FAIR scoring for Infection

Games Other Halo
1

A while ago, I came up with a scoring system for Infection that is fair to both sides. I’ve finally decided to post it here on Waypoint, to open it up to a wider audience.

The system is called “Time/Victim-Time Scoring”, or “T/VT Scoring” for short. I apologize for the length of this post: the system is simple, but the goals it accomplishes are many and varied.

THE STATUS QUO
In any given game of Infection, Zombies have infinite lives, Humans have one life and finite numbers, and scoring is based on kills. This means that the Humans have a maximum total score limited only by their ammunition. For all practical purposes, Humans have an infinite maximum total score, while Zombies have a maximum total score equal to the number of Humans. In other words, the current scoring system favors the Humans.

ELEMENTS OF AN IDEAL SCORING SYSTEM
These are a set of principles, existing elements, and assumptions that describe the goals of an ideal Infection scoring system. They are referred to throughout this post.

BASIC PRINCIPLES- Players should not automatically have higher potential scores than others solely as a result of random team assignment.

  • Players should be rewarded for completing the respective objectives for their sides.
  • The Humans’ objective is to survive for as long as possible.
  • The Zombies’ objective is to kill the Humans as fast as possible.
  • As the round progresses, it should become progressively more difficult for an individual player to complete their team’s objective.

EXISTING ELEMENTS THAT WE WANT TO KEEP
These are principles that are observed in existing Infection gameplay, and that should be maintained.

  • For Humans, the increased number of enemies makes it more difficult to survive late-game. This satisfies Principle #4 for Humans.
  • The Zombie objective becomes easier for the whole team late-game due to their increased numbers, but it becomes harder for each individual. That is, the chances that any one particular Zombie will be the one to complete that objective will decrease. This satisfies Principle #4 for Zombies.

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT GAMEPLAY- On a balanced map, longer-lived Humans are more skilled or otherwise better-able to survive. Ergo it takes more skill/proficiency to kill them.

  • When a Survivor Victory occurs, it means that the Humans have won. The scoring should reflect this.

MY SYSTEM: TIME/VICTIM-TIME (T/VT) POINTS- A player’s score in the game is the sum of their human points and zombie points

  • A player receives one human point for every second in which they are a Human and are alive
  • Upon killing a Human, a Zombie receives a number of zombie points equal to the number of human points that the victim had for the current round
    AN EXAMPLE
    That’s not the most intuitive explanation, so here’s an example: a description of how a single round with four players might play out, using this system for scoring.

Arthur, Beth, and Chris start the round as Humans, while David is an Alpha Zombie.

Twenty seconds after the round begins, Arthur, Beth, and Chris will all have twenty points for this round (that’s how long they’ve been alive).

At that precise moment, David infects Arthur. Because Arthur has been alive for twenty seconds, David receives twenty points for his kill. The score is:

ELAPSED ROUND TIME - 20 seconds
ARTHUR - 20 (20H 0Z)
BETH - 20 (20H 0Z)
CHRIS - 20 (20H 0Z)
DAVID - 20 (0H 20Z)
TOTAL HUMAN SCORE - 60
TOTAL ZOMBIE SCORE - 20

Thirty seconds later, Arthur infects Beth. By this time, Beth has been alive for 50 seconds, so she has 50 points, and Arthur gains 50 points for infecting her.

ELAPSED ROUND TIME - 50 seconds
ARTHUR - 70 (20H 50Z)
BETH - 50 (50H 0Z)
CHRIS - 50 (50H 0Z)
DAVID - 20 (0H 20Z)
TOTAL HUMAN SCORE - 120
TOTAL ZOMBIE SCORE - 70

A full minute later, David infects Chris. By this time, Chris has been alive for 110 seconds, so he has 110 points, and David gains 110 points for killing him. Because Chris was the Last Man Standing, the round is now over.

