CTF

[TwEaK]

have to agree one cap = 1 capture point, then just do personal scores for certain things like flag returns, flag capture (personal points also) flag kills, frags, assists?

ive read this negative scoring, and its got a lot of negative feedback for good or worse im not sure, but everything seems to be getting over-complicated...


and i like the idea of flag carrier speed-reduction if it helps to fix maps.

thats exactly how it should be and should always have been from the start

[[-z-]]

[TVR]

Fallacy, Appeal to Novelty.

Punishment of unsuccessful flag runs does not differentiate upon ability, merely success rate, thus comparatively less skilled attackers are affected only.

Less skilled attackers would be relegated to defence & other frustrating tasks not willingly performed by anyone, concentrating the most enjoyable activity of flag running, to savvy flag runners such as yourself.

[[-z-]]

Punishment of unsuccessful flag runs does not differentiate upon ability, merely success rate, thus comparatively less skilled attackers are affected only.

It differentiates between a mental ability. If you repeatedly grab the flag and die and can't figure out the error of your ways, the system will assist in the learning process. There are many things seasoned players have seemingly forgotten about the learning process. Some ideas that are painfully obvious to us now were not always so. I wish there was something like this system in place when I learning. Early on, I was upsetting such seasoned players due to a lack of intimate knowledge of how the game works.

At face value, yes, you capture the flag to win. However, there are many more dimensions to be taken into consideration and I believe a more positive environment would be created if we figured out a way to express these things.

The negative points is merely a personal score, a way to rate yourself. It has no "real" affect on the game. In 2.4.2 it's obvious players old and new use the scoring to determine their abilities. The problem is 20 points for a flag capture has players focusing on flag captures for the sake of themselves, not the team. A relatively poor player was able to achieve a relatively high score out of stubbornness by flag sitting and flag hogging, which wastes time and resources. The fault here, is that a player who essentially ruined the game for the rest of their team would cop an attitude, "so what, I have the most points, I must be doing something right".

I don't consider this attitude to provide a health environment for gameplay. After close observation and many disappointments, I began to develop the theory behind the scoring system I use today on the Nexuiz Ninjaz SVN servers. My intent was to spread out the field play, emphasize the defense and better reflect personal abilities based on score.

I believe this system is successful in these points.

Less skilled attackers would be relegated to defence & other frustrating tasks not willingly performed by anyone, concentrating the most enjoyable activity of flag running, to savvy flag runners such as yourself.

Attackers who can't figure out a good time to grab the flag will be punished. I often play defense when needed, I just happen to be a stronger offensive/midfield player. Much like in real life sports, people are stronger at different field positions. With or without the scoring system, weaker attackers would continue to fail. The scoring system provides positive incentives for playing defense, taking the focus off the need to capture the flag. There is pride in other field positions and this system attempts to award whatever position the player is best at.

I understand that flag captures determine the outcome of the game. However, people seem to be neglecting the fact that defense is designed to discourage the enemy from gaining this advantage (flag scores towards a win). This should be rewarded as it helps the team.

[ai]

In football, people have strict positions, in a game you play on your spare time should not tell them what to play as. They should be able to play any way they want, this is not a strict game and should not be so. Yes, you say, it may ruin the gameplay, but I rather take ruined gameplay over strict positions the game gives people. Unless it's a mode where there are defenders, midfield and attackers. Then after halftime people switch roles or sides.

However, majority (at this point it seems as) thinks this is a bad idea. You can go on preaching how "good" this system is, the majority will still think it's bad and thus should not be implemented. Otherwise this is a 'dictatorship' where you are the dictator telling everyone what to do. I don't like such systems. Consider yourself defeated in this matter (no matter how well you think this system works). A defeat is a defeat.

[[-z-]]

Wait, did you just make an analogy to a game that stops every 10 seconds or are you talking about the "European football" that Americans call soccer?

I never said anything about strict positions, in fact, I advocated switching between them. It's actually wonderful (but unfortunately rare) to have a partner or group of players that can switch between offense and defense because it lets returning flag carriers pack health, armor and ammo while their defender buddy who just did this grab the next flag. This keeps the team at an advantage.

MAJORITY? What. The. Hell. Just because a few people have voiced their opinion against it, doesn't make it a majority within the community. Maybe a majority relative to the last 3 pages of this thread but that's a SAMPLE. That's not a fair statistic, it's clearly bias to your opinion.

I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I'm defending my reasoning behind the system. If you think I'm a dictator, you clearly haven't taken the time to understand me or my beliefs.

It's obvious you don't like such systems but I think this is due to the fact you haven't taken the time to fully understand them, hence the reason I've spent the last 3 pages explaining and defending my idea against people like yourself.

Not seeing the picture in it's entirety, then accusing me of being a dictator doesn't make you correct or "defeat me". It does however prove to me you aren't open to the idea of change... even when I've clearly identified the issues and how my system addresses them.

The fact remains, you haven't played the system and you're arguing based on your assumptions, which from a few pages back (when you were arguing against my scoring based on assumptions, not facts) I know are underdeveloped. You even go as far to ignore evidence that the system works.

I do not like eggs in the file.
I do not like them in any style.
I will not take them fried or boiled.
I will not take them poached or broiled.

I will not take them soft or scrambled,
Despite an argument well-rambled.
No fan I am of the egg at hand.

Destroy that egg! Today! Today!
Today I say!
Without delay!

[ai]

Wait, did you just make an analogy to a game that stops every 10 seconds or are you talking about the "European football" that Americans call soccer?/quote]
Yeah, I took football (soccer if you want, I'm not an American so I don't say soccer) as an analogy as you took "real life sports" as an example. So I just continued on from where you left off. This was you who said it, I just elaborated it a bit.

