SCORING SYSTEM Before we dive into the mechanics of the Ricochet scoring system, ask yourself one question. When teams are matched evenly, how much more difficult is it to run the ball into the goal as opposed to throwing it in? Is it twice as hard? Three times as hard? Five? Whatever ratio you came up with in your head, this should be proportionately reflected in the scoring system to maintain player incentives for 'run-ins'. If the scoring system does NOT accurately reflect the risk vs reward for running the ball then we are left with a more constant viable strategy: throw the ball into the goalto accumulate points. The current HCS Ricochet variant marks running in the ball as 2.5 times more difficult than tossing it in. The margins are thin for this risk vs reward ratio. I think the margins should be increased from 2.5:1 to 3.5:1 or even 4:1. Maps with more segmentation like "the Pit" are better suited for this gametype as it forces players to obtain map control before pushing into the bases to score. When maps are a single open atrium like Midship, Warlord or Shrine players are not required to have support from their team mates to coordinate a push. One way to eliminate the number of "fast break" strategies is to restructure scoring on maps for throw ins. Figure 1: Radially Progressive Scoring Figure 2: Linear Progression Scoring Figure 3: Zoned Scoring Out of the 3 examples above, which do you think would be most appropriate? Or do you think that the margins should be greater between throw ins vs run ins and keep scoring system as is? Official HCS Ricochet Scoring: 2.5:1 reward ratio Endzone: 50 points (4 run-ins) Hoop: 20 points (10 throws) Total Score to Win: 200 points Here are some alternative scoring examples with higher rewards for run-ins: 3.75:1 reward ratio Endzone: 75 points (4 run ins) Hoop: 20 points (15 throws) Total Score to Win: 300 points 3.3:1 reward ratio Endzone: 50 (4 run ins) Hoop: 15 (13.3 throws) Total Score to Win: 200 points BALL CONTAINMENT Its ok to have a few areas on the outer perimeter of maps to throw the ball off laterally but watching players resetting the ball by tossing it up to a hard kill zone ceiling really breaks up the pace and legitimacy of the game type too much. What do you think should be done to enhance the competitive nature of ricochet?
I personally think that radial progressive scoring would be the best, but not exactly the way you have it set up in figure 1. For example, you could remove the 10 and 5 point areas on figure 3 and have radial scoring just inside the bases. Another way could be dictated by different areas or height variations around/in the base. This method, given the different scoring areas based upon height variation or distinguishable geometry, could allow for some very unique ricochet focused forge maps!
Insert laughter at basketball joke here. This is more like lacrosse than basketball though. Rico is an entertaining gametype, I just want to find a way to reward coordinated plays and make open maps like Shrine viable.
I think radially would be the fairest in terms of design, but perhaps not the easiest in terms of clarity. Zoned scoring would make more sense for both the player and viewer as they could associate areas/callouts with the amount of points available for the throw. Edit: 69th post, immature snickering...
I like zoned scoring for the clarity reason. If there is a progressive level of scoring the player needs to know where the 3-point line is. That being said the 3-point line in basket ball gives players more points the further from the goal they are. I'm not saying that's a good idea for this gametype--I don't think it is--but my point is Hail Mary type throws across the map give your opponent more opertunity to deflect and intercept making them already have an inherent downside--not to mention the thrower just having greater room for error. A progressive scoring system unnecessarily punishes something that could be viewed as a more risky play. Now in a game like halo is running the ball in more difficult than any throw? ABSOLUTELY! And that's why I agree that's why I agree that "touchdowns" should significantly outway throw-in points received as you have suggested. But I think it would be a mistake to over complicate throw scoring on top of that. A throw from behind ring, all the way across into the opposite base, should not yeild less points that one in front of ring with a clear line of sight to the goal. I think a progressive system is just as likely to over reward run-in misplays as it is to punish lazy throw setups and weak throw pushes. In closing: I think any throw should be equal to any other throw, but throws should be a fraction of a run-in. A push that only gets you a meter away from goal is still a failed touchdown and should be treated as such. Having the vigilance to know when to throw it that meter is not a skill worth rewarding with a progressive points system. In The end you threw it in rather than achieving the ultimate goal and earning the extra points. Final note: I don't know if I could give an exact ratio as I just don't play the Gametype, but I imagine each map plays miles differently and so perhaps the scoring should be different depending on the map much like 3-flag versus 5-flag.
The easiest way to adjust end zone scoring incentive is to increase the scoring margins between endzone and and hoop. It'll keep the game type "simple stupid", which is good for accessibility. These new scoring zones may be too complicated for players to get an understanding for, which is why I wanted to get some initial feedback on them. The only way I could see this working is with "zoned" scoring for its intuitiveness or if "radial" had visual markers on the ground that glow when the ball carrier moves forward. The latter would require development tools though.
I just don't think it is a good gametype for this game. From what I remember playing a **** ton of it in Halo 4 the more vertical maps played better and the flatter maps just had really dumb gameplay. Throws were always really easy so what my buddies and I would do is just sit in the middle positions of map while having one guy either run or throw it in depending on spawns. Maps with somewhat of a dead zone in the middle of the map and good vert worked better, but the pace of this game is just terrible so maps like this just don't work as well because they are tricky to scale. Movement speed really needs to be upped in HCS. Can you make ricochet one sided? Basically one bomb but both teams can pick up the bomb. That might be something to try. Not for competitive but for fun.
I would prefer a simple rugby style scoring system. I feel having a zone specific system leads to some very clunky/awkward feedback. Rugby has 5 points for a try, and 3 for a field goal. Very simple (which certainly isint with the proposed system...how would you identify the scoring zones) and works on all maps, whereas zoning has to differentiate between maps, leading to further confusion. Though I mentioned the rugby system, id alter the points slightly. I'd go 5 for a run in, 2 for a throw, seems fair enough. Eagerly awaiting somebody advocating assist points.
I would keep things as is for segmented maps too - 2 for throw, 5 for endzone. However, if open maps like Shrine are to be considered then I would want to make adjustments to the game type to suite those style of maps in addition to the segmented "Pit" style maps.
I like dojus scoring. No reason to change it depending on the map. Just change the points to win. More points on a smaller map less on a more difficult map to score on. Basically, how the competitive settings for flag have been since the dawn of time.
Yeah you can, I played around with this, there's a gametype called 'Half-Time Ricochet' where it's exactly like you described just in rounds.
Yeah you are right, radial progressive scoring is the best one. I have personal observance of this system. Thanks
I honestly think it should change based on the map. Changing the score limit doesn't solve anything, the problem is that it could be harder to run a ball on one map compared to another.
Same applies to any gametype. Having different score results depending on the map is not a bad thing, needlessly over complicating a gametype is a bad thing.