ELAPSED ROUND TIME - 110 seconds
ARTHUR - 70 (20H 50Z)
BETH - 50 (50H 0Z)
CHRIS - 110 (110H 0Z)
DAVID - 130 (0H 130Z)
TOTAL HUMAN SCORE - 180
TOTAL ZOMBIE SCORE - 180

Notice that the total scores for the two teams are equal, despite players switching from the Human team to the Zombie team throughout the game. If we assume that all players are eventually infected, then for every point that a Human gains, the Zombies will eventually gain a point of their own (upon killing those Humans).

continued in post 2

2

continued from post 1

BENEFITS OF T/VT SCORING
I’ll repeat the last sentence of that spoiler box: If we assume that all players are eventually infected, then for every point that a Human gains, the Zombies will eventually gain a point of their own (upon killing those Humans).

What this means is that both teams now have the same max total score, but individual performance is still measured, so there are still winners and losers. This is true in all but three cases: max total scores will be uneven if a Survivor Victory occurs, if a Human quits, or rebalancing due to a Zombie quit occurs. Outside of these cases, there is no scoring inequality between teams; this satisfies Principle #1. The problems with quits can be fixed (see Further Improvements below), while the “problem” with Survivor Victories is actually a benefit (see Assumption #2).

Aside from keeping both teams equal (while still showing individual proficiency), a greater reward is received for killing more-proficient Humans (Assumption #1) and for killing Humans late-game (Existing Element #2).

BUT SHOULDN’T PEOPLE BE REWARDED FOR KILLS?

You may have noticed that under T/VT Scoring, killing Zombies no longer contributes directly to score; there’s no intrinsic value to it. This is very much intentional. The box that appears at the start of the round, explaining your goal, does not say, “Kill as many Zombies as possible.” It says, “Defend yourself from the zombie horde,” and “defend” is the operative word there.

That’s not to say that killing Zombies shouldn’t be rewarded at all. It is rewarded. Your reward is that you stay alive for a longer period of time, and so accumulate more points. The difference here is that with T/VT scoring, we are now rewarding survival itself, rather than something that you use to achieve it; therefore, all means of surviving for a long period of time are now rewarded. This includes, but is certainly not limited to, stealthy gameplay, ambushes, and even using other Humans as distractions while you wait elsewhere and pick off stragglers.

At the same time, when playing as a Zombie, killing Humans does contribute directly to score. However many points your victim had – that’s how many points you earn for killing them. This means that we can use the same “unit” of score for both teams; we don’t need some complex formula or contrived conversion rate to compare kills to seconds, because kills already are seconds now (if that summary makes any sense).

FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BASIC SYSTEM

The biggest problem with the system is that quits result in uneven scores. However, the two kinds of quits can be addressed.

When a Human player quits, either: that Human’s time score for that round should either be set to 0 immediately; or all current Zombies should receive equal shares of an amount of zombie score points equal to the quitter’s time score. This will keep the total time scores and total zombie scores for the round equal (assuming no Survivor Victory).

(So if I’m a Human with 60 points in the current round, there are 5 Zombies, and I quit, then either: I lose 60 points; or each Zombie gets 12 (60 / 5) zombie points to match my 60.)

When an Alpha Zombie quits and a Human is rebalanced into an Alpha Zombie, either: that Human’s time score for that round should either be discarded (set to 0); or they should receive an amount of zombie score points equal to their time score for that round (effectively doubling their score for the round – as if they had infected themselves), so that per-team score totals remain equal for the round (if a Survivor Victory does not occur).

WHAT ARE(N’T) THE FLAWS?
At first glance, it may seem as though there are glaring flaws in the system. Most of them, however, are harmless and change nothing. I’ve explored a few flaws and exploits and presented my conclusions about them in the next spoiler, and I welcome any further challenges to the system.

Exploit: Zombies may try to allow the Humans to survive longer in order to raise scores.
This would have little effect on who wins; the scores relative to each other would remain mostly unchanged. That would be especially true because when those Zombies finally do come after the Humans, normal game dynamics would resume.

