Discuss: Transport scoring

The slow spread of kfs code through the hosts continues, in some ways its a bit like glaciation; as the code first advances there seems to be lots of excess with bits of rubble and detritus strewn on the tops of the ice, pieces of old system-bedrock poking thru. When the ice retreats its carved a nice clear path to that bedrock.

So it is starting to seem with scoring. It’s not suddenly an open road to all the bells and whistles Mo envisioned for scoring, there’ll need to be work done on it, the largest obstacle still being the final merge of chat/map – or at the very least a reordering of them and a persistent connection to both even when you spawn.

The challenge: scoring for as many transport activities as possible with a minimum number of rules and restrictions. The cleanest solutions are often the easiest to exploit – like the old 10 minute success rule – but then there is a considerable discussion as to whether or not it matters that people might be able to accumulate rank this way given enough time.

Not that we’re wanting for ideas on the topic but I’d find it interesting to touch base with the view from the other side of the fence where you haven’t had to reign in your ideas/notions in the past from an intimate encounter with the source :)

23 Comments

Score transport missions by weighting each transportable unit (already done with RDP unit cost), and your score is based on how far you transport them.

Score a transport multiplier of 1.25 if you haul a unit back to RTB successfully.

Score a transport multiplier of 1.5 if you haul back someone you didn’t tow out to RTB successfully.

If the unit is KIA, no multiplier.

Make a minimum tow distance (0.5 KM?) to score at all.

May RTB any unit at any friendly FB/AB.

Of course, I could be on crack.

Make it work like a parasite infection. :)

When a soldier/ATG/AA player is infected with your parasite from having been towed or transported by you, then all the player’s kills, captures, etc. done AFTER you infected the player on that mission could count for you also (not taking any points away from the player).

Make this “infection bonus” 50% of the points the infected player makes. If the player RTBs, he will earn even more points, so then your points earned from the player’s mission will increase automatically.

This would mostly work for missions where you see battle, but that is what the game is about after all..

I don’t like a ten minute rule. Rank should be earned by accomplishing a mission goal, not for being parked in a behind-the-lines AB while AFK.

If you’re in the vicinity of combat, sharing points seems like an obvious direction. If you’re moving supply crates or heavy weapons to a behind-the-lines mission destination, you get points for delivery.

There’s been discussion over the past 2-3 years about the possible merits of a three-tier rank system for the ground game. The general proposal that Gophur put forth for discussion some time back was along the lines of ranks up to senior Sargeant having greatest weapons access and being in the tactical tier; officer ranks up to say Captain or Major being in the mission leader tier; and higher ranks in the operational-and-strategic tier. A KOTH system would be used to manage numbers in the highest ranks in the tactical and mission leader tiers.

The point of mentioning that concept is that it’s sometimes been suggested that senior sargeant ranks and all of the mission leader ranks would gain score not from their own combat actions, but from the combat actions of other tactical-tier players on missions they’ve created or are leading. Having truck/APC drivers gain score from the actions of players on missions they’re supporting, perhaps with a mission-leader proximity requirement, would fit right into an eventual move in the direction of a three-tier/KOTH approach to overall rank.

I like sms’s idea. Something similar was posted on PS in the last 24 hours. I think 50% might be a bit excessive (I’d go for 10% myself) but I think it’s the only way to do it that isn’t open to exploitation. It’s also meaningful.

I would suggest breaking out the toy soldiers – at least mentally – before writing off on that one. Sure seems like a good conscience salve if the guy who drives you a kilometer from the FB into town gets some points for your kills. Lets see if not spelling it out, tho, stirs up some interesting discussion.

Easting has a good idea, but I think a little too involved.

Hook/drop 1k out (point)(adder for further out/ distance/closer to enemy?)
Manned MSP (point)
Unmanned MSP (no point){you yourself are going to spawn there anyway, yes?}
RTB unit (point- no bonus- YOU didn’t get the kill, eh?)
Air transport- gets sticky here….(when do we get ATG airlift capability?)
Point for each air trooper on plane, point for landing/dropping, point for RTB the bus?

Sharing in kills is database intensive.

It should only be done for the full sacrifice – you tow that unit, you tow that unit back, you get 50% credit. You tow out and leave ’em. Some basic ‘de minimis’ amount of points.

The points system should *demand* teamwork and *reward* with major points. And rank base it, so that the higher the rank helping the lowest rank gets even more points – rewards n00b helping. THEN make it King of the Hill.

Nothing else makes sense.

And please reset non-AHC rank every campaign as a part of the points system. That rewards AHC players who need it the most, and makes every new campaign a reason for all players to jump back in.

Take a little while to think about what sharing points means. Under what circumstances would it be less desirable or effective? What does it reward and what does it penalize?

I thought about the ‘infection’ idea but say you RTB’d before your virus laden infantry/atg/aa scored any kills. Does the game award you even more points if the para/atg gets a kill post spawn?

My suggestion only scores you for actions made during your own spawn.

As a transporter, do you really want your level of success completely dependent on the actions of others? Two transporters, one with ace snipers, one with grenadiers who can’t hit the broadside of a barn – odds are, the transporter with better cargo gets more points.

IMO, bad idea.

As a transporter, you job is to move freight (soldiers and guns) to where it is needed. That’s it. If you get them where they are supposed to go, you can’t do that any better. ‘Course, you can take them to a place that just gets them killed, which makes you a bad transporter. So, I think something along the lines of

[(NumSpawnees who live more than 10 minutes after spawn) / (NumSpawnees)] * X

in the case of a mobile spawner, might be worth investigating.

Precisely: you spawn a C47, loading up with 40 paratroopers, and head to town evading a group of enemy fighters who don’t spot you, skirting active enemy ground units who fire flak at you but thanks to your maneuvers fail to kill you.

Finally after 20 gruelling minutes, you reach the target, you drop the troops perfectly, they land, group up, they cheer and salute you on channel.

Possible outcomes:

1. They all die in-flight,
2. They all die before hitting the ground (poor drop),
3. They all die shortly after reaching the ground,
4. Most reach the ground safely, some die shortly after, several manage to get kills, caps.
5. They all make it to the ground scoring an average of 3 kills each (a total of 120 kills).

Does a post-transport credit system really award you for your activities? Does getting 60 kills (50%) or 12 kills (10%) credit if you RTB and wait it out for all the despawn at the airfield really encourage the right thing?

“Are they alive after 10 minutes” is going to encourage long drops, not just paras but trucks too.

At the end of the day it needs to be smarter than that; you’ve got to reward the transporation process itself, but then you do need to try and introduce a mechanism that better rewards smart drops without prejudicing gamers towards overcaution.

Mission leaders I can see being credited with delegate scoring, in which case the mission leader could appoint a drop-zone and transporters could be assigned score for in-zone delivery, with simple transportation having a relatively light score value.

Right now it might be easier to think of components that need scoring, and how they might be gamed and how to score them to make the gamey stuff less attractive.

For instance, lets start with RTBs.

– For each individual unit (sortie) you can repeat the process several times, but all you can do is change the level of reward (e.g. you can take a unit back and get him a kill so you get scored at the higher level for him, not twice)
– Each unit must be transported > 50m
– Units that dismount/unhitch are worth 1/4 of a point
– Units that RTB while still attached are worth 1/2 a point
– Unit value is doubled if the unit has 1+ kills
– Unit value is doubled if the unit has 1+ captures
– Unit value is trippled if the unit has kills + captures (not quadrupled)
– If the unit has 2+ kills or 2+ captures, value += (kills+captures) * 0.025 (i.e. you get 2.5% of them)

RTB transport works reasonably well like this, but outbound transport is more problematic. It’s not unlikely that you will drop your troops off at a good spot, only to have them run off and jump onto some piece of armor.

