Almighty Dreadlock's Feed

Almighty Dreadlock
12-08-2020 at 09:53 PM
38 Comments
Rate this Entry

Team Gaming

For some reason, I keep allowing myself to be astounded by the lack of common sense displayed by people who think they have good ideas for competitive gaming rules. Garbage tracks have been created. Useless guidelines have been put in place. Senseless discussions are being had on walls, in submissions, and in disputes.

Here's my suggestion. Team scores ought to be averages, not totals. Strong players' using weak teammates to put their high scores on teams' scoreboards is not likely to be a big problem, because average scores reflect everyone's efforts.

ThanksJJT_Defender thanked this post
LikesJJT_Defender, nads liked this post
Comments
  1. Snowflake's Avatar

    if an average is just a total divided by a number (assuming all teams are the same size) then is there really much difference? That is to say, since the average just takes the sums (old scores) and divides them all by the same number, the relavitve positions of everyoine will stay the same, the esi will stay the same since the percentage of each place relative each other stays the same as well. there is a difference in point of view i guess, and i do see benefit as such a thing might shut down some of the nonsense counter arguments we're seeing now. when its an average versus sum, then despite my point, it will make it alot harder for people to try to claim "one person beat a team a team has no value". i guess your angle will at least result in it making it more obvious that the team is still well a team. only real drawback i see is i just know people are gonna average wrong more than the sum wrong and theres gonna be alot of rejection and wrong scores

    Updated 12-09-2020 at 08:01 AM by Snowflake
  2. swaggers's Avatar

    It doesn't really change anything. If I make it to a million and my teammate makes 1 we average at just over half a million. If the next team get 450000 each, they still average at 450000 for second place. This doesn't affect anything. Half a higher overall score is still more than half a lower score.

  3. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake
    if an average is just a total divided by a number (assuming all teams are the same size) then is there really much difference? That is to say, since the average just takes the sums (old scores) and divides them all by the same number, the relavitve positions of everyoine will stay the same, the esi will stay the same since the percentage of each place relative each other stays the same as well. there is a difference in point of view i guess, and i do see benefit as such a thing might shut down some of the nonsense counter arguments we're seeing now. when its an average versus sum, then despite my point, it will make it alot harder for people to try to claim "one person beat a team a team has no value". i guess your angle will at least result in it making it more obvious that the team is still well a team. only real drawback i see is i just know people are gonna average wrong more than the sum wrong and theres gonna be alot of rejection and wrong scores
    .
    Really? You think submitters won't be able to divide scores, most of which will end in zeros, by two correctly? You have even less faith in humanity than I do.
  4. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by swaggers
    It doesn't really change anything. If I make it to a million and my teammate makes 1 we average at just over half a million. If the next team get 450000 each, they still average at 450000 for second place. This doesn't affect anything. Half a higher overall score is still more than half a lower score.
    .
    With the glaringly obvious exception that, if the 450,000 point scorers make a team effort to improve their scores to 600,000. In which case, using average scores makes a huge difference. Do you need me to explain further?
  5. Snowflake's Avatar

    well i'm not saying everyone will get it wrong, but yes i think there'll be a not negligable amount of errors

  6. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake
    well i'm not saying everyone will get it wrong, but yes i think there'll be a not negligable amount of errors
    .
    I don't foresee it's precipitating more errors than occur when submitters try to get their milliseconds right. Even if it did, that's no reason to be scared of changing the scoring system.
  7. Snowflake's Avatar

    oh dont get me wrong, if it'll help i'm on board. like i say, purely analytically the two are the same since again, just dividing everyones score by 2 doesnt change any real strategies. but it absolutely appears difference.and i always say "if you really believe theres no different then why are you fighting". i believe theres no difference, so why am i fhgitng then? i guess i shouldnt. sure, if this will help people see that whining about one player single handedly kicking both of their asses is a lame excuse i say go for it. if this rule change is put to a vote, why not, i'll vote for it

  8. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake
    oh dont get me wrong, if it'll help i'm on board. like i say, purely analytically the two are the same since again, just dividing everyones score by 2 doesnt change any real strategies. but it absolutely appears difference.and i always say "if you really believe theres no different then why are you fighting". i believe theres no difference, so why am i fhgitng then? i guess i shouldnt. sure, if this will help people see that whining about one player single handedly kicking both of their asses is a lame excuse i say go for it. if this rule change is put to a vote, why not, i'll vote for it
    .
    There is the 'no excuses' aspect, I agree. But, I was thinking more along the lines of making true team efforts count for more. If you're on a good two player team, and you both scored 500,000 points, but got beaten by some muppet who scored 1,000,000 points, carrying his crappy teammate who scored 100,000, your team would have to improve by 50,000 points to match the opposing team. That's half what you'd have to do, chasing a higher score total. Also, if your team improves by more than 50,000 points, the team which relies on one player will effectively find it twice as hard to keep pace. The crappy player probably wouldn't improve, might even get worse. The muppet carrying said crappy player would have to do all the work, and would hopefully be defeated by your genuine team effort.
  9. Blackflag82's Avatar

    "because average scores reflect everyone's efforts "

    But they don't reflect it differently in comparison to everyone else. The average of a score will always be higher when the sum of the numbers being averaged is higher.

    What you're proposing adds a step to the process to give a different number with the exact same results.

    LikesBarthax liked this post
  10. Blackflag82's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock


    .
    Also, if your team improves by more than 50,000 points, the team which relies on one player will effectively find it twice as hard to keep pace. The crappy player probably wouldn't improve, might even get worse. The muppet carrying said crappy player would have to do all the work, and would hopefully be defeated by your genuine team effort.

    But this is true with just adding the scores together as well...end of the day the results from an average of scores = the results from the sum of scores .

    Just because it "seems" like one method would gives an incentive for teamwork, doesn't mean it does

    LikesBarthax liked this post
  11. Snowflake's Avatar

    [QUOTE=Blackflag82;bt64314]


    But this is true with just adding the scores together as well...end of the day the results from an average of scores = the results from the sum of scores .

    Just because it "seems" like one method would gives an incentive for teamwork, doesn't mean it does

    [/QUOTE]


    see this is where i think dread might have a point though. as much as i agree with you which you saw from my comments, it hits me, if dread seesit this way others may do. incentive ismore about perception than reality. you and i see zero difference, so if its zero difference no downside right? and anyone who does see it as a difference will likely view it as an incentive. so i'm ok with it. the argumentitive pedantic side of me cant help but argue, but honestly i'm gonna try to give into dread here cause i think for the greater good it really coud shut down the whining from sore losers than one person is more than twice as good as them combined.

  12. Blackflag82's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    it really coud shut down the whining from sore losers than one person is more than twice as good as them combined.

    I'm not sure how averaging would cut down the whining about this? Ultimately, with TGSAP, the same argument is going to come up..."that person scored 1 million and the teammate scored 50k and 900k of the million was scored after the crappier player's death" doesn't get alleviated because the scores are averaged...at least I don't see whining going away in the area. Also, I can't imagine Jace/TG are going to switch scores from totals to average just for perception.

    To me, the best solution has always been to end the scoring run at the end of the level the first person dies one. Ie, player 1 dies, player two can complete that level and score as much as they can and the scores at that point are what is taken. That creates a bunch of different strategies in which teamwork can occur and a team of two less experienced players can overcome the one great player and the less than stellar player more easily in this scenario

  13. swaggers's Avatar

    That absolutely has nothing to do with averages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock


    .
    With the glaringly obvious exception that, if the 450,000 point scorers make a team effort to improve their scores to 600,000. In which case, using average scores makes a huge difference. Do you need me to explain further?

    LikesBlackflag82, Barthax liked this post
  14. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    So, all of you have failed to recognise that average scores make team effort far more valuable than just one person's being good. No consideration of how it changes the nature of score chasing. All you can see is numbers on a scoreboard. Fine. You all can go back to arguing about score limitation, now.

  15. Blackflag82's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock

    [size=3]So, all of you have failed to recognise that average scores make team effort far more valuable than just one person's being good.

    Can you explain how the average of a team score adds value?


    1 million and 100 k (1.1 million)

    700k and 300k (1 million)

    450k and 450k (900k)

    With the above scores the percentage between each score remains the same whether summed or averaged. There won't be any value added to the context of the scores by averaging that isn't present in watching the gameplay.

    The 3rd place score above might very well be the best team effort based on numbers, but averaging a score does nothing to shed light on this as the averages will still just be a reflection of the sum. Ultimately, constraints on what constitutes a team score is what will allow more value to be assigned to team scores, not simple math that only shifts the view on a score board, but nothing else


  16. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82
    Can you explain how the average of a team score adds value?
    .
    When both players improve, average score goes up quickly. When only one player improves, average score goes up slowly. You will not understand why this is good, until you start seeing scoreboards as things which change, occasionally.
  17. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Worth stating my view that high scores, which were mostly down to one player, are not a reason to bellyache. They are a reason to get better, as a team. Work together to defeat the opponent. He or she is only one, you are two (or more).

    LikesSnowflake, Barthax liked this post
  18. Blackflag82's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock


    .
    When both players improve, average score goes up quickly. When only one player improves, average score goes up slowly. You will not understand why this is good, until you start seeing scoreboards as things which change, occasionally.

    Right, but that's an indication of score improvement, not teamwork.

    Using Rampage as an example with TG rules-

    If Rosa and I play a team game and I score 1 million and he scores 50k, and another team manages to score 450k each, then Rosa and I will actually have a significantly easier time raiser our score than the other team, because Rampage hits an enormous plateau at around 400k-500k depending on your rate of scoring. While getting a player from 50k to become a 250k+ player can be done pretty quickly in a matter of weeks. And in fact getting a 50k player up to about 450k can be done in about 6-8 weeks of practice (400k improvement). Whereas the other team would take significantly longer to up their score a combined 400k (and that scenario assumes I don't improve my score at all).

    In the above scenario it would also be entirely possible for just one player to improve to the million point level while the other stalls out. That's no different than a strong player propping up a weaker player, it's just the weaker player is stronger than the other teams weak player.

    I recognize that this is only one game, but there are lots of games that would fill this example the same way. Ultimately, it's not about an average, it's about score improvement. And score improvement can come from one player or from both...arguably, the weaker player has the most room for quick/immediate improvement in many cases, and so the team with the biggest discrepancy in score would actually see improvement the quickest and at greater speed.

  19. Blackflag82's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock

    Worth stating my view that high scores, which were mostly down to one player, are not a reason to bellyache. They are a reason to get better, as a team. Work together to defeat the opponent. He or she is only one, you are two (or more).

    I agree with this entirely. Just that averaging scores won't defeat the opponent any faster, increasing the total of the scores will.

    LikesSnowflake liked this post
  20. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82
    Using Rampage as an example with TG rules-

    If Rosa and I play a team game and I score 1 million and he scores 50k, and another team manages to score 450k each, then Rosa and I will actually have a significantly easier time raiser our score than the other team, because Rampage hits an enormous plateau at around 400k-500k depending on your rate of scoring. While getting a player from 50k to become a 250k+ player can be done pretty quickly in a matter of weeks. And in fact getting a 50k player up to about 450k can be done in about 6-8 weeks of practice (400k improvement). Whereas the other team would take significantly longer to up their score a combined 400k (and that scenario assumes I don't improve my score at all).

    In the above scenario it would also be entirely possible for just one player to improve to the million point level while the other stalls out. That's no different than a strong player propping up a weaker player, it's just the weaker player is stronger than the other teams weak player.
    .
    Even if all that were 100% true & accurate, it's too speculative to be really useful. I could just as well say that both members of the opposing team learn your method of making a million, while Rosa stubbornly refuses to improve, in which case you're screwed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82
    I recognize that this is only one game, but there are lots of games that would fill this example the same way. Ultimately, it's not about an average, it's about score improvement. And score improvement can come from one player or from both...arguably, the weaker player has the most room for quick/immediate improvement in many cases, and so the team with the biggest discrepancy in score would actually see improvement the quickest and at greater speed.
    .
    The reason I don't agree with this is that it is too shortsighted and restrictive. Competition, especially on classic game scoreboards, spans years and decades, and is not dependent on quick improvement. The best teams are the ones which have all players improving, not just one. Score averaging rewards balanced team improvement, score totalling does not.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Join us