Exploit: Zombies may try to AFK until the first few Humans die, and then take advantage of the Humans’ reduced numbers when they go for the longer-lasting and more-valuable ones.
If all Zombies do this, then the first few Humans never die. The Zombies end up waiting for an opportunity that they themselves never create, and so they all lose for trying to game the system.

If only some Zombies do this, then the other Zombies may eventually succeed in killing a few Humans. The would-be exploiters would then find themselves with a lot more competition when trying to go for the remaining Humans (Existing Element #2). The “exploiters” would miss out on all the early kills, and it’d still be just as hard for them to get late kills as it would’ve been had they played earlier – their “exploit” would only cost them points.

Flaw: The reward for killing any individual Human is dynamic and not immediately apparent.
…But it can be estimated based on how long the current round has run for.

If necessary, the “goal” text shown at the start of the round can be changed from the relatively uninformative “Braaaaaaaaains” to something more useful, such as, “Kill all of the Humans. The longer a Human has been alive, the more points you will get for the kill.” That will hopefully bring the Zombie players up-to-date on the new scoring system, allowing them to know that rewards will increase as the end of the round draws nearer.

Even if they miss that, and aren’t aware of how, specifically, the score is calculated, they’ll at least notice: that as a Human, they now earn points for time; and as a Zombie, they get points when they kill Humans (but it’s just a varying amount now). They’ll still know what they have to do.

CONCLUSION
It’s my understanding that 343i has planned some updates for Living Dead during this month; one can assume that those updates will address the severe balance issues between Humans and Zombies. I am very, very grateful for that.

However, even if the core gameplay itself is perfectly balanced, the imbalance of the current scoring system will keep Infection one-sided. For the gametype to be truly fair to all players, regardless of what team they were placed on, it must have both fair gameplay and fair scoring. This system that I have proposed is one way to achieve the latter.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Criticisms? Rebuttals?
Please, feel free to post them.

3

Is T/VT scoring an available option with current custom game options?

I like your idea.

4

> Is T/VT scoring an available option with current custom game options?
>
> I like your idea.

It is not, unfortunately. I think that 343i could implement it using Megalo scripting, though.

I am glad to hear you like the system.

5

I like it but the one problem I have is that Zombies are fighting amongst each other for points.

I’m getting the impression that players can be screwed and forever doomed by the system. If one Zombie is particularly crafty and manages to kill three players early on but stalls on the last one, all of his progress is for naught when one of the new Zombies kills the last Human. His cunning and skill seemingly aren’t rewarded enough while the new Zombie gets to win potentially by riding on coatails, or in this case, running right behind a meatshield to snag the last kill and rocket from last to first place.

And unless I’m mistaken, wouldn’t all games under this end as a tie unless the Zombie killing the last Human had made a kill prior?

Other comment: Infection at the very least needs to be modified so Human scoring is based of off an objective while Zombie scoring is based of kills. Your proposal does this but it only promotes survival anywhere within the map. There’s nothing to pull players out of whatever camping hole they managed to find on the map.

In games like L4D and Dead Space 2, the Humans have objectives to complete that forces them to move to areas that are not to their benefit. They can’t just camp the safe room for the entire round and win. I’m envision Infection where the Humans have to play KoTH, Territories, CTF, Assault or Oddball to win.

6

I REALLY like this idea, but with this system doesn’t a zombie have a larger potential/maximum score than a human does? By killing the last man standing and another human the score for the zombie exceeds the maximum possible score for a human making it more desirable to be an Alpha Zombie than it is to be a human.

7

> I REALLY like this idea, but with this system doesn’t a zombie have a larger potential/maximum score than a human does? By killing the last man standing and another human the score for the zombie exceeds the maximum possible score for a human making it more desirable to be an Alpha Zombie than it is to be a human.

But at the very least it doesn’t create suicide races like Creeping Death did in H3.

8

> I like it but the one problem I have is that Zombies are fighting amongst each other for points.

