Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 Revamping PvP Rewards
03-12-2010, 11:39 AM
Problem:
People who lose (or cause their team to lose) get too richly rewarded in PvP matches and this causes too many people to intentionally suicide or go AFK, which ruins the match for the people who wanted to win or who simply wanted a fun, interesting battle.

Proposal:
Base individual rewards more sharply on how they compare with teammates. Average out the team's damage. If you fall far under the average damage done, your rewards are substantially reduced. Average out the team's deaths. If you fall far over the average death count, your rewards are substantially reduced.

Basically, you are graded. "C" is average. A, B, C and D all get normal rewards, like now -- "A" gets a bit higher than "D" but it's not a huge jump. If you get too low, though, you get an "F" and your rewards are slashed.



The object is to make it so that if a team is trying to win and one or two slackers are in there ruining it for everyone, then those slackers get nothing.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
03-12-2010, 11:55 AM
Interesting idea, but it would have the side effect of harshly penalizing players who, gosh darn it, just aren't that good at PVP. And while those of us who find PVP to be the most enjoyable part of the game and prefer games full of equally enthusiastic warriors might find that idea a bit tempting, it would ultimately be self-defeating because it means fewer people would spend time in PVP.

I wasn't the least bit interested in trying PVP until someone told me you can get a good amount of medals even by losing. I gave it a shot, stunk up the joint, but had crazy good fun, so I kept at it and now I love it and do pretty well. STO is a pretty casual game, and PVP already has enough of a reputation as being difficult and sometimes unfriendly to less talented players and casuals. Unless we want even worse queue times, rewarding losing as we do now might be the best course of action, if only to keep the filler coming in so games get started at all.

I get pretty competitive in PVP, but it is nice to know that even if you do lose, you get some decent tangible rewards in addition to the fun you had. And when you win, the fact that you only got a few more medals than the losers is softened by the fact that you WON, lol.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
03-12-2010, 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSIRockin
Interesting idea, but it would have the side effect of harshly penalizing players who, gosh darn it, just aren't that good at PVP. And while those of us who find PVP to be the most enjoyable part of the game and prefer games full of equally enthusiastic warriors might find that idea a bit tempting, it would ultimately be self-defeating because it means fewer people would spend time in PVP.

I wasn't the least bit interested in trying PVP until someone told me you can get a good amount of medals even by losing. I gave it a shot, stunk up the joint, but had crazy good fun, so I kept at it and now I love it and do pretty well. STO is a pretty casual game, and PVP already has enough of a reputation as being difficult and sometimes unfriendly to less talented players and casuals. Unless we want even worse queue times, rewarding losing as we do now might be the best course of action, if only to keep the filler coming in so games get started at all.

I get pretty competitive in PVP, but it is nice to know that even if you do lose, you get some decent tangible rewards in addition to the fun you had. And when you win, the fact that you only got a few more medals than the losers is softened by the fact that you WON, lol.
agreed, i tend to do well in pvp, i have a t1 tac (just started it) and i get twice or more the nxt player often this would really scew the average. it is taking long enough when i am on the winning side to lvl, with 15+ kills no deaths and 90-100k damage on the winning side i get 69 sp. if others are going to get a reduction based on my performance they will give up the chore of lvl'in a klingon long before tehy get out of t1
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
03-12-2010, 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSIRockin
...it would have the side effect of harshly penalizing players who, gosh darn it, just aren't that good at PVP.
Isn't that the point? All games reward *better* players with better gear - if they don't, they should.

The only problem I see with the proposed is.. damage isn't everything especially when you're on a team. What needs to start being calculated is heals (not hull only) but shield extensions, science teams, etc. AND damage. Then you can have a good baseline to base participation on. Break the reward badges into 3 tiers ranging from most involved to least involved. On a ten man map the top 4 would get XXX with the top getting X, the next 4 would get XX and the last 2 would get X.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
03-12-2010, 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSIRockin
Interesting idea, but it would have the side effect of harshly penalizing players who, gosh darn it, just aren't that good at PVP.
Good.

There is a line where "being bad at PvP" and "griefing your teammates" becomes the same thing.

If you are SO terrible at PvP that you end up far outside of your team's averages then you need to learn to get better, and a few more games of rough encouragement at the hands of this scoring system will encourage you to do so.


This isn't "No Klingon Left Behind". If you suck too much to advance to T2, you need to stay in T1 until you learn to at least be average.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
03-12-2010, 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugal317 View Post
The only problem I see with the proposed is.. damage isn't everything especially when you're on a team. What needs to start being calculated is heals (not hull only) but shield extensions, science teams, etc. AND damage.
Also true. As science/healer, my priority is keeping the pewpewers alive so they can kill the other guys. If support isn't rewarded as much as DPS, no one will ever heal others or buff others, and in a part of the game sorely lacking teamwork as it is, the last thing we need is to reward purely self-interested play.

Another problem with grades or tiers is not only punishing casuals or less talented players, but punishing players who are good but not "leet". In T2 as science with no offensive abilities I usually get around 40k-50k damage when I get to concentrate a bit on offense, and then I see people two grades lower than me getting 100k+. I'm a pretty decent player and I have no earthly idea how they get damage that high. I respect their skill, but if I end up getting punished just because I'm not an outright legendary player, that takes the wind out of my sails and every other valuable-but-not-pro PVPer.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
03-12-2010, 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugal317 View Post
Isn't that the point? All games reward *better* players with better gear - if they don't, they should.

The only problem I see with the proposed is.. damage isn't everything especially when you're on a team. What needs to start being calculated is heals (not hull only) but shield extensions, science teams, etc. AND damage. Then you can have a good baseline to base participation on. Break the reward badges into 3 tiers ranging from most involved to least involved. On a ten man map the top 4 would get XXX with the top getting X, the next 4 would get XX and the last 2 would get X.
how do you factor in other specials, eg. a player used target shields and it dropped the rear facing shield, he carries beams to do this, i am also behind the player using cannon, i get more damage and so appear the more involved player. in truth my damage boost was facilitated by the unrecognised skills used by the other player. a player uses scan sensors in the same encounter, i get a damage boost from his debuff while he recieves no damage boost from my apa. he hasn't healed as no one required it, he falls down the scale.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
03-12-2010, 12:50 PM
That's why it's an average -- you aren't being compared to the DPS of the dedicated Tactical Escort, you're being compared to the team's average, including yourself.

e.g.:

Player A: 300000 damage (dedicated escort/DPS)
Player B: 200000 damage (dedicated DPS, just not quite as good)
Player C: 150000 damage (healer)
Player D: 100000 damage (healer who went to get a drink)
Player Zzzz: 20000 damage (afk suicider)

Average damage: 154,000.

If we assume you must make at least 50% of the average then players A-D all "pass". Even though D only did 1/3rd as much as A and even though he's well below average, he still passes.

Player Zzzz fails. He is too far under the average.



There is probably a fancier statistical method to create a plot and determine when someone is too far outside the norm, but you get the general idea. (We can probably even use fancy statistics to disregard any "outliers". e.g., if most people did 100k - 300k damage but one person somehow did 2 million damage, perhaps through some exploit, his number could be disregarded.)

I'm sure someone with a better grasp of statistics could take this idea and apply some better math to it. I just wanted to note the concept I had.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:30 PM.