New Game Mode : Team Mode

[Masaq]

Or, a better way of working out a team's scores than simply the combined personal scores of all the players within that alliance.

For example, one formula (to address the points you raised, Hyperion):

Baseline: 75% of each player's individual score (+2 for 1m kills, -1 for 1m deaths, -2m for collateral)
With: -50% subtracted for every point earned by each player, prior to joining the alliance, for each kill made against a player in the current alliance
Then: +25% bonus for each point earned during the duration of the alliance

Say, for example, you have Player1 and Player2, in a game of 6 player Standard Defcon. Ignoring all the possible permutations of score, focusing on these two players at the end of the match.

-Player1's individual score is 80
-Player2' individual score is 60
-At the start of Defcon1, Player1 nuked two of Player2's cities, and scored 20m deaths (40pts) against Player2.
-Halfway through the game, Player1 and Player2 joined into an alliance between themselves in a joint assault against another player. The alliance then lasted until the end of the game. During this period, Player1 scored 60pts and Player2 scored 40pts.

Their alliance/team score would be worked out as follows:

+75% of Player1's personal score = 60
+75% of Player2's personal score = 45
-50% of each point scored by Player1 against Player2 prior to Alliance = -20
-50% of each point scored by Player2 against Player1 prior to Alliance = -0
+25% of Player1's score earnt during Alliance = 15
+25%of Player2's score earnt during Alliance = 10

Total score: 60 + 45 - 20 - 0 + 15 + 10 = 110

This is significantly less than the 140pts they would have had had their individual scores just been added up.


On the other hand, Player3 and Player4, who joined an alliance together in Defcon5, stayed together for the entire game, and scored no kills against each other but who had identical individual scores of 80 and 60 points respectively, would have a team score as follows:


+75% of Player3's personal score = 60
+75% of Player4's personal score = 45
-50% of each point scored by Player1 against Player3 prior to Alliance = 0
-50% of each point scored by Player2 against Player4 prior to Alliance = 0
+25% of Player3's score earnt during Alliance = 20
+25%of Player4's score earnt during Alliance = 15

Total score = 60 + 45 - 0 - 0 + 20 + 15 = 140

Which would, in effect, give them a 20 point bonus over players 1 and 2 for having formed an alliance, workied together and stuck together without inflicting damage. (It is also, in effect, the score they'd receive had their individual scores just been added together).


Player5 and Player6 ALSO scored 80 and 60 respectively (flukey, this hypothetical game, ey?). They only joined their alliance right at the end of the game, seconds before the timer finished in an attempt to score highly with the "team factor". During the game though, they ignored each other and exchanged no nukes at each other so no damage was inflicted.

+75% of Player5's personal score = 60
+75% of Player6's personal score = 45
-50% of each point scored by Player1 against Player5 prior to Alliance = 0
-50% of each point scored by Player2 against Player6 prior to Alliance = 0
+25% of Player5's score earnt during Alliance = 0
+25%of Player6s score earnt during Alliance = 0

Total score = 60 + 45 - 0 - 0 + 0 + 0 = 105


If players battered each other for mutual points and then allied in the hope of forming a joint giant unassailable score, they'd be hit by the penalties for nuking each other first, which would almost represent the damage in relations between the team members.

If underdog players at the end of a match tried to form up to and just wrench a win from the better player in the match it wouldn't work, because they'd be limited to only 75% of their personal scores without the benefits of the alliance.

Players who formed an alliance, backstabbed once their ally's usefulness was gone and then joined a fresh alliance with another strong player would miss out on the bonus for earning points within the alliance.

Basically this method of scoring (or a similar one) would heavily reward players for sticking in an alliance throughout the game, moderately reward players who formed them for reasonable periods within the game, moderately punish alliances formed between teams of players who'd flattened each other (for trying to use the scoring mechanics without committing to a real alliance) and not enable groups of poorly scoring players to have any hope of defeating a team that'd played together throughout the whole game.

[Hyperion]

hmmm...yes...interesting and overly complicated...again the main argument seems to be the defection option, with it 'on' the process that i brought up would happen again and again and i have to agree that would make the gaming experience very hollow and frustrating.

Even with your improved score mechanics...theres simply no need when you could just have defection off and the only extra code or math that needed to be written would be for a joint score, very similar to playing defcon with 2 players but with multiple territories...good job on all the extra thinking and scoring method (trying not to be condescending ) but id even like for this to be actually made practical by an IV patch and not turn into a wholly theoretical idea (that sprouts off into many sub ideas)...and hopefully without having to give them much work to do on it.

It cannot be that difficult simply to put some code in that combined all said teams scored as a whole.

I dont understand and didnt realise there was so much reluctance towards the defection option? the proposed gamemode would be mainly for those wanting to feel some sort of loyalty to their alliance and comrades and not be concerned with individual scores, tactics, statistics or backstabbing, with defection left on then alliances would only be formed out of convenience to aggravate the leading or better skilled players...there are plenty of game modes suited for individual gameplay as it is.

[Smiling Buddha]

Snippety snip snip

Wow, you really have a lot of time on your hands...

Again, I agree with Hyperion - defection should be disabled in team mode.

[PSBirch]

The no defection was my suggestion simply for this fact ^^ albeit teaming up to take on the lonewolves might be fun but wouldnt it make any game pointless as you could be robbed of an entire games work simply because 5 minutes into the countdown timer some of the other teams allied simply to not allow you the victory of your hard work? id see that as pointless and very frustrating.

