DUST Search - Sticky:ISK rewards

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:ISK rewards

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 21248	Posted - 2015.04.28 07:44:00 - [1] - Quote Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Robert Conway Concordiat Mercenaries 231	Posted - 2015.04.28 07:47:00 - [2] - Quote first Idea for player driven marketing and videos Link
Starlight Burner Arrary of Clusters 222	Posted - 2015.04.28 07:51:00 - [3] - Quote I say bonus payout to winner. Remember in EVE, complete a mission in x time get bonus pay. Why not in DUST, win the battle get x bonus pay? CEO of Arrary of Clusters, a close relations corporation Caldari Factional Warfare, enlist today! Thank you for DUST
Robert Conway Concordiat Mercenaries 231	Posted - 2015.04.28 07:53:00 - [4] - Quote Starlight Burner wrote: I say bonus payout to winner. Remember in EVE, complete a mission in x time get bonus pay. Why not in DUST, win the battle get x bonus pay? With his reward system proposed, only the winner would get the extra pay for losses and isk destroyed. So basically it already is a "win the battle get x bonus pay " model. Idea for player driven marketing and videos Link
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2856	Posted - 2015.04.28 08:30:00 - [5] - Quote My main issue with this is largely that if you're playing an organised squad, winning can be incredibly easy. If you're not winning can be incredibly hard. This also seems like it might further reward lowest common denominator tactics like RE throwing and CRU/uplink/objective camping. Beyond that I think that this is potentially the most rewarding to slayer roles, and maybe not rewarding enough to support roles (like AV, logi's can already earn stupid amounts of WP). To bring in some of my experience with other games like MechWarrior Online, in that you could earn bonus monetary rewards from stuff like having all members of a squad be within (eg) 100m of each other. There was also stuff that was similar to intel kill assists (spotting / tagging / narcing assists), damaging enemies without being damaged in return (flanking bonuses), damaging/killing enemies who were damaging an ally ('protected [suit]'). I don't really have a problem with throwing extra money at people, but I'd like to see it done in such a manner that facilitates, enhances and rewards team-play rather than just funding people who are capable of being extra murder-tastic in proto stomp squads.. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Robert Conway Concordiat Mercenaries 234	Posted - 2015.04.28 08:45:00 - [6] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: My main issue with this is largely that if you're playing an organised squad, winning can be incredibly easy. If you're not winning can be incredibly hard. This also seems like it might further reward lowest common denominator tactics like RE throwing and CRU/uplink/objective camping. Beyond that I think that this is potentially the most rewarding to slayer roles, and maybe not rewarding enough to support roles (like AV, logi's can already earn stupid amounts of WP). To bring in some of my experience with other games like MechWarrior Online, in that you could earn bonus monetary rewards from stuff like having all members of a squad be within (eg) 100m of each other. There was also stuff that was similar to intel kill assists (spotting / tagging / narcing assists), damaging enemies without being damaged in return (flanking bonuses), damaging/killing enemies who were damaging an ally ('protected [suit]'). I don't really have a problem with throwing extra money at people, but I'd like to see it done in such a manner that facilitates, enhances and rewards team-play rather than just funding people who are capable of being extra murder-tastic in proto stomp squads.. This seems like a valid point. Maybe instead of just being rewarded for ISK lost and ISK destroyed, add in another stat of ISK saved. EX: A logi helps save a suit or a vehicle by repairing it. Perhaps other stats could be added to the equation. Idea for player driven marketing and videos Link

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 21251	Posted - 2015.04.28 08:55:00 - [7] - Quote well, AV would be getting a % of their vehicle kills, that could be really lucrative "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 5054	Posted - 2015.04.28 09:01:00 - [8] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. Make it so! Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8267	Posted - 2015.04.28 10:03:00 - [9] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. I'm a solo nerd. I approve of this mightily rattati. Cannot like enough. Screw anyone who says squads are ez mode. This needs to happen. I'll cheerfully run better and more costly gear if the payouts aren't anemic. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8267	Posted - 2015.04.28 10:11:00 - [10] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: well, AV would be getting a % of their vehicle kills, that could be really lucrative If I may offer a balm for sore asses? Can we price items according to utility rather than the traditional multiplier? Xel already gave me his ddisagreeing rant on the topic. But can things be priced so that if a proto HAV(fully fitted) is roughly 4x as hard to kill as an equivalent proto AV fit that the price be balanced to 4x the cost? The cost on vehicles is prohibitive if they and AV enjoy a semblance of balance. And I'm fairly certain that you are actually going to get them there by fair means or foul. Setting this up means that you can profit in a tank without it being a 50/1 death engine and the margins aren't skewed as sharply in favor of the infantry AV. Higher risk should get higher reward I agree. But I think it's important that Vehicles not be seen as nothing more than loot pinatas For AV. other than this critique (use it change it or discard it, I said my piece) I wholeheartedly support this idea without reservation. AV

Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 570	Posted - 2015.04.28 10:15:00 - [11] - Quote I think you need a trigger condition so that stomps are not rewarded Such as both teams go below 50% of clones or MCCs into armour ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
Celus Ivara DUST University Ivy League 355	Posted - 2015.04.28 10:17:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. Errr... there's a few different dynamics and goals intersecting here and some of them are conflicting. We want players to push themselves hard against evenly matched opponents who are also pushing themselves hard. Such play is incredibly fun, and almost the definition of "flow". To encourage this there are a number of mechanics we can use. A few are: 1: Try and measure good battlefield actions and reward them. 2: Reward winning. 3: Lessen the costs of playing hard. (Note there are many more things we can do besides this; these are just a few key examples.) #1 we are already doing with the present EOM reward being based on WP. #2 we are doing already in FW and in PC. ...I'm going to embarrass myself here and admit I don't know if we're doing this right now in pubs. For #3 we presentably have little in the way of direct mechanics for this. This new system is meant to strengthen any existing mechanics for #2 and add a mechanic for #3. Which sounds great in and of itself. But the problem is this mechanic does not exist with in a vacuum. It has to be taken in context of the other systems. In-match right now, there is a mechanic where players can see whether their team is winning or losing before the match is even over. This leads to the dynamic (intentional or otherwise) where players who feel they are highly likely to lose decide their best play is simply to mitigate their losses and turtle up in the red-line. This leads to the side in the lead to realize they are facing less resistance and thus less risk, and so they can more safely bring their expense powerful gear to bear. These two things are recursive, and a small lead in the beginning can quickly lead to a near unbreakable redline situation. The definition of bad snowballing. If we lessen the cost of bringing the best gear to fight only for the winning side it won't encourage everyone to bring their best gear; only the likely winners. This will greatly exacerbate the redline snowballing situation. YES, we want to reward winning. YES, we want to encourage playing hard. YES, for intensity, diversity and progression we want to encourage players to use their best gear, BUT, we need to find a way to do so that doesn't worsen Protostomping. My 2 ISK: Give the present payout AND the new %lost & %destroyed payout to BOTH sides; and then give the winner an additional flat bonus (Flat bonus can be ISK or salvage. And can be static or ratio of match-time, but not ratio of gear lost/destroyed.) TL;DR: If we lessen the cost to the likely-winner for deploying Proto gear, the already existing disparity of Proto deployment ("Protostomping") between likely-winners and likely-losers will get worse, not better. If we want to make fights bloodier, lessen the cost for deploying Proto for both teams.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8267	Posted - 2015.04.28 10:17:00 - [13] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: I think you need a trigger condition so that stomps are not rewarded Such as both teams go below 50% of clones or MCCs into armour Stomps are usually against shitfits. That extra what, 4k-6k/kill really adds up I tell ya. You literally have to go 50/1to pull that off well. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8268	Posted - 2015.04.28 10:21:00 - [14] - Quote Youare going to see a sudden spike in my ffirepower commitment if this is made a thing. AV
g li2 Grupo de Asalto Chacal Rise Of Legion. 711	Posted - 2015.04.28 10:24:00 - [15] - Quote I like the idea. I have two years in the game and I am watching an evolution that does not seem appropriate: A large number of players are fond of playing just for the ratio regardless of the outcome of the battle and this has individualized much the game. Moving away from the team play. And doing some unplayable anyway. (Skirmish especially) Sounds like a good solution to avoid that and make easier the positive balanced ISK. G.A.C. CHACALES
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 786	Posted - 2015.04.28 10:32:00 - [16] - Quote I like it! The problem (exploit?) I see is that players might drop matches they see they can't win more often, which is already a identified problem we have today. What would you say of making x and y dynamic with a third multiplier (z) which is increased for all fully completed matches, and decreased if the battle was left early? So, if you systematically leaving matches your bonus for finally winning is basically equal the loosing side (z=0). A player who gets disconnected once in a while should not take a big hit though.
