LDG-Gaming

Whether or not your shot happened to be effective in terms of long-term strategy is not an evaluation goal of the skill system. The skill system should simply reward you for hitting others and penalise you for being hit. Both actions have their own independent skill, are generally speaking the objective of the game (shoot them and don't get shot) and are the basis of combat skill, which is what this system was intended to evaluate, no? The long-term effect of a hit on an enemy cannot generally be predicted, but no less skill was required to make the hit than if it was the killing shot, and as you said yourself, players who hit more are going to get better combat stats in terms of K:D anyway. Might as well make the system more reliable.

I didn't suggest removing thawing from a damage-based skill system, only healing and perhaps more specifically, only healing used on self. The current system does not reward healing that much either, as far as I'm aware.

Practice round in Freon will be increased from 20s to 30s

30s is better because in 20s often there is no time to even reach opponent team. But the drawback is that practice round makes sense only for a new players or new/rarely used maps. Most of the games are played on the same maps with the same players so such round is a waste of time then.
There could be a "practice round" checkbox during voting but perhaps it is too complicated.

Perhaps make the practice round deathmatch instead of freon. 30 seconds isn't long at all, and if you die while loading for ex, having to sit an watch is boring.

Perhaps make the practice round deathmatch instead of freon.

It is a good idea. But instead of discovering new map everybody will rush to kill everyone
However respawning in a practice round is a very good solution.

Azarael wrote:Whether or not your shot happened to be effective in terms of long-term strategy is not an evaluation goal of the skill system. The skill system should simply reward you for hitting others and penalise you for being hit. Both actions have their own independent skill, are generally speaking the objective of the game (shoot them and don't get shot) and are the basis of combat skill, which is what this system was intended to evaluate, no?

The implication that such can be said for any kind of gametype is wrong, example is AS, where in attacking you are supposed to "shoot them and do the objective" and in general greatly depends on availability of replenishing health. It's not like you're mounting TDM on something else. In Freon, as you can heal with ease, many shots that do not kill will result in same consequences regardless whether you hit or closely miss (think sniping with X83). Another problem is that any player could be potential source of infinite points (shot -> heal -> shot etc.) and thus is prone to farming.

Azarael wrote:The long-term effect of a hit on an enemy cannot generally be predicted, but no less skill was required to make the hit than if it was the killing shot, and as you said yourself, players who hit more are going to get better combat stats in terms of K:D anyway. Might as well make the system more reliable.

The effect of the shot can be learned from damage history of the victim when they die - as I described in previous post.

Azarael wrote:I didn't suggest removing thawing from a damage-based skill system, only healing and perhaps more specifically, only healing used on self. The current system does not reward healing that much either, as far as I'm aware.

I guess I misinterpreted that. Also to make it clear, only thawing a frozen teammate is generating points in the skill system directly. While obviously you don't get "that much" from thawing you also don't risk "that much", speaking generally, if you get shot and kill the enemy, you'll replenish your health shortly afterwards.

iXtl wrote:

Perhaps make the practice round deathmatch instead of freon.

It is a good idea. But instead of discovering new map everybody will rush to kill everyone
However respawning in a practice round is a very good solution.

Practice round is a form of "better waiting" for connecting players that had to download the map. Also players die rarely, but ok, it's not a prob to make "very fast thawing" in practice round.

Practice round is pointless now that you can't farm KS1 from people who are loading before round 1 even starts.

AS isn't a good comparison either. We have stacks in AS games because of players who do more damage than they take. If only "effective" damage is counted, players are still going to get randomly screwed by the system. Consider that ALL damage dealt has a strategic effect. If a player is hit and flees to heal, you removed them from the game or current engagement through the act of dealing damage.

Not that I'm convinced in the slightest that strategic effect is relevant. If you do more damage than you take while maintaining a certain level of output, you are more skilled and that is independent of other game factors, which didn't make it more or less difficult for you to deal damage.

Not arguing that done/received damage should be the only considered factor, just that it should be considered for all damage.

K:D is vulnerable to similar abuse as well.

Azarael wrote:AS isn't a good comparison either. We have stacks in AS games because of players who do more damage than they take.

I don't understand why. You always have such players (well, unless they are suiciding a lot ), stack is when the majority of them is on one team.

Azarael wrote:If only "effective" damage is counted, players are still going to get randomly screwed by the system. Consider that ALL damage dealt has a strategic effect. If a player is hit and flees to heal, you removed them from the game or current engagement through the act of dealing damage.

And that is important somehow (when you cannot finish the enemy off)? If you play 1 on 1 and hit someone gravely (say deal 90 HP dmg), but then he evades, recovers by health pickups and then kills you (and receives 10 HP damage), do you feel like that it should be 1 : 1? To me such case is a clear 1 : 0 for him, just as it is. If this happened 60 times in a row, nobody would consider your skill as comparable, despite by damage it would be 60 : 60, and by scoreboard 60 : 0 np.

Then I don't see how there would be random screws. The "unimportant" damage would always be filtered correctly.

Azarael wrote:Not that I'm convinced in the slightest that strategic effect is relevant. If you do more damage than you take while maintaining a certain level of output, you are more skilled and that is independent of other game factors, which didn't make it more or less difficult for you to deal damage.

I disagree with this, it is not indepenent of the other game factors. Take a look into AS ladder and check just ATT round. You have there 68.9 % effi and iRobot has 64.6 % effi (these are raw) and it can be implied your your and iRobot's playstyles that iRobot has more objectives done, while you have more damage done / damage received. The goal of attacker AS is to minimize the attacking time and it has directly nothing to do with how much dmg you do and how much dmg you take? Are you more skilled than iRobot if we would consider just ATT round? No.

Azarael wrote:Not arguing that done/received damage should be the only considered factor, just that it should be considered for all damage.

That's exactly the point I don't understand: "why all damage".

You have there 68.9 % effi and iRobot has 64.6 % effi (these are raw) and it can be implied your your and iRobot's playstyles that iRobot has more objectives done, while you have more damage done / damage received.

f r m

Izumo_CZ wrote:
And that is important somehow (when you cannot finish the enemy off)? If you play 1 on 1 and hit someone gravely (say deal 90 HP dmg), but then he evades, recovers by health pickups and then kills you (and receives 10 HP damage), do you feel like that it should be 1 : 1? To me such case is a clear 1 : 0 for him, just as it is. If this happened 60 times in a row, nobody would consider your skill as comparable, despite by damage it would be 60 : 60, and by scoreboard 60 : 0 np.

Then I don't see how there would be random screws. The "unimportant" damage would always be filtered correctly.

In the context of setting up a skill system for a team game, is one on one a good example? All outside factors are mostly removed, the only way the enemy will die is from you (or suicide). In a team game you could do 90 damage and if the enemy runs for health its not impossible to expect a team mate to finish him off, unlike in 1on1.

If we put this scenario in a 2on2 match, who would be the one displaying more usefulness to the team, someone who did 90 damage or the player that did the 10 to finish them off?