Throw us MP dogs a bone, please. (MP Scoring system proposition)

[19//Moach]

So, seeing the new wonders that are about to come for singleplayer fans, I can't help but to wonder, why are we old multiplayer folks getting neglected the way it inevitably seems....

 

I am not here to bitch about that, though - I'm not adept of overstating the woeful nature of problems, when I can offer ideas for solutions instead.

 

 

So here is my proposition for solving a few of the largest problems with MP we currently face.

 

Not technical problems, mind you. but behavioral ones.  These are bugs made more of man than of machine, but they CAN be corrected and that would make for a vastly more enjoyable game for all.

 

 

 

The problems with player behavior, are really just different sides of a same coin.  Vulching, Disposabombing, and even Overly Aggressive Pursuits are all phenomena which can be traced back to a common root cause:  Scoring

 

 

Multiplayer shooter games have long realized that player behavior is primarily governed by what actions are best for placing one atop the scoreboard.  

 

However, in the BoX series, it is clear that this concept has not been fully appreciated. Many servers go about promoting desirable conduct by way of sanctions.  TAW and Random Expert are the best examples of that.   The notion there is to remove a player's choice of plane when that plane is lost, and a series of other mechanics allow it to be regained.  Yet, this is often a very frustrating experience.

 

I often compare TAW to a football game in which every time a team scores a goal, a player is removed from the opponent. This is an inevitable and most unfun side-effect of sanction based multiplayer environments

 

 

The preferred server for this game, is certainly Wings of Liberty (WoL, for short) -In there, one finds no sanctions or any means of direct punishment for defeat.  It makes for a vastly more relaxing flight experience and also greatly lessens the impact of unbalanced teams (In TAW, it is wiser to stay off the server when teams are heavily uneven against you, lest you and your team become handicapped from the toll of being outnumbered. Sanctions are so severe that one's absence hurts a team considerably less than the consequences of taking on such unfavorable odds)

 

Alas, WoL has its own set of problems, without giving consequence to the loss of an aircraft, pilots quickly grow too eager for combat.  And start demonstrating unrealistic behavior, such as striking directly at enemy spawn bases (almost guaranteed certain death) and some will even take bomber flights that are one-way trips for more than just their explosive payload.   Since it is faster to respawn from a parachute than from a parked plane, many resort to Disposabombing: the practice of disposing of an aircraft rather than fly the long way back home after ammo is spent.

 

 

The realisation that players who do this get better acclaim from the game, as far as scoring is concerned, is one that leaves a sour taste in the mouths of anyone who takes the game more seriously.  This makes for a different kind of frustration, which is no less detrimental to the game than the excessively harsh sanctions for defeat of TAW

 

 

What then?  Is there another way?

 

I'm glad you asked!  Yes, there is.

 

 

What I propose is a new scoring system.  It is designed to promote player behaviors that make the game more realistic, more enjoyable, and even more fair for everyone in it. 

 

Please note that this has not been randomly thrown up at a whim, but has been thoughtfully devised, from hundreds of hours of keen observation of multiplayer behavior in this series, as well as in other games and is based off my university degree in Game Planning and Design. 

 

So let it be it clear that this is not whimsical random advice from a noisy player. 

 

This is how I would have it should I be the one whose career depends on the success of his flightsim series. 

 

 

Of course, the main concept of it is far more important than the pettier details, so there is room for adaptation and certainly for improvement as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scoring model for a WoL style server:

 

 

 

First, we must propose some new scoring elements to the scoreboard.  Primarily, the notion of "points" - These are given in tandem with kills and various other actions which merit reward.  The scoreboard must  default to sorting based on these, such that he who has the largest number of points will appear on top

 

 

 

 

Sortie Points:

 

These are given for things such as inflicting damage upon an enemy target.  However, these points are held as "Sortie Points" until completion of the current sortie.  

The mission results affect how these sortie points are accounted towards a player's overall tally.

 

 

Sortie points are secondary in sorting, the primary sorting factor is the player's overall points tally. 

 

The overall tally does not include sortie points. Only when a mission is completed these sortie points are converted to the overall tally. 

 

The transfer of sortie points to the overall tally is subject to mission results which determines a factor by which these points are multiplied.

 

 

Sortie Points are awarded as follows:

 

 

-  light A/C kill:   10pts;

- medium A/C kill:   15pts;

-  heavy A/C kill:   20pts;

 

- kill assist:       10pts;

 

- soft ground kill:  2pts;

- hard ground kill:  5pts;

- AAA/Flak    kill: 10pts; (s.e.a.d. runs must be rewarded, AAA is a bitch and removing it is dangerous brave work)

 

- minute of flight over defense target (10km range):    2pt;

- minute of flight near friendly ground attack A/C (escort) 1pt, 2pts over enemy territory, 5pts in range of targets;

 

These are just a starter set of scoring items which are to be held as "sortie points" until completion of the present flight.

 

 

 

 

 

Mission Results:  

 

 

Once a flight is ended, these sortie points are filtered through a score multiplier which is determined by mission results and is itself pre-multiplied by additional factors.

 

 

 

This is how Mission Multipliers are defined:

 

- returned to base, in service, no damage:   100%

- returned to base with damage:              100% + percent of damage suffered (returning with 100% damage will yield 200% sortie points)

- crash-landing in friendly territory:        50% + half of damage taken (50% + 50% for 100% damage taken = 100% sortie points)

- crash-landing in enemy territory:            0%

- bailed out in friendly territory:           50%

- bailed out in enemy territory                0%

- death:                                       0%, -50pts deducted straight from overall tally

 

 

Multipliers themselves are multiplied prior to filtering sortie points, the following actions alters such as follows:

 

- takeoff from runway:   multiplier *= 100%,   5pts bonus sent directly to overall tally;

- takeoff cross-country: multiplier *=  75%, -20pts deducted directly from overall tally;

- friendly fire*:        multiplier -= percent of damage dealt, to a minimum of zero;

 

 

* Friendly fire against ground targets should deduct only negative kill points from overall tally. One must not suffer further punishment for scratching a tank with shots fired against an enemy aircraft that was about to destroy it.  After all, war is hell....

