DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Awarding Skill Points

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Awarding Skill Points

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Jadd Hatchen KILL-EM-QUICK 754	Posted - 2015.01.13 20:54:00 - [91] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we will be implementing the following change to Skill Point calculations 1) Two formulas, one for New Players and one for Veteran Players. The New Players will be awarded more SP per BattleSecond and less per War Point, the reverse for Veterans. Now Veterans have a higher upside, but they need to do something in battle so AFKing will be rather worthless for Veterans. New Players will not be stuck in a situation they can't get out of, while they learn the game. Attributes: New Player Skill Points/BattleSecond = A (integer) Veteran Player Skill Points/BattleSecond = B (integer) New Player Skill Points/War Point = C (integer) New Player Skill Points/War Point = D (integer) 2) To prevent War Point exploits, there will be diminishing returns above a certain number of War Points, a high number that is "next to impossible" to reach with normal gameplay Attributes: War Point Threshold = T (WP) War Point Diminisher = P (%) 3) To prevent exploits, there will be no Skill Points granted to Veterans with less than minimum War Points. Attributes: Veteran Minimum War Point Threshold = M (WP) Please discuss and propose numbers the above emphasis is mine... So if I read that last part correctly, then what you are saying is a vet has to meet some minimum level of WP (M in the above equation) to be able to get ANY SP at all from the match? WHAT ***** CRACK ARE YOU GUYS ON THE CPM SMOKING!!!! Seriously, can you devise a worse way to discourage your long-time invested player base from ever playing your game EVER AGAIN? The game is already a freaking stupendous grind to get SP to begin with (as compared to EVE online) and you are going to DETRIMENT your veteran player base as a "reward" for sticking with it? Do you guys ever look at the big picture effects of this you are spewing forth? You want to ENCOURAGE your veteran players to sit back and TEACH the new players how to play the game, not worry about meeting some minimum criteria to even earn SPs every god damned match! You want the vets to be the squad leaders that are coordinating what the squad is doing so that teamwork is fostered, not making them compete with their own squad mates for every single WP possible such that they have to take all the ** themselves and screw the team. SERIOUSLY!!! You guys both at CCP and on the CPM are falling victim to some ginormous amounts of GROUPTHINK!
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 543	Posted - 2015.01.13 21:27:00 - [92] - 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)
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 7175	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:11:00 - [93] - Quote I like this idea a lot. Thunderbolt. verb and noun. "James thunderbolted in his pants." "I lit a bag of thunderbolt on fire on CCP's doorway"
Bright Steel Horizons' Edge 759	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:31:00 - [94] - Quote We also need to be careful not to punish low WP play styles too harshly. Currently with the vet getting active skill points for being in battle it doesn't hurt to pursue viable and meaningful roles that help your team win but leave you with low WP. Such as true scouts. If I have an EWAR scout that I use to infiltrate behind enemy lines and take key objectives (CRU & SD) and destroy uplinks I may only reach about 750-1000 WP on a slow round. Snipers, true snipers, are an incredibly valuable asset but are at times low WP roles. Running commando as support is not very rewarding, I have had some very good games with the right conditions where I will get 1500+ WP but not often. Even sentinels who defend objectives in a slow skirmish instead of riding around in their murder taxi can have some very low WP rounds. I have the SP to switch to the role most need, or in this case most profitable. But not newER players that only have one role or maybe two. I would rather see the integers either be variable based on total/mean/median WP generated per round or Have a high multiplier with an aggressive diminishing return to allow respectable SP rewarded for some of our lower yield roles. (Caution: may have unintended side effect of encouraging varying roles) Dust 514, the BEST WORST game you can't stop playing.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1878	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:36:00 - [95] - Quote Bright Steel wrote: Min WP threshold should be equated based off median team score which would allow it to more accurately respond to varying battle scenarios. Perhaps even a combination of mean and median calculations, perhaps preferencing the lower of the two. This is actually one of the few sensible ideas in this thread. If there's 12 people with only 100wp, you're likely to still get sp. if there's 9 people with 3000+ and you have 100, you didn't contribute. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 20793	Posted - 2015.01.13 23:20:00 - [96] - Quote Very nice. Death to AFKing! Any ideas on what to do with LP? I must admit I sometimes AFK FW matches because I get the same payout anyway. Sometimes, one just has an overwhelming urge to throw a potato at someone.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3595	Posted - 2015.01.13 23:22:00 - [97] - Quote A = 5 Points per Second B = 1 Point per Second C= 5 SP per WP D= 15 SP per WP M=300 They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
