Regarding the points system

[shadoworx]

A faction that only has a non-functional guard tower remaining and was forced on full defense for the final 15 minutes is declared the winner because...they have a bigger number?

It's these kind of results that devalue actually trying to win in an AOW match, because if you just hold down the fire button on a building to no effect, you will generate score like nobody's business.

But if you actually take down a building, that's one less point generating punching bag for your team, ironically making you worse off if you're unable to finish the job.

In this case, I took down the GDI power plant on my own, and put faith in the other 19 players to make some sort of attack that would culminate in a victory. Buildings did fall down, but the last five minutes were GDI stuck in their base.

So for cowering inside a defunct tower, GDI wins? How does one even define a win at this point?

If we've removed the silliness of stopping a nuclear missile when its 5 metres from impact, why have we not removed THIS silliness? A team that suffers losses so severe from an onslaught of weaponry cannot win in any possible reality.

Now my idea to rework the score is to grant the team that destroys a building a score multiplier for the rest of the match. Something small but noticeable, like x1.05 for each building or so. This would be applied to the team's total, rather than to everyone in the team. It's still possible for the enemy to win if by some chance they are vastly superior, but lost a building to someone emulating Solid Snake (the act of taking down a building alone and silently). I do not discount these kinds of games.

I am open to any change to the score system, so long as games like this are fairly evaluated beyond some arbitrary number that fails to account for it.

The "play marathon" argument doesn't account for the fact that I am a mortal and have a finite amount of time on this planet.

[yosh56]

I've seen this a lot, but I don't think changing the scoring system solves the issue you're presenting here. A lot of why GDI won that is sheer game mechanics and the Nod team basically throwing points at GDI. Naturally, when it's infantry vs. vehicles, infantry win points-wise. Killing a free infantry only offers you about 10 points, while infantry can get that many points just by shooting at an artillery for a second or two, not even destroying it.

Much of this comes down to players knowing how to mass, but not knowing what to really do with it. I personally played a game of GoldRush that was the opposite of this Nod just had an Obelisk and a Powerplant, while GDI had lost nothing. Nod won. The reason GDI lost is because they didn't ever pay attention to the number of points they were throwing away. 6 Mammoth rushes (Terribe idea from the start), focusing on buildings instead of systematically taking out the last of Nod's artillery nestled into the back of their base, AND using the most expensive, point-who're able units they could is why GDI lost. I was on this GDI team...I listened to them complain that we should have own, and I already had the list of reasons why Nod deserved the win for GDI's own stupidity.

Basically, people need to know the point system if they're going to play AOW. You don't necessarily need to point whore to win, but you do need to keep an eye on points, and reduce your enemy to the most basic of defenses before you foolishly rush at a single building. On top of that, rushing every 5 minutes makes your enemy camp even harder, meaning they'll just be ready to eat those points before you even get to their base.

As for the marathon comment... +10

[Action Hank]

I was in this game.

You may call it cowering, however we only had 2 tanks i believe. Nod could have won easily. I was 1 of those tanks. I was on the bridge in the middle, damaging and killing tanks left and right, yet pretty much noone payed attention to me.. I was alone with 1 repairing hottie. The rushes were not well thought out (from my perspective at least). To me nod was just throwing points at gdi, like Yosh said, you probably focussed on the wrong things and didnt weaken gdi in anyway.

Point system is not perfect, but the point farming problem should be solved by map design. If someone can camp a building completly safe, it is more a map problem than a pointsystem problem.

[Truxa]

on MESA II, you could plant an arty or 2 at the vehicle side-path so blast the AGT near it's base. On the other side (infantry path) you could put some sakura snipers which kill the enemy engineers through the open door.

AOW servers reward pointwhoring and yes, I dislike it, but you need to come up with tactics that undo them.

Flamerush to kill off remaining vehicles and 1k characters. Sniper cover to pick off freshspawns and/or repaircrew. Avoid nukes unless you can cover them.

Basically, people need to know the point system if they're going to play AOW. You don't necessarily need to point whore to win, but you do need to keep an eye on points, and reduce your enemy to the most basic of defenses before you foolishly rush at a single building. On top of that, rushing every 5 minutes makes your enemy camp even harder, meaning they'll just be ready to eat those points before you even get to their base.

Pointwhoring in the beginning might not be as bad. Just think about it, it's applying pressure to the enemy base, forcing to put resources in repairing. It means, their offensive capabilities deminish and as a result, your attack becomes stronger.

Point system is not perfect, but the point farming problem should be solved by map design. If someone can camp a building completly safe, it is more a map problem than a pointsystem problem.

But would you agree that on the Field map, the AGT entrance facing the base entrance is a bad idea. Especially if you consider that the Nod Obelisk is not the 1st building GDI encounters aswell as the entrance facing awaway from any entrance (be it main and tunnels)

[SFJake]

What I like is that there is a comeback factor in having less buildings and still being able to get points.

I frankly have absolutely no problem with this, simply because I hate the concept that once one of your building is down well, why not just end the game while we're at it? Haven't you lost already? Which isn't this game.

You already get a massive disadvantage by a lack of a building. So if the other team can't finish the job with that sort of advantage, they don't deserve a win. In fact, they might just deserve a loss.

Seems fitting to me.

[A-Rodge]

Points ought to be awarded by virtue of skill, teamwork, and taking objectives. Not point-whoring. Clicking on a building repeatedly is not an example of any of those. A sniper who works hard to pick off high-value targets should be rewarded more than a camping arty or MRLS.

Ye, to a point system rework.