This is true. But then, they are already competing amongst each other in both MM and Customs, and that’s done nothing to impede their teamwork.

> I’m getting the impression that players can be screwed and forever doomed by the system. If one Zombie is particularly crafty and manages to kill three players early on but stalls on the last one, all of his progress is for naught when one of the new Zombies kills the last Human. His cunning and skill seemingly aren’t rewarded enough while the new Zombie gets to win potentially by riding on coatails, or in this case, running right behind a meatshield to snag the last kill and rocket from last to first place.

This is true, though it is my hope that the maps would address this more directly. If you have to run right behind a meatshield to succeed, is that not a balance issue with the map? And if there’s some massive gap between one infection and the next, wouldn’t that also be a map-induced stalemate?

> And unless I’m mistaken, wouldn’t all games under this end as a tie unless the Zombie killing the last Human had made a kill prior?

They’d be a tie between teams, but not between individuals. Infection is FFA and would still be FFA under this system, so there’d still be winners and losers.

> Your proposal does this but it only promotes survival anywhere within the map. There’s nothing to pull players out of whatever camping hole they managed to find on the map.

Ah, but this is assuming that the map has a camping hole. A January LD update was hinted at in the recent bulletin, and the CCs have been looking for (and finding) balanced Infection maps, so I don’t think this’ll be all that much of a problem.

> In games like L4D and Dead Space 2, the Humans have objectives to complete that forces them to move to areas that are not to their benefit. They can’t just camp the safe room for the entire round and win.

I see what you’re proposing. Objective-Infection would be a nice twist, but at the same time, I think that if Survival-Infection can be improved, it should be.

> I REALLY like this idea, but with this system doesn’t a zombie have a larger potential/maximum score than a human does? By killing the last man standing and another human the score for the zombie exceeds the maximum possible score for a human making it more desirable to be an Alpha Zombie than it is to be a human.

I think I get what you’re saying. If a Zombie kills LMS and another Human, then they’re guaranteed to get the highest score for the round.

Of course, there’s a flip-side to that. Assuming that the map is balanced, LMS is LMS because he was the best survivor. He employed whatever strategy was most prudent and most useful – be it the use of other Humans as distractions, the execution of several clever ambushes, or maybe he just went Rambo and happens to be beast with a Shotgun. Either way, he was the best survivor of the round, and therefore the hardest player in that round to kill. And not only that, but the Zombie that kills the LMS also has to kill him before all of the other Zombies – a tricky combination, having to work with them while also trying to beat them.

Given those circumstances, I can’t really see anything wrong with the killer of the LMS potentially getting the highest score of the round, simply because they performed the hardest part of the objective.

EDIT: Even so, that doesn’t mean that Alphas are privileged. It could easily be a normal Zombie that kills LMS, and indeed, normals can outkill Alphas regardless of the scoring system. I do get that the maximum possible score for an individual is higher when playing as a Zombie even though the team scores are even, but I think that’s balanced out by the possibility (though slight) of a Survivor Victory, in which case the max individual and team scores for Humans end up being higher than for Zombies.

9

> This is true. But then, they are already competing amongst each other in both MM and Customs, and that’s done nothing to impede their teamwork.

For now at least. I just would hate to see the crap that went on in S1 onwards Arena resurface in Infection.

> This is true, though it is my hope that the maps would address this more directly. If you have to run right behind a meatshield to succeed, is that not a balance issue with the map? And if there’s some massive gap between one infection and the next, wouldn’t that also be a map-induced stalemate?

I am still thinking in terms of default Infection. That’s probably my problem.

Ignoring all of that though, unless a Zombie makes multiple kills it seems that the Zombie that gets the last kill is going to be the Zombie winner, everyone else is just stuck with that. You’ve solved the problem of massive score imbalancing but because of the limited nature of potential points for Zombies players, any who lag behind the guy getting the kills or getting unlucky enough to die before scoring get nothing.

