Official Point Scoring Specifications

[Tom_Anger 0]

It seems that there are no official point scoring systems that I know of for this game and if that is true (I could be wrong)  can we discuss what seems logical for points gained and optional points lost for this game?  This can be an optional means for coop and/or Multiplayer Team missions.

I am mainly trying to get a feel for what seasoned OFP and ArmA players saw and would like to see then maybe an official script could be made for it with a tut on how to use it.

I have experience in programming and writing specifications for designs, but I am not all that familiar with the ArmA scripts - I am learning though.

Lets get some questions out front on this topic...

Question 1:

DOES THIS SOUND REASONABLE AND SOMETHING WORTH GOING FURTHER ON?

Question 2:

Do we want points added to the invididual doing the kill or the side as a whole (OPFOR/BLUFOR)?

Question 3:

What are all the soldier classes and what score would you consider reasonable for each?  I would think for a human kill the range should go from 10 points up to 200 points with increments of 10.

Question 4:

What are the standard vehicles in the game and what score would you consider reasonable for each destroyed in a mission?  I would think the same scoring method as used for human kills can be used ranging 10 to 200 increments of 10.

Question 5:

Put more emphasis on base takeover with a scoring range of 1000-20000 increments of 1000. Easy base takeovers, say near a default base are lower scored and the further you go out from the default, the more points are awarded.

Question 6:

Mission Objectives - basic objective completion should also have a range.  Lets go again 10-200.

I know this may sound a bit vague, but I am trying to see if (1) there is a script out there that entertains a scpeficiation and (2) if it makes sense to have an official point scoring script if one doesn't exist.

For macthes and tournaments these can play a huge part for Team vs Team gameplay.  Thanks for your time and if we need to move forward on this I will try to get the word out and get something written for it wether I do it or some well rounded scripter writes one.  We would have specs to go with it as well...

[xnodunitx 0]

Clan, tournament, anything, I'm highly against having a point system in Armed Assault, what is really gained? You get points and for what? That is the only real pro to it, but the cons are much worse, increased hacking, people wanting to make programs to easily get points, its more trouble than its worth.

Getting point for taking over a base doesn't like sound like a good reason, in my opinion, simply surviving an online match is a good enough prize, especially in a tournament. The last thing we need is a point system.

[dmarkwick 261]

There's always a market for points-based games, but as you asked for opinions, heres mine:

Give points for individuals and suddenly you have a game full of lone wolfs and a direct non-incentive for team-based tactics. In a team, the guy at the back watchng the back door is every bit as important as the guy on point who sees the enemy first, but of course that;s difficult to score in a points-based scenario.

I think if you're going to introduce a points-based game you're going to have to understand that you're creating a game that ArmA is not designed to be (which is OK, it's a flexible system), and it won't be quite as good as a game that has that built right in at development. You have to think about what it is about ArmA you like, and what it has that other games do not, IMO that is the necessity for tactical teamwork where the guy doing the smallest job is as important as the guy getting all the kills.

IMO natch

[maddogx 13]

I am inclined to agree with DMarkwick. Most people won't see much use for a point system in ArmA. It would just turn it into another Battlefield 2/2142 with people trying to exploit the system to get as many points as possible instead of really playing together.

Unless of course, you could find a way to reward effective team play with more points. That would be interesting.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Answer on these "point-questions":

1. No

2. No

3. No points..."reasonable for human kill..."

4. Never do such things in OFP/ArmA - its ok for BF and similar.

5. Points for such things would make other "hitting points" senseless.

6. Point Point Point - in result this is only "interesting" for weird statisticians.

[sirex 0]

seeing what this did to other games, im highly against it.

[whisper 0]

And moreover, this should ultimately be mission-type dependant.

The same point system (if any) cannot apply to every type of mission done, C&H, coop, SC, CTF, CTI, etc... Not the same conditions for getting a point, etc...

Ultimately, imho, number of kills should not be the way to measure how 1 player is proficient in the game, unless the mission goal is specifically to get kills.

In CTF, goal is to take flags, points should reward flag takers/defenders.

In C&H, goal is to take areas. If individual rewards are to be given, it should be dependant on how much the player earned capture points for his team, or how he defended his zone, etc...

The kill-score table is already more than enough incentive to rack up kills above anything else.

But as seen above, the games goals and score conditions are that different between mission types that a common unified score system cannot be done, simply.

BTW this should be in Multiplayer section, isn't it?

[dmarkwick 261]

One way to make it workable is to skew the point system away from traditional point scoring activities.

Points for teams ONLY.

A countdown multiplier, so fast work is rewarded.

An inverse-ammunition count multiplier, so only teams that work efficiently get these points. (More ammo used = less points)

More points for kills within certain areas (to encourage & reward defenders)

That sort of thing. It would be hard work, but it's stuff that's NOT replicated in other games. Look for the unique angles, not the copycat angles

[Bingo 0]

Just to echo some of the other posters,

Points = Bad for Arma.

All it needs in ladders is:

MATCH RESULT:

Team 1: 2

Team 2: 1

Yup, rounds won. End of story. No lone heroes, just a team effort.

EOT.

[Shifty-16AAB- 0]

It seems that there are no official point scoring systems that I know of for this game and if that is true (I could be wrong)  can we discuss what seems logical for points gained and optional points lost for this game?  This can be an optional means for coop and/or Multiplayer Team missions.

I am mainly trying to get a feel for what seasoned OFP and ArmA players saw and would like to see then maybe an official script could be made for it with a tut on how to use it.

I have experience in programming and writing specifications for designs, but I am not all that familiar with the ArmA scripts - I am learning though.

Lets get some questions out front on this topic...

Question 1:

DOES THIS SOUND REASONABLE AND SOMETHING WORTH GOING FURTHER ON?

Question 2:

Do we want points added to the invididual doing the kill or the side as a whole (OPFOR/BLUFOR)?

Question 3:

What are all the soldier classes and what score would you consider reasonable for each?  I would think for a human kill the range should go from 10 points up to 200 points with increments of 10.

Question 4:

What are the standard vehicles in the game and what score would you consider reasonable for each destroyed in a mission?  I would think the same scoring method as used for human kills can be used ranging 10 to 200 increments of 10.

Question 5:

Put more emphasis on base takeover with a scoring range of 1000-20000 increments of 1000.  Easy base takeovers, say near a default base are lower scored and the further you go out from the default, the more points are awarded.

Question 6:

Mission Objectives - basic objective completion should also have a range.  Lets go again 10-200.

I know this may sound a bit vague, but I am trying to see if (1) there is a script out there that entertains a scpeficiation and (2) if it makes sense to have an official point scoring script if one doesn't exist.

For macthes and tournaments these can play a huge part for Team vs Team gameplay.  Thanks for your time and if we need to move forward on this I will try to get the word out and get something written for it wether I do it or some well rounded scripter writes one.  We would have specs to go with it as well...

hey tom, me old m8! welcome in the arma world!!!

since i'm a jo veteran i really miss the point system. the lack of teamplay on the servers is maybe caused by this missing feature of arma.

i think a mixture of the jo and bf2 point system would be awesome. this would greatly improve the teamwork and the fun in arma.

[whisper 0]

imho the lack of teamplay is more about, simply, the lack of team. You have no notion of group in most current MP maps, apart from coop ones.

[baddo 0]

Well for some mission types a good point system could fit, maybe. Not that I care much though.

In the coop sessions I enjoyed in OFP it was many times so that the team worked very well together and it could be so that I did not get any kills, but that did not bother me because the experience was so good anyways. It was great to see a team play well together and being a part of such team was a big enough reward for me. No points needed. To summarize, in coop missions I would not give anyone any points. The reward comes automatically if the team is a team and not a random bunch of hooligans monkeying around. Also I am sure if it is for example a clan that is playing, the people will remember and recognize the people who played well.

In the public servers it is very much the biggest problem that there is usually no team leader, there is no coordination, people start to monkey around (me included) and thus the whole session ends up being a disaster.

[-Puma- 2]

No to point system, look at americas army and the amount of hacking, tk'ing ramboing and stuff to get more honor, and tracker prestige. It's ridiculous

On the other hand unofficial point system can't hurt that much, but

be very careful with it.

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

Evening tom.

My opinions are simply this, your team wins or looses.

The only point that maight be viable would "assist" points, for one team member assisting another ( encourages team play ) such as the Chopper crew all gain points for safely dropping off the troops out the back etc. or a tank crew for responding to a call for armour support ( appropriate script required to call such support ). Notice I said " Crew" on those not pilot or gunner etc Those point shouldnt have a bearing on the outcome though as its all down to you win or you loose.

As for gametypes, give me a shout on TS, I have a design but not the abillity.

[Bingo 0]

The problem with good point systems for team-play is the detection that what was done was in the spirit of teamplay. We've seen "assist" points in BF2 and well, they're pretty dumb... there I am, zooming to a checkpoint, someone gets a lucky shot from my APC, yay, I am awarded a "kill assist". Whatever.

Medics are slightly easier, as healing someone on your team is a good thing to do. There was however, like the engineers, a lot of spamming purely in the name of points rather than teamplay "Get ammo here!" "Medipacs here!""... okaaaay...

How can the system reward the scout? He killed nobody, told me on teamspeak where the guys were, sneaked in to the town, never fired a shot but because of him the rest of my squad could muster a tactical plan to take care of the enemy.

What if I told a member of my squad to NOT engage an enemy tank with his rockets due to some other need, and yet he does... points for the kill, or minus due to insubordination? Can I take points off him, or does the system magically listen in to my teamspeak rants of "Are you DEAF kid?" and award him Special Needs points?

The BF series has simple, clearly defined triggers as to what gives you points and what takes them away. Capture the checkpoint (flag), defend it, kill something, heal something, supply something. "Assist" is basically "Be there when someone else is doing it".

It's all a bit like the road construction workers you see standing around having a brewsky and a smoke whilst someone else does the labor. "Congratulations! You've got a road-construction assist point!".

I'm not saying it's not possible, but until your point system is smart enough to know what is and what is not in the spirit of teamplay, it will be useless and abused.

And I also think that if you designed such a point system that was that smart, your cheaters and hackers would slowly go elsewhere too... they go hand in hand.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Points are unrealistic, because honestly IRL you'd never be awarded/rewarded based on the accumulation of kills or good deeds, and usually you won't get awarded/rewarded simply for following orders (since you're expected to do it).

In a game environment, points only distract players from the overall importance of things. Self gain is usually of greater interest, and then some people only do it for the points, making it their personal objective to score points. This, even if points are rewarded for teamwork, still only encourages a focus on personal interest. This rewarding points for teamwork is rather counterproductive. There should be something more real to motivate players. Motivation should be in the form of self defense (obviously if you're in danger you'll want to make yourself safe), caring about your teamates and your cause, wanting to do things right, and probablly most significantly IRL simply the person's training. Training is a big part of it in the real world, but it's also a big part that's missing for most average players. There's unfortunately not much you can do about this though, anything you try to simulate just isn't anywhere as good as the real thing... and you obviously can't force all your players to enlist just to play.

[dmarkwick 261]

What if I told a member of my squad to NOT engage an enemy tank with his rockets due to some other need, and yet he does... points for the kill, or minus due to insubordination? Can I take points off him, or does the system magically listen in to my teamspeak rants of "Are you DEAF kid?" and award him Special Needs points?

Hmm

I suppose a complex script could be cobbled together that tracked the instructions given via the menu system (a ball-ache I know but as you say can't do it via voice channels) and the subsequent actions done by the player. Things like a kill being scored after a hold-fire instruction might cause a penalty.

So a guy who's a scout, after being given a hold-fire instruction and a location to go to, would receive points for NOT killing anyone within the area specified, and for targets identified.

