|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
538
   |
Posted - 2015.01.13 10:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
voidfaction wrote:So now vets will no long be able to just guard a objective because if they do and nobody ever comes and attacks it they get nothing.
So no more tactics the game is being pushed to you run and gun or you get nothing.
I hardly think you will stand by an objective (guarding it) and nobody will attack it in an entire match.
If they don't attack, they probably already captured the majority of the points and you will surely loose the match if you stay there.
Besides, now we also get guardian points for actions close to objectives, so it should be possible to guard and save up at least 200WP.
And I agree the minimum requirement should be low initially.
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
538
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 10:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Unless I read it wrong, I am worried about the sudden jump from being classified as "New Player" and "Veteran".
If your earnings suddenly drop like a rock, just because you are now a "Veteran", it might **** off players.
I would prefer if the system was more dynamic with the amount of lifetime SP a character has, so a player linearly grows from being reliant on passive SP to active WP.
I.e:
Not
11,999,999 SP = New Player
12,000,000 SP = Veteran
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
543
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 21:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
Celus Ivara wrote:A 750WP player moving from the New Player tier to the Vet tier will instantly go from a respectable 7000SP to a demoralizing 3880SP. Players who joined in Beta, but have only been playing occasionally will be instantly thrown into the Vet pool and getting similarly depressing rewards. I think the main problem here is that two tiers is far too stark to meaningfully represent the vast gradient of skill levels in the playerbase. 
Great post (and with some data backing your arguments  )!
+1
Especially the above part, which is the main concern I share.
(but did not explain as elegantly) |
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
549
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 11:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
I have made some calculations based on Celus Ivara's assumptions of a 20/80 split and numbers, and mapped that into a excel chart calculating total SP per game based on passive and WP SP. Its very quick and dirty so feel free to expand on it (it does not contain any minimum veteran WP or max limits (devaluation) parameters)
The values currently are;
A = 6
B = 1
C = 2
D = 5
To minimize the risk of a SP "cliff" when moving from "New Player" to "Veteran", and to accommodate different match lengths, I would propose the following mechanic:
For a player classified as "New Player", BOTH calculations execute EOM and the highest calculated SP is taken as payout. If the "Veteran" payout is the highest more than half the time the last 20 games (example), the player is bumped up to "Veteran" status.
This moves the jump to "Veteran" from purely depending on lifetime SP (as we have currently assumed) to actual player skill in battle, since the SP payout curves intersect at different points depending on match length and WP.
For example (with the above numbers):
For a 7 minute Ambush (420 seconds), a "New Player" would receive more SP up to 700 WP (700WP = 3920 SP).
For a 15 minute Skirmish (900 seconds), a "New Player" would receive more SP up to 1500 WP (1500WP = 8400 SP).
If he scores more WP than these values, the "Veteran" SP payout would yield more. If the player constantly hit this mark in enough battles, he is bumped up to "Veteran" and only one calculation is made from now on. This also ensures the transition is smooth since the SP payouts would be very similar at the cutoff point (he would probably even not notice it)
Google Docs - Example
In regards to the Veteran Minimum WP limit, I would propose to put this very very low, like 100 WP max. Its the AFK:ers we are after after all. Alternatively one checks for both WP and deaths, since players trying but performing poorly usually die quite a lot compared to a AFK:er. |
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
551
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 17:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
After thinking some more and reading other suggestions, I think the system should be initially implemented without the minimal WP requirement for vets.
Reasons:
- AFK:ing with an Alt will not be affected at all, and worse, might even gain by it.
- If you put too low limit (50-200) you might bypass it by drop uplinks or minimal action.
- If you put it too high (800-1000), you will have many people leaving game if they find they will not achieve the goal. You will also punish the odd player which is stomped into the ground, or (as others have pointed out) people guarding a point or teaching new players.
- I don't like that we have double standards (New vs Vets), which will surprice people when they suddenly become Vet and receive 0 SP on top of performing poory one game. It will induce more rage quits for sure.
The proposed system have major benefits to NPE, and I would love to have it implemented (especially with the "player experience" transition as described in an earlier post). It would be a shame if the system fails because of the AFK problem.
Let's find a carrot for this problem instead of a stick?
|
|
|
| |
|