> They’d be a tie between teams, but not between individuals. Infection is FFA and would still be FFA under this system, so there’d still be winners and losers.

I do mean under FFA settings. A Zombie with 0 points kills the last Human at 3 minutes from the start of the game. The Zombie is awared 180 points and the Human is awarded 180 points. Who won?

> Ah, but this is assuming that the map has a camping hole. A January LD update was hinted at in the recent bulletin, and the CCs have been looking for (and finding) balanced Infection maps, so I don’t think this’ll be all that much of a problem.

Don’t get my hopes up. I hate cutting myself with the broken peices afterwards why listening to old school Linken Park.

> I see what you’re proposing. Objective-Infection would be a nice twist, but at the same time, I think that if Survival-Infection can be improved, it should be.

Technically all Infection is survival. The Objective-Infection variant is surviving to get all the necessary items so they can survive the Zombie infection by getting the hell out of dodge.

10

> > This is true. But then, they are already competing amongst each other in both MM and Customs, and that’s done nothing to impede their teamwork.
>
> For now at least. I just would hate to see the crap that went on in S1 onwards Arena resurface in Infection.

That was back when people betrayed for power weapons because it was K/D rather than W/L, right? I can imagine…

If people try to lone wolf it as a Zombie, though, I don’t think they’ll get very far. Have you ever played on Boardwalk in a game where every single Human holed up in that corner building near their spawn, and kept it locked down forever because there weren’t enough Zombies to distract or mass? If all or even most of the Zombies try to lone wolf it for score – it’d be the Boardwalk corner scenario, but smaller. I think they’d quickly learn that teamwork is the best strategy as a Zombie.

> Ignoring all of that though, unless a Zombie makes multiple kills it seems that the Zombie that gets the last kill is going to be the Zombie winner, everyone else is just stuck with that. And because of the limited nature of potential points for Zombies players who lag behind the guy getting the kills or getting unlucky enough to die before scoring get nothing.

When you say “lag behind”, do you mean that some circumstance would hold them back, or simply that they would receive less of a reward for being less successful than “the guy getting the kills”? Would that not be what one would expect from a fair scoring system?

(I can’t argue the point about some people being unlucky enough to die before scoring – i.e. if the Penultimate Man Standing dies right before the Last Man Standing – but the same flaw already exists in the present scoring system, and it’s not something that I think can be solved.)

As for the LMS’s killer being the Zombie winner, and everyone else being “stuck with that”… Where you see a problem, I just see another goal for the Zombies: try to kill as many Humans as possible, and try like all hell to kill the LMS. :\

> Idea: Team based scoring for players once they are Zombies?

I’d love that, but I’ve no clue how it would work. It’d have to be a different system; T/VT by its very nature perfectly evens teams out and scores based on individual performance.

> I do mean under FFA settings. A Zombie with 0 points kills the last Human at 3 minutes from the start of the game. The Zombie is awared 180 points and the Human is awarded 180 points. Who won?

…Good point. But remember that if the Zombie was once a Human, their Zombie and Human scores are added together. The stalemate you describe would never affect the entire scoreboard unless the number of initial Humans was exactly equal to the number of Alpha Zombies AND only the Alphas got a kill AND each Alpha only got one kill.

> Technically all Infection is survival. The Objective-Infection variant is surviving to get all the necessary items so they can survive the Zombie infection by getting the hell out of dodge.

Oic.

I suppose it’d be sort of an in-between; right now, the two predominant Infection styles (besides mini-games) are holdout and journey – defend one area, or travel along a (usually-linear) path. I suppose Objective-Infection would be an interesting blend of the two, yet distinct enough to warrant its own classification.

A lot of people don’t like journey maps, though, and so I can’t imagine they’d be all that overjoyed about Objective-Infection. If we replace holdout with objective, then they’d probably hate the playlist as a whole. If we have both… Well, then we still need to fix holdout scoring, which is where T/VT Scoring could be of use.