By the time big enough point differences are established, you're essentially only giving the grunts of the game the chance to team up for only the right to say 'ha we beat you and all your hard work...the majority rules, we win!'...*shrugs*

Ditto. It seems this idea makes the actual game of Defcon completely irrelevant.

And I don't know about you, but a 'victory' by simply joining an alliance with other players seems hollow to me.

Both good points, obviously -- turning on No Defection would certainly be a way to keep the losers from winning. The more complicated algorithm suggested later is also a viable alternative.

However I would counter that allegiances aren't arbitrary. In my example above, *someone* pounded on each of C, D, E, and F, and this will have some affect on the subsequent alliances. If E and F have fought a horrible war against one another, with no help from the others, they might not be obliged to join in any alliace to help another team win. Conversely, D might approach B saying, "Hey, if you help me in my war against F, I'll join your Team and together we can win!" Too, there's nothing keeping A or B from soliciting allies to help bolster their score. It might even be intimidation -- "Hey C, I have two subs and a carrier group off your shores -- defect to my Team or or I will pound you into irrelevance!"

At present, alliances don't really help anyone but the top dog, and are likely to lead to backstabs (which are fun, don't get me wrong) but in the end game, it can sometimes get boring, just watching the other guys duke it out with the lower-rung players not having any stake left in the game.

[Masaq]

Again, I agree with Hyperion - defection should be disabled in team mode.

To my mind, simply disabling defection is a blunt tool to solve a problem that could be sorted in a much more elegant way; one that doesn't limit players choices and options within the game but just makes certain ones less favourable.

[KingAl]

Again, I agree with Hyperion - defection should be disabled in team mode.

To my mind, simply disabling defection is a blunt tool to solve a problem that could be sorted in a much more elegant way; one that doesn't limit players choices and options within the game but just makes certain ones less favourable.

While I understand where you're coming from, even elaborate solutions such as the one you've suggested don't rule out people simply forming a team to gain a higher score than the better player.
I'd suggest the best approach would be allowing permanent teams with combined scores to be established before the game starts, and then allowing temporary alliances with other teams during the game - i.e. the permanent teams act as if they are one player from an alliances perspective.

[Smiling Buddha]

Again, I agree with Hyperion - defection should be disabled in team mode.

To my mind, simply disabling defection is a blunt tool to solve a problem that could be sorted in a much more elegant way; one that doesn't limit players choices and options within the game but just makes certain ones less favourable.

Your scoring system is far from elegant.

I'd suggest the best approach would be allowing permanent teams with combined scores to be established before the game starts, and then allowing temporary alliances with other teams during the game - i.e. the permanent teams act as if they are one player from an alliances perspective.

I like this, although it would only work in a 2vs2vs2.

[Masaq]

I'm not claiming by any means that the system I outlined was perfect; I offered it as an example of a way that the scoring mechanism could be used to effect player's behaviour.

Specifically, it was designed to address the point that yourself and Hyperion raised; that numerous small players, having been defeated heavily, could team up to combine their small scores into a much larger one.

I was just saying that if instead of a team's score being worked out by a fixed "A + B + C = Team" method, a fairly simple solution (that would be just as simple for the game to keep track of) would be to work out team score in a different way.

Currently, you can set up what amounts to a team game using the generic options, and then at the final scores simply take the average score of the players on each team, or the total score (however you preer)- and if you don't want to allow people to defect from their teams, don't allow it. Which is all well and good and requires only a few seconds of fairly simple maths.

[KingAl]

The fact is, the game is a little pointless if those who have played the best aren't those who have won. In non-permanent team mode, forming allegiances is still a legitimate form of play, because it doesn't involve manipulating a mechanic but rather manipulating other players.
In contrast, allowing people to move in and out of teams with combined scores inherently allows people to directly alter their scores via allegiance. Any game which allows people to alter their scores directly inherently allows people to win by manipulating mechanics. My objection was not to your specific implementation, but to the belief that any level of checks and balances could ever compensate for this flaw. Even in the case where you take an average of the scores of the members of the team, this issue is introduced if you don't have permanent teams.

That is: allowing different ways to calculate scores is fine, but allowing people to directly alter them by manipulating a mechanic is not.

[Hyperion]

Again, I agree with Hyperion - defection should be disabled in team mode.

To my mind, simply disabling defection is a blunt tool to solve a problem that could be sorted in a much more elegant way; one that doesn't limit players choices and options within the game but just makes certain ones less favourable.

Elegant = a hell of alot more work for this to be made into a practical and viable game mode, ill give credit where its due and you've put much thought into your 'elegant solution' so i applaud your insight and effort...HOWEVER...the fact remains that all your calculations would have to be put into a lot of algorithms and coding for the program to keep track of everything you've suggested and be a logisitcal nightmare where as the same end product could simply be met by a small cosmetic change and practically the same scoring mechanics as playing with multiple territories.

It is practically just a co-op mode.

Granted i didn't start this thread so my posts are only opinions and the defection button is not a blunt tool but a product of extensive thought and experimentation (i imagine) in the designing of the game...the IV staff may have considered everything you've mentioned before or something like your suggestions and simply decided this was the most effective solution.