iKILLu osborne True Vengeance. 587	Posted - 2015.01.13 23:40:00 - [98] - Quote the min for veteran should be 400wp which is easily achievable for even a sniper (8 kills) which is usually what ordinary snipers see at the eom screen. the diminishing return for a vet should start at 3000 which only uber logi's/ tankers can exceed or your random rare pub'star can exceed. if you shoot me from the redline i will ensure your death will be a swift one
Zindorak Nyain Chan General Tso's Alliance 1632	Posted - 2015.01.13 23:41:00 - [99] - Quote Interesting Ratatti Pokemon master and Tekken Lord Give me da iskiez Gk0 Scout yay :)
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens Capital Punishment. 3096	Posted - 2015.01.14 01:00:00 - [100] - Quote It is a good idea, like all things, in theory. I can see some huge potential problems. Current System: SP = (2X + 5Y) * 1 +.5A + B X = WP Y = Time in battle (seconds) A = Active Booster B = Omega Booster. I'll ignore A and B for now. This means that it pretty much all of your SP comes from being in a battle. You would need to get 2.5 WP a second to equal out. In a 12 minute Domination, that is over 1,800 WP for Passive to be a smaller bonus. Frankly speaking, people are not hitting those numbers. Play a solo game, no squads, no friends. At the end of the match, look at the scoreboard. Assuming that no one is actively cheating, you are going to see numbers greater than 1,800 for maybe the top 3 or 4 players on each side. Even 3 or 4 is generous. This means that the Passive SP is more important to 75% of the players in the match. It is easy to see why. Let's say that in a 11 minute match, someone kill 30 people, 6 headshots, and gets 5 assists. That is 1,685 WP. This means that 3,370 SP from WP and 3,300 from time. Even a godly score like that is only marginally more SP from WP. For the players that have good or decent but don't get higher scores, changing the WP could be a flat out kick in the teeth. As I always say, I am mediocre most of the time. In a good match I might go 15 kills in my Scout suit. Let's say that is 12 minute Domination, and I get 1,000 WP. 2,000 from WP and 3,600 from Time. But let's say I didn't use Uplinks to farm more WP and I got 8 kills. That's 400 WP, an extra 80 if I with Defend Bonus. That is what the average player in a match is pulling. Look past the people getting 2k+ and go for numbers 4-12. Some of those might be new players yes but I bet a lot are veterans that might just either not have a spectacular game or be performing roles that do not earn much WP. Reducing their SP "because you really should have gotten more" is unfair to them. When do you call someone a veteran by SP? I have 44 million SP and have been playing since Open Beta. I am clearly a veteran, right? What about my friend's character that has 12 million SP but has zero WP because she has been building it up? Is that a veteran? Jeez, what about the person that started 3 months ago with 3,672,000 SP every 4 weeks? That would be over 11 million SP. Veteran? Stickier question. Someone by the name of Gill Bates starts the game. Gill decides "what the hell?" and drop 100+ dollars on the game. He run 3 Omega Passives and Actives for 28 days. He caps out 4 times in 28 days. Passive SP is 2,688,000 for 28 days and Active is a whopping 12,000,000 from Active. Is he a Veteran? The root of the problem, even ignoring the extreme, is that two people can start playing at the same time, play the same amount of time but the person that spends money is going to get to the different formula first. This can either be a detriment if they are both pulling numbers that would favor Y instead of X or a bonus if the opposite were true. "I spent money on the game and now I have to work harder to earn my SP?" "I didn't spend money on the game and CCP decided to change the game so I earned less SP flat out." Veteran by time is the same problem just backwards. I am coming up on 3 years of play. Veteran, easy. My friend's account has been building for a year but never played. Veteran? Basically, the same problem as time is just as difficult to tack down as SP. For the less strong players that might pull bad numbers but love the game, this change is going to make it harder to get SP. My dear ol' dad is one of these types of players. He has 40 million SP but isn't super strong at the game. He can pull 400 WP on a good Domination match that he is solo. This change will slaughter his end of match SP. Even if the change was 3X + 4Y is SP is going from 4,100 to 3,840. Lower by a small part, yes, but lower. Biggest part: If this change is going through, please please please let players get Attacking Bonus for fighting near an Objective. Currently, whoever gets there first gets 20% more WP while those that are desperately trying to get it back get no bonus. "This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"

Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 3529	Posted - 2015.01.14 02:07:00 - [101] - Quote A=10 B=1 C=5 D=10 T=5000 P=50% M=250 "Minja" and "Masochist" are synonyms. FA's Shotgunning T-Dome Champ I piss Remote Explosives and shit Shotgun shells.