11

> A while ago, I came up with a scoring system for Infection that is fair to both sides. I’ve finally decided to post it here on Waypoint, to open it up to a wider audience.
>
> The system is called “Time/Victim-Time Scoring”, or “T/VT Scoring” for short. I apologize for the length of this post: the system is simple, but the goals it accomplishes are many and varied.
>
>
> THE STATUS QUO
> In any given game of Infection, Zombies have infinite lives, Humans have one life and finite numbers, and scoring is based on kills. This means that the Humans have a maximum total score limited only by their ammunition. For all practical purposes, Humans have an infinite maximum total score, while Zombies have a maximum total score equal to the number of Humans. In other words, the current scoring system favors the Humans.
>
>
> ELEMENTS OF AN IDEAL SCORING SYSTEM
> These are a set of principles, existing elements, and assumptions that describe the goals of an ideal Infection scoring system. They are referred to throughout this post.
>
>
>
> BASIC PRINCIPLES- Players should not automatically have higher potential scores than others solely as a result of random team assignment.
> - Players should be rewarded for completing the respective objectives for their sides.
> - The Humans’ objective is to survive for as long as possible.
> - The Zombies’ objective is to kill the Humans as fast as possible.
> - As the round progresses, it should become progressively more difficult for an individual player to complete their team’s objective.
>
>
> EXISTING ELEMENTS THAT WE WANT TO KEEP
> These are principles that are observed in existing Infection gameplay, and that should be maintained.
> - For Humans, the increased number of enemies makes it more difficult to survive late-game. This satisfies Principle #4 for Humans.
> - The Zombie objective becomes easier for the whole team late-game due to their increased numbers, but it becomes harder for each individual. That is, the chances that any one particular Zombie will be the one to complete that objective will decrease. This satisfies Principle #4 for Zombies.
>
>
> ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT GAMEPLAY- On a balanced map, longer-lived Humans are more skilled or otherwise better-able to survive. Ergo it takes more skill/proficiency to kill them.
> - When a Survivor Victory occurs, it means that the Humans have won. The scoring should reflect this.
>
>
>
> MY SYSTEM: TIME/VICTIM-TIME (T/VT) POINTS- A player’s score in the game is the sum of their human points and zombie points
> - A player receives one human point for every second in which they are a Human and are alive
> - Upon killing a Human, a Zombie receives a number of zombie points equal to the number of human points that the victim had for the current round
> AN EXAMPLE
> That’s not the most intuitive explanation, so here’s an example: a description of how a single round with four players might play out, using this system for scoring.
>
>
>
> Arthur, Beth, and Chris start the round as Humans, while David is an Alpha Zombie.
>
> Twenty seconds after the round begins, Arthur, Beth, and Chris will all have twenty points for this round (that’s how long they’ve been alive).
>
> At that precise moment, David infects Arthur. Because Arthur has been alive for twenty seconds, David receives twenty points for his kill. The score is:
>
> ELAPSED ROUND TIME - 20 seconds
> ARTHUR - 20 (20H 0Z)
> BETH - 20 (20H 0Z)
> CHRIS - 20 (20H 0Z)
> DAVID - 20 (0H 20Z)
> TOTAL HUMAN SCORE - 60
> TOTAL ZOMBIE SCORE - 20
>
> Thirty seconds later, Arthur infects Beth. By this time, Beth has been alive for 50 seconds, so she has 50 points, and Arthur gains 50 points for infecting her.
>
> ELAPSED ROUND TIME - 50 seconds
> ARTHUR - 70 (20H 50Z)
> BETH - 50 (50H 0Z)
> CHRIS - 50 (50H 0Z)
> DAVID - 20 (0H 20Z)
> TOTAL HUMAN SCORE - 120
> TOTAL ZOMBIE SCORE - 70
>
> A full minute later, David infects Chris. By this time, Chris has been alive for 110 seconds, so he has 110 points, and David gains 110 points for killing him. Because Chris was the Last Man Standing, the round is now over.
>
> ELAPSED ROUND TIME - 110 seconds
> ARTHUR - 70 (20H 50Z)
> BETH - 50 (50H 0Z)
> CHRIS - 110 (110H 0Z)
> DAVID - 130 (0H 130Z)
> TOTAL HUMAN SCORE - 180
> TOTAL ZOMBIE SCORE - 180
>
> Notice that the total scores for the two teams are equal, despite players switching from the Human team to the Zombie team throughout the game. If we assume that all players are eventually infected, then for every point that a Human gains, the Zombies will eventually gain a point of their own (upon killing those Humans).
>
>
> continued in post 2

