent of "owners" is no longer on line the base reverts back to normal value.

I think this may generate situations where fighting/combat is engouraged instead of discouraged. The current system only engourages players/squads to attack poorly defended fields and does not really engourage anyone to actively defend their territory. What I see in the current system is squads taking one base and then abandoning it to take a base of the other side of the map.

Senario where everyone has something to do.

Primary Objective: Large airfield on a 5.0K plataeu, 1 base from the front lines surrounded by 6 nearby bases of small & med. size. These bases are 3 along the front and 3 behind the main objective

Heavy Bombers: Attack the 3 rear bases taking out ord, VH & FH (possibly troops).

CAP & Capture: Jabo attacks are launched against the 3 forward bases taking out the VH, the airfields are CAPed leaving the FH up which will be needed to attack the high base. Towns are flattened and troops deployed to take the bases

Pork & CAP: Jobo attack and fighter CAP is launched on the primary target taking out the VH & ord and a cap is maintained over the field.

The above takes place at simultaniously as possible. Once the forward bases are secured a capture mission is launched on the primary target. If the primary target is captured then attention is focused on the 3 rear bases. These base's hangers should be coming up by now too so Cap and Capture missions should be launched against these ASAP, keeping the FH up because they will be needed to defend the now "owned" bases.

Hopefully the enemy will see that they are being attacked and will up to defend. Common sense shuld tell them that the primary target of the attack is the high base and they should up to defend it accordingly.

Well these are some of my thoughts. Like I said I haven't worked out all the details. I was trying to think up a system that would not require a whole lot of COAD changes by HTC.

Tell me if you like it, tell me if you hate it, tell me if you think I'm completely nutz.

After this I think I'll tackle the "Purpose of Life", which will probably be easier to figure out.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 10, 2005, 02:26:49 PM »

Looks like a surefire way to encourage folks to take bases no one is defending.

Any sort of ACM goes right out the window cause it's pure horde war from what I can see.

Doesn't leave much for the guys who aren't in or don't want to belong to some large squad either.

Dan/CorkyJr

JB73 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2005, 02:41:46 PM »

a well thought out idea, but i see some peoblems

example:

Quote

5. Points are lost if bases are lost. This presents some issues as to the 24hr/day nature of the MA. Some quotent of the base "owners" must be online for the loss of points to take place. Below this quotent no loss is incurred. This encourages players to defend the bases the "own"/"have taken" while they are online but does not penalize them for not playing 24/7.

imagine it is squad night, and working with our squad and country we take some bases. later that night, all but 1 squad member logs off for bed. that one squadmate can not defend the bases alone, and with the low numbers overall, can not get enough country mates to help.

base after base is lost, and he / the squad are losing "points" because of a situation they have no control over.

also, that lone player might be ostracized by the country for YELLING for "help" which is generally looks at as being a "little napolean" in most countries. the people asking for help in defense are usually told something along the lines of stfu, or "attack is the best defense"

i see this part of the system causing more problems than it would "solve"

sorry ~~good work on the idea though~~

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2005, 03:20:12 PM »

That's what I wanted to know. You sometimes cannot see the flaws in your ideas yourself and need another set of eyes. "The forest for the trees" thing.

As far as the lone squad member. That's what I ment by quotent. If 2/3 of the squad is no longer on line then points would not be lost. Or something like that. Another one of those details.

As far as the hoard mentality, what can you do. I was trying to generate some insentive to get the other side to actually engage the hordes. The hordes are with us to stay I'm sorry to say so anything that would engourage players to engage them would be welcome.

As far as undefended bases, that's what I was trying to get at with the value attached to certain bases. bases far from the actual combat or bases not captured by the enemy (not "owned") would be of significantly less point value. If a squad wants to attack an undefended base there is not much that can be done about that. It's their money they get to do what they want. If they are trying to be the top squad then they would be going after the higher value targets.

One of the points I didn't mention in the original post was I was trying to come up with a system that did not "require" participation. If you don't want to participate in this scoring then you don't have to. My goal was to try and use a scoring system that would engourage players to ENGAGE the enemy as apposed to avoid the enemy as the current system does.

Like I said, I'm not sure if this is the way to do that.

hitech · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2005, 03:47:50 PM »

Clifra Jones. Have been considering your premis over the last week.

"How to make it worth while to defend vs attack".

And thus engage the "horde".

Basic core problems are the people who do a lot of the attacking "bombers" is a totaly different role than the "fighters" defending.

Our fist conclusions were that it would be very difficualt to not end up having everyone deffend and no one attacking.

Ive been wondering if changing the radar settings so people would have early warning of attacks would also solve most of the problem.

Also rember that althow team play can be fun, everything must also be structured so the individual can also play.

HiTech

JB73 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2005, 03:51:42 PM »

HT> what is say more than 10 planes took off from the same base in less than 2 miniutes a "attack inboud" or something was triggered. maybe the base the attack took off from would flash differently or something

though that might discourage oraganized missions too.

drn you are right, it is a quandry

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2005, 04:06:19 PM »

Like I said, that "purpose of life" thing will probably take less effort.

vorticon · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2005, 04:06:43 PM »

'Our fist conclusions were that it would be very difficualt to not end up having everyone deffend and no one attacking. '

simple matter of balancing the points for gaining/losing so that losing a base isnt going to screw you over royally but enough to keep you defending, but the points for getting a certain base is enough to get you to attack, even if it means losing a lesser base though not to much or people just attack with no defense.

which is tricky, how aboot a slowly increasing point loss (to the "owners" of bases, cover that indivuals aspect) if theres not a base captured by a side within a certain amount of time, with certain modifiers so people arnt penalized because everyones involved in a long term battle over certain key bases.

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2005, 04:22:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Clifra Jones. Have been considering your premis over the last week.

"How to make it worth while to defend vs attack".

And thus engage the "horde".

Basic core problems are the people who do a lot of the attacking "bombers" is a totaly different role than the "fighters" defending.

Our fist conclusions were that it would be very difficualt to not end up having everyone deffend and no one attacking.

Ive been wondering if changing the radar settings so people would have early warning of attacks would also solve most of the problem.

Also rember that althow team play can be fun, everything must also be structured so the individual can also play.

HiTech

Yup, I to have come up with those same problems. I like to "lone wolf" it sometimes and I wouldn't want any system that would penalize that.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2005, 04:51:36 PM »

Howzabout if a side loses enough points, the negative perkies give them the Nook! I'm sure Furball would be happy to elaborate.

kj714 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2005, 04:56:58 PM »

"Ive been wondering if changing the radar settings so people would have early warning of attacks would also solve most of the problem."

How about some radar stations scattered independently around in addition to the airfield stations?

AKFokerFoder+ · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2005, 07:54:44 PM »

I doubt if any change to the scoring system will change how I play.

Since I don't play for perk points, and I don't play for "score."

My main goal is to enjoy myself in a manner that pleases me. And I like to keep a decent K/D. I don't care about kills/time, kills per sortie, or someone elses score.

I just want to improve my hit percentage, and my K/D. That is what I enjoy doing.

I don't like to: drive vehicles, bomb hangars, pork fields, take bases, defend against hordes, fly in totally losing situations, help or hinder my sides chances of winning resets, or fly perk planes.

I think there are others who are like me that just want to fly planes, furball a bit and do other arcadish things that to we enjoy. I am sure I am in a minority here, but I am sure there are probably more than 10% of the players that are in my category.

And how we fly does have an over all impact on the arena. The solution to getting guys like me out of the MA would be to have a fighter town type of arena. That or force us to drive a vehicle, or a bomber, or something else that would bore us.

You perk my favorite ride? I find another favorite ride. You put up eny limitations? I fly other planes. You give points for defending? I'll still attack.

You want to take away perk points if I don't fly like you want me to? Well take them all, I don't use them. Maybe force me to use earlier planes? Well, I'll learn to use them effectively to fly how I want too

Some people just want to fly WWII fighters and have fun by whatever measurement they use to call fun.

So install these new rules, I'll still fly...

But I'll fly how I want to

Flit · « **Reply #12 on:** May 10, 2005, 08:07:27 PM »

One possibility on encouraging defense might be to base the scoring on the distance from the base.
The closer you are to the base your defending , the more points you get for your kills.
Maybe some modifiers for the ratio of good to bad guys,or something.
as for the attack thing, do it in reverse.We can already pick "fighter/ground/buff attack in the hangar
I don't no, it's a tough one.
mannable 88's would help too:D

MaddogJoe · « **Reply #13 on:** May 10, 2005, 09:22:09 PM »

the scattered radar sites sounds good, especially if the triggerd radar annouced a grid location as to which was triggered. It might get more people to scan the map , take a guess at which base the force may be heading and up the appropriate base to defend.

It might also get the "lone wolfs" involed as a triggered radar site will point to a general area to hunt.

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #14 on:** May 11, 2005, 12:19:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
I doubt if any change to the scoring system will change how I play.

Since I don't play for perk points, and I don't play for "score."

I to play for very much the same reasons. What I was trying to get at was to discourage the "avoid the fight" mentality. It's just that some nights it's nearly impossible to find a good fight. You can always capture an undefended airfield, bomb a base, sink the CV and generally piss off the furballers but for those of us that want to engage in "air combat" it can be very frustrating.

My goal was to get players to attack and defend the same areas by making them worth more to them.