Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Thonar

Teamwork-Fallacies

Recommended Posts

In BF1942 people would do ANYTHING to win a match. By the time we got to BF4 people protect their KDR and go for xp above everything thing else. They won't run into a flag that is over run because they know their KDR is going to get hurt. The idea was to make people think and use tactics but all it did was make everyone into score bitches. 

 

I remember this transition too. BF1942 was a team game. Slowly, the BF series has become less of a teamwork experience (the German 6 man bombers on Battle of Britain) and more of a solo experience (every single vehicle has full fighting capacity with a one man crew in BF3 and 4). One might say that the way the profile system is built in 3 and 4 that the ENTIRE experience is built around unlocks, divisions and almost nothing about team play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet there was a score system in PR - a score system which is actually a great example of what I am talking about.

 

 

That was from 0.6 so grain of salt, but wow. What an awesome list of ideas (shit, I see now a cohesion idea is already there. hope that's in the pipe) - these bonuses address a whole range of unwanted behaviour.

 

Do you see where I am coming from now?

 

ETA: I see your post has changed considerably. I get the axe you are grinding, believe you me, it's just being applied to the wrong stone atm. I would never condone anything like the crap we have had thrown at us the last few years. Forward thinking, man.

 

ETA: lol. dat silence.

 

Hi, I didn't reply because I didn't see this.

 

I can get other PR players to weigh in here, but I didn't even know this is how the scoring worked. In PR, the only thing people looked at was kills (to work out if their targets had given up) and deaths (to tell a particular Squad to stop wasting tickets). Maybe other PR vets knew this scoring was the case, but in 8 years of playing I never once ever heard anyone refer to the score in a positive or negative way (the only time was when people were in negative score for excessive teamkilling).

 

Again though, it doesn't do anything for my change of mind. The second this is about score, you'll have players making anti-teamwork decisions because they'll uphold getting score above the logical steps to winning. Even reading the PR score layout, I can see 100 ways it would break or not reflect the reality of the game. 

 

I'd prefer honestly if there was no scoreboard. Instead I'd prefer a more expansive set of metrics that paint a picture of a Squad. How much time in cap as a percentage, how much time building as a percentage, how many tickets they've cost the enemy, how many tickets they've given to the enemy. That would work as a tool within the game itself and would show areas of improvement. However, the moment you tie any INCENTIVE to this, you compromise the structure of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can get other PR players to weigh in here, but I didn't even know this is how the scoring worked.

 

Well it does, and from the looks of it for the very sort of reasons I have been harking on about. You might not of looked at scores - but they were there all the same and obviously designed in such a way as to encourage the kind of play the devs expected from the game's players.

 

Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it does, and from the looks of it for the very sort of reasons I have been harking on about. You might not of looked at scores - but they were there all the same and obviously designed in such a way as to encourage the kind of play the devs expected from the game's players.

 

Case closed.

 

And fundamentally played no part in the motive for the way people played the game. To that, if nobody knew what the hell the scores meant, how did it have any bearing on the game whatsoever? The thing with PR and now Squad is that there are so many incredibly nuanced moving parts that it's often hard to say exactly what influenced a victory or a defeat. It's rarely one thing, but a string of different decisions - just like actual battles. That's the fundamental reason why scoring won't work - because every single action needs to be taken in context. 

 

10 points awarded for killing an enemy player.

So, I shoot an enemy player A.

Enemy player A has 40 kills and 3 deaths.

 

I shoot another player - B.

Enemy player B has 3 kills and 14 deaths.

 

So, logic would say that killing player A is more valuable than killing player B. 

So, I get 30 points for killing player A and 5 points for killing player B.

 

However, while Player A has a better K/D, Player B was the last chance player in his Squad for his SL to put an RP down and to then place a FOB, respawn his team and potentially win the game near the last flag. By killing Player B, whether I know it or not, I've entirely crippled the enemy team's chance at getting an FOB up near the front line. 

 

So is Player B then worth more points than A? How many points? How do we know that Player B was the last chance Player? How is score awarded? It probably isn't - because the game cannot predict the future. So, intrinsically, the scoring system does not reflect the true value of the actual gameplay. Already it's drifted free of the reality of the game and is rewarding or punishing players outside of the reality of the game.

 

Do you see how it becomes absolutely impossible to actually assign value to what has occurred in the game via inherent game scoring?

Similarly, we could put the burden of scoring on the players. 

