Leaderboard Proposal..

[s1rdwp9h]

In the following I shall describe a proposal, aimed towards a more simplified, easier and accurate leaderboard and in game scoring system in Renegade-X.

We may consider scoring in the game recorded as RenX points. A RenX point could consist of 1 VP and 1 in-game-score-point. Alternatively, a RenX point could consist of 1 VP and 2 in-game-score-points. The exact numbers will necessitate fine-tuning, in order to achieve a correct balance.

The following are alternative calculation formulas for the Score Screen’s awards:

 

·         MVP title should be granted to the player with the most RenX points

·         BEST OFFENSE should = the most RenX points scored in the enemy half of the map (closer to the enemy base than the allied base)

·         BEST DEFENSE should = most RenX points scored in your teams half of the map (closer to the allied base than the enemy base)

·         BEST SUPPORT should be granted for the player who has the most RenX points scored from repairing

 

Switching teams should be registered as a defeat on the leaderboard (no swapping in order to improve one’s Win-Loss-Ratio).

Rage quits should be counted on the leaderboard (player quits the server when their team recently lost a building).

AFK kicks should be counted on the leaderboard.

More enemy players = more of a challenge. This should reward the player more (bonus RenX point(s) as taking on 20+ enemy players is a lot harder than taking on a handful). I would suggest the use of a multiplier, tied to the enemy team size on the server.

Score achieved on bot only servers should not add to the leaderboard. Kills and damage vs bots should not add to the leaderboard.

Suggestion: more than 3 human players required before leaderboard logging occurs?

The leaderboard would naturally need a reset, should the changes described above be utilized e.g. a function to balance in game teams.

Edited December 19, 2017 by s1rdwp9h

[boxes]

Disagree about MVP being the one with most points, usually that ends up being the person holding down mouse 1 on a structure or the one who's non-stop sneaking and doing nothing else to contribute to the team. Also vehicle repairs don't give too many points, and field repairs are often the most important thing to winning a game

Agree with the other three especially with best support, but I don't think there's a consistent way to track player position other than base volumes (other map locations differ depending on the maps, and some of them aren't even accurate)

As far as switching teams, I feel the system needs to be reworked instead of punishing a player, where it would not be possible to switch teams unless your team has a 2+ person advantage only. 

I think from what I heard there's already a player requirement for leaderboard tracking? Not certain

[Radeon3]

I wouldn’t mix the standard points with VP mainly for the reason you mentioned: it needs fine tuning. On what basis the the correct ratio would be determined? VP and “points” measure slightly different things but I think we can all agree that it doesn’t measure actual useful contributions. For example, one can solo bombard a building while 1-2 engies neglect his/her effort. Both sides would get lots of points but looking at the big picture they contributited very little. Same applies to VP with the killfarmers for different reasons. This is my standpoint on these titles:

MVP
It’s very difficult to measure useful or critical contributions, that’s why these points more like a measurement of activity or perfomance in general. Unless someone comes up with an algorithm that recognizes all the various ways to save the day for your team, MVP should be given to the player who generally get the most “points”. If this is not satisfactory for you, challenge the point gain. Personally I think it was a very good move to reduce point gain for hitting armor and building reapairing.

14 hours ago, CampinJeff said:

Disagree about MVP being the one with most points, usually that ends up being the [...] one who's non-stop sneaking and doing nothing else to contribute to the team.

If one non-stop sneaking that means his/her attempts mostly failed. How someone can be first by basicaly gaining no points for the failed attempts? The other way around, -after some runs- one blows up a building, while his/her team was obviously unable to do so. Since when that doesn’t contribute to the team? What you said contradicts itself.
In my experience you don’t even get to be the MVP after taking down 1-2 buildings then joke around.

Best Offense
I agree with the proposal but consider two things. First, faction specific “Front” volumes have to be set up on all the maps in order to have an area which measures you offensive actions like kills, destroyed vehicles, disarmed explosives, etc. These volumes should be placed wisely by the mapmakers, areas equally away from both teams shouldn’t have this volume. Second, this takes a considerable developer/mapper time.

On top of that I’d add the destroyed vehicles in general and succesful ion/nukes to this offensive point pool which at the end would determine how aggressive you were.

Best Defense
The same as the “Front” volume with all its properties but for the other faction. Plus additional points for kills by mines, disarmed ion/nukes, unit repair in the volume and building repair without armor. Unfortunately due to the dual-box-startfire-AFK-zombies, I wouldn’t give defense points for armor repair.

Best Support
I’d only give this for vehicle and infantry repair and captured/neutralized tech buildings.

Switching teams
Only allow it after the first minute of joining a game. For this reason it's irrevelant to register it as a defeat.

Rage quit
I wouldn't pour salt on their wounds.

AFK
Votekicks should be counted, as there's no AFK vote. It would be nice to have a reason field for starting a votekick.

More enemy players = more of a challenge
Just take oldRen's approach to the ladder system. Your ladder point is calculated by the actual time you spent in the game, the total amount of players and your placement at the end of the game. The loser team gets the fraction of the winner team's points in minus. The player with most points in the loser team gets 0 ladder points. If you join a game shortly before it ends you get 0 points as well. I'll upload a picture about point distribution after I get home.
I agree with the rest.

[boxes]

6 hours ago, Radeon3 said:

If one non-stop sneaking that means his/her attempts mostly failed. How someone can be first by basicaly gaining no points for the failed attempts? The other way around, -after some runs- one blows up a building, while his/her team was obviously unable to do so. Since when that doesn’t contribute to the team? What you said contradicts itself.
In my experience you don’t even get to be the MVP after taking down 1-2 buildings then joke around.

Because if you do manage to get a building kill, you gain up to nearly 3000 points. Why should this person who did literally nothing else but rely on pure luck to walk in a building and nothing teamwork related be potentially rewarded the MVP for the team? MVP should be the one who did the most of all three categories, Offense, Defense and Support, which I think is close to the way it works right now

[Guest Gliven]

9 hours ago, Radeon3 said:

What you said contradicts itself

If you spend 30 mins trying to sneak into the enemy base, and you manage to get one building kill. Cool. Depending on the situation that might not mean anything at all. If your team lost because no one was willing to repair tanks, i guess that building kill was a good consolation prize.

MVP should be rewarded to the player with the best in leaderbored score. Similar to s1rdwp9h had in mind

You can score 100 points in each category, The player with the best mean score should get MVP

First place gets 100 points, and then scales down. At most a team can only have 20 players each, 30 if there is a mutator

100/20=5

100/30= 3.33

Ex. 60 player game

Boxes

Offence - 2nd place = 96.67 pnts

100-(3.33)

Defence - 12th place = 63.37 pnts               overall score = 213.42

100-(11x3.33)

Support - 15th place = 53.38 pnts

100-(14x3.33)

Radeon

Offence - 5th place = 86.68

Defence - 9th place = 73.36                          overall score = 163.47

Support - 30th place = 3.43

Gliven

Offence - 6th place = 83.35

Defence - 2nd place = 96.67                         overall score = 253.38

Support - 9th place = 73.36

Gliven gets MVP with the highest score of 253.38
 

In this scenario the 2 MVP's wont be the Nod arty hammering ref all match and the GDI Hotwire repairing it.

[Radeon3]

4 hours ago, CampinJeff said:

nothing else but rely on pure luck to walk in a building and nothing teamwork related

In other words you are clueless about sneaking.
I don't want to look like an arrogant prick so take no offense but your concept about sneaking is so off that simply it doesn't worth my time to explain in wall of text why you are wrong just to get to the MVP part. Maybe @Quincy @MintLemonade @djlaptop @Minji care more about this or have more time.

[Guest Gliven]

You can say what you want about "knowing" where people are, and watching their routines. But if you think luck isn't a part of sneaking, you are the clueless one.

[vandal33]

MVP shouldn't be a big deal nor taken seriously. Just give it to the guy with the most points, eventhough I spent the whole game disarming countless C4s on MCTs and beacons near buildings, the guy with most points being MVP wouldn't make me complain. People should know there aren't any real ways to accurately determine who is the true savior to the game and getting MVP is nothing special.

[limsup]

14 hours ago, CampinJeff said:

Why should this person who did literally nothing else but rely on pure luck to walk in a building and nothing teamwork related be potentially rewarded the MVP for the team?

That's perhaps an over-generalization. I personally think, that on your (impressive) YouTube video you have also utilized a far broader skillset, than relying on pure luck.  

In my humble opinion sneaking is a difficult, complex operation and should deserve acknowledgement. In the end, the objective of the game currently is the destruction of all enemy buildings - sneaking could further that goal even when the enemy base is not breachable at that moment by tanks. I feel it is also the most effective when done by seasoned players (it often fails when groups of inexperienced players attempt it).

Edited December 21, 2017 by limsup

[Madkill40]

Scoreboard points of interest should be changed, like discussed in a previous thread in regards to switching k/d and deaths for something else such as vehicle destructions and repairs.

 

By the way if playerA damages an enemy player for a majority of their health but playerB delivers the killshot surely the kill should go to playerA not playerB

[Jarzey]

Being a defender and a sneaker myself, I can share my opinion about the topic (not the OP's one, but rather the one about sneaking that has been brought up): Sneaking is about both luck and skill, with more emphasis on the former if you ask me. Still, having skills will increase the sneaker' chances to get in undetected or succeed.

All that I can say is that a big part of sneaking relies on the enemy team's lack of defense skills.

 

Skills that are useful while sneaking:

- map knowledge (know-how to avoid defenses and take routes with lots of cover and sneaking spots)

- extended 3rd person field of view and optimal graphic settings (to spot the enemy before they spot you, and peek around corners)

- good aim (in order to take down players if spotted, it could decide the fate of the building in smaller matches or if the enemy team has no teamwork)

- patience and perseverance (more like of a mental skill needed in order to not get distracted, distressed, and possibly angry)

- good whereabouts judgment (basically when a sneaker should move or stay hidden. This one is fuzzy - could mostly be luck rather than a skill but some sneakers often have a "gut feeling or instinct" telling exactly them when and where to move next)

 

Assuming that the sneaker is alone, reasons why sneaking succeeds (I consider lack of skills by the enemy as luck for the sneaker, since they were lucky to meet a less-skilled opponent):

 

-(skill) Infiltrator has been spotted, but has a good aim and manages to gun down everyone in their way.

    -(skill) The Infiltrator is very good with their guns, managing to gun down defenders and reinforcements as they arrive, buying enough time for the C4 to explode and then finishing the building with their guns if necessary.

    -(variable) Small match, 10 vs 10 or less. Players cannot stop the infiltrator even if they wanted to (example: most players in field).

    -(luck) No one bothers to go back to stop the infiltrator when they respawn, and opposite team does not respond to chat.

    -(luck) Defenders spawn in buildings located far away from the infiltrator, and cannot reach them in time.

    -(variable and luck) The match has been going on for a while, the respawn time has become lengthy, and opposite team does not respond to chat.

-(skill) Infiltrator has good knowledge of the map, its paths, and its hiding spots (including harv walking).

    -(luck) Defenders do not know the map well as the infiltrator does (and is not aware of harv walking).

    -(luck) Defenders spotted the sneaker, gave chase, but the sneaker gained enough distance (or cut a corner) and took a hidden route that the defender is not aware of, ultimately slipping away.

-(variable) Small match, 10 vs 10 or less.

-(variable) Sneaker's team has the field, making going through the field in certain maps easier for the sneaker.

-(variable) Base is being heavily besieged and all defenders are needed as reps.

-(variable) Sneaker's team has Comms, allowing the sneaker to peek in their minimap to detect nearby enemy players.

-(skill) Infiltrator has good eyes and judgment, and they are able to efficiently see, estimate the location behind obstacles, and pinpoint enemy players moving around in their base, therefore using such knowledge to move accordingly in order to minimize exposure towards enemies' field of view and the chances of getting spotted.

-(luck) "Defenders" know the map well but they are bad lookouts (example: do not have patience to stand there and look, go do other stuff).

-(luck) There are no dedicated defenders or lack of patrols.

-(luck) No one on the opposite team is watching mines or opposite team is overmining or does not know how to mine properly.

-(luck) No one on the opposite team is paying attention to automated defenses firing.

-(luck) Players spotted the sneaker, gave chase, lost them, and instead of warning the team they kept doing whatever they did before.

-(luck) No one on the opposite team gives a shit.

 

Enough defenders will usually stop a sneaker, no matter how good the sneaker is good with their guns (unless the sneaker is a heroic Mobi plowing thru hordes of recruit engis...).

11 hours ago, limsup said:

That's perhaps an over-generalization. I personally think, that on your (impressive) YouTube video you have also utilized a far broader skillset, than relying on pure luck. 

Indeed, not pure luck but he mostly relied on luck nonetheless - in this case, interpreted as team Nod being completely clueless. Quick hands/aim, good handling of the flame tank, and time/location judgment (when to move and where to) were the employed skills as far I reckon, as disarming mines, strafing, and firing a rep gun can be done by everyone. So, let's break down @CampinJeff 's actions in the video:

 

Start point - entering Nod base

 

-(variable) If GDI wasn't controlling the field and actively besieging the base, he would only have been able to deal perma the ref and perhaps the Ob, as his Flame Tank would have been struck by 2 Obi lasers. Or, most likely, he probably would not have chosen to sneak in at that moment.

-(luck) If Nod recognized him as a spy as he approached the arty and entered the base, someone would have most likely gunned him down.

-(luck) He could've taken the infantry path leading to the Air runway and the tunnels nearby, but he hoped (relied on luck) that Nod did not recognize him in the middle of the siege.

-(skill and luck) he casually walked in, trying to look innocuous and repairing the arty knowing that it will be focused more on repelling the siege and its field of view either in first person or moved towards on the besieging tanks.

 

Middle point - sabotaging Nod Ref

 

-(variable) GDI was besieging the base, keeping most of Nod techs occupied with Obi.

-(luck) No one saw him disarming mines or being inside Ref.

-(luck) If Nod recognized him as a spy as he pretended to repair Ref from the outside, someone would have most likely gunned him down.

 

End point- sabotaging Obelisk

 

-(luck) At this point, If Nod recognized him as a spy as he pretended to repair the Stank and the Ltank, someone would have most likely gunned him down.

-(luck) The Stank and Ltanks driver were not looking at their health bars and therefore they did not realize that he was not repairing them. Or they did not have much knowledge on the topic of spies.

-(luck) If that specific Nod player did not leave the Flame Tank vacant, he might not have been able to keep killing the techs, and Obi could have survived.

-(skill) If he did not have quick hands and good driving (quickly blocking the way towards the Obi MCT for techs outside), he might not have managed to kill all the techs repairing Obi, but he would still managed to deal perma to ref.

-(skill and luck) he could have been spotted by Nod as he was taking down the tech if he did not exercise good judgment on where and when to go next to keep blending within the Nod base (notice the Flame Tank turning around and him just getting out of its view),  but he would still managed to deal perma to ref.

 

It seems that luck was the main factor that dictated the outcome in his sabotage spec ops.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Jarzey

[s1rdwp9h]

Here are some points to consider:

•    Currently the in-game-score-points and vp-score-points are disconnected and that causes confusion.
•    The idea behind RenX points is to link information together (in-game-score and vp-score).
•    For instance, for every 15 in-game-score-points you also receive 1 vp-score-point.
•    The amount of RenX points scored vs buildings, infantry, vehicles, C4, field repairers and beacons is open to change.
•    Regarding more enemy players. A simple multiplier on no. of enemy players is sought. 
•    For instance, RenX point = RenX point + (number of enemy players * 1.25 - number of enemy players ) (rounded up or down). The multiplier of 1.25 is open to change.
•    Under this system the most valuable player (MVP) will typically be the first person to get to heroic.
•    Currently, bombarding a building progresses the game to an end by ranking up more quickly than the enemy. Bombarding a building holds down enemy players in that building. If I’m not mistaken that is useful? Again, the amount of RenX points scored vs buildings is open to change.

[Quinc3y]

Regarding sneaking, I mostly agree with Jarzey's post. To put it in math terms: luck is a necessary condition if you want to get a building kill, that is: no matter how good you are with sneaking, you won't be able to be successfull with it if the whole enemy team is camping & communicating with each other. However usually it is not a sufficient condition. Experience helps a lot.

Some sneaking skills Jarzey didn't mention in his post:

- knowledge of players' behaviour/reactions. It's super helpful if you know when the enemy team can be distracted/when that one camper will look away for 5 seconds

- assessment of when it is a good moment to even make an attempt at sneaking in (example: when the enemy base might be empty/when some path you could use should be clear)

- using your C4s effectively: not blowing remotes too early, mining inside enemy buildings for extra protection, knowing when to repair your c4s on mct and when to shoot the enemies etc.

- the stank + tech strat is pretty skill based I'd say

- I'd say there is even the skill of how you position inside a building once you planted the c4 on mct. You want to have vision on the mct, but not be exposed to a random guy running in the building and one-shotting you/ forcing you to blow remotes early. You want to be able to attack from ambush as well. You also don't want to die to your timed c4s by accident. Some buildings have really good spots for hiding in (Power Plants, Airstrip, Barracks), while some don't (Refineries)

 

But coming back to topic: it's probably impossible to make a fair leaderboard / choose a mvp of the match based only on numbers. Numbers like points, kills and veterancy don't always reflect how valuable you are (but they might). But how is an algorithm going to determine this? Let me give some examples of MVPs (and I will leave sneaking behind).

1. You're playing that arty/med/mammoth very efficiently and destroying many enemy vehicles & harvesters.

2. You're an insane sniper and you're tearing enemy team apart by sniping them in their base (example: Whiteout), which costs them a lot of credits and means they struggle to repair their tanks. 

3. Repairing. A super important - and mostly boring - job that you are doing. Your tankers aren't the best, but thanks to your 1 hour of holding left click and staying alive, your team manages to win the tank slug fest and win the game (example: Canyon).

4.Camping. It is Under, you're playing GDI and your team is comfortably controlling field. You know that the only real chance for Nod to come back is to sneak in or infantry rush and both can only be done via the PP tunnel entrance. So you buy a tank and sit there for the next 1 hour. You kill a few techs and stop two rushes while the rest of your team eventually crushes Nod.

5. Commanding & communication. You're the one organizing rushes, calling out what the enemy is doing, donating other teammates & coming up with game plans.

6. Specific cases: often when the teams are even even the smallest detail can decide a game. Let's say you randomly spawn in barracks and meet a tech placing c4 on the MCT. You kill him, save the barracks and as a result save the game for your team. Sometimes the MVP can be the guy who spots a rush and will warn his team or can write 'MINES' in the team chat. 

Finally, often there are many super valuable players in a team. The guy staying alive in his mammoth forever is playing great, but would he be able to achieve these 8000 points and 50 kills if it wasn't for the one hotwire that stuck with him for the whole game? Then which of them should be the MVP? The mammoth, because his job requires more skill? Idk.

In cases 1 and 2 a simple algorithm could probably give you the MVP title correctly, maybe in case 3 as well. These 3 cases are all reflected by numbers - be it score, veterancy, kills, or vehicle kills/assists. But other cases are impossible to be correctly assessed by an algorithm. Sometimes only human can correctly judge the performance of a player.

Which leads to me the idea that we could simply vote for an MVP of the game after the game ends, just like we vote for a map.

Regarding the leaderboard, I really have no idea. In-game points or veterancy will never be fair also because how much faster these can be accumulated in low-populated servers or on small/quick maps (example: you can gain 3000 poins and veterancy in 10 minutes on Volcano while it may take you over 1 hour on Lakeside if both teams are defending well).

 

[Guest Gliven]

@Quincy What about during a match, the player who got the most !rec gets "Players choice" or "Top pick". I also like the voting for mvp but id rather not have another 10-30 second wait after every match so everyone can scroll through the player list to vote for mvp.

[Jarzey]

1 hour ago, Quincy said:

Regarding sneaking, I mostly agree with Jarzey's post. To put it in math terms: luck is a necessary condition if you want to get a building kill, that is: no matter how good you are with sneaking, you won't be able to be successfull with it if the whole enemy team is camping & communicating with each other. However usually it is not a sufficient condition. Experience helps a lot.

I would sum it up with this - Sneaking has a certain percentage of success that increases with skill but will never reach 100%.

1 hour ago, Quincy said:

- the stank + tech strat is pretty skill based I'd say

I would agree, the player has to be a good driver and have good awareness of the map (in order not to bump into the map props, and the stank is not exactly the easiest vehicle to handle) and surroundings, along with the workings of automated defenses, if any. However, luck is still needed because of the limitations of the stank - medium speed and size (easier to get detected compared to SBH, because the stank is bigger, vehicle only entrances available, and hard to get away with only its medium speed once spotted).

P.S. Stolen stank + Hottie is easier and harder to pull at the same time. Parking the stank outside Nod buildings is not something out of ordinary by Nod, and they will dismiss it thinking that the driver is just buying/refilling from the PT (all defenders out there - make sure to double check any vacant stank near building entrances). However, the rouge stank could be spotted by Nod Stanks or SBHs, akin to SBH spy.

A skilled driver has higher chances to pull it off compared to an inexperienced driver trying for it, but luck will always play a part in it.

4 hours ago, s1rdwp9h said:

Currently, bombarding a building progresses the game to an end by ranking up more quickly than the enemy. Bombarding a building holds down enemy players in that building. If I’m not mistaken that is useful? Again, the amount of RenX points scored vs buildings is open to change.

Holding players in a building is useful for field control because enemy tanks will have less repairs, but it also prevents that building being infiltrated for obvious reasons.

Afaik, points are proportional to the damage dealt towards the building. Example, you get the same points by dealing 10% damage to the building, no matter in which way or how fast you did it.

Personally, I think that players should get a bonus modifier on points by pummeling the building as infantry from outside, since the player is vulnerable and has to refill after emptying their magazine (the rocket soldier would also become a VP farmer guy alternative to Hottie/Tech rep) compared to bombarding the building from inside a vehicle, where they are relatively safe if backed up by repairs and can keep firing without need of refills.

17 minutes ago, Gliven said:

@Quincy What about during a match, the player who got the most !rec gets "Players choice" or "Top pick". I also like the voting for mvp but id rather not have another 10-30 second wait after every match so everyone can scroll through the player list to vote for mvp.

That is an interesting idea,  only thing that comes in my mind is troll groups trying to !rec one of theirs as MVP.

For the voting, I think that can be done in the endgame screen, in tandem with the map vote. For example, It can go like this: the MVP section is initially empty. Simply double-click a player in the player list to put your vote (you can also vote for enemy players or for yourself if you like), and at the end of the time limit, the map is chosen, the votes are tallied up, and the player's name appears under the team's MVP section.

Same with map voting, you abstain if you do not click on any player. If everyone abstains, no player is shown under MVP.

Now, for the main problem of this - if 2 or more players have the same amount of votes, either both of them are shown under MVP or only one decided at random - there would be no time for a tiebreaker vote.  But let's say that everyone voted for themselves... since all the players names will probably not fit under MVP, either the system decides to give it to a random player or nothing is shown under MVP.

[Madkill40]

^^^^^^^^ Players voting who was MVP? Wouldn't that be MFP i.e. Most Favoured Person

And the idea of voting for MVP is a bit shit and limiting anyway

[Jarzey]

Meh... the very concept of Most Valuable Player has different interpretations - could be the one with most points, the one with that highest k/d ratio, the player that donated tons of credits, the morale booster player in team, etc... after all, the "value" in MVP can basically be anything.

Still, pertaining to OP's most recent topic:

8 hours ago, s1rdwp9h said:

•    Currently the in-game-score-points and vp-score-points are disconnected and that causes confusion.

This is an opinion - a poll is necessary to find out how many are actually confused by it, because I personally have no problem distinguishing between score and VP, and I do not see many complaining about failure to differentiate points and vp.

8 hours ago, s1rdwp9h said:

•    The idea behind RenX points is to link information together (in-game-score and vp-score).

On 12/20/2017 at 3:45 AM, Radeon3 said:

I wouldn’t mix the standard points with VP mainly for the reason you mentioned: it needs fine tuning. On what basis the the correct ratio would be determined? VP and “points” measure slightly different things but I think we can all agree that it doesn’t measure actual useful contributions. For example, one can solo bombard a building while 1-2 engies neglect his/her effort. Both sides would get lots of points but looking at the big picture they contributited very little. Same applies to VP with the killfarmers for different reasons.

I will also add that players joining matches late receive vp to compensate, therefore they would earn points by doing literally nothing except joining the game. They could climb the leaderboard just by continuously joining and leaving.

8 hours ago, s1rdwp9h said:

•    Regarding more enemy players. A simple multiplier on no. of enemy players is sought. 
•    For instance, RenX point = RenX point + (number of enemy players * 1.25 - number of enemy players ) (rounded up or down). The multiplier of 1.25 is open to change.

Multiplying points in presence of multiple enemies would snowball the veterancy gain rate and therefore the player would be able to hit heroic faster, unless the veterancy rate is made proportional to player amount, but that would just mean extra work for a system that already works.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Jarzey

[Guest Gliven]

10 hours ago, Jarzey said:

That is an interesting idea,  only thing that comes in my mind is troll groups trying to !rec one of theirs as MVP.

 

That is why i said a "players choice" or MFP alongside the MVP that the game decided. A troll vote could be fun sometimes too. MVP will be shown anyways so why not vote for the MFP. What is the harm in voting for someone who made a funny joke in-game?

[Madkill40]

1 hour ago, Gliven said:

 

That is why i said a "players choice" or MFP alongside the MVP that the game decided. A troll vote could be fun sometimes too. MVP will be shown anyways so why not vote for the MFP. What is the harm in voting for someone who made a funny joke in-game?

Both MVP & MFP makes for a fair idea.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Madkill40

[Radeon3]

Thank you @Quincy and @Jarzey for summarizing so well how sneaking works. I especially liked the part which goes into details about what is based on skill and luck. These well written posts could be showed to new players to help them understand the concepts of infiltration and seasoned players as well who aren't too familiar how sneaking actually works.

As for you @Gliven

Spoiler

On 2017. 12. 21. at 2:12 AM, Gliven said:

You can say what you want about "knowing" where people are, and watching their routines. But if you think luck isn't a part of sneaking, you are the clueless one.

I'd appreciate if you checked your facts before posting your fanfictions. I've never said or implied that sneaking doesn't require luck. Interesting that Jeff's statement that sneaking is all about pure luck didn't bother you at all, then you fabricate that I think it has nothing to do with luck, therefore I'm the clueless one. I kindly ask you to read and understand (my) post before replying to them in the future. In case you you have some kind of personal hatred towards me that clouds your interpretation, I'm always open to discuss those.

As I mentioned before, here are some Renegade scoreboards from Jelly-games in 2007. Some of you probably very familiar with this, but I'm sure there are new players -relatively to this- with brilliant minds who can come up with ideas based on this system. Ladder points given at the end of the game based on the the points you got and the time you actually spent ingame weighted by the total amount of players.

Take Wall_Flying for example:
On the winning side, karatedud got 2652 points but only became 2nd because patrx8 got 2313 points in much less time.
On the losing side I did everything in my power to prevent this (4274 pts), so I lost 0 points. Sezer1 just joined the game (7 pts) before it ended, so the system didn't "punish" him. On the other hand penol was AFK for the entire game so he lost 164 points. The losing team only lost the fraction of the points what the winning team gainded, so it's not really discouraging in my opinion. As far as I know kills, deaths didn't affect the ladder points nor the total points you got until the end of the game. So it didn't matter if you got 10000 points while the the second player only got 1000 for the same amount of time; at the end you got ~100 ladder points and the second player ~90. It was proportinal to the places players ended up.

I'm not saying to copy this 1:1, but we could come up with implementations of the Best Offense, Defense and Support into this kind of calculation like the one Gliven provided.

[Guest Gliven]

@Radeon3 

Spoiler

All skills towards infiltration only increase chance, does not guarantee. More skill = increased chance. Purely luck based 

I also like that old system, i wouldnt mind seeing something like that implemented

Edited December 27, 2017 by Gliven

[Quinc3y]

Yes, that system makes a lot of sense.

[Calvin]

this is what the renegade leaderboard looks like for the people that don't know

(it gets updated every month) 

http://www.renegadeladder.com/

Edited December 29, 2017 by bentō

[Radeon3]

And this how it looked like in Renegade's prime, when we had 20000 unique active players:

The fifth column is for the ladder points I mentioned before.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Radeon3
column