 

 

 

 

Bonus Points:

 

Additional points must also be given for kills made under certain conditions. This is to encourage seeking out for the right foe, rather than just any kill.

 

These bonus points are not filtered through mission results and are sent directly to a player's overall tally

 

 

- killed enemy A/C in range (10km) of defense objective: 

          light: 10pts, 

         medium: 15pts,

          heavy: 20pts;

 

- killed enemy A/C in range of friendly attack aircraft: 

          light: 25pts (escort of attacker vs. fighter, most commendable)

         medium: 20pts (escort of attacker vs. non-dedicated fighter enemy) 

          heavy: 15pts (bomber attacked during escort, a less valorous feat, but worthy of some praise at least)

 

 

Now, this system of bonus points works both ways, as combat for personal glory alone can be very detrimental to the team, not to mention annoying for other players.

This kind of action must incur point penalties deducted directly from a player's overall tally

 

- Killed enemy A/C in range of enemy spawn airbase (vulching): -20pts

                

This is to ensure cowardly prowling for easy kills that add nothing to the efforts of the rest of the team does not yield a reward to he who seeks this vainest of glories.

 

Obviously however, this Vulching penalty must be selectable as a server option, as many a server may indeed feature spawns as actual targets.  In such a case, base attacks are simply part of the mission. Thus instead of a penalty, the kill near objective bonuses should apply.

 

 

 

 

 

There are other elements of scoring that may also contribute to addressing the "faults" of player behavior.  These so far, are the most important.

 

 

Another element I will suggest, is to implement scoring for streaks, yielding a higher sortie multiplier for every consecutive successful mission. 

 

This would be an additional source of reward to those who strive not just to kill, but to survive.

 

 

 

 

 

Yet, I must stress this point again, for it is of the utmost importance here:

 

No scoring matters if it is not visible IN the game.  When I say "the scoreboard" I mean specifically and only, the ingame scoreboard, the one that comes up when you press "tab"

 

 

 

If this were implemented externally, such as is featured in several servers at present, it would be of little to no good at all. 

 

The vast majority of players are not aware that external scoring systems even exist, let alone bother checking (which requires alt+tabbing) or care enough about them for it to bear any effect in their choice of actions while playing.

 

So this has to be implemented to the Ingame Scoreboard, for placing one's name atop the lists is a primary factor (even if subconsciously) which determines what actions a player chooses to take.  

 

 

 

Seeing one's name ranking highly amongst his peers is the lynchpin of multiplayer behavioral decision-making.  Players will always favour doing the things that most help place them higher.

 

 

Alas, if what places one higher is merely a raw kill count, than kills alone become the only thing that matter.

 

Thus players will do whatever it takes to get as many kills as they can in as little time possible.  Hence:  Vulching, Disposabombing, Kill-Stealing, Etc...

Edited October 17, 2017 by 19//Moach

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

How this more advanced scoring system would impact server /network performance ? I don't remember single mission where scoreboard not malfunction. agree I would like to see totally new scoring mechanisms ,what we have now is most simplistic and leaky which not encourage or prevent certain behaviors/other ways that could affect how we play.

[56RAF_Roblex]

I like most of it but there are a couple of points I would question.

 

1.  You give the same penalty, all sortie points lost,  for bailing out and crash landing in enemy territory and an additional penalty for dying.  The result of this is that nobody in their right mind will ever attempt to crash land when they can just bail out and anyone at any risk of being killed will bail out immediately.  If you are about to start your bombing run and an enemy fighter dives on you then the only sensible action under this points system is to bail out before he can open fire as he may put a bullet through your head with his first attack.     I  have always been in favour of rewarding those who at least attempt to crash land over those who always jump at the first sign of trouble.    Perhaps the full penalty of -100% should only be applied to those who bail in enemy territory without damage (cowardly & possibly disposabombing)) or if they crash land in enemy territory without damage ( sheer bad flying ;-) )  plus percentage back for amount of damage (never exceeding a total of 10% for bailing & 25% for ditching) so taking serious damage on your attack but still managing to get the plane down in a survivable manner could still net you 25% of your score.  NOTE:  the points back for damage taken before crash landing in either territory must somehow be based on damage before the crash landing as your proposed system rewards people limping home with minor damage then when they realise they must crash land, eg all engines dead, making a terrible landing to build up the damage points  :-)

 

2.  giving -10 points for killing a fighter in range of the enemy airbase penalises the escort for stopping the enemy from launching to kill the bombers.  If your escort sees 6 fighters launch as you attack an airfield then he will just let them kill you because the alternative is to lose 10 points for every fighter he kills. It also penalises the bomber pilots for hitting enemy aircraft while bombing an airfield or the gunner shooting any during the attack.  Perhaps penalties should only apply when someone RTBs without also destroying a ground target.  Sending fighters ahead to suppress AA and stop any launches before the bombers arrive is a valid tactic.

 

3.  The final point is the clincher. All this is fantastic..in Bizzaro World.   There is no way to apply most of these rules and, as mentioned by someone else,  rewriting the code to make it possible, as just one example,  to tell the difference between fighter v fighter & fighter defending bombers would probably have a big impact on CPU load.   I accept that sometimes it is nice to dream of 'What If?'  but now you need to give us a cut down version that is actually doable with the current code which is actually pretty poor in terms of supplying info you can use to make complicated rules.

Edited October 17, 2017 by 56RAF_Roblex

[19//Moach]

I like most of it but there are a couple of points I would question.

