Attributing points in fortress after a suicide?

[INW]

My point wasn't clear enough.

A match where points are given to the enemy upon suicide will end earlier than a match without giving away points or a match where points are taken away for suicides.

It simply will, no doubt about it.
The teams will get closer to the end match limit of 100 points. They will get their quicker. Derp.

So if we were to chose one of the options for scoring a suicide for the sake of making the ladle quicker or at least not making it longer, then losing points for a suicide is not an option and giving away points for a suicide is the first option.

[syllabear]

My point wasn't clear enough.

A match where points are given to the enemy upon suicide will end earlier than a match without giving away points or a match where points are taken away for suicides.

It simply will, no doubt about it.
The teams will get closer to the end match limit of 100 points. They will get their quicker. Derp.

So if we were to chose one of the options for scoring a suicide for the sake of making the ladle quicker or at least not making it longer, then losing points for a suicide is not an option and giving away points for a suicide is the first option.

You're probably wrong in about 50%+ of the cases, because - face the facts - we're people and not robots. Think about if you were actually in the situation INW, instead of just looking at some meaningless numbers.

Looking at your (very specific) example of 98-98:

Case a) where you give points for a suicide, technically you say would be shorter. But no, players on both sides would realise this and would play safe. Don't forget, kills get points too! So people would play safe in order not to die. If you were lagging/etc. you'd go and hide in a corner, que a long wait.

But if suicides gave -2 points as in case b), then holing is not neccessarily a problem, so if there was a player advantage (and at 98-98 this is likely) you'd be willing to hole to give up the 2 points if you could turn this around into a zone capture. It would be more exciting and probably quicker at the same time.

So proove me wrong otherwise by setting up an experiment, but I think that most people would agree the above is the null hypothesis for what they would actually do in the situation

[INW]

I was talking logically, not psychologically.

Better example.

Round 1.
0-0
Team Blue mass suicides on lag.
Score 22-0

Round 2.
22-0
Team Gold mass suicides on lag.
Score 22-22

Look at that. 44 points have been scored in 15 seconds instead of just 20 with no suicide points.

The match will be quicker.

Another example.

88-70 (Gold is winning, Blue's score doesn't matter tbh)
Gold have 6 players, Blue has 6 players.
Blue's def randomly commits suicide and gives away 2 points. Blue still has players alive so it isn't one of them, "save the zone kind of situations".
Gold grabs the zone and them 2 suicide points from earlier that round and wins 100-70.

I'll make an experiment soon enough to show this.

[epsy]

I was talking logically, not psychologically.

You shouldn't care about what point distribution is RIGHT and JUST, but rather about what player behavior it encourages and whether it results in non-broken strategic decisions.

Look at that. 44 points have been scored in 15 seconds instead of just 20 with no suicide points.

That's a really huge corner case. And a very sad one at that.
People lag. Oh cool the match is quicker now.
???

88-70 (Gold is winning, Blue's score doesn't matter tbh)
Gold have 6 players, Blue has 6 players.
Blue's def randomly commits suicide and gives away 2 points. Blue still has players alive so it isn't one of them, "save the zone kind of situations".
Gold grabs the zone and them 2 suicide points from earlier that round and wins 100-70.

88-70 (Gold is winning, Blue's score doesn't matter tbh)
Gold have 6 players, Blue has 6 players.
Blue's def gets killed and gives away 2 points. Blue still has players alive so it isn't one of them, "save the zone kind of situations".
Gold grabs the zone and them 2 kill points from earlier that round and wins 100-70.

[sinewav]

Round 1.
0-0
Team Blue mass suicides on lag.
Score 22-0

Correction: 18-0. Gold team can't get the zone in time. And since there is no way to give the other team points for your suicide this is a moot point. Is there a way I'm missing?

[Kijutsu]

Why are people taking his hypothethical situations even seriously..? We would never know if -2 suicides/tk's would make the match go slower or faster unless we enable the setting and see for ourselves because every round is different and can't be predicted.

[Phytotron]

Why are people taking his hypothethical situations even seriously..? We would never know if -2 suicides/tk's would make the match go slower or faster unless we enable the setting and see for ourselves because every round is different and can't be predicted.

Kinda my point all along. What's the harm in trying something different?

[sinewav]

What's the harm in trying something different?

Nothing, except the lean of this discussion is towards awarding points to your opponent in case of your suicide/tk. It's not even possible. The taking away of points might be picked up by a server one day for testing, but no one here has been very convincing when it comes to Ladle.

[syllabear]

What's the harm in trying something different?

Nothing, except the lean of this discussion is towards awarding points to your opponent in case of your suicide/tk. It's not even possible. The taking away of points might be picked up by a server one day for testing, but no one here has been very convincing when it comes to Ladle.

Code: Select all

ENEMY_TEAMMATE_PENALTY 999999.5
ENEMY_SUICIDE_TIMEOUT                1000000.0

Makes screwups at the start of the round still count as no-point suicides or teamkills, but every death after only a little bit of enemy contact will result in points for the enemy team. NPHs are still possible, but the holer would need to avoid going near any enemy wall for the entire round before. Yeah, those points will be attributed to a seemingly random player on the enemy team. Anyone complaining about that needs a stern reminder that this is a team game mode.

Essentially the same thing, no?

[sinewav]

Do you actually want this to happen?

[syllabear]

We could give it a go? Personally I doubt it'd be more popular than current settings, but theres no harm in asking maybe MB or another hoster if they'd mind trying this for a few days

[sinewav]

We could give it a go? Personally I doubt it'd be more popular than current settings, but theres no harm in asking maybe MB or another hoster if they'd mind trying this for a few days

i agree, I think all ideas should be tried and experimented with. it's the only way to know for sure if it really sucks or not, haha.

[dariv]

Do you actually want this to happen?

I'd like to see it tested at least, it could work out very well.