Interesting notion, having both X and Y awarded regardless of the win but having the win define the magnitude of X and Y would at least mitigate the snowball effect. Also worth noting is that X and Y do not have to be the same raw % value so the losing side could get a bit of consideration with regards to the X% loss value that's being assessed for them.

Fake example numbers:

Winning team gets 30% gear losses & 30% kills added to their (already higher) payout.
Losing team gets 25% gear losses % 20% kills added to their payout.


In this case the X% from personal losses is valuable to both the slayers and support roles because if you're behind in a battle you're generally more likely to lose the fits you deploy in (as I'm sure we've all seen). Even with the new system applied to both winners and losers of the battle it's not going to guarantee everyone is profitable, and it shouldn't or we lose the meaning of economic value, but what it would do is a slayer who's going 21/5 on the losing side is a lot more likely to break even or make a profit (fighting hard incentivized) and a support role who's doing a lot of work is also more likely to break even or at least come close with the combination of high WP earnings and X% personal losses refunded.

Both of those presume the player in question is actively fulfilling their role so afk type behavior (i.e. non-participation) wouldn't reap additional benefits.

Further thoughts?

We already have a system that rewards the match victors more than the losers (as it should be), so the personal loss and individual contributor bonuses should be the same for both sides - the incentive for individuals to make better efforts with better gear should be equal. (If required, weight the match rewards even more to the winning side.)

Not saying that I disagree per se, but will you walk that one through for me. The better step by step reasoning there is to present the better the case can be made. And if there are flaw with the stance more useful to figure them out and find ways to address them here than in the main thread IMO. If we can collectively put our heads together and come up with something a bit more polished for the other thread that seems more effective (besides if anyone really wants to see the rough back and forth it'll still be here to look at).

Well... what is the specific issue we are trying to resolve?

Winning:
a) If it is making winning teams more profitable, simply increase the winning team's total purse (ISK or WP or SP).
b) If it is making individual achievers more profitable, simply increase the ratio of reward for the better performers (on both winning and losing teams).

Losing:
c) If we are trying to mitigate losses by individual players on the winning side, apply a bonus to their winnings based on gear lost. This encourages the use of better gear.
d) If we are trying to mitigate losses by individual players on the losing side, apply a bonus to their (loser's purse) winnings based on gear lost. This encourages the continued use of better gear in the face of defeat (prolonging the quality of the match).

We already have (a) and (b), although the win/loss reward ratio could always be adjusted if required.

What we do not yet have is (c) or (d). What was suggested is that (c) should be greater than (d). I think that unnecessarily compounds things. If we want to promote the general use of better gear - whether winning or losing - then it would be better if individual gear mitigation was equal for all players (and might be easier to code that way). The winning team is already getting rewarded for their win.

(A case could also be make for not providing (c), because they are already getting rewards, and only adding (d), to encourage better gear use on the losing side and extending the quality of the match.)

An early/undeveloped idea on Isk changes; spitballing first with you ... please shoot holes in this :-)

Solution: Keep what you kill.
Problem: Logis often aren't focused on killing; they're also disproportionately expensive.
Observation: Rep Logis typically top EOM WP leaderboards.
Thought: Could also adjust EOM WP-based pay, but that would only benefit Rep Logis.
Idea: Let all Logis become Rep Logis.
How: Set MN Logi bonus as a class bonus; give MN Logi a new bonus to Proxies & Remotes.
Thought: Logis are still too expensive; reduce frame cost and EQ prices by 50%.

Revised Solution:
* Keep what you kill.
* Set MN Logi bonus as a class bonus
* Give MN Logi a new bonus to Proxies & Remotes
* Reduce Logi frame prices by 50%
* Reduce Equipment prices by 50%

---

Again, only spitballing. Thoughts?

Keep what you kill
- No. This only rewards assaults and heavies and effectively penalizes all roles that are not slayers - not just logis, but scouts, hackers, intelligent specialists... And what about AVers? Do they keep the tanks they kill? The solution is to normalize the high water marks for each specially so that every role gets rewarded fairly for their contributions.

Set MN Logi bonus as a class bonus
- No. Fix the other Logi bonuses.

Give MN Logi a new bonus to Proxies & Remotes
- No. Follows the above point.

Reduce Logi frame prices by 50%
- Sounds good. (I'd settle for a 25% reduction.)

Reduce Equipment prices by 50%
- Abso-freakin-lutely! And increase the Logi class equipment CPU/PG bonus another 10%-15% as well.

To summarize, once the payout rewards are normalized to be more fair across each role, the newly suggested loss mitigation bonuses can be added to reward (or, at least, minimize the losses for) individuals who use better gear and/or make an effort throughout the entire match.

Keep what you kill
- No. This only rewards assaults and heavies and effectively penalizes all roles that are not slayers - not just logis, but scouts, hackers, intelligent specialists... And what about AVers? Do they keep the tanks they kill? The solution is to normalize the high water marks for each specially so that every role gets rewarded fairly for their contributions.

Set MN Logi bonus as a class bonus
- No. Fix the other Logi bonuses.

Give MN Logi a new bonus to Proxies & Remotes
- No. Follows the above point.

Reduce Logi frame prices by 50%
- Sounds good. (I'd settle for a 25% reduction.)

Reduce Equipment prices by 50%
- Abso-freakin-lutely! And increase the Logi class equipment CPU/PG bonus another 10%-15% as well.

To summarize, once the payout rewards are normalized to be more fair across each role, the newly suggested loss mitigation bonuses can be added to reward (or, at least, minimize the losses for) individuals who use better gear and/or make an effort throughout the entire match.