 

1.  You give the same penalty, all sortie points lost,  for bailing out and crash landing in enemy territory and an additional penalty for dying.  The result of this is that nobody in their right mind will ever attempt to crash land when they can just bail out and anyone at any risk of being killed will bail out immediately.  If you are about to start your bombing run and an enemy fighter dives on you then the only sensible action under this points system is to bail out before he can open fire as he may put a bullet through your head with his first attack.     I  have always been in favour of rewarding those who at least attempt to crash land over those who always jump at the first sign of trouble.    Perhaps the full penalty of -100% should only be applied to those who bail in enemy territory without damage (cowardly & possibly disposabombing)) or if they crash land in enemy territory without damage ( sheer bad flying ;-) )  plus percentage back for amount of damage (never exceeding a total of 10% for bailing & 25% for ditching) so taking serious damage on your attack but still managing to get the plane down in a survivable manner could still net you 25% of your score.  NOTE:  the points back for damage taken before crash landing in either territory must somehow be based on damage before the crash landing as your proposed system rewards people limping home with minor damage then when they realise they must crash land, eg all engines dead, making a terrible landing to build up the damage points  :-)

 

2.  giving -10 points for killing a fighter in range of the enemy airbase penalises the escort for stopping the enemy from launching to kill the bombers.  If your escort sees 6 fighters launch as you attack an airfield then he will just let them kill you because the alternative is to lose 10 points for every fighter he kills. It also penalises the bomber pilots for hitting enemy aircraft while bombing an airfield or the gunner shooting any during the attack.  Perhaps penalties should only apply when someone RTBs without also destroying a ground target.  Sending fighters ahead to suppress AA and stop any launches before the bombers arrive is a valid tactic.

 

3.  The final point is the clincher. All this is fantastic..in Bizzaro World.   There is no way to apply most of these rules and, as mentioned by someone else,  rewriting the code to make it possible, as just one example,  to tell the difference between fighter v fighter & fighter defending bombers would probably have a big impact on CPU load.   I accept that sometimes it is nice to dream of 'What If?'  but now you need to give us a cut down version that is actually doable with the current code which is actually pretty poor in terms of supplying info you can use to make complicated rules.

 

 

Some valid points there, yes.

 

The vulching penalty should be optional per server setting. This because some servers do make spawn bases valid targets.  Of course, in that case, the vulcher penalty should not be applied at all.

 

Also, it may well be that if friendly attack airplanes are nearby, and a target exists near the airfield, the vulching penalty can be discounted.  Anyways, even if it were removed completely, Vulching would still make for a far less attractive endeavor, as death would be very costly to one's score.  

 

 

About crash-landing vs. bailing out in enemy territory, it really makes no difference.  It's actually better in a strategic sense to bail out and have your plane destroyed, rather than allow it to be captured and reverse-engineered by the enemy.  In the game, there is no practical distinction, however.  Unlike in friendly territory, where a ditched plane may be salvaged,  behind the lines you'll either end up a PoW or a lucky escapee. In both cases, it is not likely you'd get to keep your airplane.  That is why I chose to treat the two scenarios equally.

 

 

As for performance, there is no reason why this would make for any noticeable impact.  Scoring calculations are so simple, compared to the amount of processing that goes into the simulation itself and rendering, more than anything else.   Scoring is such a faint trickle of bits and bytes that it's nigh on negligible in terms of performance. Unless someone's doing something really wrong with their code.

 

And about feasibility. Well, that is the very reason this thread is in the Suggestions board, isn't it?  It cannot be done by mission designers or server admins alone.  Developers must assist us with the implementation of a new, more comprehensive scoreboard.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Moach, what you describe is almost 1:1 present in Random Expert now.

 

On a side note, I'm a huge fan of their system for personal hangars and supply flights because a) pilots regularly did that during the war and b) flying, dear friends, is fun!

 

It also makes you think twice before going on a dumb mission, and gives you credit for landing that flying Swiss cheese after a rough day.

[56RAF_Roblex]

 

 

As for performance, there is no reason why this would make for any noticeable impact.  Scoring calculations are so simple, compared to the amount of processing that goes into the simulation itself and rendering, more than anything else.   Scoring is such a faint trickle of bits and bytes that it's nigh on negligible in terms of performance. Unless someone's doing something really wrong with their code.

 

I think you are getting confused by your own suggestion :-)    In order to decide whether that fighter you shot down was killed while you were defending a bomber or done after you abandoned the bombers to go have some fun and glory (as usually happened in real life) then you need to constantly keep track of how far you are from the nearest friendly bomber. That has to happen for every plane on the server because even if you took off looking for a dogfight you might end up helping a bomber.   The only plane you could exclude is the He111 and A20 as all the others were designed to be used as fighters as well as bombers.    That is a lot of processing.

[56RAF_Roblex]

If it *was* possible to easily tell that you were with a particular group of bombers, I would suggest a much more radical scoring system - All the fighters points are linked to the performance & survival of the bombers. No points to be scored if all you are doing is looking for a dogfight  :-)

 

Perhaps it could even be done without knowing where the bombers are.  What you need is a system where a bomber or strike aircraft or even a fighter can declare it is attacking a particular ground target and add other pilots to the mission whether they be more bombers or more fighters.  Points are awarded for ground targets destroyed and a percentage deducted for each aircraft that did not RTB and maybe a lower deduction for aircraft that crash landed in friendly territory.

As an example, two PE2s want to attack a German depot and they add in two fighters for escort.   The bombers manage to destroy ground targets totalling 80 points but one of the PE2s has to crash land not long before getting home.  Each pilot is allocated the same points ie 80 for the targets minus 25% for only three of the four getting home so each pilot gets 60/3 = 20 points.  The pilot that ditched gets half that , ie 10 to discourage people crash landing unless they really have to. Any enemy fighters shot down get added to the total mission score but escorts must be careful not to lose the bombers while chasing enemy fighters because then they lose a large chunk of the total score.  Same goes for fighters keeping each other alive.  Fighters can of course also increase the mission pot by taking out ground targets.     

