This topic contains 54 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Deathbal 9 years, 4 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #52064

    naka
    Participant

    A few things to note – not about scoring ratio, but how scorring numbers will look on the screen:

    1. If we choose 100 points for the round win, the total score for very verry good game will be close to 1000 points (and averange good game will be 700-800points). 1000 is some magick number and its looks more better than 1100-1400-1500someting..

    2.With 100/40/10 the total score will be multiple by 10, Therefore ‘one’ will win every time by 10 poins ahead /or the last digit of the score will be 0 every time/.

    It is great fun is somebody won the game with 1 point ahead 😮 (or small points) 😆
    so the question is how to make last digit be 0 through 9?

      2.1 besides 100/40/10 is there any other way for awarding small points (1) – shields hits, money, health ….?

      2.2 or make 100/40/9 – if the assist points are 9, then the last digit of the score will be anything from 0 through 9, – for example: we can see wins 749 over 748,747…

    @outer wrote:

    Ill say we do another 2 week trial for DB’s settings which for me looks fine. Anyone agree?.

    Yes, but I think for 100/40/10, the trial period must be longer, and if 2.5 appeared too low we may try (2.85) 100/35/10. The ratio depends too much of who are you playing with. We need more quality players.

    #52065

    Outer
    Participant

    @naka wrote:

    2.With 100/40/10 the total score will be multiple by 10, Therefore ‘one’ will win every time by 10 poins ahead /or the last digit of the score will be 0 every time/.

    It is great fun is somebody won the game with 1 point ahead 😮 (or small points) 😆

    Totally agree on that. Would be fun to see some tight games.

    @naka wrote:

    so the question is how to make last digit be 0 through 9?
    2.1 besides 100/40/10 is there any other way for awarding small points (1) – shields hits, money, health ….?[/list]

    Nope, sry. But there’s an option to award points to money and lives remaining which for me is not an option to be set different to 0.

    @naka wrote:

    2.2 or make 100/40/9 – if the assist points are 9, then the last digit of the score will be anything from 0 through 9, – for example: we can see wins 749 over 748,747…

    Yes, this can be done. We cant set assists to 9, agree?

    So… let’s change it to 100/40/9 for a month? I’ll wait for more replies.

    #52066

    Deathbal
    Participant

    Very good idea…..100/40/9

    It may be just my imagination, but it seemed as if people were pulling away faster by getting 150 points for a round win.

    #52067

    Rommel
    Participant

    Version 41, records the final scores in the log file. Thank you Gavin, that was a terrific idea. This addition provided the admins an easy way to compile the data required to perfom analysis on the scoring.

    #52068

    Outer
    Participant

    Just to announce server settings are now changed to 100 point for round win 40 for a kill and 9 for an assist. This settings will be running for a month. Let us hear in this post ur toughts

    #52069

    Mcb Lover
    Participant

    yeah…as you do some changes in bored S3D ( for now) life i could say– WB Outer, i hope ud finish your damn learn.
    hehe

    #52070

    Outer
    Participant

    @Mcb Lover wrote:

    yeah…as you do some changes in bored S3D ( for now) life i could say– WB Outer, i hope ud finish your damn learn.
    hehe

    I already did!!! Just i play on evenings with POM and ellie, u play earlier…

    #52071

    Rommel
    Participant

    Let’s try this, no let’s try that, No let’s do this instead, Ok? Ok. Due to the lack of a debate, my original thoughts remain the same.@outer wrote:

    Just to announce server settings are now changed to 100 point for round win 40 for a kill and 9 for an assist. This settings will be running for a month. Let us hear in this post ur toughts

    Assists often change the outcome of the game but the current scheme does not reflect the importance of this action.

    The logs contain all of the information the server admistrator would require to compile reliable statistics and compare the results achieved by making changes to the settings. I just won I think it’s great! It’s only good for Rommel, it sucks. As it stands now, emotion seems to be winning over reason.

    Here are a few questions that I hope might help to get the effort focused a bit clearer. I can’t answer any of them and seriously doubt that anyone can answer all of them without doing the preliminary research after the fact.

    Who is heading up this project?
    What is the goal, specifically?
    What conditions prompted the changes?
    How were the changes expected to achieve the goal?
    What was the exact result of the changes?
    Why did the original changes not produce the results desired?

    Dancing in the dark is fine for Stevie Wonder but he really has no choice.

    Get a new plan Dan,

    Rommel

    #52072

    pastor of muppets
    Participant

    It appears the scorched community is heading up this project.

    The goal would be to make game play more competitive for all.

    My guess would be (and I admit I don’t know) with the way the economy is the ppl that kill early pull away big. You have two choices kill early or avoid game play by using dirt, running or teleing unitl you can win a round.

    The changes give everyone a fair chance by allowing folks who use strategy to win rounds, folks who concentrate on kills, and folks who are broke and buy for the one kill per round a chance to win.

    So far in the games that I have played the lead has been exchanged a lot. Everyone’s tactics seem to stand a chance to win. I just went from last place to finsih 3rd due to a good round of kills.

    They were still too biased towards round wins. The point of an artillery game is to kill…to find where your enemy is and to aim correctly to kill them, but with the current economy it has become more rewarding to not get killed than to kill so….change the point system and keep it competitive.

    If this game is not competetive it’s not fun. Period…so keep changing with the times I would say.

    #52073

    Outer
    Participant

    Hey Rommel, i sense you are feeling threatened?

    @rommel wrote:

    Let’s try this, no let’s try that, No let’s do this instead, Ok? Ok.

    In fact there´s only been 2 changes on the server settings.

    @rommel wrote:

    Due to the lack of a debate

    Where?uh?ah? here http://scorched3d.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5295

    @rommel wrote:

    Assists often change the outcome of the game but the current scheme does not reflect the importance of this action.

    Well the average assists per player is like 5. The current settings are set to 9 points for an assist to allow more competitive games, not always multiple of 10 like were before. Now we could see scores like 776 and 777 instead of 770, 760.

    @rommel wrote:

    The logs contain all of the information the server admistrator would require to compile reliable statistics and compare the results achieved by making changes to the settings.

    Good point this one. Sorry to say i have few time to spare to check this out, but ill try to get some conclusions from it and we will see to make a better gameplay for everyone. One thing is for sure, round wins are nothing if you don’t kill anyone.

    @rommel wrote:

    I just won I think it’s great! It’s only good for Rommel, it sucks. As it stands now, emotion seems to be winning over reason.

    You think this changes are done only to affect your performance? This is a community Rommel, this is done for everyone not for only for you. If people get pissed of by your tactics, their problem. This issue is aside of it.

    @rommel wrote:

    Who is heading up this project?

    It started as a request from the community to see more balanced games. Admins watch over it. Pretty much you can say everyone is involved.

    @rommel wrote:

    What is the goal, specifically?

    As said before, it is meant to have a more balanced scoring system.

    @rommel wrote:

    What conditions prompted the changes?

    Community requests. Earlier scoring system was set by BB after several days of discussion in the thread i pointed above. This scoring system was meant to within two weeks, those weeks already expired. Players kept complaining about the scoring, so we tried another,which i may like to think, is a more balanced scoring system.

    @rommel wrote:

    How were the changes expected to achieve the goal?

    Customer feedback.

    @rommel wrote:

    What was the exact result of the changes?

    Answered before…

    @rommel wrote:

    Why did the original changes not produce the results desired?

    Answered before and the final score was still given by round wins. There were players making a bonanza here with just a couple of wins and they couldn’t win or reach the top because one fella had more round wins with a few kills.

    @rommel wrote:

    Dancing in the dark is fine for Stevie Wonder but he really has no choice.

    Get a new plan Dan,

    We are not toying around Rommel, if that is what you were implying. Never a fan of Stevie Wonder…. sorry.

    Outer

    #52074

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @rommel wrote:

    What is the goal, specifically?

    To stop Rommel from dirting

    What conditions prompted the changes?

    Rommel dirting self

    How were the changes expected to achieve the goal?

    By awarding less points to Rommel when he wins a round due to self dirt.

    What was the exact result of the changes?

    Unknown as of yet

    Why did the original changes not produce the results desired?

    Rommel continued to dirt.

    Now seriously. I think we are all just looking for a scoring system that is balanced based on how people play.

    We could make a round win 300 and a kill 20, but that would require players to focus on a round winner. But most of us just go in to play, do a lot of talking and just hang out. We simply don’t play that style of game. So now we are trying to find the best possible combination.

    #52075

    Mcb Lover
    Participant

    You know, now score looking really better, but i still didnt play with my training target Romel hehe

    #52076

    Thrax
    Participant

    While you’re in there poking the numbers(still say small-digits is better..),
    Why don’t you test increase the max-players from 12 to 16.

    Never has a server hosted by gavin had that many people, we don’t
    even know if the code can handle it cleanly. I think it’s about time
    someone found out.

    #52077

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Outer:

    Thank you for the speedy relpy.

    @outer wrote:

    Hey Rommel, i sense you are feeling threatened?

    You seem to be making a statement about your reasoning ability however you ended it with a question mark. If you’d like to know if I’m feeling threatened the answer is no. If you believe that I am, then your reasoning ability is questionable at best.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    Let’s try this, no let’s try that, No let’s do this instead, Ok? Ok.

    In fact there´s only been 2 changes on the server settings.

    Considering that my post only indicated 2 changes, I fail to see your point. The quote above, was about the discussion to make the second set of changes. There was no scientific data presented at all. It was, as I presented it. A few suggestions, a decision and a change. None of which stated a sound mathematical basis or even a specific and well detailed goal.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    Due to the lack of a debate

    Where?uh?ah? here http://scorched3d.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5295

    Excuse me for continuing to find fault with your post but obviously you need some help. There are threads all over the place that we could point out that deal with scoring issues. Since you seem to be a bit confused, the debate that seems to be missing is the one in this thread. The one we are supposed to be having that helps set a specific goal and see if it can be accomplished.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    Assists often change the outcome of the game but the current scheme does not reflect the importance of this action.

    Well the average assists per player is like 5. The current settings are set to 9 points for an assist to allow more competitive games, not always multiple of 10 like were before. Now we could see scores like 776 and 777 instead of 770, 760.

    I don’t know how to be more clear but you missed my point and failed to address the issue you quoted. Perhaps it’s a language problem. I hope that is the case. It matters not if you make an assist 9, 10 or 11 points, it is still a poor reflection of the importance that an assist plays in the outcome of the game. My thoughts at the first of this thread should have made that clear. This has not been debated sir, not at all.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    The logs contain all of the information the server admistrator would require to compile reliable statistics and compare the results achieved by making changes to the settings.

    Good point this one. Sorry to say i have few time to spare to check this out, but ill try to get some conclusions from it and we will see to make a better gameplay for everyone. One thing is for sure, round wins are nothing if you don’t kill anyone.

    It is a pleasure to see that we have some common ground from which to start again. It is a shame that you don’t have the time to do the work required to make this project (whatever it is) a success but it was nice of you to say so up front and save us the pain of countless changes to the scoring. Hopefully one of you does have the time, the expertise and the desire to can take control of this wayward exercise and make it a success.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    I just won I think it’s great! It’s only good for Rommel, it sucks. As it stands now, emotion seems to be winning over reason.

    You think this changes are done only to affect your performance? This is a community Rommel, this is done for everyone not for only for you. If people get pissed of by your tactics, their problem. This issue is aside of it.

    No, of course not. It is becoming increasing apparent that you haven’t read the entire thread. The two references you quoted me making above were excerpted from THIS thread. The first, from POM, the second from Vitos. I suggest you read this thread again, slowly. Reason must win over emotion or all is lost.

    The absurdity of your charges are humorous to me but the absurdity of changing the numbers without a specific and well defined goal along with a baseline set of figures for making comparrisons is not. Perhaps that issue is the best one for you to focus on for the time being. Making this into a personal attack on me, although enjoyable from my perspective, will most likely become increasingly less pleasurable for you if continued. Banter is fine with me if you have the time and I do enjoy it but if you have time for this, you might also have time to do the changes more professionaly. In the alternative, set aside some reading time as my next post could be a long one.

    Changes made without proper forethought or effective follow though seem to be a waste of the limited amount of time that you have stated you can devote to this project. I’m trying to help the progress, not hinder it and suggest that it would be nice if you would do the same.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    Who is heading up this project?

    It started as a request from the community to see more balanced games. Admins watch over it. Pretty much you can say everyone is involved.

    No need to be coy, Roy. By your own admission, the correct answer is:
    No one is in charge of this project.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    What is the goal, specifically?

    As said before, it is meant to have a more balanced scoring system.

    You didn’t say before and no one else has either. This is at best a very vague general goal. I asked for the specific goal. The correct answer is:

    We do not have a specific goal.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    What conditions prompted the changes?

    Community requests. Earlier scoring system was set by BB after several days of discussion in the thread i pointed above. This scoring system was meant to within two weeks, those weeks already expired. Players kept complaining about the scoring, so we tried another,which i may like to think, is a more balanced scoring system.

    Wrong Answer. Community requests should promote disscussions where the requests are deemed actionable or not actionable after being given reasonable consideration. The question I presented was intended to bring out the conditions that were deemed unfair that existed in the original scoring system and prompted the original set of changes. Apparently these have not yet been defined as indicated by your failure to provide them. The correct answer seems to be:

    We wanted to try something new.

    These questions are the type of thinking that should be perfomed in order to establish a goal and see it completed. This is pretty basic stuff in troubleshooting and problem solving. Ask yourself the pertinent questions and then anwer them.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    How were the changes expected to achieve the goal?

    Customer feedback.

    Unacceptable. Your answer indicates that emotion will dictate the rules. This seems to be a most unstable platform from which to operate. Also, the term Customer suggests someone that pays for a service. As a contributor, I appreciate that concept but in reality, it’s mostly feedback from Users that you are receiving and contemplating not Customers. It is a novel idea that you present though and I wish you well with it.

    The correct answer is:
    We didn’t think about that.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    What was the exact result of the changes?

    Answered before…

    False! You can not determine the effect that the changes had on the game because you had no base line for comparrison.

    The correct answer is:
    We don’t know.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    Why did the original changes not produce the results desired?

    Answered before and the final score was still given by round wins. There were players making a bonanza here with just a couple of wins and they couldn’t win or reach the top because one fella had more round wins with a few kills.

    Once again, your answer fails to specifically address the question. You can’t know the exact reason for the failure because no one was checking the results and comparring them to the base line study.

    The correct answer is:
    We don’t know.

    @outer wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    Dancing in the dark is fine for Stevie Wonder but he really has no choice.

    Get a new plan Dan,

    We are not toying around Rommel, if that is what you were implying. Never a fan of Stevie Wonder…. sorry.

    Outer

    Toying with the settings would indicate having fun, what you appear to be doing might be better described as messing with the settings. Obviously, thinking first and acting later won’t make this fun but it could make it more productive and less frustrating for all concerned. I suggest you try it.

    The song Dancing in the Dark, wasn’t performed by Stevie Wonder although I do think he could do it justice. The other song reference in my post wasn’t Stevie Wonder either. The point I was making was that Stevie Wonder is forced to be blind my conditions not of his own choosing. You sir, all of you, all of us, have basically two options. The option to stumble about blindly like the gigantic cyclops, destroying much and accomplishing little or we can try to open our eyes to the light of reason and address issues in a reasonable manner.

    Sincerely,

    No Man

    #52078

    Rommel
    Participant

    I can shed some light on this.@thrax wrote:

    While you’re in there poking the numbers(still say small-digits is better..),
    Why don’t you test increase the max-players from 12 to 16.

    Never has a server hosted by gavin had that many people, we don’t
    even know if the code can handle it cleanly. I think it’s about time
    someone found out.

    The server code fucntions fine with as many as 24 connections. I say this without reservation as there were times when I had 24 human players on Apoc Champions. It should be noted that the server was running under version 40 and had an excessive bandwidth requirement due to all the objects and chain reaction explosions. That being said, the bandwith requirements on the server were decreased in version 41. This seems to indicate that a standard Scorched server will fuction with a max player setting of 24 without difficulty.

    I second the motion on the floor with the suggestion that the limit be raised to 24 players.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 56 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.