Crimson ShieId Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1699	Posted - 2015.01.14 02:11:00 - [102] - Quote I haven't read through the entire thread, so it's probably already been said, but... This makes me a tad nervous. I like the idea, sort of, but at the same time, the idea of always having to push myself in games to make a certain WP number is just... Shudders I love Dust, but I don't always love trying to do everything I can to win. Sometimes it's nice to just relax and play a game without worrying about winning, or perhaps setting a goal such as not dying while still helping the team by hacking points. Most of these earn Warpoints, but things like driving around in a LAV roadkilling mercs who don't look both ways before crossing the road doesn't earn that much, not to mention some battles are just so bad due to stomps that earning more than a few WP without being a logi is difficult. I want to punch.
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 1704	Posted - 2015.01.14 03:35:00 - [103] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Back in the beta days you had a LOT of crazy good players. You'd see the Imps, Zion, STB, PFBHz, etc and you knew you were in for a stomp. But you squaded up (there was actually auto squading back in those days) and did your best. I took it as a learning experience. Now people just cry and deploy solo, derping around if they assume it's going to be a difficult fight. I'm not sure I understand why a person would even turn on a FPS with that attitude. Back in Beta: * all players had 1/2 to 1/3 of their present-day HP * weapons hit harder and TTK was faster * even the best players got wrecked when you got the drop on 'em or outplayed them * Isk had value, and no one ran photon gear around the clock * the SP gap between new and old player was not so staggering * matchmaking failures happened, but they weren't as common as they are today Player mentality hasn't changed. The game changed.
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 251	Posted - 2015.01.14 03:46:00 - [104] - Quote The key to defeating the AFKers is to provide rewards (when scoring low sp) that would only benefit new players Such as: Skill books New isk starter fits (giving them no resale value & non transferable) Strongboxes (lol)
jane stalin Ametat Security Amarr Empire 85	Posted - 2015.01.14 05:48:00 - [105] - Quote voidfaction wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 3) To prevent exploits, there will be no Skill Points granted to Veterans with less than minimum War Points. Attributes: Veteran Minimum War Point Threshold = M (WP) Please discuss and propose numbers 800 higher if you add WP for team scan kills for solo players like me. So you are saying people with less than 800 should get nothing? I think they should get something.
jane stalin Ametat Security Amarr Empire 85	Posted - 2015.01.14 06:34:00 - [106] - Quote Have some safety nets, If your damage to the enemy is high and your warpoints are low you have been slaughtered by shield tankers so you should get something If you have lost a lot of ISK and your team was protostomped you should get something ] CCP should definitely change the wording AV nemesis pack it sells if you implement this change because the massive amount of dishonestly will become more infuriating after the change If you hunt Proto tanks with a forge it is common to get 0 WP, You hit them twice and they still have shields and then you die because everyone knows were you are.
