| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Archbot
W a r F o r g e d
19
   |
Posted - 2014.02.15 18:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
TL;DR = title of Problem x & solution.
Problem I: Players are not rewarded enough for taking out valuable assets to the opposing team
A valuable asset to one team is a significant threat to the opposing team. The opposing team is justified a greater reward for taking out this asset than taking out a less significant asset. Therefor, upon the death of a skilled player the killer should yield a larger WP reward than if he/she killed a non-skilled player. But how can we acknowledge who's the more skilled player?
Contrary to popular belief, basing the WP reward of a kill off of a player's combined meta level (sum of the dropsuit, weapon(s), equipment(s), and module(s) meta levels), or type of dropsuit/weapon they are using is NOT the answer. Let me elaborate.
In a real life scenario, would I be more of a threat to you if I had the most powerful weapon on Earth and had no idea how to use it or am not efficient with it whatsoever, or would a highly trained soldier who was specialized in using an average. or relatively weak weapon be more of a threat to you?
By rewarding WPs based off of meta level, you're rewarding the player for eliminating a potential threat, but not a threat. I'm sure we've all seen players topping the leaderboard and all they used was MLT or STD grade gear. Heck, I use STD grade gear and usually finish at least 5th place on my team. We shouldn't reward more WP's to whoever can kill the person who puts more ISK into their dropsuit, but reward the player who can kill the person who has more skill behind the dropsuit.
So, instead of rewarding the kill of a potential threat, we should reward the kill of a current threat.
Solution: More WPs a player racked up in a single clone = More WPs rewarded to the killer of the clone
A straightforward concept, but can only be well executed if the equation is right.
20%-30% of the total WPs earned by a clone should be rewarded to the killer of that clone +20-30WPs as a base value (if you kill a person who had no WPs for that clone, you still should be rewarded some WPs)
Logistics will be a big target, which of course they should, because they're huge assets to any team. Defending your logi is definitely crucial if you don't want the other team winning. You'll realize the significance of this as you read on. This also gives more incentive to taking out snipers, AVers, and other high-scoring roles.
This system would also work for vehicles and installations.
Problem II: Players are not fairly rewarded WPs for assists
Players are awarded a flat 25 WPs for helping kill a target. No matter if you only took out 1 hp or 99% of the health of a dropsuit, both players will be rewarded 25 WPs. This obviously causes problems. Not only with kill assists but with hack assists, I'll get to that later.
A player is not justified the same reward for taking out 1% of the health of a dropsuit compared to someone who took out 98%. A player is not justified in receiving half the reward of a player who happened to reach the objective 1 second sooner.
Solution: % of damage done = % of WPs earned, % of time hacked = % of WPs earned
Let's say redberry A was attacked by player B, player C, and killed by player D.
Redberry A had a combined total of 280 WPs in that clone.
Player B did 25% of the damage, player C did 70%, and player D did 5%.
Player B is rewarded 19 WPs, Player C 53, and Player D 9.
These are based off of 20% of the total WPs earned by the clone, plus a 20 WP base. Player D is rewarded 5 extra WPs for finishing the target. This system would also apply to vehicles and installations. If you did 90%+ of the damage to the target you would be rewarded a kill (but not getting the additional +5 for finishing the target).
Now let's say Player A, Player B, and Player C decided to hack Objective D.
Player A hacked Objective D first, followed by Player B, then Player C.
Player A was there for 100% of the hack, so is rewarded 100 WPs.
Player B came in a very close second, being there for 95% of the hack.
Player C came in a bit late, being there for 15% of the hack.
Player B is rewarded 95 WPs, Player C is rewarded 15 WPs.
Problem III: Installations being destroyed by a teammate while being hacked by a teammate
In my opinion installations, especially turrets, are flawed. But that's a whole different story. Those who want WPs by hacking installations are sometimes found left with no WPs and a destroyed installation. There needs to be a way where this could be fixed.
Solution: Installations being hacked by a teammate are considered part of the team, but not functional.
The moment a teammate has started hacking an installation, it becomes part of the hacker's team. This means it cannot be destroyed by the hacker's team. But, the installation is not functional, or beneficial, to the other team unless the hacking process is complete. Which means turrets can't fire, supply depots can't supply, etc..
Destroying installations should also reward 0 WPs, since you shouldn't be rewarded for taking out a non-hostile asset. |
Archbot
W a r F o r g e d
19
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 18:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Problem IV: Installations causing lost WPs and are of little strategic importance
Installations cause lost WPs, this is true because WPs are not awarded if a turret gets a kill by itself, WPs are not awarded if someone spawns at a reanimation unit, WPs are not awarded if someone is being resupplied by a supply depot. You get these with equipment, but not installations who often do a better job assisting the team. This is an obvious flaw. But if a system like this were to be implemented who would be rewarded WPs?
