A More Sophisticated Scoring Algorithm?

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Arma's current scoring system is let's be honest a little simplistic and outdated.. console like even. It doesn't reward other players who for example pilot aircraft or drive armed vehicles; the gunners are the only ones to rack up kills when it's a 50/50 effort by both the gunner/pilot/driver, so it begs the question why should the gunner solely be given the kill point. If BIS developed a more sophisticated scoring algorithm other than the current 1 kill = 1 point system it would without a shadow of a doubt totally change how people strategically play Arma. It would undoubtedly encourage a lot more team play and give people a more immersive gaming experience. Of course, snipers would be exempt... or would they? A sniper could be rewarded with a better score if they played alongside a spotter for example, and the spotter likewise could potentially score the same. In real life it's the spotter who plays a significant part on setting up that lethal shot.

A scoring algorithm could potentially be as complex as BIS wanted it to be. Points could be dynamic, meaning points deducted for more than just a team kill. If for example a player decided to go lone wolf (out of a specific range) when part of a team, and as a result their actions left his team exposed thus killed. The absconder who caused the weak link so to speak could be deducted a 1/4 of a point say for every team member killed as a result of their actions. I'm sure percentages of a scoring point could be implemented through memory.

What I'm saying is a potential new scoring mechanism could totally change the way every person played Arma and for the better IMHO. Could there be any downsides to this?

[UltimateBawb 1]

Because "scoring" doesn't matter in Arma, it's only a way to see who killed what. Arcade games like Battlefield and CoD need precise scoring, in Arma it's about completing the mission. Scoring means nothing.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Because "scoring" doesn't matter in Arma, it's only a way to see who killed what. Arcade games like Battlefield and CoD need precise scoring, in Arma it's about completing the mission. Scoring means nothing.

I'm glad you see that way. Seriously, I really am. But for some players it's all about scoring the most points no matter how they go about it, and it's those over-completive players with that kind of mentality who spoil the gameplay for everyone else.

[MitchTWC 10]

I'm glad you see that way. Seriously, I really am. But for some players it's all about scoring the most points no matter how they go about it, and it's those over-completive players with that kind of mentality who spoil the gameplay for everyone else.

Its way more the fact that those who care about scores ruin the MP in this game..

I wouldn't go on a FIFA forum and ask for a way to shoot people ingame. You've got the wrong game if you care about scores I think.

[Maxzy 12]

Arma has scoring system?

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

In fairness.Arma much Like in real war, there are unsung heros.

Not me, I'm a wellhung hero.

[BL1P 35]

We just have score turned off altogether on our server.

[nomisum 129]

What I'm saying is a potential new scoring mechanism could totally change the way every person played Arma and for the better IMHO. Could there be any downsides to this?

I think its really hard go implement something which is working in every kind of mission. A tactic which would seem stupid at first could be an order from a higher ranked officer and I dont think its possible to catch all the possibilities here even with "sophisticated" algorithms. First I want to see a really "sophisticated" drivers AI :P

The idea to reward a certain kind of gameplay is indeed something I want to encourage too but without the need to give players specific "roles" or complex algorithms.

My concept for my next mission (TvT, no respawn) includes some kind of "prestige point" system. Taliban can burn fallen enemies and bury their own and thus gain "prestige points". The processes takes some time and the first is quite visible too and gives Blufor a chance to intervene. Blufor has to evacuate their fallen soldiers properly to prevent this. Its quite an easy mechanic and I'm eager to see how it will change the gameplay. The main mission (hostage rescue) can fail if the hostage dies or you loose half of your soldiers but you can kind of counter that with enough prestige points which you can get through proper extraction.

Needless to say the prestige points are not counted per person but per team. I dont think a point system for individuals works without heavy balancing, which is only possible when you know everything about the mission.

[andersson 285]

Scoring is good for death match. Maybe there should be a "team score" and a "side score" option. That way it's more important to work for the team/side instead of the ego. For coop I find it best to disable the scores as it distract players and it can also be used as a cheat to find out if that enemy far away over there died or not.

[BL1P 35]

Scoring is good for death match. Maybe there should be a "team score" and a "side score" option. That way it's more important to work for the team/side instead of the ego. For coop I find it best to disable the scores as it distract players and it can also be used as a cheat to find out if that enemy far away over there died or not.

Yup, the later is the main reason why we have it off.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Anyone like myself who's an ex-grunt or even anyone who's watched television war dramas such as 'Band of Brothers' or 'The Pacific' will know that platoons operate as a close knit unit and soldiers value their comrade's lives as much as their own, if not more. Both recent and historical events have shown us that soldiers have sacrificed themselves in order to save their comrades lives, so I think a scoring system that rewards Arma players for a team effort and their willingness to sacrifice their virtual lives to save others would be welcomed by all.

I honestly do believe that a "more sophisticated scoring algorithm" would add a lot more immersion and dimension to the game and rewarding the selfless whilst penalising selfish can only be a good thing.

[blackpixxel 53]

Who cares about the scoreboard in a real Arma mission (no KOTH/Altis Life/Wurstland) ?

Why would someone play different if he gets point that don't serve any purpose? There is nothing to unlock in Arma, so points aren't something that motivates you to play better.

If you play good, you will get 'rewarded' with respect of your comrades. Condition is that you play on a more serious server.

There is no need for a better scoring system.

[chiefboatsret 14]

How does a scoring system add immersion or dimension to Arma? Scores, leveling up and collecting trinkets not needed where teamwork and completing the mission with the least loss of life and resources is what matters. Penalties for lone wolfing and misplaying Arma is a pretty quick death, the only atta boys I need is "thanks guys, great game".

Edited November 1, 2014 by SeaTrane

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Who cares about the scoreboard in a real Arma mission (no KOTH/Altis Life/Wurstland) ?

Why would someone play different There is nothing to unlock in Arma, so points aren't something that motivates you to play better.

If you play good, you will get 'rewarded' with respect of your comrades. Condition is that you play on a more serious server.

There is no need for a better scoring system.

'YOU' are the very reason why a new scoring system is needed and deserves to be implemented.

[blackpixxel 53]

'YOU' are the very reason why a new scoring system is needed and deserves to be implemented.

I don't get this. I never cared about the score in Arma and I never will. I help my teammates because it is the most awesome way to play. It is awesome to finish a mission together, not to have many points that don't give me anything in the end.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

I don't get this. I never cared about the score in Arma and I never will. I help my teammates because it is the most awesome way to play. It is awesome to finish a mission together, not to have many points that don't give me anything in the end.

BlackPixxel, this isn't about 'you'. This is about a scoring system that rewards and gives recognition to players overall who are team players, oppose to the current scoring system that overall seems to reward the selfish who's main objective is to achieve the highest score. The very reason why 'team players' play on regular/clan servers is to evade the over-competitive selfish; the ones who will step all over other players and sabotage a team's strategy merely to achieve that top score they seem to 'think' matters.

Creating a "sophisticated scoring algorithm" that reflects a player's participation as a team player rather than just how many kills/deaths they've managed to rack up would change how 'over-competitive' players played overnight. Anyone who says it wouldn't make any difference, or the score doesn't matter to them are denying that competitiveness exists.

Arma is all about competing - if not against each other it's against the AI.

[amatt 10]

I agree that the current system is poor, however I'd also have to agree that, for the most part, scoring has little or no relevance to the game-play.

I have seen examples of custom scripted leader boards, which work much better as a result of being tailored to the nature of the mission; however, due to the vast amount missions available it ultimately means that it would be incredibly difficult to create a scoring system that would fit all.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

I believe the more sophisticated the scoring algorithm the less relevance scoring will become to even the most competitive of players. Having to calculate a number of factors before being awarded points will become a tedious and cumbersome process to exploit such a system - if not impossible. With an easy and simple understanding to all that you'll accumulate more points if you play as a team oppose to going off and doing your own thing, I'm convinced it will change how even the most over-competitive players play and the game that much more enjoyable for all.

BIS could develop such a system based on military tactics and reward/penalise players for their actions or lack of actions. If a player could have been seen as indirectly responsible for the death of his comrade due to negligence in a military tribunal, why not deduct a point or percentage of a point in the virtual world? There are so many scenarios where this could be implemented. Let's say player A was engaged by an enemy rifleman but ignored the threat so he could kill 4 easier enemies a short distance away to gain more points. But as a result his comrade behind him was killed by the threat he chose to ignore. Of course, it might have been an honest mistake or a genuine tactic to eliminate a bigger threat. Which is why a sophisticated algorithm would need to be developed. If for example the game saw this was a regular occurrence it could retrospectively penalise a player by deducting a point or fraction of a point for his or her action(s) that happened earlier on in the game. IMO it would totally change how player played and ironically enough it would also make the most selfish and completive of players look out more for their team players knowing they'll not risk losing points by looking out for them.

No doubt there will be many who are justifiably sceptical of such as system and who'll claim it won't be fair or manageable. But such a system will be as good as the algorithm and it would undoubtedly be rigorously trialled and tested before being released. When you think about it most of the work has already been done as the engine knows where each player is and when a player is engaged and by who and what. If such a system is 90% accurate I'm sure it'll be a welcomed replacement to the current crude and outdated scoring method.

If BIS released an update that gave the server a choice of using something quirky like D.I.S (Dynamic Intelligent Scoring) or traditional scoring what would you chose?

[beavis_5000 10]

I think no matter what they do a large majority of the players are still going to be out for the higher kill count. It may change the way some play but I feel like most players will care more about having 30-40 kills even though they are only 40+ on the score board. Its ingrained into most peoples mind that more kills= more skill.

With that being said I agree with your opinion because it will reward the players who care more about strategy and team play rather than just getting kills.

[Sub-Human 10]

I think the improvement here should be not a more balanced score system, but a better 'kill detection'. For example, someone crashes into your car, it explodes a couple seconds later - that counts as a suicide. Likewise, if someone runs you over, it's also a suicide.

[EDcase 87]

While I agree that a better scoring system would promote more team play, I don't think its that easy to implement.

A simpler compromise is just to turn off scoring completely.

A voting system similar to other games should be used to punish griefers and team killing.

Edited November 4, 2014 by EDcase