The question now is how do you reward fighters defending a target?  A set amount for staying near a target for 20 minutes and deductions for damage done?   What if they declare they are defending a factory and see the enemy attack a nearby undefended airfield or they are taking off to defend a factory when they see enemies attacking their own airfield?  Maybe the reward for shooting down an enemy is more than the reward for defending the chosen target in which case it is an easy decision.  That also means that defending your target *and* shooting down planes attacking your target gives extra rewards.  A fighter pilot could of course declare he is defending a rear target then go off in the opposite direction looking for enemy kills and with no code to say how far he is from his chosen target the game wont know and he will be rewarded after 20 minutes for doing nothing.  He does of course run the risk that the rear target will get badly hit while nobody is defending it.  Perhaps increase the time to 30 minutes and allow as many RTBs & re-launches as they want in that time.

[xvii-Dietrich]

On a side note, I'm a huge fan of their system for personal hangars and supply flights because a) pilots regularly did that during the war and b) flying, dear friends, is fun!

 

 

So, if we are talking logistics, then I'll add the following scoring suggestions into the mix. As far as I am aware there is not a single multiplayer server that has individual scoring for transport, supply and logistics. (if I'm wrong, please tell me!)

 

 

 

• Cargo delivered to destination
• Canisters landed onto target
• Paratroops into dropzone
• Recon photos returned
• Medical evacuations
• Rescued aircrews

 

ref: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/26840-junkers-52-dc3-fan-club/?p=519870

 

 

I concede it may not make sense for a furball server like WoL, but no doubt other server implementors will read and digest Moach's suggestions in the original post. And anything that incorporates a more holistic scoring system rewarding all parts of the war effort will encourage a more authentic form of flying, consistent with historical records.

 

[Lusekofte]

To me it seems like you want the less stress feeling of WOL and yet want it regulated to be a server with stress. 

I think this game was designed to be a online game, in order to make it useful for Single player a maximum effort was needed hence the work done for Single player audience. There is no neglect of multi player audience.

I like your idea, but as mentioned before there are servers looking very similar to what you want to achieve.

This reminds me of all those suggesting Random expert to have GPS map, Because they do not want to spend time navigating. They want those not wanting GPS to migrate to another server, so they can play with GPS map

I like your ideas tho, but you will find that WOL server is what WT minded players want, they want a 10 minute intence fight , they do not want to be punnished for taking off cross the runway and hit a mate taking off in the runway. So you will be stuck with people normally flying on TAW and Random Expert

Edited October 17, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[19//Moach]

Focus here, guys...  This is not a thread about setting up a new server with better rules.

 

We are here to ask devs. to improve upon the ingame scoring system.  All servers may benefit from such new features.

 

 

WoL especially, even without any changes to it's missions and rules,  would most certainly see a great improvement in emergent player behaviors.  Players base their decisions on their understanding of what "winning is all about".  Currently, "winning" is about getting the most kills, for that is what puts a player above others.

 

With a more comprehensive scoring system, such as proposed here, undesirable practices such as vulching can be removed without the need for complex logistic simulation and intricate fleet mechanics. Interesting though they may be, these elaborate designs go a very long way around to suppress symptoms of a simpler issue.

 

This proposition is made as to fundamentally alter what some have called "what a certain kind of players want".  It is not that some players are bad and so they vulch.  These players are only doing what the game challenges them to do. Since there is no tangible reward or even mere acknowledgement to the value of returning to base, it is only natural many would decide that it does not matter if one returns alive or not.  

 

I strongly believe there is no such thing as "WT minded players", whom engage in such unpopular behavior due to their immature or less dedicated nature.  There are only players who are less adept of role-playing. For that is the nature of players who actually bother doing things (like landing) which are summarily disregarded by the game.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

 

 

We are here to ask devs. to improve upon the ingame scoring system. All servers may benefit from such new features.

 

This where I respectfully disagree on the raison d'être of the suggestion. Thanks to the experience the developers have in running servers (many of them were the masterminds of the most popular online air war in the old Il-2), this whole thing is left extremely flexible. There is a very bare bones scoring system in-game when you press Tab (air victories, ground targets destroyed, deaths) which states some factual information which is relevant to all servers. Attributing value to those numbers is down to interpretation but whether you are flying your third sortie on Friday Night Bomber Flights or having a flare gun pistols duel in Berloga with your mate, you can always tell how many times you have killed and been killed.

 

The owners of the servers are provided with very complete information (most of which is irrelevant to the average player) which they can use at their discretion to do a lot of things, having in mind the audience of their servers. Based on the average desires of flight simmers, Vaal from the developer's team created a simple web client that gives a little more information strictly on the combat numbers of players. This is used by most but not all servers and caters for the wide majority of players. Going forwards, having in mind those with a taste for something spicier, the owners of some servers have used the data they have to create real-time dynamic campaigns - each has their own focus and approach, but all are equally interesting. What coconut, Random Expert, TAW and the Finnish server have achieved is amazing. On the personal stats front, I am only closely familiar with the Random Expert system but they have an extremely well-detailed system. I could go on into a lot of detail but go check that out, I put a few hours into translating it already  http://il2expert.ru/en/stats/Stats_Info

 

Basically the Random Expert system rewards the type of players they consider closer to the ideology of the server. Wings of Liberty does that too, but factually part of their target audience is a little rowdy. That's a decision from the server owners, and not an issue for the developers if that makes sense

[19//Moach]

You're missing the point - I'm well aware that the game tracks all manner of relevant information about scoring. And it does make that available for server admins, which is great and all....

 

....But...

 

There are no means of any kind by which this extended scoring data can be viewed by players without leaving the game.   That renders it all practically moot.  

 

 

 

Thus the reason for this proposition.  The point is not to add a million things to scoring just for the sake of having them scored.  The most important part of it, is that points should be given, and they must be easily viewed from inside the game.  

 

Servers may select any combination of factors that govern how these points are earned. Yet it is fundamental that they can be checked by simply pressing TAB.  

 

That is the one big thing that no amount of server logic can overcome. 

 

 

To sum up the entire thread in one line:

 

We need points showing on the TAB scoreboard.

 

 

Grant us that, and everything else becomes possible.

Edited October 17, 2017 by 19//Moach

[SeaW0lf]

We need points showing on the TAB scoreboard.

 

But that's a way simpler proposition, and a fair one. ROF shows points, so I don't know why our scoreboard is so bare. The other day I learned that we can't scroll the chat window, and there is the netcode and that sort of thing. Just a bone might not be enough 

 

But what Lucas_From_Hell is saying is also important. It is up to the servers to come up with their scoring sistem and not to force a particular view from one individual to everyone. Because then a co-op player will certainly screw the fun of a furball player that from his part will screw the fun of a full real player and so on.

[19//Moach]

(...)

But what Lucas_From_Hell is saying is also important. It is up to the servers to come up with their scoring sistem and not to force a particular view from one individual to everyone. Because then a co-op player will certainly screw the fun of a furball player that from his part will screw the fun of a full real player and so on.

 

Oh, far be it from here that any new scoring should be anything if not as optional and flexible as it can be had.

 

I may have neglected to point it out, however. So obvious this was to me that I very well took it for granted, and so forgot to mention it. 

 

 

 

But it does bear saying outright, for sure:

 

 

This proposal for a new comprehensive scoring model is shown here as an example set of options meant for a WoL  style server.

 

That is not to be taken as the only possible configuration. An ideal scoring system should be as flexible as it is thorough.

Every element of scoring that can be made a server option, should be made a server option.

 

 

In case of a server such as Berloga for instance, the notion of flying full sorties does not apply.  Obviously then, such a server would choose to disable many of the scoring elements which do not fit the premise of a fast-paced never-ending furball. 

 

Berloga would instead benefit far more from a larger payout setting to Streak Multipliers.  With each consecutive kill yielding a higher amount of points, resetting upon defeat, It would add a huge deal of reward for victories claimed whilst also introducing an element of hazard and caution. For an aspiring streak runner is a pilot who has something to lose.

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I had assumed this was so obvious it did not even need pointing out.  But there you have it:  Everything mentioned here must be optional by server setting, of course.

Edited October 18, 2017 by 19//Moach

[BubiHUN]

Moach, what you describe is almost 1:1 present in Random Expert now.

 

On a side note, I'm a huge fan of their system for personal hangars and supply flights because a) pilots regularly did that during the war and b) flying, dear friends, is fun!

 

It also makes you think twice before going on a dumb mission, and gives you credit for landing that flying Swiss cheese after a rough day.

thats true.

[ZachariasX]

Why is vulching so frowned upon in MP? Just ´cos it is „unfair“? You’re not given a chance? Like TS guys give loners?

 

Vulching was the bread and butter job for the Lufties at the beginning of the war, later on the Tempests did hardly much more besides trashing trains. Heck, even the P-51 had to do it as more often than not, that is where they found things to break as the Lufties got less and less eager to run into 500+ of them when going at a similar or higher number of bombers while only bringing a handful of planes to the party.

 

A famous Canadian story teller even got a VC for „vulching“ in the previous war.

 

Vulching is fine. Getting vulched is great, as you don‘t need to fly a long time to get shot down. Flak helps you spotting and peeps on TS have little advantage over you if you are not on the radio. You can hardly have more instant action.

 

Besides, vulching is suicidal. If you feel that war is bad for you and you‘re more into shooting peeps in the back, just wait one minute for spawning. Then all clear.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I won't mind attacking enemy airfields - and call it raid, especially in organized group. After action everybody RTB.

[56RAF_Roblex]

 

 

 I could go on into a lot of detail but go check that out, I put a few hours into translating it already  http://il2expert.ru/en/stats/Stats_Info

 

 

Wow. That is pretty much exactly what I have been looking for in a stats system plus a few things I did not dare to consider possible.   I may be changing which server I fly on :-)

[Aap]

I think majority of these ideas are in use in practice already. For example, you don't get any points, if you get killed and you get reduced points if you bail out or crash land in friendly territory etc. 

Many people don't care much about the scores, so if you want to change their behaviour, it shouldbe something that is felt in the game for real. Like respawn countdown timer. if you die - have to wait 8 minutes before respawn. Bailout over friendly territory - 4 minutes. Crash landing - 2 minutes. So it would encourange taking the plane home, so you can fly another sortie immediately.

About vulching, which is a legitimate WWII tactics in my opinion, adding more flak is the way to go. So if the vulcher gets shot down before he gets  a chance to shoot at spawning enemy and has to wait for 8 minutes because he died, it would lower his desire to take risks.

About taking off over terrain - placing objects in front of spawn areas and around airfield would encourage people to use runways instead of risking death and 8 minute waiting time. 

[56RAF_Roblex]

.

About taking off over terrain - placing objects in front of spawn areas and around airfield would encourage people to use runways instead of risking death and 8 minute waiting time. 

 

How do we stop twats who take off or land in the wrong direction without looking?   I wonder if it is possible to have an invisible (or shown by a ground flare) trigger point at the correct end of the runway?   Taking off or landing without coming within 3 metres of the trigger point causes a loss of points (when landing must be still above the ground?) *unless* you are landing with serious damage and lights on .  Alternatively you get bonus points for doing it right and people who have to land the wrong way because of damage just accept that they are lucky they got back to the runway alive.   Either method also discourages taking off across the field without having to add lots of extra objects which can affect frame rates.

Edited October 18, 2017 by 56RAF_Roblex

[ZachariasX]

Seeing one's name ranking highly amongst his peers is the lynchpin of multiplayer behavioral decision-making. Players will always favour doing the things that most help place them higher.

 

Going through your scoring system again, I think what one can take from it is the conclusion to score such that the effort of an individual toward the whole war/mission/campaign is metered and reflected.

 

The problem with your system is the following: It is in itself contradicting. And we're not playing chess here. This is war after all.

 

With your system, you encourage nothing but vulching (that is definitely the way to get max. score) that you hate and see it as "bad" behavior, even though it was common practice, when instead you could give an arbitrary penalty for bombing places/houses that house civilians ("women and children"), as maybe you shouldn't really bomb them, (even though in the real world this always was and is common practice as it might help you achieving your ulterior goals). So, you are forcing your concept of "bad" onto others when in fact that kind of "bad" is deabtable and arbitary.

 

To encourage "bad" behavior only to sanction it afterwards, this is recipe for disaster, especially when you can easily solve the "vulching question" as the Germans did back then, by just putting a lot of Flak there to cover the whole pattern as well. You get 50+ artillery pieces there, you will not have vulching. That is very easy for a mission designer. If he however chooses to let players to spawn from an improvised grass strip with little protection, you get what you get.

 

Disposabombing (how funny, first time I heard that) can be solved by just not counting scores/victories of sorties where you are captured or killed to a streak on the official scoreboard of the server. On their personal stats, they surely can have those kills.

 

Air kills are perhaps THE highest motivator in the game to keep things going. Entirely only reflecting "team effort" (as the Japanese did in the war and fared badly with) also promotes a lot of parasitic behavior. Most notably an overly defensive behavior, and, as perfect radio communication is present, you can always be there too to help mopping up. There is absolutely no incentive to join the "weak" side in an asymmetrically populated server. If it is 2:1, you will not be able to do well with your counting system as most of what is counted in your system is more than unrealistic to achieve.

 

I think there should be two kind of rewards, an "official one", reflecting the players contribution to the whole campaign and a personal one, showing your air kills. All you need to do is set them side by side in the scoreboard. It will probably be a nice illustration how a pack of Hartmanns can easily lose the war.

 

Also keep in mind that to many the whole game works out as you can blow up stuff as well. People want to do that. And many will just to that given the oportunity. And you have to let them. WoL is not populated only by boyscouts. Putting up a sactioning system to punish everyone but the boyscouts will give you a rather lonely server right away.

 

The only parasitic behavior we commonly have online (besides spamming the chat) is intentional friendly fire. You have the "ban" function for this.

 

For the sake of gameplay, a scoring system should be such that it encourages to join the side with lower player count. Your proposed system clearly doesn't do that.

 

 

if you die - have to wait 8 minutes before respawn.

That guy will leave the server.

Edited October 18, 2017 by ZachariasX

[Aap]

 

 

That guy will leave the server.

 

Possibly. Then next time, when he wants to play again, he would value his vrtual life more. Okay, maybe 8 minutes is too long time for a casual type of server, but if the goal is to make people care more about their virtual lives, then something like that is the way to go. We already have a scoring system that gives zero points to pilot, if he gets killed, so what change in the behaviour is expected by updating it to another system that again gives zero points to pilot, if he gets killed?

 

 

Disposabombing (how funny, first time I heard that) can be solved by just not counting scores/victories of sorties where you are captured or killed to a streak on the official scoreboard of the server.

 

That is how it is already. 

[ZachariasX]

Possibly. Then next time, when he wants to play again, he would value his vrtual life more. Okay, maybe 8 minutes is too long time for a casual type of server, but if the goal is to make people care more about their virtual lives, then something like that is the way to go. We already have a scoring system that gives zero points to pilot, if he gets killed, so what change in the behaviour is expected by updating it to another system that again gives zero points to pilot, if he gets killed?

If people care little about their virtual life, then that is how it is.

 

I think people throw away their arcraft because they just don't want to "just fly" (too boring or whatever), they just want fast food dogfight. Air combat. If you are like that, you don't even care about stats. Or points. Making the available planes a more scarce commodity will also not help, as the "fast food players" will just use up all aircraft and then leave as well. Although they might act as "immoral" to some players, they don't necessarily hurt the game. At least they are present as long as they have ammo. The other option is not having them at all.

 

That is how it is already.

All the better then!

 

I think the main problem is to create missions that allow for an as diverse play mode as possible. "We" have to make sure that a lot of servers get populated. Well, if "we" is interested in having populated servers in the first place. The catch is now how you can cater for the different gaming styles without those styles interfere with each other.

 

It is not that for instance Kamikaze style is detrimental per se. It is detrimental to the game if that happes to be a sucessful strategy to ruin the oponents gameplay in a way not desired by the mission designer. Other than that, it can just be a creative way to conduct asymmetrical warfare. Remember, Kamikazes were a strategy used by one of the most rigidly organized armies that you can have. But if someone just wants to take off and waste his aircraft (whenever I take off in WoL, that is what it comes down to bottom line, no matter what I try) you cannot prevent that. But you can prevent it having an impact on the gameplay.

 

You cannot and should not force too much conformism on the player. The more you do that, the smaller your (already meagre) player base will get.

 

What you should do is encourage certain strategies in order to be successful. You do that by proper mission design. That is how you can also take care of vulching etc. should you consider that not kosher.

 

Incentives always work. If you reward "positive" behavior, most will play along these lines. If you only punish "false" behaviour, you will just ban more people with increasing requirement of conformism. (In the real world, that is a fantastic way to fill your prisons.)

[Aap]

My point was that if you want to get rid of "disposabombing" or "fast food" approach then you should set something up that actually has impact on it. Replacing a point system where you get zero points for dying with a point system where you get zero points for dying just does not give any incentives to people that did not care about getting zero points for dying in the original system. I am not saying that WoL should have such a system, just pointing out the impact of such actions. 

We actually have servers out there for different flavors - Berloga for instant action dogfight, WoL for more meaningful missions, but still casual action, TAW or Random Expert for more hardcore approach and other less populated servers with other flavors. Only thing that is missing (but hopefully coming at some point) is a coordinated and commanded SEOW style multiplayer campaigns.

[GridiroN]

I think the solution is easier. We just need two changes to WoL:

 

1) plane are given out in bad fashion. Every map just hands people a million of every plane so people fly hyper aggressively. Lately people in advantageous have been charging me head on just to try to get a 50/50 kill. Like why would you ever do that? Because his plane is worth nothing. He has 100 more F4s at his AF. Instead of giving a team 40 109F4s they should get like 20 or 15: 1 for each appx player. On Kuban maps, the Luftwaffe should be forced to use G4s or something Etc. Just to make it so the team isn't flooded with all the best planes.

 

Or go to a TAW method where each player has a hanger of planes and how they use them is up to them.

 

2) scores should be awarded for assists. I know the server keeps track of this of the scoreboard doesn't. People would be more easily sated to fly defensively if their score was say 5 from all their assists instead of 1 and they're desperate to make it 2.

 

With these two changes, it requires little work and if someone wants to act in a way that puts their desired plane in danger it's on them. Go ahead, vulch my AF bro. Have fun being forced to use LaGGs all game.

Edited October 18, 2017 by GridiroN

[19//Moach]

The flood of "best planes" is really a mission designer's very own fault. 

 

Of course, if a team is handed a fleet of F/A-22's they're not likely to waive them off just for the sake of it not becoming too easy.

 

Mission designers should be wary of this pattern of abuse, and allow only as many of the more advanced types as they are willing to encounter all at once.

 

 

 

Scoring assists would go a long way into reducing "mine! mine! mine!" style behavior too.  People often become quite aggravated when their kills are "stolen", and with fair reason. Kills are basically the only form of legitimate recognition the game offers.  

 

Even if stats are tracked all comprehensively by external systems, these stats serve only as fodder for personal vanities. They produce no change in player behavior towards more authentic flying.  Most simply because:  one cannot see it during play.   It may as well not exist.

 

 

The only way to affect player behavior ingame (without forcing them), is to alter the way players perceive their own standing relative to "winning".  And that requires that kills be made a secondary count in the scoreboard, with sorting priority given to points. 

 

Players still reserve their right to not give a shit, anyways - yet that leads to another interesting point...

 

 

More "casual", non-shit-giving players (WT-minded, or whatever they're called) are often blamed for it, but in truth, are NOT actually the group of individuals most adept of unrealistic one-way flights.

 

Much the contrary. On closer observation, you'll find that the players doing a fair share of the Vulching, Prowling, and Disposabombing (especially disposabombing) are actually individuals who are quite dedicated to their game. 

 

They often boast plentiful stats pages, listing kill upon kill in a wealth of proud abundance.  These achievements mostly hoarded by means of doing away with the "inconvenient parts" of their missions.

 

These are not players of "casual" or "carefree" mentality.   The most competitive among us particularly are the most driven by the thrills of "leading the pack".  And seeing their names next to a number far higher than that of their peers gives them the joys of victory.   They do what it takes to earn it and unhesitantly waive off anything else that "doesn't matter"

 

These are the players who play to win.  It is part of their nature to compete. So they do, very well indeed, give many shits.

 

 

 

If the game were to demote "kill count" to a secondary importance when ranking victories, then a new set of priorities -more enjoyable ones, mind you that- would emerge for these same players (and for everyone else as well) - While the hungry heroes may continue having eyes only for their names atop the lists, their subtlest of choices would be different to get there. 

 

This is how the very rationale that leads to unfavorable player dynamics can be mitigated, and frustrating methods replaced with vastly more engaging, authentic, team-mindful airmanship.

 

 

 

 

Basically, it all starts with a proposition as simple sounding as it is laden with deep, indirect repercussions:

 

 

Please, let the Ingame Scoreboard show rankings sorted by total points,  rather than mere count of kills.

 

 

This will allow server keepers and mission makers the means to promote authentic flying and good teamsmanship simply by rewarding desirable actions, removing the need for sanctions and penalties while allowing maximum freedom of choice to players.

Edited October 18, 2017 by 19//Moach

[56RAF_Roblex]

 

 

Lately people in advantageous have been charging me head on just to try to get a 50/50 kill. Like why would you ever do that? Because his plane is worth nothing. 

 

Exactly.   I questioned once why a pilot with the same GK tally as me but twice as many deaths and twice as many lost aircraft had a much higher score.  The answer was that although it had taken 30 minutes longer he had one more air kill than me (6 to my 5) which pushed up his AK per hour component of the total score.  The corollary of this is that if I had  gone up and managed to find an enemy plane and rammed it within 30 minutes I would jump up several ranks whether I died or not because I would have more kills per hour.  This is the score system used by most of the servers.

Edited October 19, 2017 by 56RAF_Roblex

[ZachariasX]

You think that pilots back then were not influenced by their „stats“?

[19//Moach]

They totally were... Some might suggest it did Germany very little good for their war effort too.

 

German pilots were supposedly of a mentality not unlike knightly champions of old.  Their war was something of a quest for valorous glory.  This was so to such an extent that it had a negative impact in overall performance for the LW as a team.

 

 

This happens very similarly ingame.  And for some reason (many reasons, really) it's more common in the blue team. 

 

Personal glory is often put before the greater good of the team. The results of that behavioral tendency can be seen on the main page of the WoL stats website, made obvious by the "missions won by each team" balance indicator.

 

 

 

Points would make it possible to give additional score to kills made in proximity of friendly aircraft and mission objectives.  With a well tuned amount of bonuses like this, we would then see team-minded pilots ranking higher in the charts with more overall points, even with less kills than their lone-wolfing peers. 

 

 

A lesson from another game:

 

 

This happens a lot in Red Orchestra 2:  squad leaders doing their job well (not dying) most often make the very top of the board, with 1~2 kills counted, and below them, riflemen claiming dozens of kills follow with less total points to their credit.    

 

RO2 sets a lesson in scoring system design for all to heed.  He who helps his team to victory is given the most praise, while the lone-hunting virtuosos more than not end up playing second fiddle on the ranks. 

 

Experienced RO2 players are often most adept of pressuring their team for cooperation and teamwork. Not always they get their way, of course. Some noobs are adamant about remaining noobs in defiance of any wisdom offered...   

