PDA

View Full Version : Great idea: Score / Point objects



JtD
06-16-2006, 09:30 AM
A few guys of the German community came up with what I think is a brilliant idea: Point objects. These things would come as a 3-D point (no graphics, no collison, really, no effort) just worth a score. The idea behind that would be that you can place these object somewhere on the map inside bridges, builings, fuel tanks etc. etc. making these objects interesting targets. You blow up the bridge, you destroy the point object, you get the score and possibly the mission accomplished.

These point objects could come in different classes, say 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 or whatever and would be a very nice addition to gameplay. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I think it's a very simple, very effective idea to enhance gameplay a lot. Please consider it for one of the next patches and of course, for BoB.

JtD
06-16-2006, 09:30 AM
A few guys of the German community came up with what I think is a brilliant idea: Point objects. These things would come as a 3-D point (no graphics, no collison, really, no effort) just worth a score. The idea behind that would be that you can place these object somewhere on the map inside bridges, builings, fuel tanks etc. etc. making these objects interesting targets. You blow up the bridge, you destroy the point object, you get the score and possibly the mission accomplished.

These point objects could come in different classes, say 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 or whatever and would be a very nice addition to gameplay. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I think it's a very simple, very effective idea to enhance gameplay a lot. Please consider it for one of the next patches and of course, for BoB.

JG53Tunjah
06-16-2006, 11:12 AM
I, as a halftime Bomber Pilot, can only support this very good idea with a loud BUMP

Finally we could bomb industrial targets, bridges - more or less anything you want - and wouldnâ´t get scoremessages like "train destroyed" etc. anymore but a simple "target destroyed" which would add a lot to the reality factor.

I know that the Il2 Line is more or less at the end of the new-things-runway, but that idea is one of the best i heard the last years...too bad that no one had that idea earlier.

Thumbs up for this

AldiTuetchen
06-16-2006, 11:40 AM
Should be on top http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Foo.bar
06-16-2006, 12:33 PM
worth to be bumped http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-16-2006, 12:51 PM
Bump
(Gutta cavat lapidem)

nsu
06-16-2006, 01:28 PM
Yes a brilliant idea! it is a very nice addition to gameplay http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Oleg make it real!

Gruß NSU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

xTHRUDx
06-16-2006, 06:19 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-16-2006, 08:55 PM
If we can give each point a label, and this label shows up in the eventlog file, then we can see what points are destroyed.

Lacking that, we will have to read the (x,y) coordinates of each destroyed point recording and compare with a list of coordinates of our placed points, to find out what is or is not destroyed around the map in a mission or campaign. Either method can be programmed into a dynamic campaign generator.

LEXX_Luthor
06-16-2006, 09:01 PM
JTD:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">These point objects could come in different classes, say 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 or whatever and would be a very nice addition to gameplay. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Abstract damage modelling. I like this for ground targets, and would not be hard to do. Thanks!

Monty_Thrud
06-17-2006, 05:51 AM
How about getting rid of the points system altogether and just have everybody overclaiming...that would be more historically correct http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Feathered_IV
06-17-2006, 06:46 AM
A great idea. Another bump.

thefruitbat
06-17-2006, 10:40 AM
the best idea i have heard yet for points scoring, another bump.

I know that this is expanding away from such a simple idea, but i would like to see a way of scalable allocation of points, ie, if blue is tasked with destroying target X, then its points allocation is in line with this target, whereas reds point allocation would be on destroying planes carrying bombs. Obvioulsy points would be allocated for destroying, say fighters, but at a much lower level, in line with the mission parameters.

just my two cents

fruitbat

JG301_nils
06-17-2006, 06:53 PM
Funny no one thought of this before,
it's practically no job doing this, and it has really been missed
-nils-

The_Gog
06-18-2006, 01:46 AM
It is a great idea, but as it will mainly help the bomber pilots only, it will not get implemented.



.

x6BL_Brando
06-18-2006, 02:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is a great idea, but as it will mainly help the bomber pilots only, it will not get implemented. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try doing a count of just how many aircraft can actually carry a bomb or rocket load out - my guess is that it's a significant portion of the total.

It'd be great to have, for example, the pile of crates that is coming with the Manchuria add-on available as a both a stationary object worth points, and just as an object. Think what a spendid ammo dump could be built from a few of those!

B.

The_Gog
06-18-2006, 03:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
[QUOTE]It is a great idea, but as it will mainly help the bomber pilots only, it will not get implemented. .. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Try doing a count of just how many aircraft can actually carry a bomb or rocket load out - my guess is that it's a significant portion of the total.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try doing a count of just how many of those other planes of which you speak are ever seen carrying bombs!
Fighter jocks could care less about points for objects on the ground!

x6BL_Brando
06-18-2006, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Try doing a count of just how many of those other planes of which you speak are ever seen carrying bombs!
Fighter jocks could care less about points for objects on the ground! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah m8, I hear you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I just spend most of my time flying coop missions....which must be the difference. Most of the missions I write (about 150 so far) have User Loadout locked! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If the bl**dy Mustangs are s'posed to be carrying bombs to hit an ammo dump, then bombs they spawn with. End of story http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Most of the fliers will do their best to achieve their goals - and carry on to dogfight their ways home. Total fighter jocks are welcome escorts - but the real ace (imo) is the guy who puts his energies into fighting to get his buddies home. Anything else, in that situation, is just ego-tripping. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'm just saying - on behalf of the hundreds of pilots who take great delight in accurate dive-bombing, strafing passes, pin-point bombing (Mossies - Amiens?) and all the other fun beyond just dogfitin'.

Not that I'm knocking a good dogfight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

B.

steeldelete
06-19-2006, 02:47 PM
Yep, I was going to write a mission. 1945 where a two Thunderbolts are on a secret mission to destroy a fuel depo. It would help me a lot.

96th_Nightshifter
06-19-2006, 05:36 PM
Great idea - worth a bump

JamesBlonde888
06-19-2006, 09:13 PM
Bump. Maybe more than one target to destroy. Maybe some dud bombs?

JtD
06-20-2006, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
How about getting rid of the points system altogether and just have everybody overclaiming...that would be more historically correct </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how would you measure the success of a mission or run a scripted dogfight server? Whichever side claims "targets destroyed" first is the winner? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-21-2006, 06:45 AM
Hmm maybe Server uses correct data and sends each party propaganda data http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Something like .

Server
Result Draw

Team Red
Incompentence of blue team was obvious . Lack of believe in the communist idea in our own supply chain resulted in delaying enemy total defeat just 1 more day.

Team Blue
The inferiority of red team's planes was without question. The enemy lost far more planes than we did. The only thing stopping us from victory was that we couldnt shoot down that many cause our ground personal wasnt able to rearm and refuel fast enough.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV
06-21-2006, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
A few guys of the German community came up with what I think is a brilliant idea: Point objects. These things would come as a 3-D point (no graphics, no collison, really, no effort) just worth a score. The idea behind that would be that you can place these object somewhere on the map inside bridges, builings, fuel tanks etc. etc. making these objects interesting targets. You blow up the bridge, you destroy the point object, you get the score and possibly the mission accomplished.

These point objects could come in different classes, say 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 or whatever and would be a very nice addition to gameplay. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I think it's a very simple, very effective idea to enhance gameplay a lot. Please consider it for one of the next patches and of course, for BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Anything requiring a `score` points in a WWII sim takes away from realism and just encourages selfish point-whoring. Bad idea when teamwork is of the essence.

Werg78
06-21-2006, 10:03 AM
this is easily the best idea ive seen in a long while and i am all for it!

*BUMP*
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Maraz_5SA
06-21-2006, 11:29 AM
This idea is not so simple.

The destruction of the "point" cannot be linked to the destruction of the objects that contains it.

So the point must have its own DM.

Should it be a "hard" or a "soft" target? In any case it's still possible that the "point" is not destroyed but the object that contains it is destroyed, as well as the reverse.

I am happy with train cars inside buildings... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maraz

BBB_Hyperion
06-21-2006, 02:05 PM
Train Cars are out sicne eventlog lists detailed objects .) You can even trigger single objects.

JtD
06-27-2006, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

Anything requiring a `score` points ... just encourages selfish point-whoring. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you missed a lot of the games possibilities if you figure that score is of such importance to all players. You draw this conclusion from what - your own attitude?

Aardvark184
06-29-2006, 08:23 PM
It's already been said here, but I've got to add my .02... wonderful idea! This is a bump!

rr9
06-29-2006, 10:08 PM
If scores of individual players is such a bad thing, what if host could decide that for some map only team scores are calculated?

BBB_Hyperion
07-01-2006, 06:51 AM
Teamscore is available on udp port. But dont know if it is current score and changes with players switching side.

JG53Tunjah
07-18-2006, 09:47 AM
and another bump from me...

stanford-ukded
07-18-2006, 10:25 AM
Captial BUMP with chips.

LEXX_Luthor
07-18-2006, 10:56 AM
SeaFire:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anything requiring a `score` points ... just encourages selfish point-whoring. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
JTD:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think you (SeaFire) missed a lot of the games possibilities if you figure that score is of such importance to all players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the FB/PF defined kill scores are the ONLY method of recording target destruction during attempts at air war simulation.

However, it would be better if some type of "score system" is defined by the 3rd Party developer of the Online Wars or Offline Dynamic Campaigns. This must be done through programming an eventlog file reader that can read the eventlog's recording of destroyed Point "jtd" Objects, and they do NOT have to be numerical Brownie Point "kill" scores. Some targets are priceless -- or "pointless." How do you rate a numerical "kill score" for airfield runway destruction? You don't, but you do program the air war simulator so players have difficulty taking off from that destroyed runway.

MEGILE
07-18-2006, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Hmm maybe Server uses correct data and sends each party propaganda data http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Something like .

Server
Result Draw

Team Red
Incompentence of blue team was obvious . Lack of believe in the communist idea in our own supply chain resulted in delaying enemy total defeat just 1 more day.

Team Blue
The inferiority of red team's planes was without question. The enemy lost far more planes than we did. The only thing stopping us from victory was that we couldnt shoot down that many cause our ground personal wasnt able to rearm and refuel fast enough.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aardvark184
07-19-2006, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maraz_5SA:
This idea is not so simple.

The destruction of the "point" cannot be linked to the destruction of the objects that contains it.

So the point must have its own DM.

Should it be a "hard" or a "soft" target? In any case it's still possible that the "point" is not destroyed but the object that contains it is destroyed, as well as the reverse.

I am happy with train cars inside buildings... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maraz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maraz, I'm confused. You say you're happy with using train cars, but don't like point targets. What's the difference, really? Now imagine if instead of a "train destroyed", you'd get "target destroyed". You don't need DM's for buildings... they already blow up. Using a point target, you'd get points for them though. Can you explain how using trains is a better idea? Thanks!

Tim

Maraz_5SA
07-20-2006, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aardvark184:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maraz_5SA:
This idea is not so simple.

The destruction of the "point" cannot be linked to the destruction of the objects that contains it.

So the point must have its own DM.

Should it be a "hard" or a "soft" target? In any case it's still possible that the "point" is not destroyed but the object that contains it is destroyed, as well as the reverse.

I am happy with train cars inside buildings... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maraz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maraz, I'm confused. You say you're happy with using train cars, but don't like point targets. What's the difference, really? Now imagine if instead of a "train destroyed", you'd get "target destroyed". You don't need DM's for buildings... they already blow up. Using a point target, you'd get points for them though. Can you explain how using trains is a better idea? Thanks!

Tim </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tim, surely buildings have a DM in IL-2. Everything that can be destroyed must have a DM.

AFAIK you cannot code a thing like this:
"IF building is destroyed, THEN point target is destroyed too"

So even these "point targets", even though they have no graphics, must have a DM.

So you probably will have to develop several point targets, with "soft", "harder", "hard", "very hard" DM, etc...

Moreover the same problem we have now (the building is destroyed but the target is not, see here)

http://www.webalice.it/antonio.maraziti/isigny.jpg

will be exactly the same with the point targets.

What I was saying is that, since implementing point targets is not so easy and obvious, and since we already have the way to do about the same thing with train cars .... it's better to be happy with what we have!

Cheers

Maraz