rM Community

Quenquent, on 13 February 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

Quenquent is right. Time is not an accurate measure of skill.

Many Overwatch players decide to show mercy when the rebels are being overwhelmed, even if it costs them the game later on. But given the options, what can we do? If we add points for performing tasks then players will attempt to hoarde them regardless of the objectives, and if this proposed time-based system is implemented then every round of Overwatch suddenly becomes a race to crush the rebels.

WAXT, on 13 February 2011 - 06:00 PM, said:

You are talking about me right?

Quote

Idea : we combine both : we give point to rebels when they kill a combine, revive a friend and complete objectives, so the Rambo and camping players will be penalized. If the Overwatch kill a rebels and win fast, with a low number of units, he will have more point.

Tl:dr :
Rebel :
Objectives completed by the rebels : + X
Objectives completed by the Overwatch : - X
Round win : + X
Friends revived : + X
Death : - X
Combine killed : + X
(If the rebels lose, we don't count the round win)

Overwatch :
Rebels killed : + X
Units spawned : - X
Time used : - X
Round win : + X
Objectives completed by the Overwatch : + X
Objectives completed by the rebels : - X
(If the overwatch loose, we don't count the time used and the round win)

It's an idea, hard to set and to balance....

Quenquent, on 13 February 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

A coordinated Rebel team like those we can expect from the competitive circuits can beat legions of spam. However, an Overwatch that effectively uses flanks, ambushes, distractions, cover, scares, harassment, and whatever other techniques you can think of will be able to put even the best rebel team to shame. Spamming is a noob tactic that is easily defeated by a good Rebel. Making spam work is called skill.

Maps in which spam works like a charm, like the Canals, need to be balanced.

If the Rebels are given ANY objective that rewards them individually, they will be fighting over completing the point-bearing tasks instead of relying on teamwork. If someone is incapacitated and there is an individual reward for reviving him, then EVERYONE concerned with being the best Rebel will make a suicide run to revive him. With the idiots now dead, the Rebel team is now short SEVERAL guns instead of the one in the enemy-infested location.

If completing the objective more than the others rewards people, they will be fighting over that, as well. People will crowd the bombs in the Canals and we will have entire teams decimated by the explosive barrels. People will fight over the grenades in Breach while the Overwatch mounts his defense without opposition.

If you reward people for killing enemies, then you have the problem of people who should be relying on their team to cover them jumping around shooting at the combine. The Rebels will confront the Combine even when they should be trying to work their way-around.
Edited by ScrooLewse, 14 February 2011 - 06:31 PM.

So what you're saying is, we shouldn't do any of this at all then?

There are obviously positive and negative aspects to implementing this kind of feature and it's starting to seem like the negative aspects are out-weighing the positive. I am perfectly happy with the way things are now despite my yearning for some kind of scoring system. But if people are going to take things as seriously as ScrooLewse suggests, then I suppose there's no point in ruining a good game now is there? Honestly I don't believe players will be thrown into chaos so long as it is implemented as an overall feature and not "Tournament Specific".

It worked for Zombie Master with pretty much no negative effect. Most people used it as a measure of just how well they were playing personally rather than as a competitive tool, and those that did just made the game more enjoyable by completing for those suicide objectives and allowing the rest of the team to progress. (The alternative was waiting to be mauled by zombies.) The real trouble begins when scores are kept and posted online.

If the scores are not recorded then there will be no real reason for this overly-competitive behaviour which seems to be the source of trouble regarding this feature. Each map is a clean slate, meaning any previous acomplishments or failures are short-lived and soon forgotten. Live in the moment.

Did anyone mention Left for Dead yet? What about a system with a kind of distance for points. The average distance covered by the team gives you a base amount of points. So if someone is left behind, the average decreases. You could add bonus points or a multiplier for solving objects.

And I don't like to give individual points to the rebels when you play in tournaments. I think there is no right way to rate the perfomance of rebel player when the focus should be on teamplay. You can't give just a number to the relations and strategies/tacticts between the specific players.

The best overwatch player would be then the one when the rebels had the smallest score.

This idea would only work for maps like ow_breach or ow_canals. For maps like ow_crossroads, there may have to be another idea.

ScrooLewse, on 14 February 2011 - 06:21 PM, said:

+1

Quote

For most of the objectives, we NEED teamwork. Maybe the first times we gonna see some stupid rebels fighting alone for an objective, but after they will THINK. If that not happens, the rebels is called in France a "Kevin". I agree for objectives like defusing a bomb in Ow_crossroad will be a "rush" objective, but if we give redward for defending an objective like the bunker, a door or a rebels who defusing a bomb, you gonna see more teamwork.

Quote

I say before the rebels could loose point when they die ; so if someone die, they must choose if they stay where they are or if they take the risk to loose point by suicide save him. And I say previously than we can give redward to the players who protect objectives, we can do this with reviving.

Quote

I say before this will be hard to balance? Maybe for the "grenade objectives", we could give points to every rebels who drop a grenade or cover the "grenade drop section".

Quote

You really think a rebels will got more point by killing combine than reviving teammates or completing objectives? We need to balance this and this will be very hard.

Colaman, on 15 February 2011 - 04:19 AM, said:

Possible but not for every map. And in Overwatch, we can revive friends, this is completely different than what we can see in L4D.

Quote

I suggested 2 tournament : player vs player and team vs team. In team vs team, we will not see this problem. For player vs player, I said it before and I say it again : we need to balance to favorise teamwork.

This is going to be very hard to set and to balance, but we are a LOT of players to do that.

WAXT, on 14 February 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:

I was saying we shouldn't make individual rewards for a tournament.

Making a round-by-round point system for everyday Overwatch would be incredibly complicated and take months of frequent updates to correctly implement. But on the other hand, if pulled-off it correctly could quickly teach people how to prioritize and balance their objectives in Overwatch. It would also be able to quickly distinguish the veterans from new guys; who should lead and who should follow. But then it would need constant updates as new and odd tactics continuously pop-up.

For a tournament, we cannot afford to judge the performance of players during the match in such a tactically strange game as ours. We must keep to the results and ignore the in-between. However, who wins and who loses is too a inaccurate for an 8-person match. Which is where time comes in.

Doing it by the timer gives us everyone's individual standings where the binary determinant could not. A tournament would be about who is the most efficient Overwatch. BUT, the seven Rebels would have their chance to bring the one Overwatch's score down. They would then rotate and one of the seven rebels would become the Overwatch, and the Overwatch would become a Rebel. Once everyone has had his chance, whoever did the best against his seven competitors wins.