voidfaction Nos Nothi 979	Posted - 2015.01.14 06:42:00 - [107] - Quote jane stalin wrote: voidfaction wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 3) To prevent exploits, there will be no Skill Points granted to Veterans with less than minimum War Points. Attributes: Veteran Minimum War Point Threshold = M (WP) Please discuss and propose numbers 800 higher if you add WP for team scan kills for solo players like me. So you are saying people with less than 800 should get nothing? I think they should get something. From my understanding it only stops them from getting SP although I would even agree with nothing. This is for Vet players that if they are trying should not be that hard to get in skirmish matches. If I don't get over 800 It was either a really bad proto stomp or I started late in the match. I made that number based on what I can do in skirmish pubs with a meta 13 scout. I know that other game modes that might be high and can not give my opinion on them because I only play skirmish. I really like the idea of this but at the same time see to many problems with it. It favors redline logi or running out and dropping a few uplinks on a roof and afking the rest of the match if it is low. So I think it would be pointless at a low number unless they are going to make getting WP harder for logi or anyone dropping uplinks. I know in my meta 13 scout i have to work my ass off to get over 1000 while getting > proto stomped <. Now a logi can get that sitting in the redline for the majority of the match. If they are going to set a min then they need to balance the way you earn WP so it is just as hard for a logi to get as it is playing any other role. If one role has to try then all roles have to try. Not all roles except logi. If you have seen all the people I have dropping hives while buddy/alt stands beside them just shooting there rifle in the redline so they can get wp you would understand why I want it high or a WP earning balance. If you can't kill them scan them. Meta 13 Proto Stomp G-I Scout
IAmDuncanIdaho II R 0 N 1 N 1246	Posted - 2015.01.14 08:58:00 - [108] - Quote Justicar Karnellia wrote: This is a good initiative and an initial WP minimum is a way to go. I'd say we have to watch out for the proto-stomp effect. I have had matches (mostly skirmish), where all points are captured very early on (within the 1st minute), and then they are held by the opposing team until the end. In this scenario, after the initial slaughter, most people hang back, take some potshots , but don't really gather many war points as they are all redlined. They may try to do so (I always try as I'm a lone wolf) , and in doing so, lose even more suits but don't necessarily rack up WP. It would be delicate to punish these people who are in fact trying, but not necessarily earning WP, and are actively losing suits. What would then happen is if people figure out how the system works, once they realise there is no hope of a minimum WP, they will simply leave the game , as hanging around doesn't benefit them, and this wouldn't improve the game for anyone. Even a proto-stomper would like to play against other people I'm sure... and if they aren't killing people they aren't getting their minimum either. Re: the underlined, emboldened piece, though the whole wall is relevant: I have never, ever, left a game, even being stomped and redlined. I always try to find a way to get a foothold in these games. It helps me learn. That or I bring out a cheap as chips suit and try to get a +50 What I can say is if this WP threshold is implemented, I will probably begin to leave games as soon as I think I'm going to earn nothing for my efforts. By my efforts, I mean trying to get my team a foothold in a battle. I am unlikely to get much in the way of WP. Not sure this threshold is going to help much. Bright Steel wrote: Min WP threshold should be equated based off median team score which would allow it to more accurately respond to varying battle scenarios. Perhaps even a combination of mean and median calculations, perhaps preferencing the lower of the two. CCP Rattati I implore you to consider this excellent sounding idea. It shuts my moaning up and seems to make a lot of sense, balancing dynamically based on how the team is doing. Have to say, although I haven't read every post here, those talking about what makes a vet a vet, don't seem to consider vets with poor gun game who play for enjoyment. If you put the below average vets into the same pot as the top-notch mercs, you are punishing them for not being as good. Being a vet doesn't necessarily make you good at the game - be careful not to punish those ppl (I include myself in this) You must learn honor, or you deserve to learn nothing at all. ~ Rivvy Dinari - Swordmaster of Ginaz
Protected Void Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 381	Posted - 2015.01.14 09:11:00 - [109] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: [quote=Zaria Min Deir][quote=voidfaction][quote=CCP Rattati] Numbers significantly higher than 2500 are deeply hard to hut without being a logi spammer. Anything above 3000 is impossible without boosting or being in the top 0.5% native shooter badass player category. Since they are outliers they should not be used as a balancing factor. I disagree. I'm certainly not in the "native shooter badass player category", and it's not all that uncommon for me to get more than 2500 in a skirmish. I'm not saying I average that, by far, but it happens every now and then. I get these points from kills, assists, various opportunistic hacks, objective defense bonuses and spawns on my uplinks. I run advanced scout or assault 98% of the time (no logi suits ever), so bandwidth limits me to 2 active uplinks. I rarely get any significant WP from nanohives or other equipment. 2500+ WP is a good match, playing the game as intended, no boosting. It's not an excellent match. In an excellent match, I'm pretty sure I could pass 3000 WP, and man would it suck to not be rewarded for that. Good logis will frequently get more than that, too - by legitimate logi activites, not boosting. Any absolute limiting factor needs to take into account all players playing the game as intended, including logis and the badass players that you call outliers. I'd tentatively suggest the limit should be in the area between 4500 and 5000 - certainly not lower than 4000. I've seen boosters reach both 7000, 8000 and 9000 WPs, so even a limit of 5000 would get rid of the worst boosting. TL;DR: A limit of 3000 is, IMHO, too low. 4000-5000 is more realistic.