Solution: Reward WPs to hackers, much like equipment rewards those who placed it
The answer is simple and obvious, the hacker(s). Hackers are one of the most important assets to a team, and aren't rewarded enough for their efforts. The proposed system would go as follows.
Player A, Player B, and Player C both hack a reanimation unit.
Player A was there for 100% of the hack, Player B 85%, and Player C 20%.
Over time the reanimation unit spawned 12 people before being hacked by the enemy team.
A drop uplink gives 25 WPs for a spawn, going by this the reanimation unit yielded 300 WPs.
Player A was rewarded 100% of 300 WPs over the lifetime of the installation.
Player B was rewarded 85% of 300 WPs, which is 255 WPs.
Player C was rewarded 20% of 300 WPs, which is 60 WPs.
Supply depots will reward WPs per x amount of clusters used, turrets will reward WPs per kill (WPs per kill as proposed by this system, see Problem I).
This solves the problem of lost WPs, unrewarded hackers, and gives people a much bigger reason for defending, hacking, and destroying installations.
A similar system could be in place for null cannons, the hacker(s) could be rewarded x amount of WPs every x amount of damage done by the null cannon.
Problem V: mCRUs does not award WPs
This has been mentioned many, many times. Much like drop uplinks and the proposed CRU, mCRUs are not awarded WPs. They are strategic assets, and should be rewarded to those who posses them. Driving a dropship effectively already requires a lot of player skill, but aren't rewarded anything for a mCRU spawn.
Solution: Give WPs for mCRU spawns
^
Problem VI: Repairers not rewarded justly
A system where WP's are rewarded in cycles for repairing is not the best way of rewarding WPs to these roles. Repairers are people from nanite injecting medics, to those who are driving a LLAV.
Solution: Reward repairers x amount of WPs for every x% of armor repaired.
The best system of doing this for dropsuits is probably 1 WP every 4% armor repaired. Vehicles and installations could be this same way, or possibly provide 2 WP every 4% armor repaired, or any system appropriate.
This proposal will affect nanite injections as well as vehicles.
Problem VII: Killing from the redline gives unjust amount of WPs
Killing from the redline can be a simple task, much more simple than killing from the main battlefield. Anyone who kills from the redline should not be rewarded as much as those putting their lives in much greater risk.
Solution: -x% WPs earned from the redline
A notification telling the player he/she has entered or left the redline would also help players from acquiring this penalty.
Conclusion
Of course there are many other problems with the WP system, but by addressing these hopefully we can help CCP acknowledge the faults of the current WP system.
Some solutions, particularly mathematical solutions, may be subject to abuse or inbalance, appropriate WP caps, ceilings, and/or brainstorming may be necessary. |
Xander Mercy
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 18:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
These are some really good ideas |
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
351
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 19:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Archbot wrote:Problem I: Players are not rewarded enough for taking out valuable assets to the opposing team
Problem II: Players are not fairly rewarded WPs for assists
Problem IV: Installations causing lost WPs and are of little strategic importance
Problem V: mCRUs does not award WPs
Problem I: Agree. There are a lot of flat rewards that are subject to abuse because of their nature.
Problem II: Agree. The obvious and best solution.
Problem IV: Interesting, and agree.
Problem V: Strongly agree. mCRUs are useful, but not rewarded which makes them less valuable to the average player.
Archbot wrote:Problem III: Installations being destroyed by a teammate while being hacked by a teammate
Somewhat agree, somewhat disagree. As a Dropship pilot I often target Railgun installations (and many installations in general) because they are a massive threat to me. There are extremely few infantry players who give enough of a damn about installations to maintain their loyalty and such it is much safer to simply remove them from the equation.
Really, the issue here is that installations are just badly done: they are low HP, so die very quickly, but they are not enough of a focal point of a battle to warrant players' attention beyond blowing them up. I don't think your fix is more than a band-aid, and I personally feel that it is not a good work-around.
Archbot wrote:Problem VI: Repairers not rewarded justly
Agree, for the most part. I think there's more to it than a percentage: 30 armour on a scout is a lot less valuable than 100 armour on a heavy. I think the system we have at the moment is reasonable, but I feel we could reduce the total WP gained from Triage: Logibros will often get multiple thousands of WP just because they have limpeted themselves to a frontline Heavy's butt. While I love doing this, because it can actually be fun to follow around a Heavy and make like Ezekiel, I think this form of WP farming can be a bit much.
I think my biggest gripe with the current Triage WP gain is the fact that Orbitals are tied to WP. That fact alone makes the WP system stupid...
Archbot wrote:Problem VII: Killing from the redline gives unjust amount of WPs
Agree. As a Dropship pilot, again, the redline is a horrible mechanic that rewards low-risk gameplay with no reasonable counter.
Archbot wrote:Conclusion
Of course there are many other problems with the WP system, but by addressing these hopefully we can help CCP acknowledge the faults of the current WP system.