Which means your primary scoring mechanism for outgoing or in-field transport ought to be for transportation. Obviously you want to avoid giving people score for registering a trial account, sticking an inf on their truck at Calais AF AB and taking him 1km out of town and back.

You could also keep it simple and let those that want to game it game it to a certain extent.

Small amount of rank points for each individual username that “rode” on your vehicle, with a cap of 25% of your next level’s rank points being acquirable by transporting.

The cons don’t seem that big to me:
– hurts players who want to gain all of their rank entirely through transporting. Do those players exist?

– doesn’t encourage a successful drop. Do players’ transport efforts revolve around getting rank in this game? Players have been transporting for years without rank compensation.

– munchkins get 25% of their rank through transporting their 2nd account on a hundred missions that didn’t go anywhere. Who cares?

The thing I like about the ‘parasite’ points system is that conceptually it’s simple and clean*.

Take transports out of the equation and *ideally* every other unit in game is being directly rewarded according to how much they are assisting the war effort – ie currently via kills and caps but this may be enhanced over time.

Transports themselves have only one function – get those other units into positions of maximum effectiveness. Set these units to earn a small fixed percentage of the points earned by the transported units and you have automatically and for all time linked them to the “real” scoring system. Ie – it’s set and forget.

And with the whole smart drop versus dumb drop – it’s self correcting. If I do a smart drop, my transported units will probably live longer, get more kills and caps and thus I get more rewards.

Sms’s parasite suggestion works and meets KISS. It is incredibly easy for others to understand which is a big problem with general scoring at the moment for noobs.

Just my opinion.

It does meet KISS if you ignore all the issues and holes in it. It’s absolutely not self-correcting. It will attract score-gatherers who will then abuse the transport system as an easy way to get other people’s score. Spawn a truck at an FB, drive half way to town and stop.

That doesn’t work. The primary function of transport is to move units to and from combat. You have to score on that first and any kind of delegate scoring has to be secondary to serve as a sweetener.

The aim is simple, some benefit to towing and transporting, but not huge amounts. It also has to take into account the life of a transporter. Having your score predicated on the unit your towing arriving at the destination and scoring points is going to make many would-be transporters fussy about their rides. What if some guy tows you for an hour, you set up and you suddenly have to log or your ISP goes out? That guy fulfilled his part of the equation.

Somehow the *quality* of the transport has to be factored in, especially for tactical-combat driving.

Those drivers that are superior at dropping/setting up/towing to a tactically superior location have to rise to higher ranks than the guys that are well intentioned but not very skilled.

It might be helpful if, in a possible future ground tactical/mission-leader/HC tiered rank system, trucking was broken out as a separate sub-system within the tactical ranks. Thus there would be less motivation to game the scoring for driving, because a senior-sargeant in the driving sub-system would gain nothing but reputation and an opportunity to advance to a junior mission-leader position creating and leading logistics or large-scale-combat-movement missions, or a junior HC position managing such missions. That might then make it possible to have mission participants vote on trucking scores, or mission leaders assign them.

This is how a King of the Hill would really be a boon to the enlisted ranks. A Senior Sergeant truck driver, who only gets rank for DRIVING, would be a highly sought out ride.

And the Senior Sgt would be in heaven when he saw a Senior Sgt Anti-Tank gunner waiting for a ride.

Dividing WWIIOL into “classes” and rewarding specialization, makes the game more intense and more deadly, but makes teaming up even better.

N00bs would know when they were learning well practiced tactics, or someone who is just talking to them without giving real information.

Also, taking away scoring for any kills around FB’s would help to move the fight away and into the countryside, especially if the system would tell a player when he is more than 1/2 mile away from the FB and therefore eligible to recieve points for kills. It would also keep armor back from the FB spawn camping unless blowing the FB was the real point.

This changes the topic a bit :/ but why not use the scoring system to reward groups. Groups working as an identified unit getting kills registered for scoring (e.g. tanks and inf) whereas solo units (except snipers) do not get such results.