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1783	Posted - 2015.01.14 10:13:00 - [110] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we will be implementing the following change to Skill Point calculations 1) Two formulas, one for New Players and one for Veteran Players. The New Players will be awarded more SP per BattleSecond and less per War Point, the reverse for Veterans. Now Veterans have a higher upside, but they need to do something in battle so AFKing will be rather worthless for Veterans. New Players will not be stuck in a situation they can't get out of, while they learn the game. Attributes: New Player Skill Points/BattleSecond = A (integer) Veteran Player Skill Points/BattleSecond = B (integer) New Player Skill Points/War Point = C (integer) New Player Skill Points/War Point = D (integer) 2) To prevent War Point exploits, there will be diminishing returns above a certain number of War Points, a high number that is "next to impossible" to reach with normal gameplay Attributes: War Point Threshold = T (WP) War Point Diminisher = P (%) 3) To prevent exploits, there will be no Skill Points granted to Veterans with less than minimum War Points. Attributes: Veteran Minimum War Point Threshold = M (WP) Please discuss and propose numbers this change favors logis. a logi can gain alot of WP without even putting himself into dangerous situations... now take someone sitting in an assault suit most of the time or even a dropship pilot...

Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 589	Posted - 2015.01.14 10:45:00 - [111] - Quote IAmDuncanIdaho II wrote: CCP Rattati I implore you to consider this excellent sounding idea. It shuts my moaning up and seems to make a lot of sense, balancing dynamically based on how the team is doing. Have to say, although I haven't read every post here, those talking about what makes a vet a vet, don't seem to consider vets with poor gun game who play for enjoyment. If you put the below average vets into the same pot as the top-notch mercs, you are punishing them for not being as good. Being a vet doesn't necessarily make you good at the game - be careful not to punish those ppl (I include myself in this) Just make sure to have an absolute minimal value. Somewhere around 250. (An AFKer is unlikely to earn that much) Otherwise the last few on the leaderboards will never get rewarded if they are vets, which is kinda problematic. Also, thanks for pointing this out. Personally, I take huge pauses between play times. Sometimes I spend half a year not playing the game. So when I return, I'm generally quite rusty and rarely play enough to get back to full capacity. Especially when I get frustrated and stop playing because lolProto.
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 549	Posted - 2015.01.14 11:01:00 - [112] - 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.
Pagl1u M Dead Man's Game RUST415 1290	Posted - 2015.01.14 11:07:00 - [113] - Quote Reading that 10 million SP players are now called veteran is an offence to us, real veterans. Anyway... Since my SP reward will be more based on the WPs I obtain I strongly demand that you take a look at this thread. It is clear to everyone here that Logis are WP farming machine, we have to reward other roles doing their job. Take a look at that thread and I think you'll find some good suggestions. One of the few assaults you'll find in a PC match!
jane stalin Ametat Security Amarr Empire 88	Posted - 2015.01.14 11:19:00 - [114] - Quote Protected Void wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: [quote=Zaria Min Deir][quote=voidfaction][quote=CCP Rattati] Numbers significantly higher than 2500 are deeply hard to hut without being a logi spammer. Anything above 3000 is impossible without boosting or being in the top 0.5% native shooter badass player category. Since they are outliers they should not be used as a balancing factor. TL;DR: A limit of 3000 is, IMHO, too low. 4000-5000 is more realistic. A limit of 3000 would be great, you just would allow exceptions, People that have gotten more than 2000 many times should have a limit of 4000 people that have gotten more than 3000 many times should have a limit of 5000 etc, For totally new players that have not established themselves then you could give it to them some extra SP after 20 matches if they have been regularly doing well.
SponkSponkSponk WarRavens Capital Punishment. 1128	Posted - 2015.01.14 11:22:00 - [115] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I am trying to eliminate both as well as figure out a way to make winning rewarding, but trying hard and losing, not the end of the world. It's not an easy problem. Other games solve this by accruing 'revenge points' every time you lose a match, which then get cashed in for bonus rewards when you eventually do win. Dust/Eve transfers
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 1719	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:58:00 - [116] - Quote IAmDuncanIdaho II wrote: Bright Steel wrote: Min WP threshold should be equated based off median team score which would allow it to more accurately respond to varying battle scenarios. Perhaps even a combination of mean and median calculations, perhaps preferencing the lower of the two. CCP Rattati I implore you to consider this excellent sounding idea. It shuts my moaning up and seems to make a lot of sense, balancing dynamically based on how the team is doing. Agreed. Best suggestion so far.
