DUST Search - New Active SP reward system

Absolute Idiom II wrote:

New Active SP reward system

Active SP is currently awarded at: 5 SP per second + 1 SP per WP.

I think that this is the main reason for the proliferation of AFK SP farming. The difference between ZERO effort and some effort is negligable because the majority of your SP is earned for simply being in the match.

If a player were to AFK only, they will manage to hit the weekly cap in 10.6 hours. A player earning a consistent 3000 WP per hour (1000 SP per skirmish or 750 WP per Ambush) would cap out in 9.1 hours. Clearly 1.5 hours saved is not a great way to incentivise or reward playing.

We can see this demonstrated in the following chart: http://i.imgur.com/ZuO7o1j.png?1

I'd like to consider 3 alternatives:

A) 5 SP per second + 1 SP per WP [now]
B) 3 SP per second + 3 SP per WP
C) 2 SP per second + 5 SP per WP
D) 2 SP per second + 10 SP per WP

Chart: http://i.imgur.com/FfZz3P6.png?1
Table: http://i.imgur.com/yXpO8Po.png?1

These alternatives really reward active players a lot more; and allow many more players to reach the cap. AFK activity will drop right off, since it becomes dramatically suboptimal.

Are there any of these that you prefer the look of? Any other options you'd like to see? I feel pretentious enough today to ask you to like the choices in the posts to follow.

edit:

Absolute Idiom II wrote:

What if the winning team received a flat bonus of say 1000 SP to each player? That way you can play to win even if you don't end up earning all that many WP during the battle.

I think a flat bonus would be better than a simple multiplier of say 1.5x. A multiplier still mostly rewards those at the top of the score board.

So you end up with WP being your performance related pay and winning being a (significant) flat bonus.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mankou Prima Gallicus 0	Posted - 2013.08.11 15:17:00 - [31] - Quote Absolute Idiom II wrote: New Active SP reward system Active SP is currently awarded at: 5 SP per second + 1 SP per WP. I think that this is the main reason for the proliferation of AFK SP farming. The difference between ZERO effort and some effort is negligable because the majority of your SP is earned for simply being in the match. If a player were to AFK only, they will manage to hit the weekly cap in 10.6 hours. A player earning a consistent 3000 WP per hour (1000 SP per skirmish or 750 WP per Ambush) would cap out in 9.1 hours. Clearly 1.5 hours saved is not a great way to incentivise or reward playing. We can see this demonstrated in the following chart: http://i.imgur.com/ZuO7o1j.png?1 I'd like to consider 3 alternatives: A) 5 SP per second + 1 SP per WP [now] B) 3 SP per second + 3 SP per WP C) 2 SP per second + 5 SP per WP D) 2 SP per second + 10 SP per WP Chart: http://i.imgur.com/FfZz3P6.png?1 Table: http://i.imgur.com/yXpO8Po.png?1 These alternatives really reward active players a lot more; and allow many more players to reach the cap. AFK activity will drop right off, since it becomes dramatically suboptimal. Are there any of these that you prefer the look of? Any other options you'd like to see? I feel pretentious enough today to ask you to like the choices in the posts to follow. Great work ! I consider C as the best of your solutions, medium et good players would win quite a lot.The farmers should disappear But the -½ very bad players -+ who generally are the newest ones would lose a bit in the change and at the end could be frustrated. This is why my number 1 choice is the one from ZDub 303 ZDub 303 wrote: What would be even better is a graduated SP/WP mechanics so you reward skill without penalizing lack of it. 0 - 500 WP = 8 SP/WP (4000 SP) 500 - 1000 WP = 4 SP/WP (2000 SP) 1000+ WP = 2 SP/WP all of this + 1 SP/s in battle. So you discourage WP farming, while still rewarding participation and skill. However, the first 500 WP gets you the bulk of your SP, so unskilled players making 0-500 WP per battle aren't totally boned. So 1345 WP in a 10 minute battle would net you 600 WP base + 4000 SP (0 - 500 WP) + 2000 SP (500 - 1000 WP) + 690 SP (1000 - 1345 WP) For a total of: 7290 SP New players get points so they're not frustrated. And skilled players are well rewarded for their efforts. I would also add the ISK solution of Killar-12 because the present system isn't comprehensible. Even if CCP made a dev blogs with the general lines, it's not clear. This proposition must certainly be precised but it is a good start. Quote: ISK 500 ISK/ WP for 0-500 250 ISK/WP for 500-1000 100 ISK/WP for 1000+ also +25% for a win in pubs or 50% for a win in FW/PC and no ISK for a loss but SP is only halved Great work all of you
Absolute Idiom II No Free Pass 413	Posted - 2013.08.14 08:48:00 - [32] - Quote I'm still interested in opinions on this proposal. Perhaps with enough momentum we can encourage CCP to make a change in this area?
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon DARKSTAR ARMY 413	Posted - 2013.08.14 09:15:00 - [33] - Quote After this week i've realized that if you only double the WP you need an insane amount of them, to have a good SP payout, if the match don't last at least 15 minutes. I would like to have some stats like an average duration of skirmish or domination and the average WP gain for each player, to give good suggestions.
Absolute Idiom II No Free Pass 413	Posted - 2013.08.14 09:21:00 - [34] - Quote Make some reasonable assumptions and suggest something? Then say how you'd vary it dependent on what the actuals are?
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 59	Posted - 2013.08.14 09:32:00 - [35] - Quote Great work on the graph and the suggested alternatives. I'd vote for either option C or D. With that in place they also need: - A bonus WP/SP awarded for winning the match that is significant enough to focus on the objectives rather than just WP farming. I'm not sure what this should be, either 2000 WP or maybe just 2000 SP. This would deter people from just farming WP and actually try to win the battles. With the new WP/SP system + a reward I see AFK quickly becoming less of a problem.
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon DARKSTAR ARMY 413	Posted - 2013.08.14 09:36:00 - [36] - Quote Would you ever think that the average WP gain in academy battles is 100wp? We need some stats, we can argue on in game elements and personal experiences or of things we have stats (weapons, modules, dropsuits), but on this topic, we are talking about personal data, i can assume an average on my stats but it will not be a true stat, i would really like to give suggestion on this but we need a better view of the whole thing.
Absolute Idiom II No Free Pass 413	Posted - 2013.08.14 09:50:00 - [37] - Quote It's worth pointing out that even if you are given the exact averages for length of match and WP earned, there is going to be a wide variety around that average and so choosing some examples based upon reasonable assumptions is perfectly reasonable to do.
Reaper Skordeman The Reaper Crew PMC 76	Posted - 2013.08.14 12:58:00 - [38] - Quote B. It's not exactly game breaking, and does make AFK Farming less rewarding versus Active Player. That being said, we'll still see people do it, but if I could just get another two or three PLAYERS on my team I'd be happy.
lrian Locust Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 18	Posted - 2013.08.14 13:30:00 - [39] - Quote I don't think CCP needs to add additional SP gain multipliers to satisfy newbies. They already have the benefit of cheap initial skills. That should be enough - if not, then the skill tree should be adjusted. That said, perhaps the skill tree should get rid of the SP cost multipliers. That would a) make it easier for CCP to tweak and balance game performance, b) get rid of skill upgrades without any benefits, and c) makes it easier for players to calculate and compare SP cost. Hey, I think I'll start a new thread on this!
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 61	Posted - 2013.08.14 14:01:00 - [40] - Quote Absolute Idiom II wrote: What if the winning team received a flat bonus of say 1000 SP to each player? That way you can play to win even if you don't end up earning all that many WP during the battle. I think a flat bonus would be better than a simple multiplier of say 1.5x. A multiplier still mostly rewards those at the top of the score board. So you end up with WP being your performance related pay and winning being a (significant) flat bonus. Agreed, I always think that their should be a flat bonus for winning - this would really affect gameplay if it is rewarding enough. If it isn't, people won't have an incentive to win and will just farm WP.

Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 62	Posted - 2013.08.14 14:03:00 - [41] - Quote lrian Locust wrote: I don't think CCP needs to add additional SP gain multipliers to satisfy newbies. They already have the benefit of cheap initial skills. That should be enough - if not, then the skill tree should be adjusted. That said, perhaps the skill tree should get rid of the SP cost multipliers. That would a) make it easier for CCP to tweak and balance game performance, b) get rid of skill upgrades without any benefits, and c) makes it easier for players to calculate and compare SP cost. Hey, I think I'll start a new thread on this! Yes this is another problem indeed - but a new thread is probably the way to go so we don't dilute ideas too much.
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 62	Posted - 2013.08.14 14:08:00 - [42] - Quote shaman oga wrote: After this week i've realized that if you only double the WP you need an insane amount of them, to have a good SP payout, if the match don't last at least 15 minutes. I would like to have some stats like an average duration of skirmish or domination and the average WP gain for each player, to give good suggestions. This would also be useful - unfortunately, all the metrics remain with CCP for now, although they can definitely apply our ideas to their statistics to give us a viable solution!
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion 194	Posted - 2013.08.14 14:10:00 - [43] - Quote I endorse this idea, because quite frankly, the grinding last week was suicide-inducing.
Absolute Idiom II No Free Pass 422	Posted - 2013.08.14 14:12:00 - [44] - Quote SponkSponkSponk wrote: I endorse this idea, because quite frankly, the grinding last week was suicide-inducing. Although (to be fair) I was away at a festival from Thurs-Mon - last week was the first time I never didn't hit cap. 40k SP short.
Sardonk Eternia Multnomah Interstellar Holdings Inc. 139	Posted - 2013.08.18 12:00:00 - [45] - Quote D) 2 SP per second + 10 SP per WP We get way too much SP for doing nothing and I also think if you are playing hard and earning a lot of WP you should be able to cap out a lot faster than we currently can. Meeting SP cap is a chore currently and I often AFK so I can do housework or other chores while also accomplishing my dust chore. If I could cap out much faster by being active I would love it.
Absolute Idiom II No Free Pass 477	Posted - 2013.08.22 17:46:00 - [46] - Quote So I featured in this week's highlights: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1207154#post1207154 Come on guys, let's get some real momentum behind getting the Active SP system updated. Post your comments and like the relevant posts on page 1.
blue skink Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 20	Posted - 2013.08.22 17:47:00 - [47] - Quote Here is an idea. If a toon has 10 million or more so then reset the toon to zero. After that implement changes to to gain. Otherwise its not fair to those who are behind the curve in lifetime so.
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion 242	Posted - 2013.08.22 23:12:00 - [48] - Quote Absolute Idiom II wrote: So I featured in this week's highlights: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1207154#post1207154 Come on guys, let's get some real momentum behind getting the Active SP system updated. Post your comments and like the relevant posts on page 1. It's interesting that we're getting up to 5000sp just for logging in, in Uprising. Will that come from the active pool?
Vrain Matari ZionTCD 726	Posted - 2013.08.23 00:14:00 - [49] - Quote Great work, OP. Imo passive sp gain in matches is one of the primary drivers of bad player experiences in DUST for both new players and vets. I like your proposed modifications. I voted for your option C, but would be just as happy with D. But there's a dynamic built into ZDub's proposal(and Killar-12's mod) that i really like: for very good players, it makes WP farming unattractive beyond a certain point. Taking a graduated proportional self-referencing system like ZDub's to its natural conclusion leads us to a logarithmic reward system. I'd like to see if that makes any sense. So if sp = log(WP), 10 WP gets you 1 sp, 100 WP gets you 2 sp, 1000 WP gets you 3 sp and 5000 WP gets you 3.7 sp. Calibrating this to match what we're used to, let's multiply by 2000(just a rough guess): sp = 2000 x log(WP), and so 10 WP gives 2000 sp, 100 WP gives 4000 sp, 1000 WP gives 6000 sp and 5000 WP gives 7400 sp. This system is very generous to low WP earners, and we can see how it still allows WP farming but the farmers really have to work for their sp. I don't mind the generosity at the bottom end, anybody who's earning 10 WP per match needs a hand up. I think with a system this generous we could drop the 1sp/second passive bonus and go pure active sp. Add to this the flat 1000 sp bonus for each player and 1350 WP earns a player on the losing team 6260 sp and 7260 for being on the winning team. Exploitable? Absolutely! Player just hops from battle to battle, optimizing their time-in-match + queue time to maximize sp, quitting before the end of a battle. Or a player just puts out a set of hives and uplinks and AFKs for the rest of the match. The logarithmic reward system is a limiting case and a good example for all graduated reward systems like ZDub's and Killar-12's. Peeps will look for an optimal point to bail on the match where they can maximize SP(the good players) or go the other way and minimize their risk for a still-ok sp reward. Is there a way to make this work? It would be nice to know what CCP's anti-farming tactics will be. We'll know soon enough i guess.
KalOfTheRathi Black Phoenix Mercenaries 579	Posted - 2013.08.23 00:39:00 - [50] - Quote Just a little reply with my usual side of snark. No personal affronts intended although I would not complain if it happens. Why do others worry about AFK so much? I don't do it unless DUST itself forces me into it, like spawning me into a wall on the MCC although the last one kicked me from battle and I received zip for that. CCP beget EVE and later DUST. Ganking, AFK, passive SP (only in EVE I believe) and many behaviors that are considered pathological or at least sociopathic in nature are endemic to New Eden. One might wonder how promotion is handled within the corporation; I, however, do not. Gamers Game Everything. They play the game. They game the game. They game the rewards, the kills, the health, the deaths, the vehicles and anything they can get near. It is the nature of the beasts that are gamers. Regardless of the game itself. Recall that DUST is a grinder. A heavy grinder with many significant rewards blocked behind massive SP walls. The only currency in DUST that counts is SP. Some have lives such that playing long hours fits with them. Others don't want to lose the SP but don't want to play the game as heavily. In EVE the solution is built into the game and paid for with subscriptions. In DUST ... AFK is their solution. Okay, they can in DUST with Passive SP, just not very quickly. If there are too many AFK just switch to long distance play. Snipe, test fly your drop ship or rail tank. DUST Devs say they are considering solutions. Which is fine but considering they built the game that enabled this from the beginning I am not holding my breath. Personally the system doesn't bother me that much (a little, true enough) as the real alternative is a monthly fee.

SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion 246	Posted - 2013.08.23 01:01:00 - [51] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: Why do others worry about AFK so much? Because my home server is Oceanic, and I'm sick of joining a match only to see ten AFK players in my MCC, taking up team slots that could have been players actually helping to win the game.
Vargralor Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 4	Posted - 2013.08.23 01:34:00 - [52] - Quote I do like the suggestions of the logarithmic reward scale. It allows players that try and don't necessarily succeed to still get skill points without enabling massive farming. It also caters for the scenarios where players are performing helpful activities for their team that do not actually generate WPs (like running around active scanning for example). This would certainly help reduce a lot of the desire to AFK. As for the MCC, the simplest solution there is to enable friendly fire in the MCC. There is always another spawn point if you don't want to risk someone shooting you in the MCC and I would happily take the negative hit myself to spawn into the MCC partway during a match and execute the AFKers.
blue skink Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 20	Posted - 2013.08.23 02:04:00 - [53] - Quote SponkSponkSponk wrote: KalOfTheRathi wrote: Why do others worry about AFK so much? Because my home server is Oceanic, and I'm sick of joining a match only to see ten AFK players in my MCC, taking up team slots that could have been players actually helping to win the game. Guess what. One day you won't be able to into a match because it will take 30 minutes to an hour to find opponents.
Poonmunch DUST University Ivy League 210	Posted - 2013.08.23 02:36:00 - [54] - Quote Stands Alone wrote: Absolute Idiom II wrote: Yes, there's definitely a balance to be struck between rewarding WP/playing and not ending up 'punishing' those matches where you just get outclassed or you just have a playstyle that assists the team to win but is not reflected in WP awards. good point... dropship pilots will suffer And us snipers. Munch
Vrain Matari ZionTCD 728	Posted - 2013.08.23 02:39:00 - [55] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: Just a little reply with my usual side of snark. No personal affronts intended although I would not complain if it happens. Why do others worry about AFK so much? I don't do it unless DUST itself forces me into it, like spawning me into a wall on the MCC although the last one kicked me from battle and I received zip for that. CCP beget EVE and later DUST. Ganking, AFK, passive SP (only in EVE I believe) and many behaviors that are considered pathological or at least sociopathic in nature are endemic to New Eden. One might wonder how promotion is handled within the corporation; I, however, do not. Gamers Game Everything. They play the game. They game the game. They game the rewards, the kills, the health, the deaths, the vehicles and anything they can get near. It is the nature of the beasts that are gamers. Regardless of the game itself. Recall that DUST is a grinder. A heavy grinder with many significant rewards blocked behind massive SP walls. The only currency in DUST that counts is SP. Some have lives such that playing long hours fits with them. Others don't want to lose the SP but don't want to play the game as heavily. In EVE the solution is built into the game and paid for with subscriptions. In DUST ... AFK is their solution. Okay, they can in DUST with Passive SP, just not very quickly. If there are too many AFK just switch to long distance play. Snipe, test fly your drop ship or rail tank. DUST Devs say they are considering solutions. Which is fine but considering they built the game that enabled this from the beginning I am not holding my breath. Personally the system doesn't bother me that much (a little, true enough) as the real alternative is a monthly fee. Because it's a match-based shooter and the passive-sp driven AFK mechanic destroys matchplay. Especially for new players. And they didn't build this game this way from the beginning. They arbitrarily added the passive in-match sp charity without consulting players after we had a massive debate and vote on the beta forums. All the vets here have been over this topic until we were sick of it, I kid you not. And this current sp reward system was supposed to be temporary. That was six month ago or something like that. And CCP recently announced that they would not be implementing the system the players voted on anytime soon. But until this passive in-match sp reward is dealt with, new players will continues to be puzzled and let down by DUST's sp mechanics. I'm sure that once new peeps figure out what's going on the reaction is 'that's just lame'. DUST is a grinder, but it's first and foremost a shooter. Players deserve to be rewarded for activity, not for passivity.
Killar-12 The Corporate Raiders 647	Posted - 2013.08.23 02:53:00 - [56] - Quote Logarithms might be easier to code so I'd rather use a logarithmic system...
KING CHECKMATE Bragian Order Amarr Empire 613	Posted - 2013.08.23 02:54:00 - [57] - Quote Absolute Idiom II wrote: New Active SP reward system Active SP is currently awarded at: 5 SP per second + 1 SP per WP. I think that this is the main reason for the proliferation of AFK SP farming. The difference between ZERO effort and some effort is negligable because the majority of your SP is earned for simply being in the match. If a player were to AFK only, they will manage to hit the weekly cap in 10.6 hours. A player earning a consistent 3000 WP per hour (1000 SP per skirmish or 750 WP per Ambush) would cap out in 9.1 hours. Clearly 1.5 hours saved is not a great way to incentivise or reward playing. We can see this demonstrated in the following chart: http://i.imgur.com/ZuO7o1j.png?1 I'd like to consider 3 alternatives: A) 5 SP per second + 1 SP per WP [now] B) 3 SP per second + 3 SP per WP C) 2 SP per second + 5 SP per WP D) 2 SP per second + 10 SP per WP Chart: http://i.imgur.com/FfZz3P6.png?1 Table: http://i.imgur.com/yXpO8Po.png?1 These alternatives really reward active players a lot more; and allow many more players to reach the cap. AFK activity will drop right off, since it becomes dramatically suboptimal. Are there any of these that you prefer the look of? Any other options you'd like to see? I feel pretentious enough today to ask you to like the choices in the posts to follow. edit: Absolute Idiom II wrote: What if the winning team received a flat bonus of say 1000 SP to each player? That way you can play to win even if you don't end up earning all that many WP during the battle. I think a flat bonus would be better than a simple multiplier of say 1.5x. A multiplier still mostly rewards those at the top of the score board. So you end up with WP being your performance related pay and winning being a (significant) flat bonus. +1 And C
Killar-12 The Corporate Raiders 647	Posted - 2013.08.23 02:56:00 - [58] - Quote could the OP look at either ZDub's, My, or the Logarithmic idea and add it to the OP?
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion 248	Posted - 2013.08.23 04:19:00 - [59] - Quote blue skink wrote: Guess what. One day you won't be able to into a match because it will take 30 minutes to an hour to find opponents. Nope, because everyone will come back from other servers to play on our home server again.
gargantuise aaron Sanguine Knights 105	Posted - 2013.08.23 04:40:00 - [60] - Quote B or c ( d is overboard) with a winning bonus of both +10% isk and + 400 wp (wp for leader board reasons)



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page