However, I know for a fact that currently more than 25% of a server population is full of new players who don't actually know right from wrong strategically, tactically and other wise. How are they rating people? I've lead Squads before and enacted strategies that are nearly always winning. However, I was unlucky enough to get Squad members whose only interest was in building a superFOB. As a result they all left. So, am I then being rated by them as to how I SL? 

 

Or what if they're all poor players organised into a clan, and they get other clan members to ruin my rating? What happens then?

 

There are so many issues that arise from trying to attribute value and reputation to players outside of organic interactions within the game. 

 

If I'm playing the game in a way that will win (and I know it will win because it is a historically great tactic), but the score says the superFOB tards have more points (because all they've done is build, die and kill in a cap and we've ended up losing by 100 tickets), are the superFOB tards playing the game better than I am? Perhaps they should coach me on how to lift my score?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

 

You really seem to have trouble getting this - you have gone waaaaay down a path of your own making here. It really boils down to this: PR had an awesome system of incentivised scoring to get the behaviours they wanted - you missed that, fine, the fact remains. The irony being, what you held up as a pinnacle of your argument was actually a great example of the mindset I was supporting.

 

But feel free to keep going round in circles, by all means. I, personally, don't have the time for it. I appreciated hearing your opinion, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really seem to have trouble getting this - you have gone waaaaay down a path of your own making here. It really boils down to this: PR had an awesome system of incentivised scoring to get the behaviours they wanted - you missed that, fine, the fact remains. The irony being, what you held up as a pinnacle of your argument was actually a great example of the mindset I was supporting.

 

But feel free to keep going round in circles, by all means. I, personally, don't have the time for it. I appreciated hearing your opinion, though.

 

Yeah, I must be really dense to not understand your airtight arguments for incentivisation (not really saying exactly how), tutorials (not really saying how), UI/UX (not really saying how), scoring (not really saying how) or basically any of the things you're saying this game needs (again, for reasons I'm too dense to understand).

 

The moment you offer up the old scoring system in PR and praise it: 

 

[in reference to PR scoring] "What an awesome list of ideas (shit, I see now a cohesion idea is already there. hope that's in the pipe) - these bonuses address a whole range of unwanted behaviour."

 

I then reply that not only was it defunct and nobody understood what it meant (which, surprise surprise, means it was not only not awesome, but also completely irrelevant and disregarded on nearly every level).

I then explained how attaching realistic scoring to any of these behaviours is impossible. 

 

So please, help me - an obvious intellectual lightweight - understand what EXACTLY you want implemented in Squad, what those implementations are going to FIX and what aspects they're going to ADD to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I must be really dense to not understand your airtight arguments for incentivisation (not really saying exactly how), tutorials (not really saying how), UI/UX (not really saying how), scoring (not really saying how) or basically any of the things you're saying this game needs (again, for reasons I'm too dense to understand).

 

The moment you offer up the old scoring system in PR and praise it: 

 

[in reference to PR scoring] "What an awesome list of ideas (shit, I see now a cohesion idea is already there. hope that's in the pipe) - these bonuses address a whole range of unwanted behaviour."

 

I then reply that not only was it defunct and nobody understood what it meant (which, surprise surprise, means it was not only not awesome, but also completely irrelevant and disregarded on nearly every level).

I then explained how attaching realistic scoring to any of these behaviours is impossible. 

 

So please, help me - an obvious intellectual lightweight - understand what EXACTLY you want implemented in Squad, what those implementations are going to FIX and what aspects they're going to ADD to.

 

Jesus, mate. Man up. No need to be like that. You back yourself into a corner and this is your reaction?

 

Why would I even begin to entertain pitching ideas to you with this attitude? I have said my piece, one I am afraid you are just going to have to deal with.

 

Have a good one. smh

 

ETA: VVV Whatever helps you move on champ. No one is attacking you and my initial ideas have already been posted. Some people. smh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, mate. Man up. No need to be like that. You back yourself into a corner and this is your reaction?

Why would I even begin to entertain pitching ideas to you with this attitude? I have said my piece, one I am afraid you are just going to have to deal with.

Have a good one. smh

I certainly did back myself into a corner by asking you to actually explain what you're arguing for.

You better continue the ad hominem attacks and not actually present any ideas - especially to someone who might criticise them!

Your argument is unassailable - because I can't quite work out exactly what it is.

I'm really keen to understand it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you understand how important tickets are and how a few tickets can win/loose a game then you can understand why it's a problem. I'm not talking about the people learning the game and playing with a squad and attempting to get revived. I'm talking about the people I see running out and d(y)ing over and over and giving up and respawning as quickly as possible. Thats how you get 15+ deaths in a game.

 

i understand perfectly that it takes but a single ticket to win or loose. i also know that wasting tickets is a very bad thing indeed.

 

if you actually meant what you typed above then why the [email protected]#k did you not make it plain for all readers from the start, instead of typing some half-finished ambiguities?

you comment above still infers that anyone not "playing with a squad" is a serious problem when what you really mean is "anyone with even the slightest propensity to "Run'n'Gun" is a detriment to the game" and on this note i will 100% agree.

how about "I'm not talking about the people learning the game ____ and attempting to get revived. I'm talking about the people I see running out and d(y)ing over and over and giving up and respawning as quickly as possible. Thats how you get 15+ deaths in a game."

 

i shits me to tears when peeps don't say what they mean. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand perfectly that it takes but a single ticket to win or loose. i also know that wasting tickets is a very bad thing indeed.

 

if you actually meant what you typed above then why the [email protected]#k did you not make it plain for all readers from the start, instead of typing some half-finished ambiguities?

you comment above still infers that anyone not "playing with a squad" is a serious problem when what you really mean is "anyone with even the slightest propensity to "Run'n'Gun" is a detriment to the game" and on this note i will 100% agree.

how about "I'm not talking about the people learning the game ____ and attempting to get revived. I'm talking about the people I see running out and d(y)ing over and over and giving up and respawning as quickly as possible. Thats how you get 15+ deaths in a game."

 

i shits me to tears when peeps don't say what they mean. . .

 

I'm not typing an essay or writing a guide on how to play. Sorry if my english isn't plain enough for you to understand. I'm just voicing my opinion on a forum in a casual way without thinking too much into it. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lols FOURTWENTY, i know that and your english is fine but maybe . . . no, i can see you are just one of those people that cannot be argued with.

 

avagudwun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lols FOURTWENTY, i know that and your english is fine but maybe . . . no, i can see you are just one of those people that cannot be argued with.

 

avagudwun!

 

Hard to argue with me when you aren't capable of making any valid points so maybe... stop posting like you have any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really seem to have trouble getting this - you have gone waaaaay down a path of your own making here. It really boils down to this: PR had an awesome system of incentivised scoring to get the behaviours they wanted - you missed that, fine, the fact remains.

Hai, ehm,

so I never played PR. Ever. So I'm just peeping my head in through the door here.

I've been playing Squad non-stop since Steam EA (rifleman tier preorder), mostly as a squad leader, but I've played all roles. And I do know that Squad has a scoring system. It rewards points to players that stay in cap zones, revives, etcetera. This would be an incentive if it meant anything. The only thing it does is sort people in a squad, but it's pretty mysterious exactly how it is derived, and as such has very little value. Games are won and lost on tickets, not on points. Points don't always reflect how well squads or players did, or how valuable they were; and if the score is bad, there's no telling why that is, or what other squads did "better", or what could be improved.

 

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that a black-box "score" that is strangely derived, doesn't tell you anything tangible about a squad's or player's performance, and doesn't have any real value (only tickets do), is not a very good incentive?

 

To take myself as an example, I see the scores, but I don't look at them. They mean nothing to me. They sort squads and more often than not I feel like I disagree with them, whatever they're based on, because I can't see that. Hill defence around an objective may be more valuable than sitting on top of the objective but it awards less points. Whatever. Is the score flawed, or am I flawed? Should I be playing for scores more than for the objectives? Should the scores be my incentive? It would probably severely cripple my squad's performance sitting on top of that point all match, but it sure would rack up points for my squad.

 

Not trying to attack you or your position or anything, and you might agree with me, or not, I don't know. Just curious to hear about your thoughts on this specific personal account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious to hear about your thoughts on this specific personal account.

 

That it is your personal account? I disagree with the whole premise of the incentivised scoring "not having any real value" as the devs have implemented it into the core game design (so it obviously has some value). As such, it is hard for me to continue on from that point.

 

The rest of your post can be answered by previous posts, so rather than re-hash this conversation, I will leave it at that. o7 o7 o7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That it is your personal account? I disagree with the whole premise of the incentivised scoring "not having any real value" as the devs have implemented it into the core game design (so it obviously has some value). As such, it is hard for me to continue on from that point.

 

The rest of your post can be answered by previous posts, so rather than re-hash this conversation, I will leave it at that. o7 o7 o7

Alright, but if it's supposed to be incentivising, but in practice it simply isn't (incentivising), what does that tell you about the practical value of the incentivisation?

 

Incentivisation has real value to you. That's great. Now please take the next step: analyzing how that works out in actuality. Are people "incentivised" by the scores in Squad? Taking me as an example: I am not. And I fear that the vast majority of the squad players look at the scores in a similar manner.

 

There's a difference between saying you shouldn't try to add incentive for players to play the game in the way it's meant to be played, and saying that the methods (scoring) that they have implemented to this end quite simply aren't achieving that intended goal. I'm only saying that the latter is the case, and have added some explanation on why I think that is (the black-box "vague" and inaccurate nature of the scoring, on top of it having no value for the outcome of the match played, as the win outcome is completely determined by tickets, and not in any way by score.)

 

I'm not saying you should stop caring about scores; I'm saying that I think that most people don't put much value to them.

I'm not saying that scores are not intended to be, or shouldn't be used as an incentive to play the game in the way it's meant to be played; I'm saying that I believe its "incentivising" value in practise is currently limited, close to absent, because the score is vague and unintelligible to most players.

 

There's a difference between the intended goal of scores and the practical reality of them. If you're only interested in discussing the theoretical ideological background of them without wanting to look at the practical situation and the actual effects, then I don't see the use of this whole conversation. We all want the same thing: more team play rather than less. We're just discussing the scoring system as a possible agent to achieve that, as well as the possible detrimental effects of such a scoring system to the exact things we're trying to achieve with them. That should be a practical discussion, and as such, I believe my personal account has definitive value in this, and you should not simply disregard it. The mere fact that many people view the scores in this way, whether you agree with that or not, affects the tenability of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

This is your opinion, I appreciate that you are sharing it, but you can't simply blanket apply your views on this to most people. Some (a lot) of people take score into account when playing a game. It's how they measure their own performance. In a lot of ways, this goes outside of even video gaming, whether it be sport, a game show, heck, anything which involves a challenge of skill or pitting of opponents.

 

Keep in mind, we are arguing over a system that is in a prototype state, with many developments to come further down the pipe. Scoring will play a roll in all the future additions to the game, be it explained or not. Ambiguousness is hardly an argument against incentivised score design - for all we know, it may be intended to avoid exploitation (my money is on it simply not being finished and still being in development.) We are really laying down absolutes here without even knowing the end results, so, to me, it seems childish to debate this so vehemently, so prematurely.

 

To your point re:tickets - Keep in mind, score bonuses are directly tied in one way or another to tickets as an incentive - it's a two fold approach that many seem to forget. We score points for kills, for taking objectives, for reviving team mates - most bonuses correlate to a ticket 'gain'/loss.

 

Honestly, though, read through the thread (also multiplayer consistency thread), most of what you have said has been responded to already. If you wish to continue, please feel free to PM me and we can discuss this further. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then basically, the only remaining difference of viewpoint is that you believe that the score actually works as an incentive to players currently in-game, and I believe that it doesn't for the vast majority of them (because it's not intelligible and isn't what directly determines a win or loss). I can live with that.

 

I do believe that it has potential, but that it would greatly benefit from more detailed and "intelligible" sub-statistics (which is pretty much literally what +++++ suggested as well. I did already read through this topic.) Such as zone time, zone kills, objective captures, revives, structures built, transports, squad bonus points, maybe shots per kill (I'm a sucker for that statistic, even though it doesn't mean much, heh)... Those things show you how you did and what you did well, and what could be improved upon. And if you feel that you were more useful than the score rated you to be, you can see in which aspects the score failed to credit your activity (for example not counting your hill defence as zone time or zone kills).

 

I think that's basically all there's to it and it has mostly already been said here. Don't see why you're still arguing, just figure out the little point your opinions differ upon and either leave it at that or discuss that little thing in detail. The discussion has gone too far from being constructive. Thanks for your explanation, though. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't see why you're still arguing

 

Just curious to hear about your thoughts on this specific personal account.

 

You asked for my opinion and I gave it? We have differing opinions - I share some of your views, but it seems you are just looking for a fight? (like a lot of people on this forum, unfortunately.) Like you said, we need drivers to incentivise a range of actions. This is basic game design, really.

 

I very much suggest this book. It is very current and will explain more than I ever could (or could be bothered to, honestly) in a mere forum post. If anything, it will highlight many reasons for the opinions I hold, and why pidgeon-holing this discussion in the way you two have is so fool-hardy.

 

Thanks for the chat :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×