Bright Steel Horizons' Edge 765	Posted - 2015.01.14 14:36:00 - [117] - Quote This highlights he WP disparity between roles that has been mentioned many times. Some roles generally get MUCH more WP and this system would exacerbate the problem. We either need to equalize W p gain between roles (will be very difficult and I don't recommend) Or we could give a high multiplier SP/WP with drastic deterioration Example: (based on Celus Ivara's numbers) 15 min skirmish 1400 SP from match time 0-1000 has multiplier of 5 (500WP=2500SP and 1000WP=5000SP) By 2000 multiplier deteriorates to 4 graudually (8000SP) By 3000 it's down to 3 (9000SP) By 4000 it's down to 2.5 (10000SP) hard cap Average vets with 1000-2000 WP and some of those low WP roles still get reasonable rewards while high WP roles don't completely take Advantage of the system. Numbers are for reference to idea as example only:) Dust 514, the BEST WORST game you can't stop playing.
Bright Steel Horizons' Edge 765	Posted - 2015.01.14 14:40:00 - [118] - Quote After seeing others ideas I think vet status should be determined by lifetime WP/battle average Dust 514, the BEST WORST game you can't stop playing.
Celus Ivara DUST University Ivy League 276	Posted - 2015.01.14 15:23:00 - [119] - Quote So something that is happening in this proposal and discussion that I don't think any of us fully realize, is that there are kind of two goals to this initiative. 1: Reward talented players directly for their performance on the battlefield, while keeping a time based reward for unskilled player so they still get payed out while they're learning the game. 2: Greatly hinder AFKing by decreasing/eliminating their match-time SP payout. A sub-topic of #1 is "How do we determine if a player is a New Player or a Vet?" There are two ways to make that determination: Player talent based, or SP total based. For "Player talent based", a number of suggestions have popped up. Honestly, I think Regis's is the best I've heard. Regis Blackbird wrote: 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. A variant option is to just use the hidden mu stat (the in-game estimation of how good a player is, used by the Team Balancer in matchmaking). These are very good methods of solving the Tier selection sub-problem of #1. But the problem is that in the great majority of cases, a AFKing player looks exactly like a normal not good player to the computer! So if we utilize a Player talent based system, we'll successfully put New Players and Vets into the correct reward schemes, but we'll also be pushing most of the AFKers into the highly match-time rewarding New Player tier. And if we instead make the tier decision based upon SP totals, we'll be pushing a ton of casual players into the "pull 2k WP or go home broke" reward scheme. Both situations are very bad, and I'm starting to worry that this conflict is unresolvable! There may be no way to force AFKers into a play-to-be-paid tier without screwing over new-berries. :\ I will say though that implementing #1 is worthwhile in and of itself, even if it has no effect on AAFKers. And, any of the variations of this system we've been talking about will greatly hinder the AFKers who are doing it on their main; which by itself would also make this endeavor worth it. My main point is that we probably can't use tiering to eliminate AFKing on alts without screwing over normal low WP players. Now on to a slight tangent: If we want to lessen AFKers, we need to take a multi-faceted approach. Now, we already are doing this, through filtering out players engaging in AFK behavior, and adjusting the match-time WP reward to lessen the incentive to AFK. But one thing that hasn't been brought up that we should be discussing is that the weekly SP cap was tripled a few months ago by accident! The change was left in place as an experiment to see if it broke anything. Most of the game was unhurt by it, but one new thing did appear, players could get a massive SP reward for AFKing their characters. It may be time to reevaluate whether having an SP cap so high it's only reachable through AFKing (or a self-destructive level of no-lifeing) is something we want in our game. :\
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5832	Posted - 2015.01.14 15:43:00 - [120] - Quote voidfaction wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 3) To prevent exploits, there will be no Skill Points granted to Veterans with less than minimum War Points. Attributes: Veteran Minimum War Point Threshold = M (WP) Please discuss and propose numbers 800 higher if you add WP for team scan kills for solo players like me. You jerk! As a Sentinel I only occasionally get above 800 WP. Overall I like Rattati's proposal though. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Pokemon master and Tekken Lord

Give me da iskiez

Gk0 Scout yay :)