I like this. However, since I don’t play infection, my opinion is invalid.

12

> When you say “lag behind”, do you mean that some circumstance would hold them back, or simply that they would receive less of a reward for being less successful than “the guy getting the kills”? Would that not be what one would expect from a fair scoring system?

Say Alfred is the alpha zombie and he kills Bryan and Charlie before dying to Dave. Since Bryan spawns first he gets first stab at Dave and kills Dave. Charlie would be the one lagging behind in this scenario.

> (I can’t argue the point about some people being unlucky enough to die before scoring – i.e. if the Penultimate Man Standing dies right before the Last Man Standing – but the same flaw already exists in the present scoring system, and it’s not something that I think can be solved.)
>
> As for the LMS’s killer being the Zombie winner, and everyone else being “stuck with that”… Where you see a problem, I just see another goal for the Zombies: try to kill as many Humans as possible, and try like all hell to kill the LMS. :\

It’s a feeling that somebody could end up getting screwed somehow and I think it has to do with the fact that Zombies are pulling from a limited pool of points.

> …Good point. But remember that if the Zombie was once a Human, their Zombie and Human scores are added together. The stalemate you describe would never affect the entire scoreboard unless the number of initial Humans was exactly equal to the number of Alpha Zombies AND only the Alphas got a kill AND each Alpha only got one kill.

That’s what I was missing.

Though I will point out the possibility for the Penultimate Man Standing to kill the Last Man Standing and just throw the entire curve.

13

> Say Alfred is the alpha zombie and he kills Bryan and Charlie before dying to Dave. Since Bryan spawns first he gets first stab at Dave and kills Dave. Charlie would be the one lagging behind in this scenario.

I see what you’re saying. That happens in the current system as well, but it would be far more devastating to Charlie under mine, since Bryan would get even more points. It’s an edge case, but a case nonetheless…

I wonder how feasible it would be to edit spawning times in real-time… Say Bryan respawns in 5 and Charlie in 10 – would Megalo, upon Charlie’s infection, be able to average both of them to 7.5 seconds?

…Probably not. Hopefully, 343 adds such control in H4. (Hopefully, H4 will use Megalo!)

> > …Good point. But remember that if the Zombie was once a Human, their Zombie and Human scores are added together. The stalemate you describe would never affect the entire scoreboard unless the number of initial Humans was exactly equal to the number of Alpha Zombies AND only the Alphas got a kill AND each Alpha only got one kill.
>
> That’s what I was missing.
>
> I also think that addresses my previous quote reply in this posting, I was forgetting that the players are scoring points while Human.

Ah, yes.

You’re using more comprehensive reasoning than I am – I hadn’t even thought of that factor covering the Bryan-Charlie inequity, and I’m the guy trying to advocate for the system! XD

14

> Though I will point out the possibility for the Penultimate Man Standing to kill the Last Man Standing and just throw the entire curve.

I see you edited, and this is a good point.

But consider: Reach tries to spawn opposing players away from each other, so Penn is unlikely to kill Last due to a lucky spawn. The result, then, is that Penn, like the other Zombies, is competing with his teammates (while also relying on their cooperation, be it through massing or distraction) to kill the most proficient Human in the round. He’s also subject to the elevated difficulty curve, so if he does kill Last, it won’t be because he was handed an easier kill or anything of that sort.

