Pointworth Debate/Discussion

[ZarroTsu]

Something was more recently brought to my attention, and it really has me pondering a means as to prevent, as I call it "noobwhoring", as a means of outright dominating the match. This may or may not have been brought up before, and it may or may not over-complexify the game beyond the standards many people might prefer, but it's still a legitimate discussion I'd like to have.

What I propose as a means of "solving" total dominance off of lesser standing players is a greater point award for harming a player who, themself, have more points. From the default of 50 for a hit, an additional 5 could be added if the hit player has 100 or 200 points, per each of this set. A player with 1000 points might award 75 points for hitting them, while players still chugging along at less than 200 points are still only worth 50 points to the hit.

I can see this as a means for higher-end players to actually see it worth their time to seek eachother out, rather than praying solely on slower moving players as to avoid major conflicts entirely (Without totally nullifying the option). Another advantage would be presenting later joins to the map's length a more equal opportunity to catching up, rather than looking like an underachiever in result screenshots. (If the person in last had 75 points, you'd at least know he managed to hit someone with ~1000 once!)

I don't see TOO many downsides to this idea, but feel free to punch me in the face and call me retarded, if I'm missing something. At the very least, it could be added as a server-side option in the future.

 

[D00D64]

This wouldn't change much, considering you'd have multiples of points from 10 year old Sonic carcasses, so that +5 would mean fuck all. "Noobwhoring" has been in every single multiplayer game ever, so I fail to see why it should be changed at all, since everyone but the "Noobs" in question is eligible for it. Its like animals hunting; if you don't get the meat, someone will.

 

[trentdude2]

So this is all just so the noobs won't look bad on the scoreboard, and just giving the pros lesser points. Even If this was added there would still be the so-called "noobwhoring"going on. This would be almost pointless in CTF but In match maybe a slight change. It still won't even be much. Sure the noo- I mean less experienced players have low scores, but over time they will get better. Just increasing their score a little won't guarantee them a win. I see this as a method to get good without practicing.

 

[Bbop800]

This does seem like a good idea. I find myself getting massive scores against players who either don't even use mouse or are just plain new to the game. This could help encourage players into playing the game more, rather than requiring them to be patient.

 

[akb778]

I'll be honest here and say that this isn't a bad idea because a new point system would somewhat level the field between the inexperienced and the pros (ex. Instead of the last place player being 1000+ points behind 1st place, he/she's only 500-600 points behind if a new system were implemented). It is a bit pointless though because a new system wouldn't work as well in team modes (CTF and Team Match).

 

[Mystic]

There's a horrific problem with the logic you guys are having here. There is absolutely no balancing effect in the scoring here, as it gives no help the players at the bottom. What it actually does is AMPLIFY the effect of having dramatic score differences. As a simple example, let's say we have a game with five players, whose respective scores are 2000, 1600, 400, 400, and 0, who we will label players 1-5. Player 5 is a terrible player who hasn't gotten a single score; players 3 and 4 are doing mediocre, mostly getting hits on player 5 and each other, but still having gotten one or two hits on the better players. Players 1 and 2 are the best players on the server, and have no trouble hitting everyone on the server, including each other.

Now, apply the bonus points to this situation. Player 5 still sucks, so he's not going to get any points regardless. Players 3 and 4 are still whipping player 5 and getting points that way, but since they're unable to hit the leaders they aren't getting any bonus points. Players 1 and 2, however, are hitting both the weaker players in the game and each other, therefore getting massive bonus points whenever they happen to hit each other. As the better players have their score increase, this kind of system provides exponential growth to their scores without doing a thing to help the players at the bottom. Sure, every once and a while the players at the bottom will get a lucky shot and have a slight buff to how many points they get, but overall the trend will simply cause the players at the top to dominate even more, while providing nothing to the players at the bottom.

 

[Liliam]

If you want to have the scores average out, you'd rather calculate the hit score based on the difference between the shooter and the target. The 2000 point player shooting anyone else would have very low bonus points because their score is lower, while the 0 point player would score a massive amount of points by hitting the 2000 point player due to his colossal advantage. Now would this be fair? Well, people have stood by the blue shell, so...

 

[Sonnarkku]

Actually, what I had in mind was to make players get half the points when they hit the enemies at their base, and get half the points when enemies are hit on the player's base, this would be to 1) Avoid spawn camping 2) Make people ACTUALLY care to defend the base instead of it being a "myflaggasm".

 

[Cue]

I don't really know any fast-paced game where I manage to do selective killing. I don't generally take note of who's who and instead focus on killing them.

 

[Kitoko]

By the looks of how you're planning this, all you're really doing is just balancing the scores for all the players. E.G. You, this skilled player, shoots the new player 10 times for 20 points, then the new player happens to place a well-timed grenade, then hits you for 200 points. Now what? You just spent your time shoting them the whole match, and the score is now tied? This isn't really a way to control who shoots who, and why bother with this fact anyway? PEople are going to shoot others, it's a game, and if you're going to win, the point of the game is basically to hit more people than the others. Selective killing and shooting basically spoils the point of match, in my opinion.

And that "flaggasm" is okay in some times okay, especially if the other team is crowded around you, and you simply want to take the flag before your opponents return it, but sometimes its a bad idea, like not passing it to a teammate when you have all the emeralds without a shield. It's basically another element of the game, the point of CTF is teamwork, and if they won't use teamwork, they have a greater chance of losing.

 

[u4704]

Another advantage would be presenting later joins to the map's length a more equal opportunity to catching up, rather than looking like an underachiever in result screenshots.

A probably better method to do that would be showing the join-time in the result, like this:


# | Name | (join time) | Points
1 |asdfghj|--(00:00)--| 2175
2 |qwertzi|--(00:00)--| 2050
3 |fdsayxl|--(00:20)--|. 400
4 |poiuztri|--(00:00)--|. 400
5 |yaqwsj|--(04:30)--|... 50