I honestly hate the new system.
At first things may seem peachy, comebacks more likely, and whatnot.

However, if you're getting beat down, no matter how much time you have, you're still going to lose.

Games drag out for too long, spawn camping lasts for days, it promotes more leavers and more rage.

Honestly, the only reason OOO implemented this scoring update was to gain more CE from revives considering the games are longer = more chance for CE revives.

This actually makes games easier to control. It makes recon the most valuable class, and from what I've played it doesn't take much to completely turn the tide of a game.

Edit:Removed comment, it felt too...I dunno... :/

I don't like it.

The old linear system was fine, this feels like... point welfare.

Also, with the large and hopefully transient influx of new players, there has never before been so much debilitating lag and polaris spam. It's really ruining lockdown right now.

done

Lopsided matches aren't fun, and spawn camping does make them worse... Earliest today I even ran into someone exploiting a bug in the necropolis map to spam RSS bombs through the locker room barrier, which was especially obnoxious. (...and yes, I consider exploiting a game bug to be cheating)

But the scoring system at least stretches out the window where you'd need to maintain control of the board, thereby giving players on the suppressed team a chance to break free. Overall, it's a positive balancing step that irons out very short-term advantages.

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of it either... I don't really lockdown too much, as I feel that my time is better spent playing games like TF2 if I feel like going out and killing other players.

Longer games = less tokens per time spent.

My analysis on what this actually does for game balance-

So lets say that all of the points are always capped in our hypothetical situation, as the owners of the points cap all the way and don't just leave half capped points. This means that if you have 3/5 points, you're gaining 3 or 5 points per tick. This means that the first, and largest, part of the points is always going to balance itself out.

In the first scenario, where each point is worth 5 flat per tick, we have it so that the first couple points cancel each other out. If team 1 has 2 points and team 2 has 3, then Team 2 is gaining 5 points per tick over Team 1. For every aditional point you capture, you're getting 10 per tick however.

Points gained per tick=10(X-1)+5, where X is equal to the number of points you have capped over the other team. If you have 4/5 and they've got one, then you've got 3 there.

In the second scenario, where each point is worth 5-3-1 or whatnot, then the first part balances itself out- so that eventually, you're making 3 over them with one point over them. But then when you've got 4 and they've got one?

You're making:
5+4+3+2
They're making:
5

Which means that you'd be gaining 9 over them... or 5+4+3+2-5.

I'll just use a table here...

In a game of 5 points, if you own:
3 points=+3 per tick
4 points=+9 per tick
5 points=+15 per tick

Compare to the same table of the old system:

In a game of 5 points, if you own:
3 points=+5 per tick
4 points=+15 per tick
5 points=+25 per tick

Scale these values down, so that you can compare them based on the "base" value of 3...

In a game of 5 points, if you own:
3 points=+3 per tick
4 points=+9 per tick
5 points=+15 per tick

Notice that the numbers are exactly the same as the '3' ones. This means that the scoring change has, in fact, only changed the length of time a game takes.

What of uncapped points?

Lets say that you have 3 points, and they have 1.

You're making 5+4+3, or 15 under the old ruling.
They're making 5... still 5 under the old.

You'd be gaining 10 (old), or 7 points (new). However, under the old system, you'd be gaining 6 points if put to scale with the new system from this scenario, which IS a difference.

The other scenario that I'll look at is 2 points, vs 1 point.

5+4-5= 4 points per tick
5+5-5= 5 points per tick (3 to scale)

What actually changed?
The amount of points you're indirectly gaining from uncapped points when you're ahead is slightly higher. This means that its actually slightly harder to 'catch up' to the other team.

Well I was on the test server and I can honestly say I actually really like the new scoring system, even when we were losing. I guess I never met any of those mother[buckers] who spawn camp but seriously guys? Being stomped always hurt, it always seemed like it took forever and spawn campers were ALWAYS annoying. Sure you have like what? An extra 1-3 minutes to wait now? It's annoying I'm sure but instead of thinking you can go out there and take on a whole team hows about we work together, actually chat in team chat, we are a TEAM y'know.

