Archbot
W a r F o r g e d
31
   |
Posted - 2014.02.19 02:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
This was part of a topic I posted a few days earlier, but I want to highlight the importance of this section and how it would definitely impact how we're rewarded.
TL;DR: 1. Players are not rewarded enough for taking out valuable assets to the opposing team. The solution: more WPs a player racked up in a single clone = More WPs rewarded to the killer of the clone. 2. Players are not fairly rewarded WPs for assists. Solution: % of damage done = % of WPs earned, % of time hacked = % of WPs earned
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.
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.
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.
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. |