2vs2 Assault games scoring system

[Stijn]

As you might have noticed, I like playing assault games. In fact, the only kind of JJ2 games I play are assault games. So I though it would be cool if I could play them for JDC too. As Assault is (usually) technically CTF, I guess it would be allowed. However, it's pretty sifficult to define the score, because in assault, you only lose or win, without points.

When I asked how this was done on the JDC site, EvilMike replied that he would be interested in a scoring system. So I guess I'd share my ideas with you all =) There it goes:

<ul>
<li>For JDC, assault games should always be played in two rounds. In round two, the team that attacked in round one defends and vice versa.</li>
<li>If the defending team manages to protect its base until the time limit is reached (= the attacking team fails to complete all of its goals) all points that can be scored in that round should go the defending team.</li>
<li>When the attacking team completes all its goals within 50% the time limit (<i>e.g. 10 minutes when the time limit is 20</i>) it should get all points that can be scored in that round.</li>
<li>If the attacking team does not complete its goals within half of the time limit but it does within the full time limit, points are extracted from the total amount of points that can be scored in that round. The amount of points that is extracted percentually equals the amount of time that was needed for completing the goals on top of half of the time limit. <br>
<i>For example, in a game with a time limit of 20 minutes, when the attacking team completes its goals in 15 minutes, it needed 5 extra minutes on top of the 10 minutes needed for a perfect score. This (5 minutes) is 25% of the total time limit (20 minutes), so the "perfect" score should be decreased by 25% to equal the attacking teams' score.</i></li>
<li>If the defending team loses, but after half of the time limit has passed, it should get an amount of points that percentually equals the amount of extra time needed by the attacking team. <br>
<i>For example, in the previous example, the attacking team needed "25% extra time", so the defending team would get 25% of the perfect score - which would be 2 if the perfect score was 8.</i></li>
</ul>

The perfect score is something I'm not sure about. I was thinking about 10 points per round, but perhaps a maximal score of 20 per game is a little too much. Another problem with working with percentages is that you might get scores that need to be rounded down or up. The factors in bold are examples and might need to be changed for this system to work - defending teams get very small scores when they lose in the last minute now. Italics are examples.

So, any comments?

[R3ptile]

<gg>

[cooba]

I don't know why, but this feels a bit overcomplicated... ;P I suppose it would all work in general though.

[Blackraptor]

It does sound a bit complicated at first, but I would hope it would work out since assault matches would be an interesting addition.

[White Rabbit]

Hmm...

I think the perfect score should be 10, because it's neat, and it produces more roundable numbers. ;)

Also, I think the defending team's score is lowest when they lose barely after the half-time mark, and their score increases when they lose much later into the game, which is fair. I've noticed that the attacking team gets 0 points when they lose, no matter how far they get, which would be a shame for the attacking team if they lose both rounds, and IMHO this is a problem which needs to be fixed.

I've already created a spreadsheet using Flash's system, and will upload it on the JDC files section ASAP. Take a look at it. :p

EDIT: Download at http://www.jazz2online.com/jdc/levels.php?ext=misc/

[Stijn]

I've noticed that the attacking team gets 0 points when they lose, no matter how far they get, which would be a shame for the attacking team if they lose both rounds, and IMHO this is a problem which needs to be fixed.
I agree, but it's nearly impossible to determine how far the attacking team got. You could base the score on the amount of objectives the attackers completed, but every level has different objectives and documenting every level is a bit too many work I think. :(

[EvilMike]

An interesting, although complicated system. It's quite different from the current assault scoring system, which is bascially all or nothing, with the fastest team to beat the level getting points. This means that the second round is no longer than the first round, and often shorter.

This method on the other hand (correct me if I'm wrong), puts both rounds at an equal length, and assigns a point value to each round seperately, rather than both as a whole. The points obtained can also be quite variable.

Both systems have advantages. The advantage of the traditional system is obviously that it is simple and not dependant on a bunch of factors. Because of this it's bascially impossible to get it wrong.

The advantage of sers' system is that it rewards players even if they lose. This is a good thing, although the reliance on a bunch of details (the set length of a match and that whole percentage buisness in particular) makes it a lot harder to get right. It would still work without fussing over details like that, but arguably not as well.

I like the innovation behind this new system, although for practical purposes I ultimately have to chose the traditional system as the better one. What I would like to see is the simplicity of traditional assault scoring with some method of rewarding points to the losing team for their performance. I have a number of ideas but don't feel like typing these out for now.

As for 2vs2 games, I don't think assault should really apply to them. The reason is simply because of how 2vs2s are scored. Assault is a VERY different gametype from CTF, with the main problem being that the point value of an assault match is arbitrary. CTF points on the other hand are much more consistant.

What I mean is that you can decide to make an assault match out of 10, 20, or whatever. A CTF match on the other hand, is worth however many points were scored. The JDC duel scoring system was designed with this in mind.

2vs2 assault games are still acceptable, but I believe they should stay qualified as "small events" mostly due to technicalities.

Oh and wr's spreadsheet makes NO SENSE :O :r

[Stijn]

It's complicated, I agree. But it's pretty easy to create a PHP script that lets you put in the time limit, goal completion time etc and then calculates the scores, if you want me to I could even make it.
I don't have much problems with counting it as a "small" event, but my main concern is that you can only get 5 points with this kind of events, while Assault games usually take a lot of time (so the points aren't really wort the effort).

[blurredd]

I meant to reply to this topic a week a ago. The idea posted is decent, but what I originally had in mind was something simpler like the number of minutes it takes the attacking team to complete all objects (or the number of minutes in the time limit if time runs out) is the amount of points the opposite team gets for that round. Something along those lines. It's also much easier to explain in a place like the Event Description (http://www.jazz2online.com/jdc/event/eventdesc.php) section on JDC. The idea needs work though, and I'm not satisfied with the amendments I had in mind.

Whatever method is used, there's still a possibility of problems with the time limit like if both teams take too long. And simplicity is needed, or at least wording in a more concise manner.