This may not apply to everyone or every game but seriously, when my team is beaten I admit defeat but I see people whining about the teams being one sided. A team can make all the difference against a group of soloers.

Strategy is the key and to make a strategy, it requires communication. Stop being so silent, this is the reason I stick to T1, because I know alot of people who play in that tier and even newbs are talkative, sure don't just stop in the middle of a battle but give teamates warnings, try set up a defense against certain points etc. etc.

It really doesn't matter about how much time, or how many points you gain, as a team you can prevail against anyone, I haven't been on LD since they updated but I do have some pre-patch screenshot which I can post later to prove my point.

TL;DR: Work as a team, communicate and strategise and you can win against any opponent. No need to be pessimistic. And tier one rules.

~The Mighty Cheese Knight; WeeGee

The general consensus is that lopsided matchups should be over quick while balanced games should go back and forth. Why dont we make the last point worth the MOST. So in lopsided matchups the game would end quick and in relatively balanced games the game would last longer since each side would only hold around half the points and never get the huge bonus of the last point.

The problem with what you are proposing Sypsy and Shidara is that with teams who are off balance but not to the point where they can't get at least one point back every so often. In this scenario it would basically be a tug of war between 1 point where teams just cap that single point because the winning teams needs it to make a lockdown effect happen and the losing team is either capping it because it's close or they can't get to other points. This would essemtially stop the winning from winning faster then the time limit due to points being halted when they have all points but they lose it due to the other team before the timer can run out and the losing team can't get back points to make up for overwhelming difference in skill/uv/armor/etc to actually win which means both teams would have to wait until the timer end to even finish the game. So stopping the point gain won't solve the current slow point problem since it can essentially make people wait until the timer runs out to even win.

Thing is...if a team can retrieve one point, what's stopping them from retrieving the others? It's all about strategy, and incompetence, laziness and 'pride' are no valid excuses. Cannot form a strategy? You won't retrieve it. Too lazy to form one? You won't retrieve it. Too 'proud' to rely on your team-mates? You won't retrieve it. Besides, I time and time again run into people who believe it's better to let it end than struggle uselessly. Or as I like to call them, 'quitters'. Does your team have one? Don't worry, you'll get locked down.

Also, the current system isn't fail-safe either. This is but an alternative to give you the possibility to end a fruitless struggle. You didn't have one to begin with, and you argue that giving you one isn't going to help in the slightest? Nothing is perfect, we all realise this, but we're proposing an improvement to the system. If you want to counter said proposal, bring up a valid argument to oppose it other than "but this team might drag it on anyway." News flash: it would before as well.

As I said it's not a necro, if 2-3 days is considered it. I just thought it was particularly more sensible to post on an existing thread instead

From my experiences there is a LOT of pros and cons with the new system

PROS

1. Games are likely to even out, resulting in somewhat intense matches during evenly matched teams (rarely >_>)
2. A somewhat moderate chance to have a comeback PROVIDED your team is good enough/ opponents have a leaver
3. ???

CONS

1. Games drag out WAY too long during even matches.
2. Chance of comeback is somewhat harder as well. Mainly because the amount of points you regain is very little, so if you are about 100 point difference it's pratically near impossible to catch up if teams remains the same [balance-ness]
3. Change was more or less unnecessary. Old system was fine.

LOGIC

1. Why is it that the first point you gain get more points? The term LOCKDOWN gives it a meaning where you have to lockdown the maps- a bigger bonus for more bases held is somewhat more logical, but it'd drag games longer
2. I don't actually call it "improved" when it's more or less near impossible to catch up once there's a 100 point difference and teams remain of same "average skill"
3. Change seems directed towards balanced team games, considering how rare this actually happens during random LD old system is honestly better, it allows you to catch up to the team faster somewhat.

Just my 2 cents

I like it. It makes my dmg go over 20k per match now.

Oh darn, double post.

@Owao: Oh. Sorry. I just got that off Google Images, had no idea it was yours.