Then use the B1 and B icon slots to get squad icons or group icons displayed IF they are in a top cooperating squad…or display that squad name on posters in bunker radio rooms (like graffiti)…or something cool that is game wide. Even a plaque on a post somewhere that gave up to the day Top 10 cooperating group lists (not squad or bde, but self-naming group(s) that cooperate across lines and always put inf with tanks or at guns, etc.). /hijack

Dividing WWIIOL into “classes” and rewarding specialization, makes the game more intense and more deadly, but makes teaming up even better.
Agreed. To go slightly off-topic, there have been cries for a seperate Armor persona (or infantry – same effect) because the two areas require completely different skills and, thus, you get people spawning one or the other who don’t know how to use it (usually the armor). Since equipment is shared by everyone who’s online, this kind of hurts the fun a bit – I don’t mind when there aren’t any good tanks to spawn, but it upsets me when I see our hulks sitting all around the AB after I spawn a rifleman.

Really though, I personally find the point to be a bit moot with ranking the way it is. If ranks reset every campaign I think it would have more purpose (maybe so much “overall” rank would make you start NCO next campaign or something like that to have a longer-lasting effect). It would take some number tweaking to get it all right, but it would definately make all this thought more worthwhile.

Maybe someday:

Transport-driver score is awarded by the Mission Leader prior to end of the mission.

Criteria:
Mission substantially achieved its combat success-criteria, and transport was highly effective –> 100% points.
Mission did not substantially achieve its combat success-criteria, even though transport was highly effective –> 50% points
Mission substantially achieved its combat success-criteria, but transport was partly or fully ineffective –> 25% points
Mission did not substantially achieve its combat success-criteria, and transport was partly or fully ineffective –> 10% points

Mission Leader score is determined partly by ratings by mission participants during mission. Mission leader gets a rating for that mission from its combat participants, and a separate rating from its transport-driver participants.

This assumes KOTH systems for tactical and mission leader ranks, with a separate tactical rank track for transport drivers.

Sometimes simple is good enough.

Workout some kind of formula based on the mission time, distance travelled whilst towing/carrying passengers and multiply by the number of units towed/carried.

If you also RTB you unit then the score should be 100% and the usual MIA/KIA should affect your mission score.

Shouldn’t be open to griefing or players just driving round in circles to gain rank as how many players will sit on a Beddy for an hour just so someone else can gain a few rank points?

If you want to, scale it so that the higher points are awared as you get above a certain number of units towed/carried.

You could then apply this formula not only to trucks, but transport planes and freighters.

Shouldn’t be open to griefing or players just driving round in circles to gain rank as how many players will sit on a Beddy for an hour just so someone else can gain a few rank points?

We call them “free trials” :)

YOu dont want a system that encourages drivers to wait too long for a full vehicle, nor to be too cautious in the route they select and the range they deploy at.

A driver carrying other people really has a lot of responsibility in their hands when it comes to people’s enjoyment of the game.

If anything, I woiuld want to encourage drivers to make more frequent runs and drop people off at longer, safer ranges from towns. Even if we had to add more trucks to the spawn lists I think it would help the game if there was a pretty steady stream of departures from the FBs.

Trout

Rather than the scoring system providing a fixed encouragement for particular transport goals, better to have each driver motivated to accomplish the particular mission leader’s goals.

Sometimes that might be cautious drops in the distant woods, sometimes it might be at the edge of town.

Agreed; which is why the kill-sharing suggestion doesn’t work for me. It’s a great suggestion, from one perspective, i.e. that of a rider who feels a bit guilty that the guys giving rides don’t get something. But I really don’t think its such a great idea when you start looking at it from a transports point of view.

As others have mentioned, if transports give points, people are going to start transporting for points, and those are the people who are going to game it and who make it impractical to go with the really simple solutions.

So the system is going to be somewhat complex. The question in hand is whether it can be facaded behind relatively simple application logic.

The function, tan(n), produces a complex pattern of numbers. But when you chart those numebrs, the pattern becomes a shape, to a human the shape is not nearly so complex as describing the function.

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: