Would be great if this game has leaderboards that saved your kill/death.

[CombatComm 10]

Does anyone know of any system/mod or website that keeps score of wins losses statistics etc? Its nice to have them saved. gives the game something more to strive too. Fun ass game but Id like to have my kill/death and stuff saved somwehre.

[TankCommander 3]

I think some clans would probably do this. But otherwise, there isn't a lot to say about kill death ratios in this game. Depending on what weapon you are using in what map, you could rake up thousands of kills without many deaths as most game types are coop. But if you mean PvP, then I've not heard of any mod for this. Again, it would be up to the host I suppose.

[M9ACE 0]

Does anyone know of any system/mod or website that keeps score of wins losses statistics etc? Its nice to have them saved. gives the game something more to strive too. Fun ass game but Id like to have my kill/death and stuff saved somwehre.

Something like this?

http://arma2.swec.se/game/data/2433453

[kklownboy 43]

NO leader boards are the death of all PC coop games. Makes players egocentric, and puts the narcissist player above all others, and is complete fail to real team play. Second worst thing next to 'leagues"... Or the "ProGamer". *spit*

[BeerHunter 0]

I ask..why?

I find the achievement of completing a mission to be much more satisfying that randomly shooting things that move and watching my K/D ratio ala DoD,CS,Cod etc. etc.

[Steakslim 1]

Given the factors of any given mission type, a comprehensive leader board is impossible to accurately give any idea of player skill without being heavily complex and breaking down the player's stats into a series of information and criteria depending on how they pertain to the missions that are played. Frankly I don't think it's worth it, and the community itself is mostly uninterested in such a thing.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

One thing though, scoreboard position should be based on K/D ratio firstly, then K. Maybe that would help players want to stay alive longer? Personally, I think too many coop oriented servers have scoreboard enabled, turning coop into a competition for points. It's nice to see at the end, so you can rank your own efforts, but not ingame.

[celery 8]

Global statistics are too unreliable to be worth the effort. There are so many different kinds of missions. In one coop mission you might get tens or even hundreds of kills easily without dying once and in another your opposition is much harder. And then there's the pvp part where you can die several times just because you were unlucky with spawn locations.

NO leader boards are the death of all PC coop games. Makes players egocentric, and puts the narcissist player above all others, and is complete fail to real team play. Second worst thing next to 'leagues"... Or the "ProGamer". *spit*

Do you notice that your standpoint is also egocentric? Coop game modes aren't the center of the universe just like pvp isn't either. Arma 2 has room for both and you're grossly exaggerating the effects of stats on players. If you want to have coop games without a score board, it's already possible. In addition I find your disrespective comment about leagues and professional gaming distasteful and arrogant.

I ask..why?

I find the achievement of completing a mission to be much more satisfying that randomly shooting things that move and watching my K/D ratio ala DoD,CS,Cod etc. etc.

You don't have to look at it, you can just concentrate on the mission.

[Geronimo 0]

There is absolutely no need for something like this in a game whose goal is to simulate realism. When played properly you will not shoot into particular enemy soldier, your squad will shoot at enemy squad and it is matter of pure luck who gets the last shot on most enemies. And it is not important for gameplay experience.

Unlike games like COD 4, which are fun in their own way, but there your only goal is to kill more enemies and die less. And I dont think those guys with top scores that have played for like 70 hours in last week are better than me in BF2, I just dont have time to play that much. So even there K/D ratio is much more important stat IMO.

[celery 8]

Unlike games like COD 4, which are fun in their own way, but there your only goal is to kill more enemies and die less.

The only game modes in CoD 4 (and other fps games) that support your claim are free for all and team deathmatch. Other game modes have other victory goals. Of course in practical terms killing more and dying less is a key part in any game mode, also in Arma 2. At least I think it's easier to achieve my objectives with enemies out of the way.

[Grizzle 0]

I don't think that would be so great.

[kklownboy 43]

The only game modes in CoD 4 (and other fps games) that support your claim are free for all and team deathmatch. Other game modes have other victory goals....

Sure they have "other" goals, can you name more than two? And at the end of the day the majority is only interested in there score, or achievements, or medals.. or pwnge, or anything but team play, which is what A2 is really abou. Coop or tvt. Sure if you want a "LEADER" Board make one. But to have BIS put the time in so everybody can see everybodys score ala BF2... well 99% of there customers would scream NO.

There is no real metric that can define Team play through individual scores, Heck you can have a guy go off and engage a squad of AI on his own and kill them all ( big score) but by doing so he gives away the team and they get nailed... Oh but hes is higher on the leader board and the rest have a lower score now ... Leaderboards = fail Stupid idea.

[celery 8]

Sure they have "other" goals, can you name more than two?

Capture the Flag, Headquarters, Sabotage, Search & Destroy, Domination. Frankly any game mode that isn't free for all (deathmatch) or team deathmatch. What did you want to prove with this?

