Time in Versus

[Pandaslayer]

I'll start off by saying that I'm not an avid gamer anymore. I find the time to sit down and play only a few hours, every couple days. I can however, recognize a potential flaw with the scoring system when the correct scenario unfolds.

Last night I was fortunate enough to have some co-workers interested in playing Left 4 Dead, so I took the liberty of signing on and forming a party with them. I was a little anxious and eager to play since I haven't gotten a chance to since the latest patch. Some of the things, like knowing when the tank /witch spawn, are just completely ridiculous now. It takes away the randomness from 1 team, and gives predictability to the other. Though this isn't my topic of concern I felt it was worth mentioning :P.

My concern comes in with the variable of time. My team and I encountered a well-adapted team of four that stuck together extremely well and corner camped at the sign of any trouble. At several points, this would mean they would literally wait in small housing structures for minutes at a time before moving just a few hundred yards, only to do it again. In addition, when they knew a tank would be approaching (because my team was human first) they would meticulously kill every last zombie in the area, find a stronghold, then proceed to have one person go out far enough to trigger the tank, and then run back to the comfort of their corner camping group. Now it's hard to express frustration in detail in a literary context. Simply put; the game took over 3 hours and I would wager that over 75% of that time was them.

I understand that moving slowly, and not taking advantage of covering large distances when the human-infected are deceased, is generally a bad strategy all-around since it leaves you open to more attacks. In this situation though, this generality did not apply. They would move so painstakingly slow, and be in such a tight group, all attacks would yield nothing. To end this, and add an exciting new calculation to the points system, I suggest using the time taken (from beginning to end) as another representative in the overall score.

Now I wouldn't know the exact mathematical expression to use in order to incorporate this new feature while simultaneously maintaining fairness in the system. I'm sure though, with a little work, a compatible function could be readily found. I really feel that adding the presence of time would make games more competitive, and just as importantly; give the infected in each map more of an upper-hand since finishing the maps are relatively easy (even while playing against a decent adversary).

I apologize for my thoroughness in such a simple post. I was debating of using this format or the ever popular, "ZOMGzorz, this isn't no fair!!! Make time used in teh scoring VaLve! Omgosh so fail". I apologize even more so if a post similar to this has already been addressed (which wouldn't be surprising since the game came out months ago). To my defense, I did use the search feature to no avail. Even if it has been brought to light this could still serve as a further reminder that gamers, unaware of others' thoughts, are thinking the same thing.

[Damen]

I like the idea but I would change a little something. To stop people from just trying to rush all the maps I would make it to where if you go over a certain amount of time you get penalized. There are some insane rushing groups out there that are just about impossible to stop and we don't need to give them anymore reason to rush! lol

I like the idea though but yeah something like penalizing them for going over a certain amount of time set for that map would be good.

[gunrabbit]

I went up against a team from Japan who played like that. They were extremely slow but tight. Admirably, that's how a survivor team would behave in real life. Though it took forever for them to get to the end of the map, it was kinda fun b/c it forced my team to really try to work together as the infected. Every attack was essentially an attempt to get all four down at once. In the end, we won by a small margin, and it was one of the my more satisfactory wins.

[lambson804]

Maybe what they could do is once the survivors pass a certain amount of time, endless hordes of normal infected come at the survivors? And not just the same amount that comes if you hit a car alarm or a crescendo evet; I'm talking like "Survival Mode Style" where it's just a constant stream of infected coming at them. That might get them to move a little bit faster.

[RandomHero]

it forced my team to really try to work together as the infected. Every attack was essentially an attempt to get all four down at once.
this. i love playing these people. but only if you have a team that knows what they are doing. no mic no0bs suck with these players.


the time thing i have always thought should be a factor in score, ever since i first started it seemed odd to me that they didnt factor in a time value.

[FizixMan]

I don't think teams should be penalized (directly or indirectly because the other team got a bonus for going fast) because their play style wasn't considered "fast enough."

The scoring system is not flawed. It has one single, primary goal: health. This allows for players to develop their own play style to achieve that goal.

If most players' method is to move fast and reduce the number of special infected spawns, then they're free to do that. If other players' method is to move slowly, very slowly, in an effort to reduce special infected effectiveness, then they're free to do that. Why should they be penalized for having a different legitimate play style?

[Infest0125]

I get what your saying, I wouldn't mind seeing something like this but it seems like it'd be fairly hard to implement.

One thing that could encourage moving at least a thorough distance would be a timer for each map that had a bonus for a team for beating a certain time.

And for your idea, I just thought up a way it may be implemented. If both teams make it, a timer is brought up and compares the times of the teams, and gives a bonus based on the amount of points in between them and who took less time.

[Pandaslayer]

If other players' method is to move slowly, very slowly, in an effort to reduce special infected effectiveness, then they're free to do that. Why should they be penalized for having a different legitimate play style?

They wouldn't be penalized for moving slowly, just not rewarded. I understand that it is legitimate, but it can be abused easily. I would imagine we've all had the game where the opposing team camps the beginning safe room, refusing to leave. Something along the lines of Lambson804's idea may counter this perfectly.

Secondly, I never said the scoring system was flawed. I said it was potentially flawed; I say this because the ability to abuse the system is apparent. I think most people can agree that having a team move irritatingly slow is...irritating. Most notably, this change would make games move faster and unarguably become more competitive.

The scenario that jumps out in my mind is this: Two teams of four (two separate parties) pitted against eachother. The first team is far better than the second and can breeze through the mission very easily and effectively. Since they are more skilled, they are running and shooting at the same time while maintaining solid group composure and communication. The second team, is far worse. They move incredibly slow and rely on corner-camping-melee-humpfest the entire time. They are not coordinated enough to run and shoot without having friendly-fire and separation. They both finish and receive a nearly identical score. To me this doesn't seem fair, I think a time factor should be established just like it is for almost any reaction, intelligence, athletic test out there. Imagine if they took out the time-restraint on the ACT and SAT, scores would be much closer. My point is the ones who can finish quickly (which generally shows a faster reaction time, a better utilization of skills, and a clearly more adept team) should have some type of compensation via additional points.

If both teams make it, a timer is brought up and compares the times of the teams, and gives a bonus based on the amount of points in between them and who took less time.

That actually sounds pretty good.

[Felios]

Versus is already so much faster than Coop mode. the idea of rewarding teams that rush is ridiculous. So is the idea of punishing slow players, or punishing rushing teams, or rewarding slow teams. It's just a gay idea.

[mshield]

Infest's idea works, and I would encourage Valve to incorperate this, but on the condition that it does not create to large a bonus for a particular team. I do not mean in regards to the extreme case you experienced, OP (they deserve to lose by miles), but rather in a normal game. Keep the points minimal, as to avoid versus simply becoming a speed run, and I would be content.

Out of curiousity, who won that match, anyway?

[Pandaslayer]

Out of curiousity, who won that match, anyway?

We did actually. The score was something like 4500-3800. They weren't very good is why it was so frustrating it was so close. We won in the last mission and barely. We went first and got like 1600 points to take 1kish lead. They were doing their thing with all 4 of them piled in a corner in the building and it was looking bad for us. Then, when our first tank came, they separated slightly and were running outside the building. Our tank got a lucky hit that knocked their player to the bottom tier of the level and incapacitated them. So they went down to save him but couldn't climb the two levels back up in time so the horde was overwhelming them and we took advantage and took em out :).

I would say despite the frustration it was one of my more memorable and satisfying victories.

[FizixMan]

They wouldn't be penalized for moving slowly, just not rewarded.
This is still a penalty just in different words. Add 100 points for fast players or subtract 100 points from slow players -- the score spread is still the same. It's 100 points that the slow team still needs to make up.

I understand that it is legitimate, but it can be abused easily. I would imagine we've all had the game where the opposing team camps the beginning safe room, refusing to leave.
People abusing the system, that is, camping in the safe room and NOT making any attempt to finish the level is not playing the game, it is griefing and I don't think is part of the discussion. If you're in a game with people doing this and obviously not actually trying to reach the end then you should leave the game because they're just screwing with you.

With regards to your thought that the team was faster should be rewarded, you forget the fact that the slower team probably had to kill more infected and more special infected. So what do you reward? Taking less damage when fighting/killing more or rushing through the level faster killing less?

The beauty of Left 4 Dead is in its simplicity of game play and rules. Survivors have one goal and that is to survive and they are marked based on that. If Valve were to introduce something like this, players would be pushed to play fast. Either you would pick up the pace and become much more competitive, or people would dislike playing with you and in turn you would also dislike playing.

Furthermore, this doesn't handle cases where players go AFK. Several times players on either team have had to go AFK for legitimate reasons. More often than not, the opposing team is willing to wait for them to get back. In this case, should the team forfeit their time reward?

If some time element were to be factored into scoring, I think Valve would have to do it smartly. Probably in a better fashion than what we're bouncing around here. I personally hope they don't go in this direction.

[gunrabbit]

I like the idea of just bumping up the AI's "director_force_panic_event" if a team is in a section of a map for too long. Jiggering the scoring system to account for "play style" is too tricky.

I would say despite the frustration it was one of my more memorable and satisfying victories.

Werd! Campaign mode has lost its luster, and the only reason why L4D is still fun for a pick up game is a good versus challenge, w/o the commitment of ladder matches. With the Tank buffed now in versus, a surgically coordinated attack with a tank and 3 special infected at the same time will best most teams.

[RedLeafedWonder]

I don't know if scoring lower for slow moving survivors would be relevant. The slower they move the more times we can spawn the more attacks we get. In fact it's the fastest teams that give us the hardest time overall. I'm not trying to get down on your pals but you did say they were new to the game. This may have played a role in your defeat and your inability to easily end an extremely slow moving team. Of course I wasn't there so I can only speak from my own experience with seasoned players. The slower they move the better for us.

[Mattbott]

it's difficult to fix these issues, having to constantly tinker with a game usually detracts from it cos you're pushing people into playing it the 'right way', for example, not too fast or not too slow. And if you get penalised for wasting time, so what? these assholes don't give a shit about their score anyhoo

l4d suffers more than other shooters cos it relies more on the quality of those playing it

the only fool proof way to get a good game is to play with people you know are 'good' players, which usually means the majority of the room has to be your friends.

my own experience playing random matches is you get good and bad games, more recently i have seen an improvement probably due to these sorts of threads.

don't let it put you off

[Going_Kamando]

Sorry but I think this isn't the best idea. I like playing through the game slow as it basically insures no one gets left behind. Not painfully slow though. My team may back into a corner when there is a boomer that spit on all of us and a lot of zombies in the area. On BH3, if the tank comes out by the train station, we usually have a pretty good setup where if the tank tries to follow us there are propane tanks and such. It's a good plan as it really reduces the amount of damage a tank can do.

[RedLeafedWonder]

I like playing through the game slow as it basically insures no one gets left behind.
No Offence, but playing through the game slowly against an advanced team (VS) assures only certain death. Wanting less points for slow movers is unneccicary due to the amount of attacks you'll get.

[Zorgy]

Some good points but notsomething I'm in favor of. If people want to play that way that's fine. It might get boring but what else can you do? When I encounter them I practice it wall jymping until I see an opening then we launch a coordianted attack and hopefully get some damage in. If they're tightly pack pounce one to make them stagger apart. With a good team it's not that hard.