About the In-game Score Tracker

Did anyone other than me think the in-game score tracker that lets every player know how far everyone is progressing was one of the most counterproductive things to put in a strategy game? Players should really have to work for their intel if they want to know this stuff, while scores should be reserved for the post-game and possibly replays. I personally would like not to see the return of this function.

I don't care if the scores were a bunch of vague numbers that don't tell you the enemy's composition- information should not be given away freely.

Yes agreed, knowing the Tech level of the enemy and that sort of thing are things that you need to scout for.

A score is something that really is only for post-game.

I approve of this.

Seems logical. Admittedly I always use this in game to assess who may be the strongest opponent.

I know that in skirmish the AI usually picks the player with the highest score as the attack focus and I am sure in multiplayer matches this is used to assess the strength of the opposing force.

It would be worth taking this out of the equation. Also, making sure that the AI doesn't use this feature either if it is unavailable to the player is important IMO.

Yes, it would be better to have the score hidden in-game.

On a related note, I hope that something like Hotstats is included with the game.

Agreed, I'd rather leave all the stats till post game. Having a detailed breakdown after the fact would be cool, I'm always very interested in post game breakdown stats.

I'd be interested if the tracker was visible during replays. I dont want to know things about the enemy without scouting during the game. But if I got smashed and saved a replay, I'd like more detailed information on what was going on during the game aside from just the visuals.

What game would have in-game tracker?
And why would we want this?

I would like see the other side of it...

Both Supreme Commander and the standalone expansion Forged Alliance had an in game score tracker.

Ayceeem summarised why it is a better idea not to have it quite well. A score tracker provides the players with knowledge (even if a bit vague) about each-others overall capacity. It is bad because it is free information. If Player1 has an amazing war-machine fired up and Player2 doesn't scout them out, Player2 is still provided with information about Player1. The Player1 should be able to take advantage of Player2's ignorance/poor scouting but they are denied this a degree as Player2 still has some idea of what to expect.

Where multiple players are concerned it helps players make choices about their targets. Players with either pick on other players with far lower scores for easy wins, or team up against the player with the biggest score to knock down the tall poppy. These decisions should be the result of reconnaissance, not because the UI provides you with a number on every opponent.

If you want the other side of the argument, I guess it would be people who think that these factors are a good thing.

[Edit]: changed "Standalone DLC" (wut) to standalone expansion. Thanks Zordon.

Sorry I know this is offtopic, but I'm pissing myself laughing at the term "standalone DLC"

Hahaha awesome. I'd better fix that, I have no idea what I was on with that term.

The score tracker in TA, accessible by hitting the spacebar, was nice. It had K/D, game time elapsed, game type, game speed, etc.

Would something like that still be too much info?

Things like game time elapsed, game type, game speed and other stats like that I don't think many would hold issue with (I certainly don't), and personal stats like what buildings/units I have constructed/lost and my unit kills/deaths, I have no issue with. That is where I think any in game tracker should stop (at information personal to the player).

Displaying other players personal stats in game could give the player extra information about who is winning in a fight (in say a 3 way ffa match) without requiring the player to actually go and check it out.

Player 1 should not be able to see that a Player 2 just had a crushing defeat against Player 3 and then chose that moment to strike at Player 2 without having to scout for that information themselves. If it includes kill/death counts of structures and units Player 1 might even be able to tell which player was assaulting and which player was the defending.

Player 1 should at least have observed the battle with a reconnisance aircraft, or stealthed ground unit or mapping satellite or whatever scout mechanics the game has available to the player.

That is the way I see it in any case. I dont claim to speak for everyone : )

I don't have any problem with that information as it doesn't really tell you anything useful. Though K/D could actually be used to make a more educated guess about a player's combat abilities, not fool proof, but it gives some sort of in sight especially when combined with time played / elapsed.

That being said, why have that information there in the first place as we all agree that it really shouldn't display any information that can be used to an advantage to another player?

You know, despite the very valid points about in-game score being free intel, I think it might actually be a good gameplay mechanic.

Playing Forged Alliance 1v1 yesterday, I was struck by how the score display changes my attitude to the game. If my opponent has an equal score to me, my adrenaline levels are up and I know to keep chipping away at anything I can. If my score is greatly higher, it's time to put my effort into finding a way to end the game. If it's much lower then I need to conserve my units and try to get a tech advantage and/or do a bit of turtling.

Arguably I should know all this from scouting, but for many reasons this is not always possible. There's little satisfaction in playing completely blind, and I think that although there are good arguments against the score being displayed, it might be better for gameplay to have it.

Note for anyone not familiar with SupCom/FA: the score is calculated on every single thing you do, and is constantly climbing. As a non-exhaustive list, it factors in mass produced, energy produced, buildings built, units built and kills. Everything has a different value in the score system and although it won't tell you exactly what somebody has, it's a good indication of roughly how well they are doing.

Yes you should have to discover all that from scouting. And way to not actually state any of the reasons why you think it wouldn't be possible. I'll just assume it's because your opponent was playing smart by screening for scouts and you were being a bad player.

Your example scenario of why you think it's a good function in fact sounds wholly undesirable; it's allowing players to adjust their game face accordingly without having to see what their opponent is doing. It creates bad players who become entitled into believing intel shouldn't be a crucial factor in determining games.

Bear in mind both players have access to this information, so it's not unfair in any way.

I am really in two minds about it - in custom games in FAF there's the option to turn off the score, and any game I host has the score turned off. But team games are a very different game to 1v1.

Assuming there will be a 1v1 ranked matchmaker, the rules will have to be consistent. No score is better in theory, but in practise I'm really not sure which would play better. There should be opportunity to test both in alpha/beta hopefully.

This doesn't sound right, but I can't put my finger on exactly why.......

Mike

To me it is because it means that it makes scouting less important. If in a game with a score tracker I neglect to scout because I am lazy or not playing well, I still have an idea of how my opponent is doing. If it is a as specific as K/D counts for each player in the match then I can even figure out who is winning in each engagement.

The player doing nothing still gets a measure of free intel and it should be that the players spending the effort and resources on scouting should have that kind of information. If player 1 is doing amazingly well and player 2 isnt scouting them out, then player 1 should be able to use that to their advantage by surprising player 2 with their strength in an attack.

In saying this if people want to play a game with a score tracker and players are able to turn it off (perhaps off by default or even allow for different depths of information available in the score tracker) then I dont see it being as large an issue. I wouldnt want it to be an option for any kind of competitive play however.

Fair point, it does mean that the player who is behind economically can't try to bluff his way out of it by exploiting holes in his opponent's intel.

The more I think about it, the more I think I like visible scores just because it's what I'm used to. But still it would be good to give both versions a good test drive in alpha/beta just to be sure.

I think that is a reasonable solution. As long as there is an option to turn off a score tracking system I dont see that it would be a big issue if it made it into the game or not.

The only discussion then would be around whether it was on by default, and possibly whether it'd be good to have the score tracker be very general with a score, more specific with stats, or some adjustable combination of the two.