But you still would have strict positions as you FORCE players to play as a defender or whatever. That is what I meant (and you too).

MAJORITY? What. The. Hell. Just because a few people have voiced their opinion against it, doesn't make it a majority within the community. Maybe a majority relative to the last 3 pages of this thread but that's a SAMPLE. That's not a fair statistic, it's clearly bias to your opinion.

I didn't say anything about the majority of the community, I never said anything about the community. You yet again jump to conclusions and read between the lines, which I told you you SHOULDN'T do with my posts. My posts says exactly what the letters says. No hidden meanings or governmental conspiracy. I'm not a complicated guy, I hate complication. I just said the majority of those who have voiced their opinion.

It's obvious you don't like such systems but I think this is due to the fact you haven't taken the time to fully understand them, hence the reason I've spent the last 3 pages explaining and defending my idea against people like yourself.

Not seeing the picture in it's entirety, then accusing me of being a dictator doesn't make you correct or "defeat me". It does however prove to me you aren't open to the idea of change... even when I've clearly identified the issues and how my system addresses them.

So what you basically are saying is this: Because you don't agree with my system you obviously don't understand it. So take time to understand the system and you WILL see it the same way I do.

No, that's wrong. I'll say it ONE more time and this time it's the LAST time I say it. I DO understand the WHOLE system FULLY. I STILL think it's not the way to go.
If you insist that I still don't understand it because I don't agree then you need to get out from your little corner and see the world.

No more on that point, case closed.

The fact remains, you haven't played the system and you're arguing based on your assumptions, which from a few pages back (when you were arguing against my scoring based on assumptions, not facts) I know are underdeveloped. You even go as far to ignore evidence that the system works.

No one had played your system when it first was new, and it still cannot be played, even by you. Unless you actually have created this mode and played it for yourself, which then it still wouldn't have been valid. So you TOO are arguing based on assumptions (admit it. And please don't come with your "research speech again).

You have no right to say what you just did as you yourself haven't tested this system so you're no more right than I am. If it currently has been incorporated into the SVN client (and a server) say so, then I can try it. Keep in mind that it still will need more than just an hour or so testing. Probably minimum a week or so.

[[-z-]]

Majority is a relative term. You cannot simply say "majority" without a reference point, I was trying to clarify for myself and others.

The only system that would "force" a player to do anything would be the bubble, which again, takes effort to fail that hard. The scoring is purely psychological.

The case has been closed to you since I opened the topic, who are you kidding?

No one had played your system when it first was new, and it still cannot be played, even by you. Unless you actually have created this mode and played it for yourself, which then it still wouldn't have been valid. So you TOO are arguing based on assumptions (admit it. And please don't come with your "research speech again).

I run 3 servers with this scoring system... divVerent has run 1. FURTHERING MY POINT YOU DON'T LISTEN AND MAKE ARGUMENTS BASED ON YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. The only thing I haven't tried is the bubble and that's because divVerent has just/is still developing it. HOWEVER, looking at the flag capture ratio, it's easy to hypothesis who would be affected, this is a minor detail.

I've linked to THIS THREAD which explains in detail the scoring system and explicitly states I have servers running with this scoring system. You told me you read this... now you're telling me I've never tested the system.

Seriously, wtf?

And you say I jump to conclusions.

[ai]

The only system that would "force" a player to do anything would be the bubble, which again, takes effort to fail that hard. The scoring is purely psychological.

I told you on IRC that it doesn't matter even if it's IMPOSSIBLE to fail that hard. That has nothing to do with the whole thing, it STILL forces players to play as one role. Again, you cannot use the "it takes skill to fail that hard" argument. That's not valid.

The case has been closed to you since I opened the topic, who are you kidding?

I was referring to you not understanding that I DO understand your system and thus you blame me saying that's the reason I don't like it. Not to this topic, read more carefully my posts. That's what I referred to as case closed.

Oh and on a final note, I do not have an nexuiz ninja account and will never create one. I am not lurking on those forums. You should also not expect everyone to be there either.
I'd rather be on the official forums than some community dividing the already small community. I've never actually liked that that happened in the first place anyway.

[TVR]

Punishment of unsuccessful flag runs does not differentiate upon ability, merely success rate, thus comparatively less skilled attackers are affected only.

... If you repeatedly grab the flag and die ...

Obviously, one must be comparatively less skilled in flag running, but consider someone more skilled in flag running in the same situation described as futile, that person would more likely succeed, even with the same pickups.

... The problem is 20 points for a flag capture has players focusing on flag captures for the sake of themselves, not the team. ...

Current Nexuiz CTF game settings rely on a point system, the most efficient method to amass points in flag captures, but unsuccessful attempts yields points for the opposing team to discourage knowingly unsuccessful attempts.

However, since the NN system relies on captures only scoring, any attempt would have no true drawback, successful flag runners will be more successful, since captures are still as significant, but returns do not determine a victory

Essentially, the personal points are only to fool those who do not realize points are commonly correlated to victory, but no longer the cause of victory.

Less skilled attackers would be relegated to defence & other frustrating tasks not willingly performed by anyone, concentrating the most enjoyable activity of flag running, to savvy flag runners such as yourself.

... Attackers who can't figure out a good time to grab the flag will be punished. ...

Merely attackers with a comparatively lower success rate in relation to other potential attackers.

... weaker attackers would continue to fail. ...

There does not exist any inherent exception with such and a success, it is a game, which intention is to entertain, regardless of skill.

The scoring system provides positive incentives for playing defense, taking the focus off the need to capture the flag.

Positive if, and only if points were cause of enjoyment, the true reward lies with the excitement of escape from the enemy base, with the bonus of directly influencing victory.