Remember that killing is no longer the only means to be the best Human. Penn could have achieved his own status by hiding or through some other kill-free means, so he could well have quite a bit of difficulty killing Last. The most skilled Human is not necessarily the most skilled Zombie.

15

> > Though I will point out the possibility for the Penultimate Man Standing to kill the Last Man Standing and just throw the entire curve.
>
> I see you edited, and this is a good point.
>
> But consider: Reach tries to spawn opposing players away from each other, so Penn is unlikely to kill Last due to a lucky spawn. The result, then, is that Penn, like the other Zombies, is competing with his teammates (while also relying on their cooperation, be it through massing or distraction) to kill the most proficient Human in the round. He’s also subject to the elevated difficulty curve, so if he does kill Last, it won’t be because he was handed an easier kill or anything of that sort.
>
> Remember that killing is no longer the only means to be the best Human. Penn could have achieved his own status by hiding or through some other kill-free means, so he could well have quite a bit of difficulty killing Last. The most skilled Human is not necessarily the most skilled Zombie.

I agree with all your points. It was more of an just off the collar funny remark.

And I still have this naggy feeling about T/VT. I’m thinking back to games I’ve recently played where the score breakdown goes from absurdly high in first place, realistic in second and a bunch of 1s, 2s and 0s filling out the rest. I might not be fully considering that T/VT is basically going to standardize the scores to smooth out a large amount of those inequalities but I still can’t help shake the feeling that there’s the potential for someone to get shafted by the system rather than his own lack of skill.

I probably just need to sleep on it.

16

> > Say Alfred is the alpha zombie and he kills Bryan and Charlie before dying to Dave. Since Bryan spawns first he gets first stab at Dave and kills Dave. Charlie would be the one lagging behind in this scenario.
>
> I see what you’re saying. That happens in the current system as well, but it would be far more devastating to Charlie under mine, since Bryan would get even more points. It’s an edge case, but a case nonetheless…
>
> I wonder how feasible it would be to edit spawning times in real-time… Say Bryan respawns in 5 and Charlie in 10 – would Megalo, upon Charlie’s infection, be able to average both of them to 7.5 seconds?
>
> …Probably not. Hopefully, 343 adds such control in H4. (Hopefully, H4 will use Megalo!)

A point I just thought of myself is that in this case Charlie isn’t completely boned.

If the Humans are scattered Charlie hurts himself by trying to chase Bryan to the kill. Instead he could split off and hunt the other Human on the map (though at the downside of no teamwork.) If they are concentrated Bryan kills Dave, Eugene kills Dave and Charlie kills Eugene and ends out on top. Or Dave kills Bryan and Charlie kills Dave and so on.

I do believe that there is an option in Custom Games that forces players to spawn with each other in a wave like fashion.

17

I’m assuming that this is all after betraying is turned off, right? As it is, betraying is rampant in the LD playlist… and I can only see it getting worse with this type of scoring system… players betraying others to get the last few kills.

18

> I’m assuming that this is all after betraying is turned off, right? As it is, betraying is rampant in the LD playlist… and I can only see it getting worse with this type of scoring system… players betraying others to get the last few kills.

Betraying reduces your score in kill based gametypes. I see no reason why it couldn’t be worked into T/VT. And there’s still the Boot System.

It’s rampant in LD right now because Betrayal Booting is off.

19

> And there’s still the Boot System.
>
> It’s rampant in LD right now because Betrayal Booting is off.

As it should be… until they actually fix the issue in which the human and zombie both kill each other and the game calls out a betrayal.

20

I see what OP is getting at, but I think that would encourage tedious camping/turtlefests that are zero fun for humans OR zombies.

For a simpler solution, mix Living Dead and Headhunter - every zombie killed gives the human one point, and when a zombie finally kills the human they earn all the saved points.

Better yet, keep it the way it is - you have a 2/3 chance to spawn as a human, so everybody gets their turn to give (and receive) an -Yoink–kicking.