Project Reality Forums

[R-DEV]dbzao wrote:yeah, but looks like there are some issues with too high scores in bf2...

Yea, besides that.

But in general there is nothing wrong with high scores.

[R-DEV]KingofCamelot wrote:Tweaky, see my post right above you.

Really, I don't get why people are frightened by really high scores? Whats it matter, other than it being a departure from the norm?

As I said, the higher the scores, the more distance between people's scores, the higher accuracy of the scores. If you capped scores out 0-5, you'd never be able to tell anything from them. The more you expand the range of scores, the better accuracy you get out of them.

Only concern I have about high scores is accusations of 'cheating'.

After a few of the rounds that score me well above 2,000 points, people are very wary and wont stop probing me for answers. And that is just for those points. But I've always heard people in my squad complain about someone hacking because he is 8-1 or something... it is ridiculous (maybe they play CounterStrike?).

I just don't understand why the points have to be so high, surely it can be more simplified without an extra digit and still show accuracy of what they've done. But I suppose it is simplified now anyways, because the +/- points seem to be very straightforward and clean increments. And that fact that points are valued nicely depending on the type of kill you get and whatnot. I just have not found a problem with the previous scoring system, other than it didn't have better teamwork points for staying together as a squad like it does now (I do like that). I guess I am saying that the points value you had in .609 seemed fine, as well as the balance. It's just rather easy to gain 500+ points in a matter of minutes using the helicopter... when in comparison I also just played EJOD on the ground doing lots of things with my team, and really only scored around a typical 300-400 point game. The payoff was very low?

I dunno *shrug*

I'm not sure why you are worried about people getting accused of cheating? Have you ever seen someone getting accused of cheating because of a high score? A guy doing 100:0 kill/death ratio in CQB, that's something people trigger on. High score... never saw that.

As for having a "Balanced" system, it really depends what counterweight you put on your balance... i.e. it depends on what you want to achieve. You might think the scoring system is well balanced, but someone having different objectives for it and its usage may think otherwise.

Well, it is a bit buggy...

Maybee im missing something but i dont get it, what's all this fuss about?

What's the point of points?
...I mean, what do these points mean, what benefit as player i have of them?


T.

'[R-CON wrote:DJJ-Terror;489479']Maybee im missing something but i dont get it, what's all this fuss about?

What's the point of points?
...I mean, what do these points mean, what benefit as player i have of them?


T.

Obviously of no interest to you, but some people like to have a score they can measure themselves/others against as it's a competitive game. Surely you can understand that?

If you don't care for points then ignore them but don't think everyone is the same as you.

The points system is buggy at the moment it seems so action is being taken to correct it/make it fair. It's a fact that some people will or will not do certain things based on their score reward. It's as simple as that and if we want more teamwork then high scoring for teamwork tasks is a valid way of getting people to do them. So waht i'm saying is that it's in everyones interest, point carers or not, to have a scoring system that works correctly/is fair, that promotes teamwork.

.:iGi:.U.G.H. wrote:If you don't care for points then ignore them but don't think everyone is the same as you.

OK, i was hoping that there was some progress made on that issue that i was not aware of...

Tweaky wrote:If so, I'd like to know the difference to a perfect A-10 round of mine. My highest in .609 was 4,010 or something, with 101 kills and 0 deaths. If I were to get 50-0 or better, does that mean I will have some insanely high score? Kind of strikes me as a little odd and excessive.

With the inability to capture flags or be by your squad leader (or have a passenger), and the working threat and worth system, it is conceivable that you would get fewer points.

[R-DEV]KingofCamelot wrote:The more points you give people, the easier it is to see differences in players. It creates a wider range, and gives a more accurate picture.

In other words, would you rather paint with 3 paints, or 20?

OK, but for peeps playing on a ranking system it's a bit unfair. With this high scoring system new people wil get in 2 months what we have been fighting for over a period of 6 months ...

Mac

A bit excessive prehaps. This is me defending the VCP for an hour.

Trouble is, you have a high GLOBAL score, but zip in teamwork score. And if I am not wrong, the point of (see the joke - huh - huh?) remodeling the score was so that you where rewarded more for teamwork.

That the globalscore has run amok I'm not to pleased with. That we where going to be rewarded for doing spesific tasks according to the kit was what I was looking forward to. Meaning, the teamwork score.


Edit: By the way, I am not trying to discredit Ecko. He did a fine job.

Hx.Clavdivs wrote:Trouble is, you have a high GLOBAL score, but zip in teamwork score. And if I am not wrong, the point of (see the joke - huh - huh?) remodeling the score was so that you where rewarded more for teamwork.

That the globalscore has run amok I'm not to pleased with. That we where going to be rewarded for doing spesific tasks according to the kit was what I was looking forward to. Meaning, the teamwork score.


Edit: By the way, I am not trying to discredit Ecko. He did a fine job.

No offense taken
I agree totally that this is out of wack. Prehaps they need to show the points in team work action + nerf 'em a bit. Getting over 1000 points in a round is just *Silly* imho.

By defending he got a lot of points, by staying with his squad in the vcp he can get a lot of points, and at the end of the round he have a very high survival rating (k/d ratio) that adds a lot of points as well.

The teamwork 0 points is a bug that we are working on.

Getting 1000 points being "retard" is just a matter of perspective. And please chose your words better.

How about scraping the points and just give cookies ?

And if your in the winning team, you get a chocolate cookie.

In short, having your team win should be the principal objective, your ranking in the said team is secondary, you either all win or you all loose.

The 0 points in teamwork is a bug at the moment. In Ecko's case he would have had a lot more than 0 with that kind of playing.

And I swear, I'm banning the next person who slanders high scores without a valid explanation and good logic. Just not liking them doesn't cut it. Hell, you get like 500,000 points in Pac-man, a game where you eat dots.

*Deleted*

Never mind.

Look at it this way.
You have a website about video games, and you have to judge 3 games: vBF2, Project Reality and My Little Pony Adventures. Now if your web site judges games with rating 1-3 you would have to judge them like this
Project Reality - 3
vBF2 - 2
Pony shit - 1
From this judgment it looks like PR is sligtly better than vBF2 because you cant give vBF2 a rating of 1 (is not as **** as Pony). And if you had to put ArmA where were you put it? If its worse than PR than its the same as vBF2
But if you could judge them from 1-100 you could give PR a rating of 95, vBF2 a rating of 60 and Pony a rating of 12. Now you get a better sense of difference between PR and vBF2 and you have a gap of 35 ratings to place ArmA in. If you judge them with rating from 1-1000 you can be even more precise.
Thats the point of new "higher" scoring system
The bigger the numbers, the bigger the differece between players.

zeidmaan wrote:Look at it this way.
You have a website about video games, and you have to judge 3 games: vBF2, Project Reality and My Little Pony Adventures. Now if your web site judges games with rating 1-3 you would have to judge them like this
Project Reality - 3
vBF2 - 2
Pony shit - 1
From this judgment it looks like PR is sligtly better than vBF2 because you cant give vBF2 a rating of 1 (is not as **** as Pony). And if you had to put ArmA where were you put it? If its worse than PR than its the same as vBF2
But if you could judge them from 1-100 you could give PR a rating of 95, vBF2 a rating of 60 and Pony a rating of 12. Now you get a better sense of difference between PR and vBF2 and you have a gap of 35 ratings to place ArmA in. If you judge them with rating from 1-1000 you can be even more precise.
Thats the point of new "higher" scoring system
The bigger the numbers, the bigger the differece between players.

nice analogy

I guess I'm just too used to vanilla bf2 and bf2142. I promise too become a Devs personal jockey* for being so short sited.

*Only one dev may take up this offer, doesn't include anything that involves me moving

Ecko wrote:I guess I'm just too used to vanilla bf2 and bf2142. I promise too become a Devs personal jockey* for being so short sited.

*Only one dev may take up this offer, doesn't include anything that involves me moving

Stop, your making it worse.