Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:15 pm
Percentages
Ok, here's an off-the-walls idea. It's a little complicated but I think it might appeal to the competitive and tactical players.
This is intended to be a Bitmatch feature, but it might work in Rabbit. I think it could be extended to other modes too but it would need modification.
Each player is given a percentage that replaces their score. To win, one player must achieve a percentage of 60%. The most any player could theoretically get is 100%.
When a player gets a kill, they are awarded 2% on their meter. Partial kills -- dealing 50% damage to enemies -- award the player with 1%. Let me be clear about partial kills. By 50%, I mean half of the "hit points" required to eliminate an enemy at full health. If an enemy you run into is already down to 50% health, then killing them would be considered a partial kill despite actually eliminating them. Additionally, if a player only had like 10% health then killing them would result in no percentage gain. This provides incentive to go after full-health players instead of weak ones.
If every player had independent meters, then this would be a game to 30 (60% / 2% per kill = 30, and ignoring partial kills). The catch -- and dynamic game element -- is that all players actually share a meter.
In a small game this would not affect gameplay for the first few minutes. Player percentages would grow, each taking a bite out of the 100% but it'd be a couple minutes before the percentage meter actually affected gameplay. This should be perceived as a good thing (first few minutes are "practice") but if people think it's boring then perhaps the kill percentage could increase from 2% to a greater number for smaller games.
When all of the available 100% has been assigned, the fun begins. When a player kills another, the 2% or 1% is stolen from the dead player and gifted to the shooter(s). (Plural in case of a partial kill from another shooter.)
In time, player percentages will naturally separate due to skill differences. For example, after a few minutes of battling a scoreboard might look like this:
- Zoomber 36%
- sam686 32%
- Drex 16%
- sky_lark 9%
- watusimoto 3%
- raptor 3%
- bobdaduck 1%
In a normal game of Bitmatch, these scores would likely mean that sky_lark, watusimoto, raptor, and bobdaduck are hopelessly doomed, Drex has a chance of coming back, and Zoomber or sam will likely compete for the victory.
With percentages, players can come back -- or at least make a dent on the leaders -- by focusing their kills on certain players. For example, if watusimoto chose to kill bobdaduck, that wouldn't really be helpful, since wat would only get a max of 1% in return for his efforts. And after that bobdaduck would provide literally no value to enemies who kill him.
But if watusimoto tracked down and attacked zoomber or sam, he'd get THEIR percentages. Not only would zoomber/sam be temporarily stopped from advancing but they'd also actually lose percentage, giving greater opportunity for a comeback to the other players.
I think this kind of incentive would help balance Bitmatch by putting greater pressure on the skilled players, and making winning a little more difficult. A truly skilled player would choose his/her enemies wisely and climb the percentage ladder to reach 60%.
One potential concern is that leading players would simply hide and protect their percentages, only coming out to kill rookies and the like. (Remember though, to gain percentage 50% of damage must be yielded, so the leading players can't just pick on weak players.)
I can think of four solutions.
1. I think this would provide an opportunity for the frequently-discussed "combo-kill" to make an appearance. Combo-kills -- aka multiple kills achieved in a short time period, without dying -- would motivate those at the top of the leader board to continue a battle with nearby players instead of simply fleeing after only one dude is killed. This could perhaps be indicated by a countdown timer of 10 seconds, where the player has ten seconds after killing one enemy to initiate another battle (read: battle, not necessarily kill) before their combo-kill possibility dissipates. Successful combo kills would provide some kind of advantage to players, like an escalating percentage as more kills are recorded.
2. The second method I call "bounty." It would replace or complement combo-kills. If the leader player(s) (plural in case of tied percentages) do not kill every 30 or so seconds, a bounty is placed on their ship. This is displayed as a banner or in the chat for all players to see. Anyone who kills the player in subject achieves the bounty reward: additional percentage taken. To remove a bounty, the player in subject must simply kill someone else, and then they have 30 seconds to do it again or get placed with a bounty, and so on so forth. Note that this would only apply for the player(s) in first place or in the first few places so that lower level players don't get screwed.
3. The third method, like before, would either supplement or complement the other ideas. It would occur during combo-kills as an added advantage, or would occur solely during what I call a "blitz." Blitzes last roughly 15 seconds and during that time, any kills achieved would result in additional percentage taken from the leading players, despite who was actually killed. However, to not overly screw the lead player this additional percentage would only be stolen if the lead player is unable to kill at least one other person during the Blitz mode. This is my least favorite idea because it doesn't directly address the problem of hiding, but others might like it.
So that's it. To summarize, players grab percentages from either a shared bank or from enemies. Players can choose to fight the guy right next to them, but they may not find much value in it, so they can track down and focus on the bigger fish. Lower level players would find satisfaction with last-minute game "saves" by preventing the leading players from victory, and upper level players would enjoy the increased challenge of winning.
What do you think? Is there actually a concept here or did I just kill 30 minutes typing up this massive post?
edit: clarity
This is intended to be a Bitmatch feature, but it might work in Rabbit. I think it could be extended to other modes too but it would need modification.
Each player is given a percentage that replaces their score. To win, one player must achieve a percentage of 60%. The most any player could theoretically get is 100%.
When a player gets a kill, they are awarded 2% on their meter. Partial kills -- dealing 50% damage to enemies -- award the player with 1%. Let me be clear about partial kills. By 50%, I mean half of the "hit points" required to eliminate an enemy at full health. If an enemy you run into is already down to 50% health, then killing them would be considered a partial kill despite actually eliminating them. Additionally, if a player only had like 10% health then killing them would result in no percentage gain. This provides incentive to go after full-health players instead of weak ones.
If every player had independent meters, then this would be a game to 30 (60% / 2% per kill = 30, and ignoring partial kills). The catch -- and dynamic game element -- is that all players actually share a meter.
In a small game this would not affect gameplay for the first few minutes. Player percentages would grow, each taking a bite out of the 100% but it'd be a couple minutes before the percentage meter actually affected gameplay. This should be perceived as a good thing (first few minutes are "practice") but if people think it's boring then perhaps the kill percentage could increase from 2% to a greater number for smaller games.
When all of the available 100% has been assigned, the fun begins. When a player kills another, the 2% or 1% is stolen from the dead player and gifted to the shooter(s). (Plural in case of a partial kill from another shooter.)
In time, player percentages will naturally separate due to skill differences. For example, after a few minutes of battling a scoreboard might look like this:
- Zoomber 36%
- sam686 32%
- Drex 16%
- sky_lark 9%
- watusimoto 3%
- raptor 3%
- bobdaduck 1%
In a normal game of Bitmatch, these scores would likely mean that sky_lark, watusimoto, raptor, and bobdaduck are hopelessly doomed, Drex has a chance of coming back, and Zoomber or sam will likely compete for the victory.
With percentages, players can come back -- or at least make a dent on the leaders -- by focusing their kills on certain players. For example, if watusimoto chose to kill bobdaduck, that wouldn't really be helpful, since wat would only get a max of 1% in return for his efforts. And after that bobdaduck would provide literally no value to enemies who kill him.
But if watusimoto tracked down and attacked zoomber or sam, he'd get THEIR percentages. Not only would zoomber/sam be temporarily stopped from advancing but they'd also actually lose percentage, giving greater opportunity for a comeback to the other players.
I think this kind of incentive would help balance Bitmatch by putting greater pressure on the skilled players, and making winning a little more difficult. A truly skilled player would choose his/her enemies wisely and climb the percentage ladder to reach 60%.
One potential concern is that leading players would simply hide and protect their percentages, only coming out to kill rookies and the like. (Remember though, to gain percentage 50% of damage must be yielded, so the leading players can't just pick on weak players.)
I can think of four solutions.
1. I think this would provide an opportunity for the frequently-discussed "combo-kill" to make an appearance. Combo-kills -- aka multiple kills achieved in a short time period, without dying -- would motivate those at the top of the leader board to continue a battle with nearby players instead of simply fleeing after only one dude is killed. This could perhaps be indicated by a countdown timer of 10 seconds, where the player has ten seconds after killing one enemy to initiate another battle (read: battle, not necessarily kill) before their combo-kill possibility dissipates. Successful combo kills would provide some kind of advantage to players, like an escalating percentage as more kills are recorded.
2. The second method I call "bounty." It would replace or complement combo-kills. If the leader player(s) (plural in case of tied percentages) do not kill every 30 or so seconds, a bounty is placed on their ship. This is displayed as a banner or in the chat for all players to see. Anyone who kills the player in subject achieves the bounty reward: additional percentage taken. To remove a bounty, the player in subject must simply kill someone else, and then they have 30 seconds to do it again or get placed with a bounty, and so on so forth. Note that this would only apply for the player(s) in first place or in the first few places so that lower level players don't get screwed.
3. The third method, like before, would either supplement or complement the other ideas. It would occur during combo-kills as an added advantage, or would occur solely during what I call a "blitz." Blitzes last roughly 15 seconds and during that time, any kills achieved would result in additional percentage taken from the leading players, despite who was actually killed. However, to not overly screw the lead player this additional percentage would only be stolen if the lead player is unable to kill at least one other person during the Blitz mode. This is my least favorite idea because it doesn't directly address the problem of hiding, but others might like it.
So that's it. To summarize, players grab percentages from either a shared bank or from enemies. Players can choose to fight the guy right next to them, but they may not find much value in it, so they can track down and focus on the bigger fish. Lower level players would find satisfaction with last-minute game "saves" by preventing the leading players from victory, and upper level players would enjoy the increased challenge of winning.
What do you think? Is there actually a concept here or did I just kill 30 minutes typing up this massive post?
edit: clarity
Last edited by sky_lark on Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
