Post by Royalty on Jun 9, 2015 19:58:13 GMT
In my opinion it would be simpler to just combine scores of each map. This would fix the problems without being complicated.
For example:
TDM Map 1: Good (Team A): 50 Evil (Team B): 49
TDM Map 2: Evil (Team A): 30 Good (Team B): 50
Team B wins TDM 99 vs 80. The whole of TDM counts for 1 point, so Team B would be leading 1 - 0. Other modes would be worked out the same way. If a team won a conquest map before time expired they would count as scoring 2000 points.
Both systems have their pros and cons
May's system is simpler to implement, and would still cause some of the desired effects which Onde mentioned, possibly making each game more closely contested as teams strive to win the single point for that game mode. However, I prefer Onde's idea of rewarding teams which achieve a certain percentage of the total achievable score for each game mode, as it would be more representative of how hard/well a team has played. It would provide smaller clans with an incentive to try and gain more points when facing larger clans like LC and BC instead of ending up losing 4 - 0 or 8 - 0. May's system wouldn't solve the issue demon mentioned (close games being irrelevant to the final score of the clan war and disregarded as "easy"), but would probably aggravate it: e.g. in the first BC vs LC clan war the score was 7 - 1 to BC.
CTR:
BC 2 - 2 LC
CNQ:
BC 1933 - 1203 LC
TDM:
BC 120 - 109 LC
HTDM:
BC 120 - 93 LC
Using May's system:
CTR: 0 - 0 (draw)
CNQ: 1 - 0 (BC wins)
TDM: 1 - 0 (BC wins)
HTDM: 1 - 0 (BC wins)
Overall score of 3 - 0 to BC
Using Onde's system:
CTR: 1 - 1 (draw)
CNQ: 2 - 1 (BC wins)
TDM: 3 - 2 (BC wins)
HTDM: 3 - 2 (BC wins)
Overall score of 9 - 6 to BC.
I thought about using a percentage or points of out 100 scoring system, but it wouldnt work due to system being too complicated + some game modes favoured more by the system than others e.g. ctr would be far too heavily weighted: 1 cap being worth 33% of the score for that game, whereas the equivalent in cnq would be 333 points (harder to achieve)