As an alternative version of "keep what you kill':
- Allow the whole team to keep what they collectively kill -- i.e. the winning team keeps what the losing team loses, and vice versa. (Of course, you would have to finish the match to benefit at all.) I guarantee people on the losing side of a Proto stomp will be tempted to hang in until the end for the chance at some higher end gear.

An early/undeveloped idea on Isk changes; spitballing first with you ... please shoot holes in this :-)

Solution: Keep what you kill.
Problem: Logis often aren't focused on killing; they're also disproportionately expensive.
Observation: Rep Logis typically top EOM WP leaderboards.
Thought: Could also adjust EOM WP-based pay, but that would only benefit Rep Logis.
Idea: Let all Logis become Rep Logis.
How: Set MN Logi bonus as a class bonus; give MN Logi a new bonus to Proxies & Remotes.
Thought: Logis are still too expensive; reduce frame cost and EQ prices by 50%.

Revised Solution:
* Keep what you kill.
* Set MN Logi bonus as a class bonus
* Give MN Logi a new bonus to Proxies & Remotes
* Reduce Logi frame prices by 50%
* Reduce Equipment prices by 50%

---

Again, only spitballing. Thoughts?

-snip-

I like the way you guys are thinking, just one issue

first I agree with the equipment price reduction, but disagree with the frame; the reason being why should it be less than all the others without some other detriment to using it?

sentinels and commandos are priced the same, so why should logis cost more than assaults?

would scouts be priced more than pilots(if they were implemented)?

if so why?

and would that reason apply to the logi?

TL;DR: why should the logi be priced more than the assault?

To your point, all suits of the same tier should normally be of similar pricing. However, because the Logis carry more equipment than any other suit and you can only discount equipment so much, an additional discount needs to be applied to Logi suits so that a fully loaded Logi fit is still comparable in total cost to fully loaded versions of other suits.

Also, thanks for shooting holes in that idea, gents. Makes good sense. Much appreciated!

^ This.

The per unit price of my Logi gk.0 is significantly higher than my Assault and Scout gk.0. Reducing the base frame price (in addition to reducing EQ price) would lessen what is otherwise a disproportionately expensive infantry role.

Why should a medic/support unit cost > 25% more than the next infantry unit?

thanks for clarifying.

I can understand that, but how many others will?

I mean take an assault who runs a lets say 100k suit, and earns somewhere around 1k wp per battle,iirc thats 190-200k isk per match.

if you were him, would you get irritated by a logi running the same cost suit and getting 2-3k wp per battle and almost twice the isk?

I find it rather irritating that being a logi means more often than not going negative isk wise, but I also know why I do.

not to say I would mind a price reduction, but fair warning GD will be filled with enough tears to fill a swimming pool.

but to hell with it I wouldn't mind being rich for once.

Interesting notion, having both X and Y awarded regardless of the win but having the win define the magnitude of X and Y would at least mitigate the snowball effect. Also worth noting is that X and Y do not have to be the same raw % value so the losing side could get a bit of consideration with regards to the X% loss value that's being assessed for them.

Fake example numbers:

Winning team gets 30% gear losses & 30% kills added to their (already higher) payout.
Losing team gets 25% gear losses % 20% kills added to their payout.


In this case the X% from personal losses is valuable to both the slayers and support roles because if you're behind in a battle you're generally more likely to lose the fits you deploy in (as I'm sure we've all seen). Even with the new system applied to both winners and losers of the battle it's not going to guarantee everyone is profitable, and it shouldn't or we lose the meaning of economic value, but what it would do is a slayer who's going 21/5 on the losing side is a lot more likely to break even or make a profit (fighting hard incentivized) and a support role who's doing a lot of work is also more likely to break even or at least come close with the combination of high WP earnings and X% personal losses refunded.

Both of those presume the player in question is actively fulfilling their role so afk type behavior (i.e. non-participation) wouldn't reap additional benefits.

Further thoughts?

Keep what you kill
- No. This only rewards assaults and heavies and effectively penalizes all roles that are not slayers - not just logis, but scouts, hackers, intelligent specialists... And what about AVers? Do they keep the tanks they kill? The solution is to normalize the high water marks for each specially so that every role gets rewarded fairly for their contributions.

I'm not sure I agree.

Having a 'keep what you kill' system incentivises hunting down, for example, Thale's snipers - something which certainly should be incentivised. There's no reason that you shouldn't be able to salvage parts off tanks, either - you can salvage them in PC, after all.

Earning potentials can be kept fair by having support roles with a higher WP earning potential than slayer classes, as then they get a larger portion of the ISK cut.

Logistics already naturally tend to achieve this, but more can be done to aid support classes in earning WP. Intel kill assists for passive scans, for instance (where the strongest passive scanner on the target gets the points). That's just spitballing a random idea, so don't get too hung up on that though.

Picked up my kampo logi. Wish there was a basic level triage hive (not compact). I also wish I had a 4th equipment slot for a basic uplink on it (basic inj, rep, upl & basic triage hive).

On the topic, it'd be really cool if we separated squad scanners from slightly weaker team scanners, then added WP assist points to both types of active scans. If you'd like, I can put together a spreadsheet for you. Let me know.

Yes I'd be interested in seeing a sheet on that. Honestly doing that has been on my 'to do' list for awhile now but there are only so many free hours

@ Cross

Interesting video start to end, but check out the spin scan at 0:42:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxhOgpwIeI4&feature=youtu.be

I wish there was a way to fix this.

On the topic, it'd be really cool if we separated squad scanners from slightly weaker team scanners, then added WP assist points to both types of active scans. If you'd like, I can put together a spreadsheet for you. Let me know.

I'll have a worksheet together for you by the end of the day; will post it here for inspection by the Ward.