building damage "asssists"

whenever i'm engaging a building, i get into this dota like mindset where i have to last hit it if i want to earn any points. i think it's kinda ridiculous that people attacking buildings aren't really rewarded much for their efforts most of the time. and killing a turret is worth the same as killing a barracks.

it'd be cool if one can kind of quantify damage done to buildings, KIND of like damage repaired that engineers get. maybe overall the damage equivalent to get a point for an building assist or building damage point would be twice as much it takes to get an assist for infantry/vehicle kills.

like if you deal 400 points of damage building and it gets destroyed within some timeframe, you net a point. or if you're scout and you stun a turret and it gets destroyed you get a point?

thee solutions aren't necessarily what's ideal or execution but they're just my ideas

 

sounds like a good idea to me. As it stands at the minute if someone wants to point whore they can let their team do the work then only fire 1 or 2 shots.

 

Well, it does make sense to award players with points with killing if the games does that with repairing guys, but i cant escape the feeling that it would boost points into ridiculoous levels.

 

Right now, if you kill any building, you get a point, but that's silly because not all buildings are worth the same amount to their team. You earn more for clearing a turret farm than for destroying a radar.

What would be ideal would be a system that gave points for building (or vehicle) HP damaged on an increasing scale so you get awarded for killing the building, but you can't game the system by shooting UML at a vf from across the map while engies repair it.

And if we rescaled points to fit that style, then you could earn a percentage of a player's current score per HP damaged, and that percentage could increase as the victim's HP goes down. If you kill Reznov, you should get more points than if you kill me.

And that system is robust enough to not need assists. You just change the increasing functions to reward assists/kills more or less.

Shit, now that I'm thinking about it, you could do the same with flag caps. Let the productive (while capping/contesting) seconds on the flag earn points and let the points/sec increase as you get closer to contesting/capping.

We already do this for healing and repairing. Just award certain point amounts to each HP point or repair point.

The only bad thing would be the thousands (millions?) of points that each player would earn. That may be kinda weird for people.

 

IMO, different buildings just give different point values. Shitty turrets and armories should give just one point, or maybe even 2 for one point, whereas a rax or a vf should give 5 points, simply because they're the two ways for a team to spawn in somewhere.

 

a 3 tier system might work but you also have to remember not to make it really confusing for noobs

 

Yeah I've wanted points for damage to a building for a while. I'd be up for adding that.

But what Spartacus mentions is a fair point, it's not easy to quantify the value of what you're doing these days. That's why games like Battlefield 3 use thousands of points, rather than 10s and hundreds. It would allow us to give 20 points for a rax kill, 5 for a turret, etc. It would really be as simple as rebalancing wages and using them for points, and having them log twice. One which depletes when you spend them, one which doesn't, which is your points tally.

I would also like an assists list on the scoreboard one day, if we could somehow tie a time-based counter to revives, so if you revive/heal someone and they then kill someone in X amount of seconds afterwards they get the assist.

 

I think the score or points should be generated based on what you hit. So a player collects hitpoints during a game by damaging:

- players
- buildings
- vehicles

For example, you kill a player (you hit 100 points) you earn 100 points. If you destroy a building you get 250 points (because a building has 250 hitpoints) and a player collects 350 points. Maybe it is easier to kill a player then to destroy a vehicle factory or a tank, so the points can be weighted. If you "earn" 1 hitpoint from a player it has a weight of 0.1, and if you "earn" 1 hitpoint from a vehicle factory it has a weight of 0.5. For example:

- You killed 2 players: earning 200 hitpoints * 0.1 = 20 points
- You damaged (but not killed) a player and collect 24 hitpoints (only 3 shots were a hit...) : earning 24 hitpoints * 0.1 = 2.4 points
- You destroyed 1 vehicle factory: earning 250 hitpoints * 0.5 = 125 points

Totally you earned 147.4 points... and if your earned 1,000 points, you get on score point in the summary. (Thats an example... balancing)... or 1,000 points give a wage of 100.

The story goes on... if you revive somebody you collect 100 hitpoints weighted by X %... maybe turrets have a higher weight scale (0.8)... and if you repair a radar, you gather 20 per cent for every repaired hitpoint and so on.

In the end, you have "only" to care about the weight of the points (you hit, repair or revive) because the hitpoints for every player, building or vehicle are fix in the game. That's relative easy to implement and - of course - a problem of balancing.

 

Omg, I never thought about just awarding points for wages 1-for-1, then scaling costs to fit. That's surprisingly intuitive.

And that you could do "revive-assists" with an "HP-for-points" system. When you revive someone, you immediately get a percentage of their current points (since it's better to revive better players), but then you could also earn a very low percentage of the points that they earn a few seconds after being revived. So you get points for their kills, but also their building, their healing, their revives, and anything else that they do. It's a much more robust system.

Contrastingly, you could the reverse with kills! If I kill Reznov right after his killstreak, I should earn some percentage of his total points, but also a percentage of the points earned a few seconds before death! That makes sense because it's more valuable to kill Reznov when he's currently raping everyone than me when I'm sitting on my ass.

That would work as a "kill bonus" since points would be distributed based on damage. And it makes sense to give the bonus to the person that killed Reznov. You're preventing Reznov from continuing to gain points, so you get rewarded with some of those points.

That's the beauty of a damage-for-points system. It takes a moment to flatten a large chunk of turret farm with a nuke, but it takes a while to do the same to a VF. For a noob, it makes more sense to give more points for the VF because they spent more time destroying it.

And then that requires that the most important buildings and vehicles have the most health. But we basically have that right now with a heavily armored CV or a cheap, flimsy armory.

 

I dislike this part since its a return to the "whoever gets the last shot gets the points" system that we currently have. Whilst I think its a pretty good idea in general (even if too complicated for my liking) I think the points should be awarded on damage done so that the person that got a lucky 1 damage hit doesnt get big points for doing very little.

 

But the point is that you killed the guy, so you prevented future harm. And the greater that predicted harm, the more points you deserve. That's the reason we award kill points in the first place.

And were you expecting a completely assist-robust system to be simple? Points are pretty fucking hard already and it's nigh impossible to relatively judge someone else's performance without going continuous.

 

BF3 does it as such.

Revive - 100 points.
Kill - 100 points.
Assist - Amount of HP you took off, up to 100 points (you can live on 0% health in BF3).

 

But then killing Lawliet gets you the same amount of points as killing me. It's not a bad system, but not a good one.

 

You're overcomplicating it. We don't need a CoD style rating for who you kill, it's just not necessary.

 

Then it's not a good judge of what's actually going on on the field. I would be interested to see which "skilled" players can hold up against all foes or just end up milking noobs. I was playing with Nostalgic a few days ago and he got like seventy kills in a short pub round, which was at least as much as the entire opposing team. He's a reliably good gren, but I can't imagine getting that many kills unless you're farming the same noobs over and over.

 

Except now you've encouraged me to let someone go on a KILLING SPREE and then kill him *after* everyone else is dead to get maximum points. And you've also convinced me to not give a fuck about players destroying buildings and focus on players that are killing players. In other words, I want to farm kills and spawn kill now for maximum points.

 

It's not necessary. I have no idea why you of all people think it is.

 

#this #is #not #twitter #!

 

Go and read my ELO system thread.

But that's too complicated to achieve :D