Something like that. But IMO it's entirely too complex to do, and it would probably prove too unwieldy to be any kind of fun to actually play.

[Bingo 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Things like a kill being scored after a hold-fire instruction might cause a penalty.

What if I had ordered him to hold fire, but he had to engage to save his own life? Is he rewarded, or punished?

Quote[/b] ]

So a guy who's a scout, after being given a hold-fire instruction and a location to go to, would receive points for NOT killing anyone within the area specified, and for targets identified.

Suffers from the same exception above unless he can get out (his existence is "not to be seen", as far as we're concerned on this topic).

I think the thing to be considered here is that good teamplay is not calculatable properly by the system to any degree of accuracy. I mean, how the heck do you award points for causing a "distraction" at one end of the town whilst the other half of the team sneaks in through Mrs Smith's laundry room? There are as many points to be given as there is human ingenuity.

So I say, throw away points, concentrate on TEAM wins (we completed the objective), and pat each other on the back for a job well done, which is far more gratifying.

COD2 will tell you, during Search & Destroy missions how many rounds you've won and how many kills each player has. The former is useful, the latter is useless. There is no mention of the guy who got the bomb planted on the objective, or defused the bomb. A big oversight, IMHO.

[dmarkwick 261]

Quote[/b] ]

Things like a kill being scored after a hold-fire instruction might cause a penalty.

What if I had ordered him to hold fire, but he had to engage to save his own life? Is he rewarded, or punished?

This is the sort of thing that makes it a nightmare to control. Of course, it could be argued that a premature firefight is someone's fault

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

So a guy who's a scout, after being given a hold-fire instruction and a location to go to, would receive points for NOT killing anyone within the area specified, and for targets identified.

Suffers from the same exception above unless he can get out (his existence is "not to be seen", as far as we're concerned on this topic).

Same as the above example, if his instructions are not to be seen, and he's seen, penalty. However unfair that may seem, you got to penalise on some things.

Quote[/b] ]

I think the thing to be considered here is that good teamplay is not calculatable properly by the system to any degree of accuracy. I mean, how the heck do you award points for causing a "distraction" at one end of the town whilst the other half of the team sneaks in through Mrs Smith's laundry room? There are as many points to be given as there is human ingenuity.

So I say, throw away points, concentrate on TEAM wins (we completed the objective), and pat each other on the back for a job well done, which is far more gratifying.

COD2 will tell you, during Search & Destroy missions how many rounds you've won and how many kills each player has. The former is useful, the latter is useless. There is no mention of the guy who got the bomb planted on the objective, or defused the bomb. A big oversight, IMHO.

Penalties and points based on instructions are really the most logical way to do it unfortunately, as you say lots of things are untestable. You could give team leaders a pool of points to distribute at their discretion, to give it the human touch, but requires fairness and detachment, and observation.

As I said, it's too difficult really.

[Bingo 0]

Penalties and points based on instructions are really the most logical way to do it unfortunately, as you say lots of things are untestable. You could give team leaders a pool of points to distribute at their discretion, to give it the human touch, but requires fairness and detachment, and observation.

As I said, it's too difficult really.

I agree with you that the only way to award "personal" points to team-members is by a human as, you've correctly surmised, the game can't do it for you.

So let's say we have a pool of points to be awarded to the players based on their performance that we, as humans, have seem them perform... the AT guy withheld his fire on the tank... the scout successfully told us where the bad guys were without ever giving away his position, and my troops performed excellently.

Hurrah! Everybody have a portion of the mission points and a pat on the back, we beat the other clan (or AI).

What do we do with those points except input them in to our own clan's ranking/score system? You can't do it globally like BF2 can. BF2's points are rigid, remember? Ours are based on human-reasoning, so we can't possible make a league/table out of our opinions, can we?

So... what is it that we do with the points now we've found out who to score ourselves?

[Tom_Anger 0]

If this belongs in a team vs team forum please move it if an admin is around. Very glad to see the activity on this subject. Let me get it right out in the the open and say points awarded to an individual "especially in a coop" are a huge 'no no'. That thought can change a bit in Team vs Team though. Points for the entire team aren't all that bad...

I am mostly trying to refer to team vs team for tournaments, fun events, and such, but it is something I think could be internal and if players/servers wanted, they could use them for their own purpose. Points would not determine a winner or be used to single anyone out.

I totally understand concerns on the whole hacking thing and the "all about me" concept and that is what I want to stay away from, however, I do believe at least an internal point scoring to rate the team (instead of individual) may not be a totally bad idea. It could be used for tournaments or be used to see how well a team did pointwise even if they lost.

I am not against some form of rating for teams. A win is a win for what it's worth wether it means staying in a base to take the base for the team or having others on lookout to take out a tank. In the end you hope your team wins, but it also has meaning to know how well the losing team did as well.

I believe it will give more meaning to keeping a commander or rank alive for the most part as well as other things. Engineers as well as pilots may server a better role in the game so if they are used then a spec for points based on killing them may not be bad. Basically what is a class/rank worth? A team can literally win without getting a ton of kills which is fine, but it would also be interesting to see how the point rating part worked in the end. It is only a measuring tool and does not get used to determine a winner.

Please don't misunderstand what I am trying to accomplish. I already expected the "no" answer as well as some mixed answers. I am interested in learning more of what people have to say, but think long and hard before you give your opinion. I am pretty much against it for a single player. Measuring how a team did for a basic idea I like. That is kind of what I am shooting for

[Bingo 0]

As you suggested Tom, Team points are far easier to award to a team, as opposed to individuals, for example:

1) Did the team accomplish their objective (both sides... it's not always clear cut as "blow that gun up" where one side loses if it blows and the other wins for the same outcome).

2) Was it accomplished in a good time-frame? 1hr, 2hrs, 4hrs? What would be a good rating for this "known" mission? (A bit like par for a golf-course).

3) What were the casualties suffered by the team? Compare it against historical plays of the same mission... 3 dears is 1 under par, etc...

That kind of stuff can be scored with a bit of thought.

[Tom_Anger 0]

Ya, I am mainly looking to write a basic spec then script or work with someone to script it which puts a point value on vehicles, items, players, an idea on holding bases, as well as ranks just to give some form of measuring tool for teams when they play each other.

It looks like there is a HUGE check under the 'NO' column on this, but I agree for coop, but a team rating per mission works for me at least for basic Team vs Team gameplay.

I will be looking to work with others to put out some similar, yet, different, multiplayer team vs team gametypes which will encourage teamwork and award for it. A rating system will help. A win is a win and takes precedence undo no circumstances.

For Example:

An Attack & Defend gametype for teams is nice where the attacking team is awarded for kills, taking out key elements, plus obviously winning. The defenders should also be awarded similarly and when the defenders build up enough points the attacking threat can be over and the mission would end as a defender victory and the attackers could still get an idea on how well they did.

Capture and Hold

Scoring for holding a base as well as camping and taking out objects outside the base still should help the team rating. If a team scores High and loses they can look and see that more holding and less killing outside the base or something like that.

Not to beat that in the bush - it is just a "how well did we do pointwise" is what I was looking for.

Every mission made is obviously different and I can agree that a universal scoring method may be hard, but I am willing to write up a spec with the help of others to see if some type of scoring method could be applied for teams. Nothing more than that...

What do others have to say on this topic? I like the activity already...

[Shifty-16AAB- 0]

assist points would be sweet though. jo and bf2: project reality proved that, with a dedicated community, you can enforce teamplay by using stats. believe it or not. it may sound stupid, but by introducing individual awards you can force players to serve the team more than before. and once the people got the idea behind, they will work in a team more often.

assist points could be awarded for transporting people safely into a hot zone (by chopper, jeep, apc) or getting a tank/apc gunner into a good firing position.

also what about a squad system like it is used in bf2: project reality?

[450R 1]

I couldn't deal with all the forums sigs with embedded stats, so I say no. That's not what the game is about anyway.