And at the end of the day the majority is only interested in there score, or achievements, or medals.. or pwnge, or anything but team play, which is what A2 is really abou. Coop or tvt.

Tell that to the hundreds of clans out there. Public games are public games, also in Arma 2.

Sure if you want a "LEADER" Board make one. But to have BIS put the time in so everybody can see everybodys score ala BF2... well 99% of there customers would scream NO.

I don't want a global leader board because Arma 2's missions are too diverse for that. But it bothers me that you associate other fps games and their features with a negative undertone and use that as an argument against the stat board.

There is no real metric that can define Team play through individual scores, Heck you can have a guy go off and engage a squad of AI on his own and kill them all ( big score) but by doing so he gives away the team and they get nailed... Oh but hes is higher on the leader board and the rest have a lower score now ... Leaderboards = fail Stupid idea.

Are you saying that the only thing that prevents your otherwise smart teammates (and maybe yourself too?) from doing stupid things in coop games is that there are no individual statistics shown on the internet? You seriously underestimate your buddies.

And who has ever said that your number of kills is the equivalent of team contribution? Seeing how many kills you've got only shows how many kills you've got and that's an interesting statistic in itself, don't overcomplicate it.

I'm sure that more people would complain about not seeing how many enemies they've killed during a mission than seeing their kills like it is currently possible.

[no use for a name 0]

:thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

[Lauxman 10]

Capture the Flag, Headquarters, Sabotage, Search & Destroy, Domination. Frankly any game mode that isn't free for all (deathmatch) or team deathmatch. What did you want to prove with this?

K/D is still an indication of how well your team is doing. It isn't like in Arma, where you can go for a whole mission, killing only a couple of people and succeed spectacularly.

Tell that to the hundreds of clans out there. Public games are public games, also in Arma 2.

True, pub games are not much more organized than in COD.

[jw custom 56]

NO leader boards are the death of all PC coop games. Makes players egocentric, and puts the narcissist player above all others, and is complete fail to real team play. Second worst thing next to 'leagues"... Or the "ProGamer". *spit*

Agree 100%

[An Fiach 10]

I have to agree with Kklownboy, every decent game I've played has gone down hill with the introduction of stat tracking. It would likely bring back a flood of griefers and team killers that we just finally got rid of (mostly). Our public games aren't that great compared to what you will find on the private servers, but they aren't early as bad as other games. One of the worst aspects of it is that players will avoid a fight to preserve their k/d ratio and become top dog. Do we really want to see the 100 player DAO server filled with lone wolf bush snipers?

[celery 8]

K/D is still an indication of how well your team is doing. It isn't like in Arma, where you can go for a whole mission, killing only a couple of people and succeed spectacularly.

On the other hand you can apply that to only a handful of missions unless you let someone else do the hard work. You can also win in CoD4 without killing much anyone if you do the objective part better than the other team. Effective killing is a basic element in all missions involving combat, no matter which game you look at.

K/D ratio is an indicator of which team has the upper hand in practically any even roughly symmetric mission if no other indicator is given (works IRL as well). It's not a 100% reliable method but it definitely gives a hint.

[Evil_Echo 11]

Think the idea of any stats is bad and too confining.

For example. There is a huge meatgrinder going on in a city because the "commander" thinks a frontal assault is a good idea vs heavily entrenched forces. I and a clan mate ignore that and swing around to the other side of town, slip in past 4-5 guards and blow up the radio tower. Which cuts off reinforcements and causes said city to fall to our forces 5 minutes later. My partner and I killed no one, nor did we die. Others killed dozens of enemy troops and died a couple times along the way in a pointless struggle to gain ground. Who did more to move the mission along?

[jw custom 56]

Capture the Flag, Headquarters, Sabotage, Search & Destroy, Domination. Frankly any game mode that isn't free for all (deathmatch) or team deathmatch. What did you want to prove with this?

Most people still play for their own score rather than the team in whatever gamemode it might be.

In battlefield 2 people are waiting in line or tk'ing each other for a plane... to help the team? i think not!

Without a scoreboard ArmA 2 is less attractive to cheat in.

Would hate to see similar in ArmA 2.

[celery 8]

Think the idea of any stats is bad and too confining.

For example. There is a huge meatgrinder going on in a city because the "commander" thinks a frontal assault is a good idea vs heavily entrenched forces. I and a clan mate ignore that and swing around to the other side of town, slip in past 4-5 guards and blow up the radio tower. Which cuts off reinforcements and causes said city to fall to our forces 5 minutes later. My partner and I killed no one, nor did we die. Others killed dozens of enemy troops and died a couple times along the way in a pointless struggle to gain ground. Who did more to move the mission along?

The score board shows who has killed what and how much and nothing else unless the mission is designed to add scores based on other actions. Everyone knows that and nobody would question your part.

The score board is good at what it measures, you can't expect it to automatically know how many points blowing up a seemingly random structure (from the game's point of view) is worth, that's the mission maker's job if he deems that individual scores are a vital function in his mission.

Most people still play for their own score rather than the team in whatever gamemode it might be.

In battlefield 2 people are waiting in line or tk'ing each other for a plane... to help the team? i think not!

Without a scoreboard ArmA 2 is less attractive to cheat in.

Would hate to see similar in ArmA 2.

You can't know how a score board affects people's playing styles unless you play the same game with stats turned off for everybody. From what I've gathered in Red Orchestra, many people do their damnest to kill plenty and die little (meaning no senseless risking for objectives) even though kills and deaths aren't shown in the score board and completing objectives gives lots of points.

Have you thought of the possibility that lamers TK to fly a plane just because they want to be pilots and nothing more? Afterall, only a good pilot gets a good score and chances are those lamers suck at flying. Ironically it's happened in OFP too, in the mission "Battlefield 1985", the predecessor of Berzerk. The scores are not to blame, it's the game type that entices and allows such idiocy.

[jw custom 56]

Have you thought of the possibility that lamers TK to fly a plane just because they want to be pilots and nothing more?

Yeah right :p

When people spawn as support and throws hand nades from game start to game end it has nothing to do with the kill score, yeah right :p

and people continously spamming nades from far distance in Joint Operations just because they like doing that and not because they increase their kills score... yeah right :p

[Evil_Echo 11]

The score board shows who has killed what and how much and nothing else unless the mission is designed to add scores based on other actions. Everyone knows that and nobody would question your part.

The score board is good at what it measures, you can't expect it to automatically know how many points blowing up a seemingly random structure (from the game's point of view) is worth, that's the mission maker's job if he deems that individual scores are a vital function in his mission.

You can't know how a score board affects people's playing styles unless you play the same game with stats turned off for everybody. From what I've gathered in Red Orchestra, many people do their damnest to kill plenty and die little (meaning no senseless risking for objectives) even though kills and deaths aren't shown in the score board and completing objectives gives lots of points.

Have you thought of the possibility that lamers TK to fly a plane just because they want to be pilots and nothing more? Afterall, only a good pilot gets a good score and chances are those lamers suck at flying. Ironically it's happened in OFP too, in the mission "Battlefield 1985", the predecessor of Berzerk. The scores are not to blame, it's the game type that entices and allows such idiocy.

You summed up my point nicely. Scoreboards fail to record the true value of the player. Even a kill/death ratio is useless, so why add a global scoring system that skews the mindset of the player community? The last thing I want to see are ArmA stat padders - people who are most likely to invoke hacks and cheats to increase their numbers.

When I play on a pub server I see the bulk of the "idiots" are coming from stat-intensive games like CoD and BF2. They charge into battle with guns blazing and get cut down, steal equipment ( including aircraft ), team kill, or demolish resources. Because of the mindless pursuit of numbers, they have never learned how to work in teams - it's all about their stats.

I can think of a number of things that would make A2 better. A way for servers to snapshot missions so that they could possibly recover from crashes. A way to remember your favorite load-out so you did not have to waste time at ammo crates at mission start. Etc. Global stats - please never do that.

[thales100 10]

Fun ass game but Id like to have my kill/death and stuff saved somwehre.

This is not a run and gun game, its much more than that, kill/death rankings are useless to show the "best" players.

[celery 8]

You summed up my point nicely. Scoreboards fail to record the true value of the player.

I said that the scoreboard measures the kills and deaths of players. It doesn't "fail" to do anything else because it's not supposed to do anything else except when the mission designer so wishes. You can ease your mind by imagining "Top 10 killers" written on top of the scoreboard.

Even a kill/death ratio is useless, so why add a global scoring system that skews the mindset of the player community? The last thing I want to see are ArmA stat padders - people who are most likely to invoke hacks and cheats to increase their numbers.

I don't want a global scoring system either partly because of what you said: the missions are so diverse and specialized stat farming missions can be easily made so global stats would have close to zero reliability in telling how good a player really is. As for mindset changes in normal missions, I don't think so.

When I play on a pub server I see the bulk of the "idiots" are coming from stat-intensive games like CoD and BF2. They charge into battle with guns blazing and get cut down, steal equipment ( including aircraft ), team kill, or demolish resources. Because of the mindless pursuit of numbers, they have never learned how to work in teams - it's all about their stats.

Don't tell me you didn't play regular fps games before starting to play OFP or Arma. Idiots are idiots, games or statistics don't make them idiots. Opposing a stat system because of something like that is the same as thinking that everyone you play with is a potential idiot, kept at bay only because they can't see their overall kills and deaths on some internet page. If that's not arrogance, I don't know what is.