 

Elsewise, for example: when playing as machine-gunner, one is surprisingly treated to a teammate bringing him an ammunition resupply without even having to ask.  The game gives 5 free points for resupplying a gunner. Kills outside capture areas are worth only 1.

 

So it is clearly evident that experienced RO2 players have learned what is required of them for claiming victory and having their names show for it.  In no small part, this has been taught them by the game's clever scoring features.

 

 

 

But again. It only works in RO2 because the scoreboard shows all this information very clearly during play. 

 

It's most unlikely this would have worked as well, had they relied on a scoring system as uninformative as the one in this series. I guarantee you.

 

 

 

Most vexing of all... Our game DOES keep track of most things required to grant this.  Yet visible during the course of a match: only kills. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by 19//Moach

[GridiroN]

The flood of "best planes" is really a mission designer's very own fault.

 

Of course, if a team is handed a fleet of F/A-22's they're not likely to waive them off just for the sake of it not becoming too easy.

 

Mission designers should be wary of this pattern of abuse, and allow only as many of the more advanced types as they are willing to encounter all at once.

 

 

 

Scoring assists would go a long way into reducing "mine! mine! mine!" style behavior too. People often become quite aggravated when their kills are "stolen", and with fair reason. Kills are basically the only form of legitimate recognition the game offers.

 

Even if stats are tracked all comprehensively by external systems, these stats serve only as fodder for personal vanities. They produce no change in player behavior towards more authentic flying. Most simply because: one cannot see it during play. It may as well not exist.

 

 

The only way to affect player behavior ingame (without forcing them), is to alter the way players perceive their own standing relative to "winning". And that requires that kills be made a secondary count in the scoreboard, with sorting priority given to points.

 

Players still reserve their right to not give a shit, anyways - yet that leads to another interesting point...

 

 

More "casual", non-shit-giving players (WT-minded, or whatever they're called) are often blamed for it, but in truth, are NOT actually the group of individuals most adept of unrealistic one-way flights.

 

Much the contrary. On closer observation, you'll find that the players doing a fair share of the Vulching, Prowling, and Disposabombing (especially disposabombing) are actually individuals who are quite dedicated to their game.

 

They often boast plentiful stats pages, listing kill upon kill in a wealth of proud abundance. These achievements mostly hoarded by means of doing away with the "inconvenient parts" of their missions.

 

These are not players of "casual" or "carefree" mentality. The most competitive among us particularly are the most driven by the thrills of "leading the pack". And seeing their names next to a number far higher than that of their peers gives them the joys of victory. They do what it takes to earn it and unhesitantly waive off anything else that "doesn't matter"

 

These are the players who play to win. It is part of their nature to compete. So they do, very well indeed, give many shits.

 

 

 

If the game were to demote "kill count" to a secondary importance when ranking victories, then a new set of priorities -more enjoyable ones, mind you that- would emerge for these same players (and for everyone else as well) - While the hungry heroes may continue having eyes only for their names atop the lists, their subtlest of choices would be different to get there.

 

This is how the very rationale that leads to unfavorable player dynamics can be mitigated, and frustrating methods replaced with vastly more engaging, authentic, team-mindful airmanship.

 

 

 

 

Basically, it all starts with a proposition as simple sounding as it is laden with deep, indirect repercussions:

 

 

Please, let the Ingame Scoreboard show rankings sorted by total points, rather than mere count of kills.

 

 

This will allow server keepers and mission makers the means to promote authentic flying and good teamsmanship simply by rewarding desirable actions, removing the need for sanctions and penalties while allowing maximum freedom of choice to players.

You could instead do a Red Orchestra style scoring system where points are awarded for being in the proximity to an objective and doing damage towards an objective. For eg. Shooting down a plane over your objective could count for 2x more than shooting down a plane over his own airfield.

 

Players with only 1 kill could theoretically still be higher on the scoreboard than a guy with 10 but who was screwing around.

Edited October 19, 2017 by GridiroN

[ZachariasX]

I‘d say, to many, there is no score like scoring an aircraft. The Germans back then were painfully aware of the sporty mentality of most of their aircrews (at least in the minority that could actually make real use uf their rides).

 

They introduced a point system. 1 engine AC (1 mot.) equals one point, twin engine 2 points, 4 engines 4 points. One way of saying „it would be really nice if you shot some bombers too.“. They even gave 3 points for the „Herausschuss“ (the crippling of a bomber, forcing him to leave the protection of the formation). Well, they still put marks per AC on their tails. not points. This tells you what they thought of that point system.

 

In the game, it is the same. Lots of folks are just here to score aircraft. Usually, they have a fetish for the most powerful variant as it makes scoring easier.

 

Then again, you have people that also like to fly. They also use the dogs. Fly supply missions n the Ju52.

 

It is nice if you have a scoring system on a server that allows you to datamine the (often obvious) attitude of the player. But ut is even better if you create missions such that different play styles can coexist.

 

And if the Hartmanns lose the war... well, poor them.

[Cloyd]

So, seeing the new wonders that are about to come for singleplayer fans, I can't help but to wonder, why are we old multiplayer folks getting neglected the way it inevitably seems....[snip]

 

This is a laughable concept, since we SP guys have yet to see any of these "new wonders", and the whole series from its inception has been exclusively focused on MP.

[A_radek]

This is a laughable concept, since we SP guys have yet to see any of these "new wonders", and the whole series from its inception has been exclusively focused on MP.

Don't think this has been intentional Cloyd. The MP part has been as rudimentary as it is for a long time. Creating those new wonders for SP just takes time and has been a lower priority than other addons/improvements. They are definitely on the way. 

 

Worked as a gamedev for 15 years and while the statistics I remember are now years old, for most games SP numbers far surpassed MP.  SP quality always translated directly to initial sales numbers and those are crucial as the next big game is always around the corner. Building an online MP community was good for lifespan of the games sales. We can only guess how MP/SP number are divided in BoX but I'm sure they are prioritizing accordingly. And as this game is still very much in development one will feed the other.

Edited October 20, 2017 by a_radek