Some solutions, particularly mathematical solutions, may be subject to abuse or inbalance, appropriate WP caps, ceilings, and/or brainstorming may be necessary.
I definitely agree that there is a serious flaw in the WP system, but your suggestions have a lot of merit and would improve the system we currently have. First and foremost, I feel that removing the WP-Orbital tie-in would help tremendously. |
Meee One
The dyst0pian Corporation
Zero-Day
340
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 22:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Agree, for the most part. I think there's more to it than a percentage: 30 armour on a scout is a lot less valuable than 100 armour on a heavy. I think the system we have at the moment is reasonable, but I feel we could reduce the total WP gained from Triage: Logibros will often get multiple thousands of WP just because they have limpeted themselves to a frontline Heavy's butt. While I love doing this, because it can actually be fun to follow around a Heavy and make like Ezekiel, I think this form of WP farming can be a bit much.
If you were a real logibro instead of a part time logihoe you would know rep tools have a WP cooldown where you get 0 for repping.(which i have experienced frequently)
I agree with all but the redline part...
Being redlined AND getting -WP for trying to fight your way out is one of the dumbest suggestions i've ever heard.
EDIT:it's nanos and uplinks that have infinite WP potential
Only users lose drugs.
Time wounds all heels.
|
a brackers
Nex Miles Militis
3
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 23:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
I agree archbot, and btw, Meee One, it isn't minus wp. You just lose a percentage of warpoints so in problem 2, player c would get say ~40 wp instead of 53.
Proto dropship pilot
|
Archbot
W a r F o r g e d
22
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 01:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Archbot wrote:Problem III: Installations being destroyed by a teammate while being hacked by a teammate Somewhat agree, somewhat disagree. As a Dropship pilot I often target Railgun installations (and many installations in general) because they are a massive threat to me. There are extremely few infantry players who give enough of a damn about installations to maintain their loyalty and such it is much safer to simply remove them from the equation. Really, the issue here is that installations are just badly done: they are low HP, so die very quickly, but they are not enough of a focal point of a battle to warrant players' attention beyond blowing them up. I don't think your fix is more than a band-aid, and I personally feel that it is not a good work-around.
Problem IV will help give infantry more reason to stay loyal and protect their installations if they value WPs. But I understand your point, and I too agree that installations are badly done. I definitely agree with your 2nd paragraph, No this proposal won't fix installations, but will put us one step, even if it isn't a large step, closer to fixing a flawed installation concept.
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Archbot wrote:Problem VI: Repairers not rewarded justly Agree, for the most part. I think there's more to it than a percentage: 30 armour on a scout is a lot less valuable than 100 armour on a heavy. I think the system we have at the moment is reasonable, but I feel we could reduce the total WP gained from Triage: Logibros will often get multiple thousands of WP just because they have limpeted themselves to a frontline Heavy's butt. While I love doing this, because it can actually be fun to follow around a Heavy and make like Ezekiel, I think this form of WP farming can be a bit much. I think my biggest gripe with the current Triage WP gain is the fact that Orbitals are tied to WP. That fact alone makes the WP system stupid...
I guess you can say that, but regardless you're saving a life. Maybe x armor restored = x WP earned? I believe the current design is okay, but I still believe repairers are not awarded as much as they should.
I definitely agree with you on the WPs for orbitals. Rewarding an already winning and awarded team with the greatest weapon in the game isn't the key to balanced matches. Maybe a solution where each squad/team is given 1 orbital to use. |
Kitt 514
True North.
108
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 05:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
In response to problem VI:
That is how WP used to be given out for repairs.
It was changed to cycles and has the requirement of enemy fire in between because it became too easy to farm wp.
People used to have squads that just cooked their own grenades near nanohives and had a logi repping them. This system is much better. |
Kierkegaard Soren
Forsaken Immortals
Top Men.
226
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 09:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
I agree with all pretty much all of this, and think wp and installations need to be completely revamped to entice players into being more pro active.
Great read. +1.
Dedicated Commando.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." -Paul Atreides.
|
Archbot
W a r F o r g e d
24
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 19:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Kitt 514 wrote:In response to problem VI:
That is how WP used to be given out for repairs.
It was changed to cycles and has the requirement of enemy fire in between because it became too easy to farm wp.
People used to have squads that just cooked their own grenades near nanohives and had a logi repping them. This system is much better.
A WP ceiling/cap could help solve this simple issue rather than changing the whole system.
If Player A reps Player B's armor to 100% after Player B's armor was reduced to 20%, player A will recieve 20 WPs at a rate of 1 WP per 4% armor repaired. If Player B was injured soon after and Player A reps him again, Player A wouldn't recieve WPs.
So a repairer can only get WPs if he/she repairs a person who he/she hasn't repaired within x amount of time.
That's one solution to that problem. |
|
|
Archbot
W a r F o r g e d
25
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 22:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Bump |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |