Blackflag82's Feed

Blackflag82
12-11-2020 at 05:55 PM
8 Comments
Rate this Entry

Team Rank - A new way to score team efforts?

@Almighty Dreadlock made a post the other day about team scores and finding a better way to to recognize them. After conversation in that thread and input from him, I put together a formula that takes the level of team play into account to some extent and adjusts score accordingly. I'm posting it here because the formula and discussion about it is buried a few pages into the original post, and I would like the community/some fresh eyes to provide some feedback about the idea.

The formula finds a value I'm calling Team Rank (TR). Basically, TR is the total score of a team game added to a value determined by how close the teams scores are. This will only work for 2 player teams. I believe I could develop one for 3+ player games, but one step at a time. Ideally this would help with a couple things that get argued about a lot when it comes to the team games:

1) It adjusts for those "team" games that are essentially one player doing all the heavy lifting

2) It doesn't penalize a team for continuing play after the first player has died, it doesn't require the team to end play at that point, and it wouldn't require a rewrite of existing rulesets.

The formula:

(T / (S1 / S2)) + T = TR

T= Total Score, S1 = the higher score, S2 = the lower score, TR = team rank

Basically, one divides the higher score by the lower score and then takes that number and divides their total score by it. This will give the "teamwork points" (for lack of a better name) which are then added to the total score to give the team rank.

Since I've been using a hypothetical Rampage game for my examples, I'll continue to do that here, but you can plug in any scores you want (real or imagined) and see how things are affected.

Example 1: Game with a large score spread

(1,050,000 / (1,000,000 / 50,000)) + 1,050,000 = 1,102,500

Example 2: Game with no spread and solid score

(900,000 / (450,000 / 450,000)) + 900,000 = 1,800,000

Example 3: Game with a slightly higher score to ex. 2 but larger point spread

(950,000 / (550,000 / 400,000)) + 950,000 = 1,727,272.87

you can see Ex 2 and 3 have a much higher rank than Ex. 1. While Ex 1 is the highest score, it also arguably involved the least amount of teamwork, so the TR is lower than both of the others.

With the other 2 examples, one has a higher score and a lower rank while the other has the higher rank but a lower score. This will happen sometimes when scores are relatively close, but there are a couple things to point out. First, the way to raise either of those values is simply to score higher without the weaker player scoring lower. That will always improve the TR, so, much like a high score, it simply relies on a team doing better. Second, is that I don't mean TR to become a stat which replaces the total score, but rather a tool for us to better analyze and contextualize performances. In an ideal world, I'd like to see both values sit side by side on a team score board so we can broaden our understanding of what went into a score. Ultimately, I think arguments could be made supporting that Ex 2 is the better performance, and I think arguments could be made that Ex. 3 is the better performance. But, for me at least, it shows that 2 and 3 are both better team performances than 1 despite 1 having the higher score.

Like I said, I would appreciate feedback and critique- Is there something missing from all of this that we should be including? Is it a good idea/bad idea/meh? Is there something glaring that was overlooked? Please let me know your thoughts. I do ask that it be kept civil and respectful. I reserve the right to moderate posts that go off topic or are a$$holish.


ThanksJJT_Defender thanked this post
Comments
  1. EVN's Avatar

    This is all just needlessly complicated for no reason. For example: defining a player as weak based on score in a beat em up game is just wrong. In some games one player's job might be crowd control or screen locking and the other is the DPS. Of course the DPS player is going to score more points, they are doing all the killing but they can't do their job without the crowd control player doing their job.

    Just let the combined scores be what they are.

    LikesBarthax liked this post
  2. Blackflag82's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by EVN

    This is all just needlessly complicated for no reason. For example: defining a player as weak based on score in a beat em up game is just wrong. In some games one player's job might be crowd control or screen locking and the other is the DPS. Of course the DPS player is going to score more points, they are doing all the killing but they can't do their job without the crowd control player doing their job.

    Just let the combined scores be what they are.

    And there are a whole bunch of games where that is not the case and the combined score doesn't work.

    There are also a lot of games were each level has set points essentially making the need for a second player burdensome.

    But even in your example, if that is the best way to play the game then all the top scores will reflect that.

  3. EVN's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82

    But even in your example, if that is the best way to play the game then all the top scores will reflect that.

    In the case of beat em ups, no it won't, it wrecks the flow of the gameplay by making players do a bunch of walking around to try and balance scores.

    Why try and make crazy global rules that apply to all games? The best way is to write good track rules for every track. Bad global rules are how a lot of these debates come about in the first place.

    LikesBarthax liked this post
  4. Pearl2hu's Avatar

    lol imagine this in any competent shmup

  5. EVN's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Pearl2hu

    lol imagine this in any competent shmup


    It's just bad for everything but Boomer games.

  6. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    To repeat my last suggestion, make new tracks for any game you think would benefit from a "team ranking" scoreboard. It would be good for the traditional combined score trackers to remain as they are, so we can compare how the two types of scoreboard work and grow. Also, closed minded members would have nothing to whine about. Everybody wins.

    LikesBarthax, RedDawn liked this post
  7. EVN's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock

    To repeat my last suggestion, make new tracks for any game you think would benefit from a "team ranking" scoreboard. It would be good for the traditional combined score trackers to remain as they are, so we can compare how the two types of scoreboard work and grow. Also, closed minded members would have nothing to whine about. Everybody wins.

    The way I see it is if people are willing to spend days mastering a game then someone can spend an hour writing a good set of rules tailored for that particular game.

    Now if you want to make a "team ranking" scoreboard for a cherry picked list of 2 player games with good rules written specifically for each game then that would be cool.

    Take most Capcom beat em ups for example. The combined score works perfectly fine because these games are properly tuned for 2 (or more) players. While there are 2 players alive, more enemies spawn and there are more possible points. The best possible scores would come from both players staying alive for the duration of the game so the most points can be earned. If someone dies then the game de-ranks to the number of enemies that will spawn in a single player game.

    Good rules for a game like Final Fight essentially read "2 players, add the points total for both players at the end of the game" no need for anything else because Final Fight is a good game.

    I have a few 2 player submission videos I'd like to upload but I'm gonna wait until TG pull their finger out and come up with a way that 2 members can receive credit for the achievement in their profile - until then its not worth bothering making "new" tracks :(


    LikesBarthax liked this post
  8. Blackflag82's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by EVN


    In the case of beat em ups, no it won't, it wrecks the flow of the gameplay by making players do a bunch of walking around to try and balance scores.

    Why try and make crazy global rules that apply to all games? The best way is to write good track rules for every track. Bad global rules are how a lot of these debates come about in the first place.

    Right, so you're talking about adjusting how you play based on a stat. I'm not suggesting that. If you chose to do that, that would be on your team.

    If the optimal way to play a game is how you described, then play it that way. Other folks who want to be competitive will also play it that way and team rank wouldn't have to affect that. Ultimately if a team score is less than half the total score of another, then no amount of score grouping would matter anyways.

    In your example of Final Fight, it sounds like TR wouldn't affect a whole lot nor is it necessary. That's great. That means the combined score and TR would largely reflect each other.

    This isnt being proposed as a new rule. It is being proposed as a stat. I'm not even proposing it to take the place of combined score, but rather as something additional a run can be judged by. Sure it's not going to be applicable to every game, and that's okay. But it's not a global rule.

    Batting average isn't applicable to most pitchers and yet it is still applied to them. And pitchers don't train for a game differently to up their batting average. And at the end of the day folks can see that stat but recognize it is not a good indication of the player and the role they play.

    Obviously TG isn't going to adopt this or anything else as an added stat anytime soon (if ever), as they've made perfectly clear with their actions numerous times.

    Personally though, I see having additional tools that give more context to a gameplay as a good thing. Especially when it could provide more context on already existing scoreboards without having to completely rewrite (often problematically) and/or start competition anew on those games.

Join us