[Handepsilon]

I wasn't in the game, but I think if repairing buildings does more point, that will encourage the attacker to strategize more rather than just bombing the building for points (much less bombing AGTs). Doesn't that make sense in 'tactical' shooters?

Besides, haven't you been on those Blizzard RTS missions where you have to survive for 30-45 minutes to win?

[yosh56]

You may call it cowering, however we only had 2 tanks i believe. Nod could have won easily. I was 1 of those tanks. I was on the bridge in the middle, damaging and killing tanks left and right, yet pretty much noone payed attention to me.. I was alone with 1 repairing hottie. The rushes were not well thought out (from my perspective at least). To me nod was just throwing points at gdi, like Yosh said, you probably focussed on the wrong things and didnt weaken gdi in anyway.

...weird, you were the guy in one of Nod's last artilleries in the Goldrush game I was referring to.

Again, it comes down to finishing an enemy. Of course when there's only one sole point of interest to defend it's going to get a lot harder to attack. They know where you're coming from and what you're coming for. If you don't break them down to their most basic of resources, and simply sit back and ignore what's killing you, then you've got other issues besides points.

I wasn't in the game, but I think if repairing buildings does more point, that will encourage the attacker to strategize more rather than just bombing the building for points (much less bombing AGTs). Doesn't that make sense in 'tactical' shooters?

This just encourages the hell out of camping, and defenders already have it easier. No need to make it easier AND be a game-winner just to sit back and repair.

Points ought to be awarded by virtue of skill, teamwork, and taking objectives. Not point-whoring. Clicking on a building repeatedly is not an example of any of those. A sniper who works hard to pick off high-value targets should be rewarded more than a camping arty or MRLS.

Ye, to a point system rework.

Agree that points should be rebalanced, as in a bit less for damaging buildings and more for infantry and vehicles, but in the end the primary objective is to destroy the enemy base: it should remain the highest value target. Also, a camping arty/MRLS is still sitting in the field, and they're actively forcing the enemy to divert their attention. There's more to sieges than point-whoring.

I won't lie that I like the idea of a multiplier for buildings destroyed though. Let there still be a chance for defence, but do take into account that the enemy was getting rofl-stomped.

[Action Hank]

...weird, you were the guy in one of Nod's last artilleries in the Goldrush game I was referring to.

I was referring to the OP. Should of made it more clear.

But the multiplier idea might be interessting, subtle but might help some unbalance in points.

Or maybe killing a building should also give points (or more points, not sure if you get points for the actual destruction.) Example like a 1000 points for a destroyed building. killing 4 would give a 4000 advantage, should be enough to get the upperhand, you can still win as defender if you manage points well.

[GatsuFox]

Getting point whored against means you're not winning. Every time I see a team with more points win is because they played better throughout the match.

Points seem fine to me. Although I do think that infantry should give more points on death, especially special classes.

Normal infantry are worth only 5 points.

[RoundShades]

I wouldn't mind, if points were different than credits and were balanced differently.

Idk how I feel about so many nuke disarm granting so many points.

In fact, final building destruction should grant a beacon disarm worth of points.

Then again, those are snowball mechanics, when losing a building is snowball enough.

[boxes]

The only problem with the point system right now, is the sandwich crushes.

If, lets say, you are in a stank, and you decide to crush a hottie standing right behind a mammy. If the hottie dies while being sandwiched directly between the mammy and your stank, you will be rewarded a TON of points. I once got 2000 from a downhill, speedy sandwich crush, when normally it's supposed to be ~50.

In one game in Islands, we were always losing the vehicle battles and got our buildings spammed to death as Nod. Time ran out eventually after we lost the Ref and Strip, but we still won with our HON and by defending nonstop. How? My stank crushes on advanced infantry standing next to objects, walls, or vehicles. I got nearly 10000 points, far more than anybody else on my team.

This works with any vehicle, and doesn't seem to work as well against free classes.

[yosh56]

The only problem with the point system right now, is the sandwich crushes.

If, lets say, you are in a stank, and you decide to crush a hottie standing right behind a mammy. If the hottie dies while being sandwiched directly between the mammy and your stank, you will be rewarded a TON of points. I once got 2000 from a downhill, speedy sandwich crush, when normally it's supposed to be ~50.

In one game in Islands, we were always losing the vehicle battles and got our buildings spammed to death as Nod. Time ran out eventually after we lost the Ref and Strip, but we still won with our HON and by defending nonstop. How? My stank crushes on advanced infantry standing next to objects, walls, or vehicles. I got nearly 10000 points, far more than anybody else on my team.

This works with any vehicle, and doesn't seem to work as well against free classes.

I feel like that should probably be its own glitch/bug topic...seriously that's game-breaking.

[Handepsilon]

The only problem with the point system right now, is the sandwich crushes.

If, lets say, you are in a stank, and you decide to crush a hottie standing right behind a mammy. If the hottie dies while being sandwiched directly between the mammy and your stank, you will be rewarded a TON of points. I once got 2000 from a downhill, speedy sandwich crush, when normally it's supposed to be ~50.

In one game in Islands, we were always losing the vehicle battles and got our buildings spammed to death as Nod. Time ran out eventually after we lost the Ref and Strip, but we still won with our HON and by defending nonstop. How? My stank crushes on advanced infantry standing next to objects, walls, or vehicles. I got nearly 10000 points, far more than anybody else on my team.

This works with any vehicle, and doesn't seem to work as well against free classes.

A bit off-topic

You're referring to UT3 'pancake' death. Interestingly it had its' own death image. Try to use aircraft and crush them by landing on them (don't run them over by sweeping on them, but actually land on them), and see if it rewards you with same amount of points

If it does, then they used an existing system in UDK