Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
10-29-2010, 03:38 AM
Quote:
You only get emblems for 3 games that you win! , then they have to play properly and not ruin this game for us.
Yay no emblems for feds.... sorry but with the game as unbalanced as it is this would just never work.

Just have the game kick idle people. Its not hard.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
10-29-2010, 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rb74
Yay no emblems for feds.... sorry but with the game as unbalanced as it is this would just never work.

Just have the game kick idle people. Its not hard.
1. unbalanced?? you're still stuck at 'unbalanced'? move on...
2. as a fed its actually EASIER to get a FvF match than a FvK! FvF queues pops faster, so getting emblems as a fed would be quicker than as a KDF..

I definately would go for the split reward system. i'd suggest 1 Emblem for 3 matches played, 6 emblems for 3 matches won. This would make the number of emblems given out approx the same as today, since half of the queue signups would not yield any reward. (the loosing side).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
10-29-2010, 07:15 AM
I prefer the "pacifist non-agressors" that milk pvp without helping be flagged against doing any pvp for "x" amount of time when thier scores come up 0.
If you don't participate you shouldn't benefit from being in the match and recieve nothing for your non-efforts.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
10-29-2010, 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
I prefer the "pacifist non-agressors" that milk pvp without helping be flagged against doing any pvp for "x" amount of time when thier scores come up 0.
If you don't participate you shouldn't benefit from being in the match and recieve nothing for your non-efforts.
Then they'll go straight forward after first spawn, fire their guns at the first thing they see, get killed, and wait out the rest of the match.... wich is even worse for their team, as they'll also get -1 score :p

By then they will have their minimum damage and can wait it out....

I think there should be a reward for winning... and very little reward for participating... As long as the reward is tied to a Daily, so it can not be exploited by premades, i do not see any problems with this. It will encourage players to try harder and to work together.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
10-29-2010, 08:21 AM
Here's a more involved solution, a la Guild Wars 2:

De-link PvE and PvP by making it so that in PvP you have access to all the best gear automatically, for free. (But it only is available for PvP.) Make rewards for PvP something else (basically vanity-only, like titles or skins), and only for winning.

Now PvE leacher twits have no incentive to ruin matches.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
10-29-2010, 08:58 AM
In my experience lately people have been going out of their way to drag out pvp as long as they can and now that I think about it, I haven't really noticed that many people joining pvp just to sit idlely or in the case of arena's flying in with/without shields.

I think the 3 for a win and nothing for losing would be too harsh because I end up having to pug my 3 pvp dailies each day and it's amzing how badly some teams want to lose. In capture and holds especially people forget the capture and hold part of capture and hold and just pew pew thinking it's arena. I'll be fighting against the tide trying to capture points only to retreat or eventually die against greater numbers. Few have made reference to my low results despite the fact I'll be a science vessel speced for debuffs not dps or healing or I'm frantically trying to capture points on my own rather than look for a fight trying to boost my stats. Stats have no influence over the match other than bragging rights and it seems silly for an escort to brag about dps over a science for example.

I will admit to sitting out of games BUT ONLY when it's obvious my team doesn't want to win and how soon I sit out depends on how quick to come to that conclusion. I have no problems losing but trying to win when your team chooses to go in completely the opposite direction and pew pew over 1 point while the other 4 get flipped or not heal/assist you is down to luck and the other team.

I've now started refusing team invites because there is no reason for it. I won't get healed and when I give heals (which btw is to anyone that needs it not just my team) they still manage to commit suicide somehow or run away with heals on cd and everyone attacking me. The team usually ends up splitting up and there’s no team chat to co-ordinate (or one gets ignored).


This isn't trolling, this is my general experience. 1 for playing and 3 for winning sounds good in theory but in practice I don't see it changing the nature of pugs and like fleet actions players some could work really hard and get the wooden spoon for their trouble. It could encourage people on the losing team to give up sooner because they don't see the point to fighting for 1 emblem and may as well get the pvp over sooner and do something else like the explore Btran which still gives 3 emblems. Heck Btran would be quicker than pvp as that you can whiz through without any queuing.

If it was possible to deny inactive players that would be the way to go but then you fall in to the trap of players going ‘pew...run away’. Perhaps the option to team vote kick someone from the team and out of the instance - a policy implemented in some fashion on many team games which works I would say effectively enough. It would have to be a vote as that then makes it fairer. It’s then up to the rest of the team to look at the person’s stats and see if they are worth kicking. This can be obvious if they just sit at camp or they are clearly outside the combat zone (maybe Cryptic can highlight friendlies on the map regardless of distance) though not on the HUD itself). This would at least stop me from choosing to sit out though I’d then move on to just pewpewing like everyone else and let the other team capture the points until we lost. Punish the inactives not those who genuinely try.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
10-29-2010, 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dassem_Ultor
Then they'll go straight forward after first spawn, fire their guns at the first thing they see, get killed, and wait out the rest of the match.... wich is even worse for their team, as they'll also get -1 score :p
By then they will have their minimum damage and can wait it out....
Smarty Pants:p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
10-29-2010, 11:47 AM
Thats sucks, and adds to the annoyance he taunts and flaunts the fact.

How about, they change it so that you have to be in a team by the match end to get the Emblem reward? Kicked if they simply do not participate, or no Emblems if no damage or heals. Thinking about it, even that could prove tricky.

I don't know,something, anything to prevent this because it is so unfair to those who cannot get a good fight because someone sits it out. They should get NOTHING cept a good slap.

grrr
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
10-29-2010, 12:45 PM
You could link emblems to the number of points a player receives in a PvP match. Folks who hide or sit on the sidelines wouldn't get any points so no emblems. Also it would mean that even if one side lost, but players fought hard they would still get a reward.

First though they'd have to fix the point system so that it rewards players for healing friendly players and not just for kills.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
10-29-2010, 02:56 PM
I'm still not a fan of an all or nothing reward system. Basing rewards off of points scored (even if taking healing, science abilities, and the like into effect) is going to be complicated and doesn't accurately reflect a players ability. Top damage is great but you can run those numbers up without ever killing anything, then someone with good burst has a low damage score and has ultimately been more effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully
Yes. I figure about 6-9 Emblems per day are "fair". Don't necessarily force people to choose a specific option.
Maybe make it so that the reward is approximately 3 Emblems per hour (using typical length of the content.)
I suppose that's about the rate we mostly "earn" our Emblems now.

The idea behind tying it to specific tasks makes sense, but limiting the amount people can get per day makes it sure they only do the stuff they really want. (Potentially the stuff that takes the least time, so trying to balance it around the time typically required seems optimal. )
My earlier suggestion giving players a choice of which they want to participate in does have a pitfall I failed to recognize. It assumes that people would chose the things they want to do for the fun of it. I neglected to consider that some people probably will do whatever is easier, even if that involves queuing up for PvP without any intent of actually participating.
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 08:51 AM.