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3143	Posted - 2015.04.28 10:51:00 - [17] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: well, AV would be getting a % of their vehicle kills, that could be really lucrative The inverse of that wouldn't matter, as most fits I come across probably isn't higher than proto, and seeing another pilot isn't a every game thing anymore (probably because they weren't real pilots to begin with >.>). Using high end HAV's isn't really worth it atm imo because they cost so much. And I doubt the average losses I inflict on my enemies would cover for a proto HAV loss. Would probably give infantry decent payouts though. Top lel
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 570	Posted - 2015.04.28 10:54:00 - [18] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: I think you need a trigger condition so that stomps are not rewarded Such as both teams go below 50% of clones or MCCs into armour Stomps are usually against shitfits. That extra what, 4k-6k/kill really adds up I tell ya. You literally have to go 50/1to pull that off well. And no. Bonus to the winners only. We have lacked an incentive for people to really commit. Winning being profitable QUALIFIES COMPLETELY. I'm not suggesting rewarding both teams the extra, just stopping the payout if it's a stomp Stomps occur these days because squads leave and if you're on the receiving end it's good to know you can make it unprofitable for them with just a couple of kills. A refund on proto suits partly negates this ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
LowerThan SnakeShip Molon Labe. RUST415 17	Posted - 2015.04.28 10:57:00 - [19] - Quote Just my thought . We are all mercs for isk or some sort of allegiance. Why not just create a option like the squad leaders scroll wheel. That anyone could use and the merc who completes the task gets isk. Such as capture point. Defend point. Rep/ revive me. Kill this target. Transport me. I see no reason why this could not be player paid like 50k isk for completing the task. This would help solo players help other solo players. This would fix blue dots from running and hiding as the would get isk just to completion of tasks.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1122	Posted - 2015.04.28 11:44:00 - [20] - Quote Honest question: Wouldn't a bigger difference between loser and winner payouts mean that people should stay in the redline if the chances of winning go below a certain threshold? Anyway, in pubs I don't fight for ISK. I play because it's fun, as long as the payout allows me to. I will deploy powerful gear until I expect that the consumed ISK is larger than the ISK I expect as payout. At that point I will wait for the match to be over using a ISK-loss-mitigation strategy (BPOs, Logi work) and then cash in. If you want me to fight longer pay me more. (The inherent design question here is: Should ISK be the limiting factor in pubs? Is "economic retreat" a thing that should happen in pubs?) By the way, the shift of payout from the EOM-screen to daily missions has caused me to reduce my participation in matches for a while. It took me a few weeks to realize that I was actually earning lots of money from daily missions on top of the EOM rewards. This is because of the list-style wallet history. A graph-style account balance would much more intuitively inform me about my actual progression.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 9265	Posted - 2015.04.28 12:39:00 - [21] - Quote http://i.imgur.com/bZRpnMP.png Borrowed From: E-3 Trailer Kill a target? Displayed on screen: +50 WP +X ISK (where X = % of suit value * by meta adjustment) Examples: 1. Meta(30) Assault G-1 kills Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 with a value of 150,000 Isk. Assault is paid 20% of suit value (24k) * meta adjustment (60/30 = 2) for a total of 48k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +48k ISK. 2. Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 kills Meta(30) Assault G-1 with a value of 30,000 Isk. Scout is paid 20% of suit value (6k) * meta adjustment (30/60 = 0.5) for a total of 3k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +3k ISK. 3. Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 kills Meta(60) Assault Gk.0 with a value of 150,000 Isk. Scout is paid 20% of suit value (30k) * meta adjustment (60/60 = 1) for a total of 30k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +30k ISK. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game RUST415 782	Posted - 2015.04.28 13:27:00 - [22] - Quote What's wrong with sharing ISK based on warpoints rather than kills? Otherwise it's unfair on people who contribute without focus on killing. Isn't that the whole point of the warpoint system? Otherwise I like the idea. Especially getting back a portion of loss if you win.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 21268	Posted - 2015.04.28 13:31:00 - [23] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: What's wrong with sharing ISK based on warpoints rather than kills? Otherwise it's unfair on people who contribute without focus on killing. Isn't that the whole point of the warpoint system? Otherwise I like the idea. Especially getting back a portion of loss if you win. It seems refunding loss is a much better idea overall, and I agree contribution should be measured in WP. However, it is a shooty killy gamed, and someone who destroys proto suits and tanks, still only gets 50WP. That reminds me of the good idea of boosted WP if using a weaker suit, that would serve a similar purpose. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8273	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:01:00 - [24] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: What's wrong with sharing ISK based on warpoints rather than kills? Otherwise it's unfair on people who contribute without focus on killing. Isn't that the whole point of the warpoint system? Otherwise I like the idea. Especially getting back a portion of loss if you win. It seems refunding loss is a much better idea overall, and I agree contribution should be measured in WP. However, it is a shooty killy gamed, and someone who destroys proto suits and tanks, still only gets 50WP. That reminds me of the good idea of boosted WP if using a weaker suit, that would serve a similar purpose. I don't care HOW you do it. I'm on board with higher payouts. AV
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4607	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:10:00 - [25] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. Sounds good, and since it's winner only I'm inclined to say go X and Y. Y incentivizes slayer play X incentivizes support play (AV, Logistics, Commando zones of suppression, ninja hacks, et al) Having both encourages a full array of behaviors which contribute to cooperative play seeking a match victory, only apply one would bias the rewards type and improperly distort the meta. 0.02 ISK CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
Aeon Amadi Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 9792	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:29:00 - [26] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: What's wrong with sharing ISK based on warpoints rather than kills? Otherwise it's unfair on people who contribute without focus on killing. Isn't that the whole point of the warpoint system? Otherwise I like the idea. Especially getting back a portion of loss if you win. It seems refunding loss is a much better idea overall, and I agree contribution should be measured in WP. However, it is a shooty killy gamed, and someone who destroys proto suits and tanks, still only gets 50WP. That reminds me of the good idea of boosted WP if using a weaker suit, that would serve a similar purpose. No? We want people to risk -MORE- for the win, not encourage them to use cheaper fits. What more incentive do you honestly need to run BPO's? Why don't you guys just remove the power-leveled BS altogether already? You're going to be phasing out the BPO's with skins at some point anyway so there's really no point in retaining the Militia/Standard/Advanced/Prototype theme anymore. It literally solves so many problems - balance, NPE, veteran/noob disparity, like... Seriously. You guys are like a broken record with this "CPM material" business xD Let it go
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 9270	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:08:00 - [27] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Why don't you guys just remove the power-leveled BS altogether already? You're going to be phasing out the BPO's with skins at some point anyway so there's really no point in retaining the Militia/Standard/Advanced/Prototype theme anymore. It literally solves so many problems - balance, NPE, veteran/noob disparity, like... Seriously. So ... less like Dust and more like CoD? If you want to lessen veteran/noob disparity, another idea might be to add a wiggle-wiggle button: When caught out in the open, hold down "X" to gyrate in position and generate nano cover. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Haerr 2862	Posted - 2015.04.28 16:56:00 - [28] - Quote I like the X bit, mitigating loss seems like it would do more to encourage players. There would also be the added benefit of greater incentives for vehicle play. Selling Officer Gear and BPOs
Aeon Amadi Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 9811	Posted - 2015.04.28 17:58:00 - [29] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Why don't you guys just remove the power-leveled BS altogether already? You're going to be phasing out the BPO's with skins at some point anyway so there's really no point in retaining the Militia/Standard/Advanced/Prototype theme anymore. It literally solves so many problems - balance, NPE, veteran/noob disparity, like... Seriously. So ... less like Dust and more like CoD? If we want to lessen veteran/noob disparity, another idea might be to add a wiggle-wiggle button: When caught out in the open, hold down "X" to gyrate in position and generate nano cover. God I get so tired of people relating everything they disagree with to Call of Duty, then at the same time praising CCP Rattati whenever he gets on his "other FPS games" kicks -_- Pick one. What benefit does the power leveled BS actually offer to this game? You guys are like a broken record with this "CPM material" business xD Let it go
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 9280	Posted - 2015.04.28 18:21:00 - [30] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Why don't you guys just remove the power-leveled BS altogether already? You're going to be phasing out the BPO's with skins at some point anyway so there's really no point in retaining the Militia/Standard/Advanced/Prototype theme anymore. It literally solves so many problems - balance, NPE, veteran/noob disparity, like... Seriously. So ... less like Dust and more like CoD? If we want to lessen veteran/noob disparity, another idea might be to add a wiggle-wiggle button: When caught out in the open, hold down "X" to gyrate in position and generate nano cover. God I get so tired of people relating everything they disagree with to Call of Duty, then at the same time praising CCP Rattati whenever he gets on his "other FPS games" kicks -_- Pick one. What benefit does the power leveled BS actually offer to this game? Progress. Depth. Variety. What benefit does fit throwing actually offer to this conversation? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley

Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1145	Posted - 2015.04.28 19:01:00 - [31] - Quote I think we should have weekly tournaments with large ISK payouts. Maybe Daily tournaments as well. Winners gets a large pot, loser gets nothing, good day sir. The tournaments could be a playoff style bracket, or simply one game you can play at a certain point of the day. This would give non-PC players something to do, and be a fun draw of competitive players. Who cares what some sniper has to say. **--CCP, let's push for the license of Dust/Legion on both current Gen consoles-
Archduke Ferd1nand Nos Nothi 386	Posted - 2015.04.28 21:13:00 - [32] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: well, AV would be getting a % of their vehicle kills, that could be really lucrative Which is why I like it. Make the scrubs pay for bringing out tanks. BRB, looking for socks PSN: tommygunboy2080 I shit shotgun shells and piss Remote Explosives
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 4531	Posted - 2015.04.28 22:20:00 - [33] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. I like the formula for the winner, but even the loser should gain a +y% of personally inflicted losses. If one is in the losing team and manage to do good it's even harder than being in the winning team, i think they deserve some love too for try to carry the not carriable. Shifted in time, your tomorrow, my today.
thor424 Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 52	Posted - 2015.04.29 00:10:00 - [34] - Quote Mark my words. This will change Dust for the better more than any single thing we've seen since Uprising 1.0. I f'n love you Rattati. No h0mo. Thor's Emporium
Sardonk Eternia Tiny Universe 293	Posted - 2015.04.29 00:18:00 - [35] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: http://i.imgur.com/bZRpnMP.png Borrowed From: E-3 Trailer Kill a target? Displayed on screen: +50 WP +X ISK (where X = % of suit value * by meta adjustment) Examples: 1. Meta(30) Assault G-1 kills Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 with a value of 150,000 Isk. Assault is paid 20% of suit value (24k) * meta adjustment (60/30 = 2) for a total of 48k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +48k ISK. 2. Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 kills Meta(30) Assault G-1 with a value of 30,000 Isk. Scout is paid 20% of suit value (6k) * meta adjustment (30/60 = 0.5) for a total of 3k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +3k ISK. 3. Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 kills Meta(60) Assault Gk.0 with a value of 150,000 Isk. Scout is paid 20% of suit value (30k) * meta adjustment (60/60 = 1) for a total of 30k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +30k ISK. Quoted for great idea!
Thokk Nightshade Montana Militia 805	Posted - 2015.04.29 00:20:00 - [36] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: What's wrong with sharing ISK based on warpoints rather than kills? Otherwise it's unfair on people who contribute without focus on killing. Isn't that the whole point of the warpoint system? Otherwise I like the idea. Especially getting back a portion of loss if you win. It seems refunding loss is a much better idea overall, and I agree contribution should be measured in WP. However, it is a shooty killy gamed, and someone who destroys proto suits and tanks, still only gets 50WP. That reminds me of the good idea of boosted WP if using a weaker suit, that would serve a similar purpose. Couldn't we take this as a baseline and then take WP x 100 as an additional bonus for all? 3000 WP would be 300K extra. That is not a huge sum by any means but still incentivizes and rewards WP to make it worth trying. This should be for both winners and losers since if I am on a losing team but manage to put up 1000 WP, I think an extra 100k is a nice bonus for putting in the work and trying to help my team. Take this in addition to your x + y for personal losses and inflicted losses and we have a terrific system that rewards all the things. Logis/support will get paid by the War point multiplier and slayers will get paid by the items lost/gained modifier. Question on this. If I run a logi and have 3 adv. uplinks, 3 adv. nanohives, and 3 RE's deployed when I die, do I still get "credit" for personal losses? Is the system going to be able to differentiate between deployed equipment and equipment still on the suit? Thokk Kill. Thokk Crush. Thokk Smash.
thor424 Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 53	Posted - 2015.04.29 00:22:00 - [37] - Quote You guys work out the numbers, I'll be rubbing one out in the corner. Thor's Emporium
Thokk Nightshade Montana Militia 805	Posted - 2015.04.29 00:24:00 - [38] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: http://i.imgur.com/bZRpnMP.png Borrowed From: E-3 Trailer Kill a target? Displayed on screen: +50 WP +X ISK (where X = % of suit value * by meta adjustment) Examples: 1. Meta(30) Assault G-1 kills Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 with a value of 150,000 Isk. Assault is paid 20% of suit value (24k) * meta adjustment (60/30 = 2) for a total of 48k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +48k ISK. 2. Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 kills Meta(30) Assault G-1 with a value of 30,000 Isk. Scout is paid 20% of suit value (6k) * meta adjustment (30/60 = 0.5) for a total of 3k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +3k ISK. 3. Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 kills Meta(60) Assault Gk.0 with a value of 150,000 Isk. Scout is paid 20% of suit value (30k) * meta adjustment (60/60 = 1) for a total of 30k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +30k ISK. The only problem I see is what if someone manages to kill someone who isn't that good running your 1st suit like 10 times? Just those kills would be worth 480,000 ISK. Seems like a huge bonus for 10 kills. I love the idea but I think the multipliers and numbers need to be toned down a bit. Thokk Kill. Thokk Crush. Thokk Smash.
Drogan Reeth Free Trade Corp 163	Posted - 2015.04.29 00:53:00 - [39] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: What's wrong with sharing ISK based on warpoints rather than kills? Otherwise it's unfair on people who contribute without focus on killing. Isn't that the whole point of the warpoint system? Otherwise I like the idea. Especially getting back a portion of loss if you win. It seems refunding loss is a much better idea overall, and I agree contribution should be measured in WP. However, it is a shooty killy gamed, and someone who destroys proto suits and tanks, still only gets 50WP. That reminds me of the good idea of boosted WP if using a weaker suit, that would serve a similar purpose. I think the main point has been nailed a few times in this topic. It's the losing side that needs more incentives to keep playing after they are already losing. NOT the winning side. As such you need to add things to reward the losers for trying. Not the winners for winning more.
thor424 Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 54	Posted - 2015.04.29 01:05:00 - [40] - Quote Drogan Reeth wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: What's wrong with sharing ISK based on warpoints rather than kills? Otherwise it's unfair on people who contribute without focus on killing. Isn't that the whole point of the warpoint system? Otherwise I like the idea. Especially getting back a portion of loss if you win. It seems refunding loss is a much better idea overall, and I agree contribution should be measured in WP. However, it is a shooty killy gamed, and someone who destroys proto suits and tanks, still only gets 50WP. That reminds me of the good idea of boosted WP if using a weaker suit, that would serve a similar purpose. I think the main point has been nailed a few times in this topic. It's the losing side that needs more incentives to keep playing after they are already losing. NOT the winning side. As such you need to add things to reward the losers for trying. Not the winners for winning more. Proper incentives drive behavior. Perhaps this will drive people to squad up and put up with the extra 14 seconds between battles waiting for the squad leader to deploy. Hmmm, should I squad up and go balls out for the win or continue to roll solo and stay poor? ---Note, plenty of players will still be able to piggyback wins. If you want to be rewarded for losing go play PC, lol. Thor's Emporium

Drogan Reeth Free Trade Corp 164	Posted - 2015.04.29 01:10:00 - [41] - Quote thor424 wrote: Drogan Reeth wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: What's wrong with sharing ISK based on warpoints rather than kills? Otherwise it's unfair on people who contribute without focus on killing. Isn't that the whole point of the warpoint system? Otherwise I like the idea. Especially getting back a portion of loss if you win. It seems refunding loss is a much better idea overall, and I agree contribution should be measured in WP. However, it is a shooty killy gamed, and someone who destroys proto suits and tanks, still only gets 50WP. That reminds me of the good idea of boosted WP if using a weaker suit, that would serve a similar purpose. I think the main point has been nailed a few times in this topic. It's the losing side that needs more incentives to keep playing after they are already losing. NOT the winning side. As such you need to add things to reward the losers for trying. Not the winners for winning more. Proper incentives drive behavior. Perhaps this will drive people to squad up and put up with the extra 14 seconds between battles waiting for the squad leader to deploy. Hmmm, should I squad up and go balls out for the win or continue to roll solo and stay poor? ---Note, plenty of players will still be able to piggyback wins. If you want to be rewarded for losing go play PC, lol. Do you not see that people stop trying after their team is losing even by as much as 5 clone kills? But sure go ahead and implement some changes that go against human nature and see what it does. If you don't reward trying when lossing, then everyone will stop trying when they are losing, because they know they don't get the rewards anyways. So why risk the extra isk loss? Unless you can answer that nothing will change.
thor424 Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 54	Posted - 2015.04.29 01:13:00 - [42] - Quote Drogan Reeth wrote: thor424 wrote: Drogan Reeth wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: What's wrong with sharing ISK based on warpoints rather than kills? Otherwise it's unfair on people who contribute without focus on killing. Isn't that the whole point of the warpoint system? Otherwise I like the idea. Especially getting back a portion of loss if you win. It seems refunding loss is a much better idea overall, and I agree contribution should be measured in WP. However, it is a shooty killy gamed, and someone who destroys proto suits and tanks, still only gets 50WP. That reminds me of the good idea of boosted WP if using a weaker suit, that would serve a similar purpose. I think the main point has been nailed a few times in this topic. It's the losing side that needs more incentives to keep playing after they are already losing. NOT the winning side. As such you need to add things to reward the losers for trying. Not the winners for winning more. Proper incentives drive behavior. Perhaps this will drive people to squad up and put up with the extra 14 seconds between battles waiting for the squad leader to deploy. Hmmm, should I squad up and go balls out for the win or continue to roll solo and stay poor? ---Note, plenty of players will still be able to piggyback wins. If you want to be rewarded for losing go play PC, lol. Do you not see that people stop trying after their team is losing even by as much as 5 clone kills? But sure go ahead and implement some changes that go against human nature and see what it does. If you don't reward trying when lossing, then everyone will stop trying when they are losing, because they know they don't get the rewards anyways. So why risk the extra isk loss? Unless you can answer that nothing will change. I do get your point, I'm just excited. Then use the same payout formula but add a bonus for winning. In the veteran bracket many people never start fighting if they see names that mean they'll have to try or they leave battle. Thor's Emporium
Leither Yiltron Molon Labe. RUST415 1137	Posted - 2015.04.29 01:17:00 - [43] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. You should be doing suit tiericide instead. Here. This idea you have posted will not work, and will have the opposite effect to what you intend. What you are trying to solve is a fundamental problem that Dust has had for a very, very long time. That problem is that the game's own subsystems are designed to encourage players to cut their losses by downgrading their gear class and participation as victory becomes less and less likely. Trying to counteract this effect by throwing further incentives at winning isn't going to cut it. Skirmish in particular, and all the game modes though perhaps to marginally lesser extents, have the quality of promoting defensive play. You can win a Skirmish match in the first 45s of gameplay by moving fast and hunkering down on the proper number of objectives. In Ambush the winning team is often the one that lives through the initial beginning-of-match onslaught to fortify a high-ground position with uplinks. No wonder, then, that matches "snowball". Even if you beat the odds to push back a match where you've lost the defenders' advantage, it will cost you tons of effort and gear. It is much lower risk to cut your losses and accept the lower reward than to fight hard against the odds and lose big. You might reply: "But that's precisely why there need to be incentives to kill, to win!" But that's not the case. Another big reason why matches snowball in Dust is that the disparity between the utility in gear classes is too damn high. A team in a defensive position has high incentive and little risk for pulling out progressively higher suit tiers that are available to them, since even if they lose the gear a few times they're still likely to pull extra ISK for the match because they'll likely win. You're looking squarely at the wrong side of the risk-reward equation. Defenders face low risk to their gear in a public match. Attackers (the "losing" team) face high risk. As you increase the reward, both sides can increase their risk. The thing is that this is completely symmetric- the attackers still face hugely high risk for the exact same reward that the "winners" are looking at with a lower risk. Do you know what would get people to fight more? People would fight more in pubs if they could have a fair, fun fight without risking millions of ISK for low expectations of payoff. STD vs PRO is not a fair fight. ADV vs PRO is not a fair fight. The view that people have incentive to play ******, unfun fights against people who sport higher gear classes than they have on is na+»ve. I think a lot of other people share this view: I don't log on to an FPS game to run endless matches against people who have an unfair, difficult-to-mitigate advantage over me. And this is ultimately was has stuck me in the redline with a sniper rifle upon occasion. It's absolutely no fun to This is the wrong solution to a problem that is better treated by lowering the utility gaps between suit classes. Spectral Clone has a thread which details one such implementation of "tiericide" that is relatively simple and if for some unfathomable reason it goes incredibly awry should be something that can be rolled back with more ease than others. If you increase the rewards for winning in pub matches, all that will happen is that you will find more veterans running in proto suits more of the time. You will make the game that much more hostile to new players who don't have the SP to run prototype suits. You will make the game that much more intolerable for people to play if they don't run with a team that can help guarantee them wins. People will still stick in the back not doing anything, because fundamentally you have not made a game more winnable. Increasing reward and decreasing risk do not have the same psychological effect, and increasing reward will not have the effect you want in this instance. Long term roadmap by Aeon Amadi Have a pony
thor424 Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 54	Posted - 2015.04.29 01:18:00 - [44] - Quote ^doesnt play Dust Thor's Emporium
PLAYSTTION Corrosive Synergy Rise Of Legion. 1272	Posted - 2015.04.29 01:31:00 - [45] - Quote I think Losers should get normal pay. Winners get regular payout plus their losses back. Gassault Galogi Galsent `Open Beta Vet - 42 mil sp Director of Corrosive Synergy`
PLAYSTTION Corrosive Synergy Rise Of Legion. 1272	Posted - 2015.04.29 01:39:00 - [46] - Quote Quote: STD vs PRO is not a fair fight. ADV vs PRO is not a fair fight. I have done both of these whoever posted this. It is very fair. ADV can shred proto and is very equal to it and STD vs Proto is possible and maybe 30% of the time a win if tactics, cover and a fair 1v1 duel occurs but usually you wouldn't attack someone in Proto with basic unless you have squad support or surprise. If that doesn't work just avoid them. If you use all these tactics the only way you'll die is from engaging to many reds, being jumped (you'd die no matter what tier suit they're wearing) and trying to die. I support tiericied but I had to give this point. Gassault Galogi Galsent `Open Beta Vet - 42 mil sp Director of Corrosive Synergy`
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 9299	Posted - 2015.04.29 01:49:00 - [47] - Quote Thokk Nightshade wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: http://i.imgur.com/bZRpnMP.png Borrowed From: E-3 Trailer Kill a target? Displayed on screen: +50 WP +X ISK (where X = % of suit value * by meta adjustment) Examples: 1. Meta(30) Assault G-1 kills Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 with a value of 150,000 Isk. Assault is paid 20% of suit value (24k) * meta adjustment (60/30 = 2) for a total of 48k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +48k ISK. 2. Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 kills Meta(30) Assault G-1 with a value of 30,000 Isk. Scout is paid 20% of suit value (6k) * meta adjustment (30/60 = 0.5) for a total of 3k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +3k ISK. 3. Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 kills Meta(60) Assault Gk.0 with a value of 150,000 Isk. Scout is paid 20% of suit value (30k) * meta adjustment (60/60 = 1) for a total of 30k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +30k ISK. The only problem I see is what if someone manages to kill someone who isn't that good running your 1st suit like 10 times? Just those kills would be worth 480,000 ISK. Seems like a huge bonus for 10 kills. I love the idea but I think the multipliers and numbers need to be toned down a bit. Not following your math. The meta adjustment works both ways; see scenario 2 above. Using these numbers, a proto bear killing a newbro in a 20k suit ten times would net him under 50k. Not sure where you're getting 480k. I'm simply proposing a model (not married to these numbers). I think it'd be motivating to see on screen that you're earning $$$ every time you kill someone. And a "meta adjustment" which increases/decrease the amount of those payouts would definitely incentivize running lower-end gear. Overcome steep odds? Make big bucks. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Drogan Reeth Free Trade Corp 166	Posted - 2015.04.29 01:51:00 - [48] - Quote thor424 wrote: I do get your point, I'm just excited. Then use the same payout formula but add a bonus for winning. In the veteran bracket many people never start fighting if they see names that mean they'll have to try or they leave battle. Ya, I am too, and i'll gladly take the extra payout for winning, however it won't have any impact on trying to make the losing side try harder. Which is the point of the proposed change. I'll still run my apex suits when our team has no chance to win, and risk nothing. Why would that change from what's been proposed?
thor424 Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 54	Posted - 2015.04.29 02:07:00 - [49] - Quote Drogan Reeth wrote: thor424 wrote: I do get your point, I'm just excited. Then use the same payout formula but add a bonus for winning. In the veteran bracket many people never start fighting if they see names that mean they'll have to try or they leave battle. Ya, I am too, and i'll gladly take the extra payout for winning, however it won't have any impact on trying to make the losing side try harder. Which is the point of the proposed change. I'll still run my apex suits when our team has no chance to win, and risk nothing. Why would that change from what's been proposed? There's nothing that'll change the behavior of people like you. But most humans have competitive nature and realize they turned on a video game. Thor's Emporium
Thokk Nightshade Montana Militia 805	Posted - 2015.04.29 02:36:00 - [50] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Thokk Nightshade wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: http://i.imgur.com/bZRpnMP.png Borrowed From: E-3 Trailer Kill a target? Displayed on screen: +50 WP +X ISK (where X = % of suit value * by meta adjustment) Examples: 1. Meta(30) Assault G-1 kills Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 with a value of 150,000 Isk. Assault is paid 20% of suit value (24k) * meta adjustment (60/30 = 2) for a total of 48k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +48k ISK. 2. Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 kills Meta(30) Assault G-1 with a value of 30,000 Isk. Scout is paid 20% of suit value (6k) * meta adjustment (30/60 = 0.5) for a total of 3k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +3k ISK. 3. Meta(60) Scout Gk.0 kills Meta(60) Assault Gk.0 with a value of 150,000 Isk. Scout is paid 20% of suit value (30k) * meta adjustment (60/60 = 1) for a total of 30k. Displayed on screen: +50WP, +30k ISK. The only problem I see is what if someone manages to kill someone who isn't that good running your 1st suit like 10 times? Just those kills would be worth 480,000 ISK. Seems like a huge bonus for 10 kills. I love the idea but I think the multipliers and numbers need to be toned down a bit. Not following your math. The meta adjustment works both ways; see scenario 2 above. Using these numbers, a proto bear killing a newbro in a 20k suit ten times would net him under 50k. Not sure where you're getting 480k. I'm simply proposing a model (not married to these numbers). I think it'd be motivating to see on screen that you're earning $$$ every time you kill someone. And a "meta adjustment" which increases/decrease the amount of those payouts would definitely incentivize running lower-end gear. Overcome steep odds? Make big bucks. I will be the first to admit I am an English major, not a math major. I am getting the 480000 from your first scenario. The total of 1 kill is $48,000. It the same assault killed the same scout 10 times, it would be worth 480k. After looking at it again, I am figuring out your Meta adjustment. Their suit Meta divided by your suit Meta. So the chances of a meta 30 killing a meta 60 10 times in a match is very slim so the 480k is unlikely. Scernario 2 and 3 are much more likely so it would balance it out and (mostly) prevent the payouts like I suggested. After mathing a bit and dissecting your theory, I get the theory and think it would work really well. Thokk Kill. Thokk Crush. Thokk Smash.

dombolus KAPPA.514 Imperium Eden 1	Posted - 2015.04.29 06:03:00 - [51] - Quote i think both winners and losers should get X & Y, just that X & Y are higher for the winners than the losers. This would encourage people to try even if they are losing
pagl1u M Dead Man's Game 1976	Posted - 2015.04.29 08:42:00 - [52] - Quote You are receiving a lot of feedbacks from logis apparently. They are afraid they ll recive Less moneys because they do not Kill. While this is true it is also true that they receive more moneys from WPs because we all know it is way too easy for a logi to obtain a great amount of wps. So we really need that Y: moneys obtained from destroying stuffs. I think x and y should be 50 50. Assault since open beta.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2886	Posted - 2015.04.29 10:24:00 - [53] - Quote Pagl1u M wrote: You are receiving a lot of feedbacks from logis apparently. They are afraid they ll recive Less moneys because they do not Kill. While this is true it is also true that they receive more moneys from WPs because we all know it is way too easy for a logi to obtain a great amount of wps. So we really need that Y: moneys obtained from destroying stuffs. I think x and y should be 50 50. I believe the intent of this design is to be in addition to regular match payouts. Most logi's are perfectly content in acknowledging that they can earn stupid amounts of WP which also = incredible isk. No sane 'logi' should be really worried about this design in regards to how it affect their earnings. Most people are trying to address issues about how people need to be encouraged to try even in lost matches as an example, this is a rampant problem in faction warfare, or in unocoordinated public matches when rooftop uplinks are deployed. People don't want to leave them and feel relatively content never actually trying to play. Some people like myself are trying to see extra ISK being used to teach, encourage, and reinforce positive play behaviour. The very last thing I want to see this become is extra money thrown at the most murdertastic of protostomp players. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Haerr 2865	Posted - 2015.04.29 10:43:00 - [54] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses If you want to incentivise trying to win then there is nothing wrong with implementing all different options, at least to some degree: Loser +y% :: Giving the losing side a higher +y% than the winning side will let them keep playing the game in spite of an imminent loss, trying to bleed more ISK out of the winning side could be a "fun" reward regardless of if you end up losing the match. It would also incentivise players to keep trying even if they are down a bit. Winner +y% :: Giving the winning side at least some of what they destroy would be necessary in order for the losing side to be given a higher +y%, since not doing so could end up incentivise losing a match. Loser +x% :: Covering at least some of the losses allows player to keep trying since the feeling of "wasting suits" is mitigated, and: Winner +x% :: Covering a higher percentage of losses for the winning side would allow player, on both sides, to keep trying to win since more of their losses would be refunded if they win, and compared to +y% it doesn't further reward clearly superior sides. ^ And yes this is basically a Care Bear package. But if you want players to keep trying (a.k.a. better matches) then I have a strong feeling that it will need to be. I can think of one more thing that would make people try, give salvage only to the winning side. If players want those ooh so shiny things they'll need to play for the win. GÖû HAERR'S GÖû
Celus Ivara DUST University Ivy League 360	Posted - 2015.04.29 11:23:00 - [55] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: What's wrong with sharing ISK based on warpoints rather than kills? Otherwise it's unfair on people who contribute without focus on killing. Isn't that the whole point of the warpoint system? Otherwise I like the idea. Especially getting back a portion of loss if you win. It seems refunding loss is a much better idea overall, and I agree contribution should be measured in WP. However, it is a shooty killy gamed, and someone who destroys proto suits and tanks, still only gets 50WP. That reminds me of the good idea of boosted WP if using a weaker suit, that would serve a similar purpose. That idea's been around for a while and it would be fantastic.
Drogan Reeth Free Trade Corp 171	Posted - 2015.04.29 16:47:00 - [56] - Quote thor424 wrote: Drogan Reeth wrote: thor424 wrote: I do get your point, I'm just excited. Then use the same payout formula but add a bonus for winning. In the veteran bracket many people never start fighting if they see names that mean they'll have to try or they leave battle. Ya, I am too, and i'll gladly take the extra payout for winning, however it won't have any impact on trying to make the losing side try harder. Which is the point of the proposed change. I'll still run my apex suits when our team has no chance to win, and risk nothing. Why would that change from what's been proposed? There's nothing that'll change the behavior of people like you. But most humans have competitive nature and realize they turned on a video game. People like me? People who want to maximize profit and minimize loss? You mean smart ppl? Just cause it's a video game doesn't mean you can't use your brain with choices offered in that game.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 5800	Posted - 2015.04.29 17:23:00 - [57] - Quote -forget it- Usually banned for being too awesome.
Flint Beastgood III GunFall Mobilization 1709	Posted - 2015.04.29 17:28:00 - [58] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: I don't really have a problem with throwing extra money at people, but I'd like to see it done in such a manner that facilitates, enhances and rewards team-play rather than just funding people who are capable of being extra murder-tastic in proto stomp squads.. Winner. +1 It's a squad-based game so let's reward squad/teamplay. 'LR4-Trading' Protester
thor424 Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2015.04.29 17:46:00 - [59] - Quote Drogan Reeth wrote: thor424 wrote: Drogan Reeth wrote: thor424 wrote: I do get your point, I'm just excited. Then use the same payout formula but add a bonus for winning. In the veteran bracket many people never start fighting if they see names that mean they'll have to try or they leave battle. Ya, I am too, and i'll gladly take the extra payout for winning, however it won't have any impact on trying to make the losing side try harder. Which is the point of the proposed change. I'll still run my apex suits when our team has no chance to win, and risk nothing. Why would that change from what's been proposed? There's nothing that'll change the behavior of people like you. But most humans have competitive nature and realize they turned on a video game. People like me? People who want to maximize profit and minimize loss? You mean smart ppl? FYI: That's what the whole point of the game is. Risk vs Reward. If they didn't want ppl to take into account maximizing profits, suits wouldn't cost anything, you'd be able to run proto soon as you skill for it free of cost indefinably. And they have created that mechanic beautifully, now they sit around wondering, why the mechanic they created that's doing exactly what one would expect, making ppl risk less in more dangerous situations.... is working as intended? The discussion at hand is how to increase people's willingness to risk more, when on the losing side instead of giving up. And the way to do that? Reward it! Reward being on the losing side and trying hard. Don't reward the winning side more, because that won't change anything, it will just encourage more of the same. It's not working as intended. The crappy payouts were meant to encourage people to spend AUR. The payouts are so bad that most of the time losing more than 4 ADV suits leads to a net loss. Buffing payouts for both sides is a good idea, but there should still be bonus for winning. Thor's Emporium
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC 1397	Posted - 2015.04.29 19:15:00 - [60] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. I like it a lot. Being rewarded for winning! OMG no way. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 1059	Posted - 2015.04.29 22:18:00 - [61] - Quote What if the bonus amount was based on the budget of the winning corporations who hired the mercs? Make this bonus amount visible to players at the start of the match, to encourage them to fight harder. Know what cannot be known.
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 4541	Posted - 2015.04.30 11:50:00 - [62] - Quote I would give a variant X and Y bonus, to both teams, you can measure X from WP and Y from kills. Set X bonus cap to the first player for WP then assign X bonus to the second and so on, independently from win or lose. Multiply XISK(winning side >1) and multiply XISK(losing side <1). In this way the players that give best support can get major X bonus, but if the team lose, their bonus will be lowered. Same with Y bonus for kills. I think that X is better for WP than personal losses because if you use more expensive stuff, you will probably get more WP out of it. Shaman's Shack - A place to trade
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8299	Posted - 2015.04.30 16:38:00 - [63] - Quote Make reimbursement for a logistics fit a higher percentage. Lower percentage of kills. Make assault/commando higher percentage for kills. Lower percentage of reimbursement. Make support classes more even.call it 50/50 for scouts or sentinels. That way behaviors of the suits as intended are reinforced and payouts based on suit use can be tweaked to encourage lesser used suits and payments for FotM fits lowered. AV
DJINN Jecture Templar of the Glowing Blade 365	Posted - 2015.04.30 17:03:00 - [64] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. Day 1 > everyone spamming pro gear some losers some winners Day 3> Isk rich still spamming pro gear as they do currently, Isk poor players only using bpos as they want sp and don't want to pay cash to go head to head with pro players already making enough isk to support their spam habit getting payouts far larger than what they had before Day 15> Everyone goes back to COD/BF/whatever other shooters they like except the players who still have some isk Day 42> Dust ported to PC and changed from what we know now to whatever the Legion prototype (that hasn't been broken like this hopefully) is on PC and doing well with an influx of 15,000+ players day 1, hundreds of thousands to follow. Please rethink this. *-ç +æ+Ä ß+¦ß¦+Gé¦ß+¡ !!!* *ß¦äß¦â-à*
DJINN Jecture Templar of the Glowing Blade 365	Posted - 2015.04.30 17:05:00 - [65] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Make reimbursement for a logistics fit a higher percentage. Lower percentage of kills. Make assault/commando higher percentage for kills. Lower percentage of reimbursement. Make support classes more even.call it 50/50 for scouts or sentinels. That way behaviors of the suits as intended are reinforced and payouts based on suit use can be tweaked to encourage lesser used suits and payments for FotM fits lowered. This doesn't track well with players who rotate suits at death time to fit what is needed. I really don't see an issue with the percentages but tracking it all based on WP seems to work well. *-ç +æ+Ä ß+¦ß¦+Gé¦ß+¡ !!!* *ß¦äß¦â-à*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8302	Posted - 2015.04.30 17:48:00 - [66] - Quote DJINN Jecture wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Make reimbursement for a logistics fit a higher percentage. Lower percentage of kills. Make assault/commando higher percentage for kills. Lower percentage of reimbursement. Make support classes more even.call it 50/50 for scouts or sentinels. That way behaviors of the suits as intended are reinforced and payouts based on suit use can be tweaked to encourage lesser used suits and payments for FotM fits lowered. This doesn't track well with players who rotate suits at death time to fit what is needed. I really don't see an issue with the percentages but tracking it all based on WP seems to work well. no, I mean base it off kills/deaths in each suit, not the total. it's just a math equation. AV
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1499	Posted - 2015.04.30 17:55:00 - [67] - Quote I'm a bit late to the party, but YES, I support this! Overlord of Broman
thor424 Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 94	Posted - 2015.05.02 02:03:00 - [68] - Quote DJINN Jecture wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. Day 1 > everyone spamming pro gear some losers some winners Day 3> Isk rich still spamming pro gear as they do currently, Isk poor players only using bpos as they want sp and don't want to pay cash to go head to head with pro players already making enough isk to support their spam habit getting payouts far larger than what they had before Day 15> Everyone goes back to COD/BF/whatever other shooters they like except the players who still have some isk Day 42> Dust ported to PC and changed from what we know now to whatever the Legion prototype (that hasn't been broken like this hopefully) is on PC and doing well with an influx of 15,000+ players day 1, hundreds of thousands to follow. Please rethink this. I think you should rethink what you wrote. It doesn't make sense. Thor's Emporium
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 1103	Posted - 2015.05.02 16:14:00 - [69] - Quote I like this idea but I'm not going to read through all the comments, instead I'm just gonna throw my own comment in: How about making it possibly even better by giving that x% of personal losses to the losing side and then y% of ISK destroyed to the winning side. Where x% would be considerably lower than y%. That way even if you know you don't really stand a chance against a superior opponent you would still try to push for the win knowing that you will at least get something back out of all your efforts. Because if the winner gets all and you know you ain't gonna win it you won't even try because you don't want to feed the winning team. Which could make redlining even worse than it is now. Just my 0.2 ISK.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8352	Posted - 2015.05.02 20:12:00 - [70] - Quote I'd just like to see this happen by whatever means. More ISk means more people actually burning the good gear. I'd love to feel like running ADV/PRO gear wasn't a complete waste of ISK overall. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!

CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 3434	Posted - 2015.05.03 11:04:00 - [71] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: well, AV would be getting a % of their vehicle kills, that could be really lucrative This makes my forge gunning side start to tingle.... I might have to bust out some of these officer forges I have been collecting if this comes in Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa? SCV Ready!
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 3434	Posted - 2015.05.03 11:06:00 - [72] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: What if the bonus amount was based on the budget of the winning corporations who hired the mercs? Make this bonus amount visible to players at the start of the match, to encourage them to fight harder. I like the idea of different NPC corps have different payouts. Get into a highly lucrative Pirate battle and watch everyone upping their game for the big payouts. Sounds good in theory at least.... Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa? SCV Ready!
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 3034	Posted - 2015.05.03 19:12:00 - [73] - Quote This does nothing but further reward stomps with more ISK. Simply increase the ISK you get for each match, both sides, so even if you lose you can still more easily run the best gear. Remember when I think it was 1.0 dropped when ISK payments were absurdly high for a day? Those were the funnest matches I have ever played, because everyone who had proto was running it, because they could afford to. The gulf between the haves and have-nots was temporarily removed, and it was glorious. Definitely don't return payouts to that crazy level, but a simple increase in payment for both sides means that it becomes more financially lucrative to fight back against a stomp than to just give up. Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8363	Posted - 2015.05.04 08:10:00 - [74] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: This does nothing but further reward stomps with more ISK. Simply increase the ISK you get for each match, both sides, so even if you lose you can still more easily run the best gear. No. The simple fact is, payments should not be even between winners and losers. If you get that equality at what point is there any advantage to doong more than lolling about and headhunting? That's what we have now. No one cares if you win or lose just because stat padding has more social value than your W/L ratio. If the winners are rewarded, then there's a reason to pay attention To the actual mission objectives. Sniper farms that sit in the redline and don't contribute, losing the game for their team get nothing but the current payouts. The tanker that doesn't buy the hint and spends the whole match in the redline because his team needed the firepower and lost while his ass gets camped In the redline by some nerd in a fatsuit gets nothing extra. The team that can't pull their heads out of their asses get nothing But the basic pubmatch payouts. Compete or get out. But if everyone gets paid the same, win or lose? What the hell is the point of having win conditions? Just open the map and let everyone derp around farming the other 31 players for ISK. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1507	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:15:00 - [75] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: This does nothing but further reward stomps with more ISK. Simply increase the ISK you get for each match, both sides, so even if you lose you can still more easily run the best gear. No. The simple fact is, payments should not be even between winners and losers. If you get that equality at what point is there any advantage to doong more than lolling about and headhunting? That's what we have now. No one cares if you win or lose just because stat padding has more social value than your W/L ratio. If the winners are rewarded, then there's a reason to pay attention To the actual mission objectives. Sniper farms that sit in the redline and don't contribute, losing the game for their team get nothing but the current payouts. The tanker that doesn't buy the hint and spends the whole match in the redline because his team needed the firepower and lost while his ass gets camped In the redline by some nerd in a fatsuit gets nothing extra. The team that can't pull their heads out of their asses get nothing But the basic pubmatch payouts. Compete or get out. But if everyone gets paid the same, win or lose? What the hell is the point of having win conditions? Just open the map and let everyone derp around farming the other 31 players for ISK. Fully agreed. We must have incentive to win and ISK is what will do it. Overlord of Broman
Marcus Stormfire G.R.A.V.E The Ditanian Alliance 71	Posted - 2015.05.04 19:19:00 - [76] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. I like the idea of rewarding players that cause major damage to the opposing team. Having a paycheck bonus for being a bad-ass is one of the things that makes a good merc work hard. Especially if a person in a militia suit is able to rack up kills on people using proto. Things to think about. -Killing 2 million isk in vehicles and loosing 500k isk in suits at let's say 5% for X and 5% for Y. -25,000 + 150,000 = 125k bonus. This is a flat rate which is ok. An improvement on this idea can be the following. -Add a skill to increase bonuses. (Contract Negotiation) 3% bonus per level for isk destroyed. Make it so that if you want a bonus then players should invest skill points. (Following is for an avid Anti-Vehicle guy like myself and giving that loss percentage is capped at 5%) - LvL 0 assuming bonus cannot go into the negative (5% x -500,000isk ) + (0% x 2,000,000isk) = -25,000 isk ( no bonus) - LvL 1 (5% x -500,000isk) + (2,000,000isk x 3%) = 35,000 isk bonus - LvL 2 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 6%) = 95,000 isk bonus - LvL 3 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 9%) = 155,000 isk bonus - LvL 4 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 12%) = 215,000 isk bonus - LvL 5 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 15%) = 275,000 isk bonus Those are just examples those bonuses might be a bit high. Perhaps a 2% per level increase would be more suitable. Potential Problem: Let's say you just whittled that 4,700 armor proto madrugar down to 470 armor points. Then that blueberry with the Militia forge gun snipes your kill after you did all the hard work. Now under this model he is going to be awarded the isk towards his bonus. Also assume that for some strange reason the kill was worth 2 million isk and you lost 500k isk in proto suits) Possible solution: Add another factor to the equation. Perhaps Percent damage done. Example for Level 5 Contract Negotiation At 90% damage dealt (Proto guy) - (5% x -500,000 isk) + [(2,000,000 x 15%) x 0.9] = 247,500 isk bonus At 10% damage dealt (Blueberry who just joined and lost no suits with lvl 5 skills) - (5% x -0 isk) + [(2,000,000 x 15%) x .10] = 30,000 isk bonus Now the blueberry just stole all of your war points but oh well that's the way things are but now it is at least a better split of isk by using this modified equation. Potential problem with percent damage. The madrugar let's say survived all match and now it finally died and everyone took a shot at it. Possible solution: Only those who damaged the tank in the last X amount of seconds before destruction get awarded the bonus. Another Problem: Will it take forever to calculate all bonus isk at EOM? Not sure on the solution to this since I am not privy to the Arithmetic used for any EOM calculations. I am sure there are errors in my math. =P -Marcus -I don't always kill Mercs with a sidearm, But when I do I use militia.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8379	Posted - 2015.05.04 23:43:00 - [77] - Quote Marcus Stormfire wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. I like the idea of rewarding players that cause major damage to the opposing team. Having a paycheck bonus for being a bad-ass is one of the things that makes a good merc work hard. Especially if a person in a militia suit is able to rack up kills on people using proto. Things to think about. -Killing 2 million isk in vehicles and loosing 500k isk in suits at let's say 5% for X and 5% for Y. -25,000 + 150,000 = 125k bonus. This is a flat rate which is ok. An improvement on this idea can be the following. -Add a skill to increase bonuses. (Contract Negotiation) 3% bonus per level for isk destroyed. Make it so that if you want a bonus then players should invest skill points. (Following is for an avid Anti-Vehicle guy like myself and giving that loss percentage is capped at 5%) - LvL 0 assuming bonus cannot go into the negative (5% x -500,000isk ) + (0% x 2,000,000isk) = -25,000 isk ( no bonus) - LvL 1 (5% x -500,000isk) + (2,000,000isk x 3%) = 35,000 isk bonus - LvL 2 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 6%) = 95,000 isk bonus - LvL 3 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 9%) = 155,000 isk bonus - LvL 4 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 12%) = 215,000 isk bonus - LvL 5 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 15%) = 275,000 isk bonus Those are just examples those bonuses might be a bit high. Perhaps a 2% per level increase would be more suitable. Potential Problem: Let's say you just whittled that 4,700 armor proto madrugar down to 470 armor points. Then that blueberry with the Militia forge gun snipes your kill after you did all the hard work. Now under this model he is going to be awarded the isk towards his bonus. Also assume that for some strange reason the kill was worth 2 million isk and you lost 500k isk in proto suits) Possible solution: Add another factor to the equation. Perhaps Percent damage done. Example for Level 5 Contract Negotiation At 90% damage dealt (Proto guy) - (5% x -500,000 isk) + [(2,000,000 x 15%) x 0.9] = 247,500 isk bonus At 10% damage dealt (Blueberry who just joined and lost no suits with lvl 5 skills) - (5% x -0 isk) + [(2,000,000 x 15%) x .10] = 30,000 isk bonus Now the blueberry just stole all of your war points but oh well that's the way things are but now it is at least a better split of isk by using this modified equation. Potential problem with percent damage. The madrugar let's say survived all match and now it finally died and everyone took a shot at it. Possible solution: Only those who damaged the tank in the last X amount of seconds before destruction get awarded the bonus. Another Problem: Will it take forever to calculate all bonus isk at EOM? Not sure on the solution to this since I am not privy to the Arithmetic used for any EOM calculations. I am sure there are errors in my math. =P -Marcus or we can simplify: Kill gets the bonus assist gets 1/2 the bonus the kill got. And I like your contract negotiation ideas. Things like that? We should absolutely steal from EVE while straight faced and serious. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Radec fett 50	Posted - 2015.05.05 02:37:00 - [78] - Quote I don't care what happens as long as I get refunded for my losses and maybe get a little extra... Freedom is a right! I would give my life to free the minmatar. For The Republic!!
Marcus Stormfire G.R.A.V.E The Ditanian Alliance 74	Posted - 2015.05.05 21:34:00 - [79] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Marcus Stormfire wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. I like the idea of rewarding players that cause major damage to the opposing team. Having a paycheck bonus for being a bad-ass is one of the things that makes a good merc work hard. Especially if a person in a militia suit is able to rack up kills on people using proto. Things to think about. -Killing 2 million isk in vehicles and loosing 500k isk in suits at let's say 5% for X and 5% for Y. -25,000 + 150,000 = 125k bonus. This is a flat rate which is ok. An improvement on this idea can be the following. -Add a skill to increase bonuses. (Contract Negotiation) 3% bonus per level for isk destroyed. Make it so that if you want a bonus then players should invest skill points. (Following is for an avid Anti-Vehicle guy like myself and giving that loss percentage is capped at 5%) - LvL 0 assuming bonus cannot go into the negative (5% x -500,000isk ) + (0% x 2,000,000isk) = -25,000 isk ( no bonus) - LvL 1 (5% x -500,000isk) + (2,000,000isk x 3%) = 35,000 isk bonus - LvL 2 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 6%) = 95,000 isk bonus - LvL 3 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 9%) = 155,000 isk bonus - LvL 4 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 12%) = 215,000 isk bonus - LvL 5 (5% x -500,000 isk) + (2,000,000 isk x 15%) = 275,000 isk bonus Those are just examples those bonuses might be a bit high. Perhaps a 2% per level increase would be more suitable. Potential Problem: Let's say you just whittled that 4,700 armor proto madrugar down to 470 armor points. Then that blueberry with the Militia forge gun snipes your kill after you did all the hard work. Now under this model he is going to be awarded the isk towards his bonus. Also assume that for some strange reason the kill was worth 2 million isk and you lost 500k isk in proto suits) Possible solution: Add another factor to the equation. Perhaps Percent damage done. Example for Level 5 Contract Negotiation At 90% damage dealt (Proto guy) - (5% x -500,000 isk) + [(2,000,000 x 15%) x 0.9] = 247,500 isk bonus At 10% damage dealt (Blueberry who just joined and lost no suits with lvl 5 skills) - (5% x -0 isk) + [(2,000,000 x 15%) x .10] = 30,000 isk bonus Now the blueberry just stole all of your war points but oh well that's the way things are but now it is at least a better split of isk by using this modified equation. Potential problem with percent damage. The madrugar let's say survived all match and now it finally died and everyone took a shot at it. Possible solution: Only those who damaged the tank in the last X amount of seconds before destruction get awarded the bonus. Another Problem: Will it take forever to calculate all bonus isk at EOM? Not sure on the solution to this since I am not privy to the Arithmetic used for any EOM calculations. I am sure there are errors in my math. =P -Marcus or we can simplify: Kill gets the bonus assist gets 1/2 the bonus the kill got. And I like your contract negotiation ideas. Things like that? We should absolutely steal from EVE while straight faced and serious. Heh The Caffeine got a hold of me. With time on my hands this wall-o-text post happened. -Marcus -I don't always kill Mercs with a sidearm, But when I do I use militia.
thor424 Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 141	Posted - 2015.05.06 17:57:00 - [80] - Quote Where are we at on this? I'm close to calling it and taking an extended break from Dust. Thor's Emporium

Imp Smash Molon Labe. RUST415 827	Posted - 2015.05.06 23:25:00 - [81] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we have been thinking long and hard about a way to make winning battles lucrative, and maybe throwing caution to the wind to do so. What do you think of two (or both) ways of increasing your reward. This bonus reward would only be for the winner, loser would get the normal payout Winner reward would be normal current payout + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses x and y to be decided I don't see an easy exploit to this system and it would mean that you would commit proto to claim the battle, instead of hunkering back in starter loadouts. I dig this a bunch! Although, if possible, it might be a good idea to make the y in that formula mimic suit behavior. For example, logis don't get a lot of kills, they get a lot of WP for support work. So their y should be WP. Whereas Sentinels don't get any points in support work, so their y should be more about losses inflicted. Combat suits like scouts and assaults a healthy mix?
Forced Death Corrosive Synergy Rise Of Legion. 788	Posted - 2015.05.07 00:20:00 - [82] - Quote when you commit to proto with an organized squad, you are just going to help benefit protostompers and fund them further and increase the isk disparity between vets and new players 11M SP Gallente Logistics G/1 Series Scout M/1 Series Assault M/1 Series I'm doing something wrong
thor424 Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 145	Posted - 2015.05.07 00:39:00 - [83] - Quote Forced Death wrote: when you commit to proto with an organized squad, you are just going to help benefit protostompers and fund them further and increase the isk disparity between vets and new players That's what they say, but it's sort of like the dumbass argument that raising the minimum wage is a bad idea. Thor's Emporium
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8431	Posted - 2015.05.07 00:57:00 - [84] - Quote Forced Death wrote: when you commit to proto with an organized squad, you are just going to help benefit protostompers and fund them further and increase the isk disparity between vets and new players I dunno, my solo idiot ass pretty regularly kills proto suits in quafe suits. I'm giggling at the prospect of what happens if I field ADV/PRO in response. Feed them? Or feeding myself? There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Sylwester Dziewiecki Interregnum. 464	Posted - 2015.05.08 16:52:00 - [85] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: + x% of own personal losses + y% of personally inflicted losses It should be implemented years ago. Yes, yes, it's very good idea and majority of player base will like it, I did not read entire topic but did someone mentioned about 'kill assists' willl those players be rewarded by % dmg they done to target or not? Gallente Speed Scout. EVE side of me: Nosum Hseebnrido
Oceltot Mortalis 82	Posted - 2015.05.08 22:23:00 - [86] - Quote payout with META RATIO. your fitting meta: 60 dead guy's meta: 30 you get paid half as well for those 50 WP or some other crazy calculation your fitting meta: 10 dead guy's meta: 60 you get paid 6x as well for those 50 WP or some other crazy calculation There is an inherent problem to the risk vs reward for that. someone else can do the math for that though. Aspiring Forum Warrior. Commando Advocate / Gallente Advocate / Legion Advocate / Avocado Advocate
Gyn Wallace Ready to Play 357	Posted - 2015.05.10 01:03:00 - [87] - Quote Drogan Reeth wrote: If you don't reward trying when losing, then everyone will stop trying when they are losing, because they know they don't get the rewards anyways. So why risk the extra isk loss? Unless you can answer that nothing will change. 100% This. And I'm saddened by the fact that so few participants in this thread seem to get it. How can anyone think winning is insufficiently rewarded currently? How can anyone see people leaving battle in droves after Scotty matches them up against a team that proceeds to stomp them, and think fighting hard, despite anticipating a loss, is adequately rewarded? The rewards for winning and losing don't need to be equal, but they can't be so far out of whack that leaving battle, for the purpose of re-queuing into a battle you've got a better chance of winning, is the more rational option. thor424 wrote: There's nothing that'll change the behavior of people like you. But most humans have .... Did you notice that you didn't offer anything resembling an answer to Drogan's very reasonable question? I noticed. I also noticed that you're being a little snippy, with one of the few people in this thread who is actually thinking and writing clearly about the problem Rattati's OP does nothing to solve. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Sleepy Shadow Qualified Scrub 358	Posted - 2015.05.11 09:15:00 - [88] - Quote I find this idea terrible and agree with the (unfortunately) few people here that this will not encourage those that are losing to keep on fighting. If you do this, the amount of players leaving in the beginning of the battle will most likely increase. This suggestion offers no incentive to GÇ£play against all oddsGÇ¥. If you add penalties to leaving you will just increase the amount of players spinning in the MCC. If you only reward winning, people will give up earlier than they do now. Winning should be rewarded more but it has to be in line with the losing team. Give winners X amount of ISK as the GÇ£winnerGÇÖs rewardGÇ¥ (to all players regardless of position on the leaderboards) with x% refunded from suit loss and y% of destroyed assets. And for the losers they get x% refunded from suit loss and y% of destroyed assets as well but without the winnerGÇÖs reward. You can have a lower percentage on suit refund for the losers but assets destroyed should have the same percentage. So long as I know that my payout might be halfway decent I am willing to fight against all odds. Reward only the winning team and I will quit trying very early as I have no interest in feeding the other team free kills and even fatter payouts. =ƒÿ¦
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8606	Posted - 2015.05.11 12:58:00 - [89] - Quote Sleepy Shadow wrote: I find this idea terrible and agree with the (unfortunately) few people here that this will not encourage those that are losing to keep on fighting. If you do this, the amount of players leaving in the beginning of the battle will most likely increase. This suggestion offers no incentive to GÇ£play against all oddsGÇ¥. If you add penalties to leaving you will just increase the amount of players spinning in the MCC. If you only reward winning, people will give up earlier than they do now. Winning should be rewarded more but it has to be in line with the losing team. Give winners X amount of ISK as the GÇ£winnerGÇÖs rewardGÇ¥ (to all players regardless of position on the leaderboards) with x% refunded from suit loss and y% of destroyed assets. And for the losers they get x% refunded from suit loss and y% of destroyed assets as well but without the winnerGÇÖs reward. You can have a lower percentage on suit refund for the losers but assets destroyed should have the same percentage. So long as I know that my payout might be halfway decent I am willing to fight against all odds. Reward only the winning team and I will quit trying very early as I have no interest in feeding the other team free kills and even fatter payouts. Believe it or not, in my experience, your attitude is the exception, not the rule. Not only that whenever there is a CHANCE of pulling a match out of the toilet, most players will fight harder and harder. But I think that whatever the loss of materiel payout is, the losing team should get 50-70% of it while the winning team enjoys the full intended loss recovery (hopefully not 100% of value) and a bonus based on ISK destroyed. There should never be an incentive to abandon a battle. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.

SCV Ready!

SCV Ready!