Medal System
td_alakad
Join Date: 2004-09-23 Member: 31886Members
Join Date: 2004-09-23 Member: 31886Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Potential Reward System</div>I find, and I'm sure many of you do, specifically as Commander, very few people do things which are constructive to the team. Usually the biggest contribution is simply by killing aliens. Nobody wants to build the base, build the resource towers, kill certain alien structures, sneak around behind enemy lines and get a ninja phase gate, weld each other, etc. It's difficult to motivate people to do the grunt work and I can understand that, it's a game, it's supposed to be fun. There are supposed to be rewards for doing things which contribute to the team. So here's my idea...
Through-out each game collect data on what each individual soldier is doing. For example, if a soldier builds a resource tower, add a tally of 1 to their total resource towers built. Now, the player obviously is oblivious to this random addition to a variable going on in the background but at the end of the game the player's stats could flash on the screen for him to see so he can be proud of those four resource towers he built, or those six alien upgrade chambers he took down.
Now, to even further improve upon this idea of reward for menial things, it would be interesting to see players be rewarded with medals depicting their typical roles in the game. If a player builds four resource towers on average per game, then maybe they could be awarded a medal (much like a constellation/administrator icon) depicting a resource tower with 4 stars on it. Before the game even begins, other players and especially the commander will know that they can depend on this player to produce four resource towers for them because through-out their gaming history they have consistently done that just that.
The medals could be cumulative. For example, one player could own medals for building resource towers, welding, destroying enemy offensive structures, destroying enemy upgrade structures and killing aliens all in specific numbers per game. In essence, other players would be able to visually see that this player is very consistent in almost every aspect of the game.
Really the idea behind this medal system is two-fold. One purpose of it's (potential) existence is to encourage players to contribute to the team in other ways than just killing; but in another way, it would help to create the illusion that this team is a cohesive unit, much like any military fighting force. The military trains together extensively and they would be well aware of each other's strengths and weaknesses and would naturally play to their strengths. Through this medal system it would be easy for the commander to identify, as if he had been training with this soldier for years, what his strengths are and play to them accordingly.
Just as the medals would likely be cumulative, they should also be removed or replaced if the player should drop his per-game average in the specific medal category enough. For example, a player achieves a 20:1 kill to death ratio, then subsequently 18:1, 11:1, 22:1. Which averages out to about an 18:1 kill to death ratio over four games. After that, he starts to slip or better players join the server and he gets the following ratios: 5:1, 2:1, 3:1, 1:1. Suddenly his kill to death ratio average over eight games is now around 10:1 and the medal should reflect that.
Another issue is awarding the right player for his contributions. For example, a marine spends his time knifing a resource tower and then a second marine comes along and shoots it once, killing it. The second marine gets the credit for the kill, although the other marine did all of the work. I'm not terribly familiar with coding, but I'm sure it would be simple enough to create a system where-by damage is registered on a specific target (in this case the resource tower) and then divided into the total health to create a percentage of damage done. That way the first marine in the example above would get something along the lines of 99% of the credit, whereas the second marine would receive only about 1%. If the second marine were to continue doing the same thing through-out the game, he would never get credit for even a single resource tower kill, while the first marine, should he continue to do the same thing through-out the game, would get several. The same thing could easily be applied to building, welding, etc. so that only when the desired effect is applied (the structure becomes more built, the player's armor increases, etc.) is the player rewarded.
Of course, through-out most of this post I have talked about the Frontiersmen, but this same system could easily be applied to the Kharaa. For example, players who consistently drop hives, drop upgrade chambers, go gorge (several medals apply to going gorge, in my opinion, such as gorging early in the game, length of survival, amount and type of structures dropped (nobody wants someone who drops excessive amounts of Offense Chambers on their team), amount healed, etc.) It could also apply to kill to death ratios with certain life-forms so that you know immediately who the better fade is, who's the best lerk, who's the best skulk and can make team decisions based on that information, because the Kharaa, much like the military force that is the Frontiersman, are a cohesive unit and that should be reflected in the game regardless of the fact that in reality, you're almost always playing with what are essentially strangers.
Now in closing I'd like to say that I know that such a system can and would be abused by so-called "score ######s" (starts with "wh" and rhymes with "boars"). However, it would be simple enough to make medals individual to each server so that someone who plays consistently on a bot server can't connect to a "pro" server and be assumed to be a master at the game. In the end, we play the game so that we can proud of our accomplishments and so that other players can respect our individual skills, but the way that the game works right now, the only thing rewarded is killing. If you want Natural Selection to evolve (pun intended) as more of a team-based real-time strategy rather than as just another score ###### (starts with "wh" and rhymes with "pour") first person shooter the likes of Counter Strike, I strongly suggest implementing either this system, or one similar to it which rewards the player for beneficial actions performed and not just killing. Thanks for reading and of course I appreciate <u><b>constructive</b></u> criticism because I want this game to be the best that it can be.
Through-out each game collect data on what each individual soldier is doing. For example, if a soldier builds a resource tower, add a tally of 1 to their total resource towers built. Now, the player obviously is oblivious to this random addition to a variable going on in the background but at the end of the game the player's stats could flash on the screen for him to see so he can be proud of those four resource towers he built, or those six alien upgrade chambers he took down.
Now, to even further improve upon this idea of reward for menial things, it would be interesting to see players be rewarded with medals depicting their typical roles in the game. If a player builds four resource towers on average per game, then maybe they could be awarded a medal (much like a constellation/administrator icon) depicting a resource tower with 4 stars on it. Before the game even begins, other players and especially the commander will know that they can depend on this player to produce four resource towers for them because through-out their gaming history they have consistently done that just that.
The medals could be cumulative. For example, one player could own medals for building resource towers, welding, destroying enemy offensive structures, destroying enemy upgrade structures and killing aliens all in specific numbers per game. In essence, other players would be able to visually see that this player is very consistent in almost every aspect of the game.
Really the idea behind this medal system is two-fold. One purpose of it's (potential) existence is to encourage players to contribute to the team in other ways than just killing; but in another way, it would help to create the illusion that this team is a cohesive unit, much like any military fighting force. The military trains together extensively and they would be well aware of each other's strengths and weaknesses and would naturally play to their strengths. Through this medal system it would be easy for the commander to identify, as if he had been training with this soldier for years, what his strengths are and play to them accordingly.
Just as the medals would likely be cumulative, they should also be removed or replaced if the player should drop his per-game average in the specific medal category enough. For example, a player achieves a 20:1 kill to death ratio, then subsequently 18:1, 11:1, 22:1. Which averages out to about an 18:1 kill to death ratio over four games. After that, he starts to slip or better players join the server and he gets the following ratios: 5:1, 2:1, 3:1, 1:1. Suddenly his kill to death ratio average over eight games is now around 10:1 and the medal should reflect that.
Another issue is awarding the right player for his contributions. For example, a marine spends his time knifing a resource tower and then a second marine comes along and shoots it once, killing it. The second marine gets the credit for the kill, although the other marine did all of the work. I'm not terribly familiar with coding, but I'm sure it would be simple enough to create a system where-by damage is registered on a specific target (in this case the resource tower) and then divided into the total health to create a percentage of damage done. That way the first marine in the example above would get something along the lines of 99% of the credit, whereas the second marine would receive only about 1%. If the second marine were to continue doing the same thing through-out the game, he would never get credit for even a single resource tower kill, while the first marine, should he continue to do the same thing through-out the game, would get several. The same thing could easily be applied to building, welding, etc. so that only when the desired effect is applied (the structure becomes more built, the player's armor increases, etc.) is the player rewarded.
Of course, through-out most of this post I have talked about the Frontiersmen, but this same system could easily be applied to the Kharaa. For example, players who consistently drop hives, drop upgrade chambers, go gorge (several medals apply to going gorge, in my opinion, such as gorging early in the game, length of survival, amount and type of structures dropped (nobody wants someone who drops excessive amounts of Offense Chambers on their team), amount healed, etc.) It could also apply to kill to death ratios with certain life-forms so that you know immediately who the better fade is, who's the best lerk, who's the best skulk and can make team decisions based on that information, because the Kharaa, much like the military force that is the Frontiersman, are a cohesive unit and that should be reflected in the game regardless of the fact that in reality, you're almost always playing with what are essentially strangers.
Now in closing I'd like to say that I know that such a system can and would be abused by so-called "score ######s" (starts with "wh" and rhymes with "boars"). However, it would be simple enough to make medals individual to each server so that someone who plays consistently on a bot server can't connect to a "pro" server and be assumed to be a master at the game. In the end, we play the game so that we can proud of our accomplishments and so that other players can respect our individual skills, but the way that the game works right now, the only thing rewarded is killing. If you want Natural Selection to evolve (pun intended) as more of a team-based real-time strategy rather than as just another score ###### (starts with "wh" and rhymes with "pour") first person shooter the likes of Counter Strike, I strongly suggest implementing either this system, or one similar to it which rewards the player for beneficial actions performed and not just killing. Thanks for reading and of course I appreciate <u><b>constructive</b></u> criticism because I want this game to be the best that it can be.
Comments
ur post is abit long so i havnt read all of it but i spose medals could work
they could be useful for a comm: he could assess what his teams like by their medals. so he could assign players tasks they do often or well at whether thats being a point man or jp or pg builder.
Allowing the comm to award some medals ( maybe his own special medal) may help him show approval to noobs when they get something right. Yeh this is abit browny pointish but it maybe helpful for new players or emotional commanders.
You can debate whether the medals give players a bonus or are just a picture attached to their name. if they dont add a stat bonus or something(which in my opinion they shudnt) many more experienced players will ignore them and wont care because they are just pics.
What would be uber cool is if the medals a player ernt were displayed on his/her player model
They have medals/awards in tf2 and dystopia (sci fi tf2) me thinks but u dont retain them after each game. I prefer the idea of retaining medals to retaining global stats. Because players can become cowardly over the posession of stats but they may not over medals so easily
1. It may fill up alot of memory to keep track of 100+ players over time for a large number of metals.
2. When I started playing NS I shared a PC with my brother. He was a waaaaaay better alien than me so I would get credit for his ninja fading, plus ruin his stats. Also I sometimes played a internet cafe's.
Possible answers:
1. Have a half life on the stats, either time and/or game based to save memory. After 2-3 months or 5-10 games (which ever comes first) the old scores are deleted. This way space is not wasted on inactive players. Yes it does mean an increase of 10% for space allocated to active ones but over time it could work out to be less. In addition a crap game will not screw your stats forever, plus new players are not paying for their Noobie mistakes 2 months later.
2. Smart logic to ID the name <u>and </u> steam account
I vote <u><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro--> YES <!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></u>
Personally, I'm for one that actually grants some type of in-game bonus (such as in Call of Duty). However, I think having a medal system in supplement, or stand alone if need be is a great way of offering some type of persistence in a type of game that typically isn't.
If unknown worlds could implement a system like this it could be great. Medal for building the most rts, commander hours awards, fade kills, etc. would give new players something to work for and adds playability. It would also be a way to differentiate between players to make it easier to show who the good commanders, marines and aliens are.
The only thing I worry about, and I see this in TF2, is that often people will focus on getting achievements and not on actually playing to win the game.
Well about that, a high win percentage could be one of the medals awarded. Anything greater than 50% means that player is a contribution to the team.
and im not against it but
look at the servers from bf2, they full from guys who will cheat , hack or use glitches
to go a rank up
my vote is <u><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->JES<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></u>
but not global
i think when you leave the server
you lose all medals and need in the other server to award it again
that work in other games like "fuel of war" really good
Reason: I have been advocating this for some time in the forums now, and seeing td_alakad's post is just awesome. So well laid out and thought out. I really hope the Unknown World's Developers (Charlie, Max, & Co.) see this but if memory serves, I think they have mentioned that they favor the use of stats in this entertaining way as well in a pod cast, blog, or post somewhere.
A server does not need to be ranked (and in fact WiC servers that have bots are not ranked). A global ranking/medal system helps to differentiate players and would help teams to rally around certain individuals (gee that guy is great maybe I should follow him and try to emulate him). Also commander that have commanded for a certain hours can get a medal (usually comms get better the longer they have played as a commander). I think it adds that military element since the TSA are a military unit.
I really like the idea, and I think it's very well thought out.
<!--quoteo(post=1666944:date=Jan 10 2008, 08:43 AM:name=invader Zim)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(invader Zim @ Jan 10 2008, 08:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1666944"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->ur post is abit long so i havnt read all of it<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha. I did. I try to read long posts, because I sometimes tend to write long posts of my own. It's only fair, right?
<!--quoteo(post=1666954:date=Jan 10 2008, 10:17 AM:name=Sirus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirus @ Jan 10 2008, 10:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1666954"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, I think having a medal system in supplement, or stand alone if need be is a great way of offering some type of persistence in a type of game that typically isn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed.
<!--quoteo(post=1666976:date=Jan 10 2008, 10:26 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jan 10 2008, 10:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1666976"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only thing I worry about, and I see this in TF2, is that often people will focus on getting achievements and not on actually playing to win the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I also had this reservation, but I've been reassured that it won't be too much of an issue.
In order to add something of my own, I'm wondering about the 'persistence' of the medals.
In the BF ("achievement") system, you achieve something, you keep that medal. There's a great incentive to rack up those medals. And you don't really have to 'sustain' them.
The ("sustained") system currently being discussed is better in that it focuses on the "<b>current you</b>" and it's more accurate, and there's more incentive to play better. But there's less incentive to actually gather up the medals, since you need to <b>sustain</b> them. To me, they seem a bit like it's just another way to show stats. A bit. I still like the idea, but not for the reasons I like the BF medal awarding system. Do you get what I mean?
Also, I agree that it should be some kind of globally ranked system, as opposed to one-round-only or one-server-only. Perhaps you'd do it the BF2 way (I think this is how it works), with 'ranked' servers, and unranked servers - only ranked servers send stats to the global ranking server; to counter the bot-killing score-######s.
(OT) Misere: I've been meaning to ask this for a while, but what is that? Is that a ninja riding a bunny?
Its Richard the warlock from looking for group. Its from when he was cursed and turned into a midge so he got a rabbit as a mount. Its a very good web comic that takes the piss out of role playing and MMORP's. Well worth a read if your keen. I love his sense of humor, very dark.
<a href="http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/1" target="_blank">http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/1</a>
In the BF ("achievement") system, you achieve something, you keep that medal. There's a great incentive to rack up those medals. And you don't really have to 'sustain' them.
The ("sustained") system currently being discussed is better in that it focuses on the "<b>current you</b>" and it's more accurate, and there's more incentive to play better. But there's less incentive to actually gather up the medals, since you need to <b>sustain</b> them. To me, they seem a bit like it's just another way to show stats. A bit. I still like the idea, but not for the reasons I like the BF medal awarding system. Do you get what I mean?
Also, I agree that it should be some kind of globally ranked system, as opposed to one-round-only or one-server-only. Perhaps you'd do it the BF2 way (I think this is how it works), with 'ranked' servers, and unranked servers - only ranked servers send stats to the global ranking server; to counter the bot-killing score-######s.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the whole idea behind it is mostly so that you can look at a player's medals and understand what kind of player they are. If they're able to maintain a medal for building four resource towers on average per game then you know for sure that you can count on them to cap you, give or take, four resource towers.
In the system that you're talking about, it would be impossible to assess what a player is actually good at, because anyone could achieve the medals if they were given enough time and over a certain number of games. For example... Player 1 caps the following number of resource towers over ten games: 1, 0, 0, 1, 5, 1, 0, 1, 1, 10. On the first game, Player 1 is granted the medal for capping one resource tower. On the fifth game, the player is granted a medal for capping five resource towers. On the tenth game, the player is granted a medal for capping an astounding ten resource towers! Any commander seeing that will immediately assume that Player 1 is very good at capping resource towers, that obviously is not the case, however, because over those ten games his resource tower capping average was only two per game.
Now with the sustaining system, you may lose medals which are valuable to you, but the medals that you keep will show the commander, and others, what kind of player you really are consistently. Let's say Player 2, under the sustaining system, gets the following stats for capping resource now: 4, 2, 1, 1, 2, 0, 5, 7, 9, 10. Now on the first game he's already proven that he's a good at capping resource towers by achieving a medal for four resource towers capped, however, by the fifth game he's starting to slip and his average drops to two resource towers per game. However, realizing that he is good at capping resource towers, he decides to focus less on the killing aspect of the game and focus on capping again for the next five games. He does amazingly well at it and ends up raising his average to four resource towers per game. If he continues that trend, he'll raise it even higher, but only if he's good enough to maintain it. If a commander now sees Player 2's sustained medals versus Player 1's sustained medals, he'll see clearly that Player 2 is much better at capping resource towers (because he has an average of four per game) than Player 1 is (who has an average of only two per game).
That's the point behind the "sustained" medal system that I proposed. It's more about understanding your fellow soldiers than about rewarding individual players, however, it's nice to know that your resource tower capping skills are appreciated by the commander and that will be the reward and motivation in itself.
Your "sustained" system I believe though, lacks that incentive.
Gaining treasures is a quest and an adventure, trying to hold on to them is a battle and a chore.
I think that essentially your system plays towards commanders, or making the team more closely-knit, while the battlefield system appeals towards the players.
Of course, one solution could be to have -both- at once. One could be 'medals' (achievements), the other could be 'badges' or stars (indicating the quality of the player). (I'm stealing the names for these awards from BF2, but they don't strictly have to be named that.)
It would be pretty nice to gain medals based on what you've achieved - eg. commanded and won three games in a row for a bronze medal of some sort.
It would be good for the commander, and as you've said better for the team community, if commanders and players know what other players are good at doing, or are willing to do.
I also second the idea that (if the engine/code is willing) these badges and medals should be able to be viewed on the player model. (With the added option in your video settings, of choosing not to display it, for those with less-than-flash computers, or those that just don't want to see them.)
Now, in terms of aesthetics, I propose 'medals' to be solid; while 'badges' are holographic. (And/or more simply, left-side and right-side for badges/medals)
make it round based. that you lose all medals when 3 maps/rounds are played
and to implement this its need a powerfull maschine to save (i hope over 1000) all player medals and ribbons
when its round based is all good
(and when you still will ribbons and medals, you can make it like some bf2 mod server, they have a site connectet to the server
that save all scores and give out medals and co if you are regiestered)
(in ns its the steam iD whats needed , in bf2 its the account name)