I have never been a fan of K/D ratio as the ultimate measure of your success. What is it worth if you killed 10 random soldiers in the middle of nowhere but you haven't helped take the designated objective at all. Furthermore I believe K/D ratio promotes camping in a lot of games.
Therefore I would like Traction Wars to be different. That is, not show kills/deaths at all until at least the end of the round.
But how do we tell who the most successful player of the round is then? It should not necessary be the one who killed the most enemies, but the one who helped his team the most.
------
I once had an idea of basing the player points on the value I termed "combat effectiveness". It would be calculated by some kind of formula with weighted terms that would take into account your kills (least important), deaths (somewhat important),
teamwork points (important) and objective points (very important). The idea was that your points in game depend on your
success in the game, but encourage you to actively go for objectives instead of camp.
Alternately, you can have it like a percentage that has a base value of, let's say, 50 % (or you can start with 0 %, all values are completely arbitrary in this example). Every time you die your effectiveness drops by, let's say, 5 %. Every kill you make raises it by 1 %. Every teamwork point (resupply player, give bandage, suppress enemy, defend objective, attack objective) raises it by 3 %. Every objective secured raises it by 10 %. The idea is to be able to tell the most valuable people on your team by looking at their "combat effectiveness" instead of their K/D ratio. However, there's a catch... Kills can only get you up to 75 %. To earn more than that you would need to do all the other things as well (to prevent camping).
However, as different classes have different tasks on the battlefield the idea would need to be changed.
For example, an assault kit's role would be to go to objectives and cap/clear the area, so he could get more points by killing enemies in the objective range and securing it. A support MG doesn't necessary need to be in the objective zone but
needs to stay back and provide covering fire. So he could get more points by successfully suppressing and killing
enemies in the objective. A marksman shouldn't really be finding himself in the objective area at all, but should be
providing long range support etc.
With that system, basically, the more successful in your chosen role you are, the more effectiveness you gain.
This could be done via "modifiers" to the base values given above. For example assault troops could get double the amount for captures and 1% extra for attacking objectives. Riflemen could get double amount for resupply and 1% extra for defending objectives. MG could get double for suppressing and 1 % more for killing enemies, anti-tank classes double for killing tanks, snipers and marksmen double for killing MG gunners and NCOs... Now every "limited" class could have a modifier for death too, so for example you would lose 2 % more for dying as an MG gunner, double for dying as a sniper, 3 % more for dying as an NCO etc.
------
The idea is that you could somehow "funnel" the players into playing their roles appropriately and using real world tactics because the points given are connected to them... And also to introduce "fear" of dying in vain.
Hovewer, as Traction Wars will likely attract veterans of many realism games instead of "more casual" players, maybe we don't even need something like this, as it would be very hard to devise and balance right (or maybe the MG role should be more attractive, to simulate its importance
). The veterans will play their roles correctly anyway.
What are your thoughts?
Therefore I would like Traction Wars to be different. That is, not show kills/deaths at all until at least the end of the round.
But how do we tell who the most successful player of the round is then? It should not necessary be the one who killed the most enemies, but the one who helped his team the most.
------
I once had an idea of basing the player points on the value I termed "combat effectiveness". It would be calculated by some kind of formula with weighted terms that would take into account your kills (least important), deaths (somewhat important),
teamwork points (important) and objective points (very important). The idea was that your points in game depend on your
success in the game, but encourage you to actively go for objectives instead of camp.
Alternately, you can have it like a percentage that has a base value of, let's say, 50 % (or you can start with 0 %, all values are completely arbitrary in this example). Every time you die your effectiveness drops by, let's say, 5 %. Every kill you make raises it by 1 %. Every teamwork point (resupply player, give bandage, suppress enemy, defend objective, attack objective) raises it by 3 %. Every objective secured raises it by 10 %. The idea is to be able to tell the most valuable people on your team by looking at their "combat effectiveness" instead of their K/D ratio. However, there's a catch... Kills can only get you up to 75 %. To earn more than that you would need to do all the other things as well (to prevent camping).
However, as different classes have different tasks on the battlefield the idea would need to be changed.
For example, an assault kit's role would be to go to objectives and cap/clear the area, so he could get more points by killing enemies in the objective range and securing it. A support MG doesn't necessary need to be in the objective zone but
needs to stay back and provide covering fire. So he could get more points by successfully suppressing and killing
enemies in the objective. A marksman shouldn't really be finding himself in the objective area at all, but should be
providing long range support etc.
With that system, basically, the more successful in your chosen role you are, the more effectiveness you gain.
This could be done via "modifiers" to the base values given above. For example assault troops could get double the amount for captures and 1% extra for attacking objectives. Riflemen could get double amount for resupply and 1% extra for defending objectives. MG could get double for suppressing and 1 % more for killing enemies, anti-tank classes double for killing tanks, snipers and marksmen double for killing MG gunners and NCOs... Now every "limited" class could have a modifier for death too, so for example you would lose 2 % more for dying as an MG gunner, double for dying as a sniper, 3 % more for dying as an NCO etc.
------
The idea is that you could somehow "funnel" the players into playing their roles appropriately and using real world tactics because the points given are connected to them... And also to introduce "fear" of dying in vain.
Hovewer, as Traction Wars will likely attract veterans of many realism games instead of "more casual" players, maybe we don't even need something like this, as it would be very hard to devise and balance right (or maybe the MG role should be more attractive, to simulate its importance
). The veterans will play their roles correctly anyway.What are your thoughts?
Last edited:
