DUST Search - [Honour] Mercenary stat.

Talos Vagheitan wrote:

Adipem Nothi wrote:

Talos Vagheitan wrote:

Adipem Nothi wrote:

Downvoting seems like it might have potential to be abused. By alts, for example. Or by "honour-bombing".

I appreciate that the idea is to solve a problem, but the potential negativity here could turn into one more thing which frustrates players. A single match might net a merc -30 honour should an entire squad decide to single him out and burn him. If I invested time working toward a high honour ranking, then got I honour-bombed for reasons beyond my ability to influence or control, I'd be pretty frustrated.

TL;DR: Downvoting affords too much influence over the disposition of other players, methinks. A proposition which potentially adds to player frustration is potentially bad for headcounts.

There will always be a 'potential to be abused'

I encourage you to re read the OP. I've covered pretty much all the ways this could be abused, and the checks and.balances required.

- Must in the same game, on the same team.
- Must have a good honour rating yourself to be able to down vote
- can only down vote someone once, ever. Doing this to too many people downgrades you, to the point you can no longer down vote.

I've reread the OP per your request.

Hypothetical:
Aeon values his hard-earned Honour Ranking. I see Aeon in game on our side, and it occurs to me that it'd be funny to push his buttons and see him go ballistic. I convince everyone in my squad to take the -5 hit to "Honour Bomb" Aeon. Giggling, we impact Aeon's ranking by -30. We recover our individual losses the same day. It will take Aeon a week to recover. We see Aeon the next day and we do it again. Aeon explodes on the Forums. People think its funny, so they do the same thing. Aeon's Honour Rank is perpetually negative, through no fault of his own.

PS: I wouldn't do this, but I don't think it unreasonable to anticipate that others might. I agree that most (perhaps all) systems are subject to potential abuse, but not all systems facilitate spiteful interactions like this.

PPS: Not saying that your idea is bad, Talos. I'm suggesting that we stress test it and consider different ways in which it might be misused.

I specifically say in the OP that you would be unable to down vote the same person twice, even in different battles.

Your evil plan would not work.

Also, if you are part of an evil squad to try to go around honour bombing people, then you will damage your own standing to the point where you can can no longer vote.

Alts cannot vote either unless they get up to +30 or so. Making Alt bombing a major pain.

I've really covered the abusable bases here.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1	Posted - 2015.06.23 04:46:00 - [1] - Quote I encourage people also take a look at my Mercenary Career post. It covers a lot of ideas about building up merc stats such as Reputation, Honour, and earning Achievements. Honour would range from -100 to +100 Building a high Honour stat would simply involve: Completing battles regularly, not being 'down-voted'. Finishing 3 consecutive battles would earn you +1 honour. Quitting a battle early will -3 honour. Down voting: You can only down vote mercs who are in a match with you, and on your team. You must already be 'Honourable' (Positive rating) to be able to down vote. Down voting shouldn't be taken lightly, so it will cost you -5 Honour if you down vote a player. A down-voted players loses 5 honour as well, so it hurts you as much as it hurts them. Down voting will only be effective if multiple team-mates recognize a trouble maker and take action together. Once you down vote a player, you cannot down-vote them again, even if you see them in the next game. Meaning a dishonourable rating will have to come from multiple team mates to have a real effect. You won't be able to repetitively down vote somebody. Gameplay effects: None really. This is mostly a novelty stat, high honour is something roleplayers could strive for. However, a sufficiently dishonourable merc (-30 and worse) could be banned from FW until they get their honour higher. This would help with team killers and spies. Additionally, players who maintain a +50 could be given rewards, such as faster SP, ISK bonus in pubs etc. Then there would be a reason for players to not leave matches as often. Official CPM Platform
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 9	Posted - 2015.06.23 07:38:00 - [2] - Quote Or... If you leave a match you started in, you get 20 kills subtracted from your lifetime KD rating. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.23 07:49:00 - [3] - Quote Downvoting seems like it might have potential to be abused. By alts, for example. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1	Posted - 2015.06.23 13:37:00 - [4] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Downvoting seems like it might have potential to be abused. By alts, for example. Or by "honour-bombing". I appreciate that the idea is to solve a problem, but the potential negativity here could turn into one more thing which frustrates players. A single match might net a merc -30 honour should an entire squad decide to single him out and burn him. If I invested time working toward a high honour ranking, then got I honour-bombed for reasons beyond my ability to influence or control, I'd be pretty frustrated. TL;DR: Downvoting affords too much influence over the disposition of other players, methinks. A proposition which potentially adds to player frustration is potentially bad for headcounts. There will always be a 'potential to be abused' I encourage you to re read the OP. I've covered pretty much all the ways this could be abused, and the checks and.balances required. - Must in the same game, on the same team. - Must have a good honour rating yourself to be able to down vote - can only down vote someone once, ever. Doing this to too many people downgrades you, to the point you can no longer down vote. Official CPM Platform
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.06.23 14:29:00 - [5] - Quote Downvoting this thread Vote #TeamGreen Because if you don't, the Caldari will be the next ones who are bias!
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1	Posted - 2015.06.23 14:43:00 - [6] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Downvoting this thread So that's how it's going to be hey? So be it. Official CPM Platform
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.23 15:37:00 - [7] - Quote Talos Vagheitan wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Downvoting seems like it might have potential to be abused. By alts, for example. Or by "honour-bombing". I appreciate that the idea is to solve a problem, but the potential negativity here could turn into one more thing which frustrates players. A single match might net a merc -30 honour should an entire squad decide to single him out and burn him. If I invested time working toward a high honour ranking, then got I honour-bombed for reasons beyond my ability to influence or control, I'd be pretty frustrated. TL;DR: Downvoting affords too much influence over the disposition of other players, methinks. A proposition which potentially adds to player frustration is potentially bad for headcounts. There will always be a 'potential to be abused' I encourage you to re read the OP. I've covered pretty much all the ways this could be abused, and the checks and.balances required. - Must in the same game, on the same team. - Must have a good honour rating yourself to be able to down vote - can only down vote someone once, ever. Doing this to too many people downgrades you, to the point you can no longer down vote. Reread the OP per your request. Hypothetical: Aeon values his hard-earned Honour Ranking. I see Aeon in game, and it occurs to me that it'd be funny to push his buttons and see him go ballistic. I convince everyone in my squad to take the -5 hit to "Honour Bomb" Aeon. For no reason other than to be arseholes. We impact Aeon's ranking by -30. We recover our individual losses within 6 matches. It will take Aeon 30. We see Aeon the next day and we do it again. Aeon explodes on the Forums. People think its funny, so they do the same thing. Aeon's Honour Rank is perpetually negative, through no fault of his own. PS: I wouldn't do this, but I don't think it unreasonable to anticipate that others might. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.23 15:49:00 - [8] - Quote There are better ways to solve the problem. Surely if CCP can keep track of W/L and KDR they can keep track of games left per games entered. It takes the ability to abuse out and gives an objective score to base decisions and analysis on. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Llast 326 An Arkhos 7	Posted - 2015.06.23 15:58:00 - [9] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Talos Vagheitan wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Downvoting seems like it might have potential to be abused. By alts, for example. Or by "honour-bombing". I appreciate that the idea is to solve a problem, but the potential negativity here could turn into one more thing which frustrates players. A single match might net a merc -30 honour should an entire squad decide to single him out and burn him. If I invested time working toward a high honour ranking, then got I honour-bombed for reasons beyond my ability to influence or control, I'd be pretty frustrated. TL;DR: Downvoting affords too much influence over the disposition of other players, methinks. A proposition which potentially adds to player frustration is potentially bad for headcounts. There will always be a 'potential to be abused' I encourage you to re read the OP. I've covered pretty much all the ways this could be abused, and the checks and.balances required. - Must in the same game, on the same team. - Must have a good honour rating yourself to be able to down vote - can only down vote someone once, ever. Doing this to too many people downgrades you, to the point you can no longer down vote. I've reread the OP per your request. Hypothetical: Aeon values his hard-earned Honour Ranking. I see Aeon in game on our side, and it occurs to me that it'd be funny to push his buttons and see him go ballistic. I convince everyone in my squad to take the -5 hit to "Honour Bomb" Aeon. Giggling, we impact Aeon's ranking by -30. We recover our individual losses the same day. It will take Aeon a week to recover. We see Aeon the next day and we do it again. Aeon explodes on the Forums. People think its funny, so they do the same thing. Aeon's Honour Rank is perpetually negative, through no fault of his own. PS: I wouldn't do this, but I don't think it unreasonable to anticipate that others might. I agree that most (perhaps all) systems are subject to potential abuse, but not all systems facilitate spiteful interactions like this. What if we reverse this. Rather than being a punitive system (down voting) you get a up vote to raise Honour. One vote per battle or has a cool down of an hour. Also this should not be applied to PC. MOAR Ladders SpadeGÇª Remember your Warbarge
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.23 16:22:00 - [10] - Quote @ Llast I like the idea. Perhaps even restrict it to Pubs and opposing players. Earn Honour points by impressing the enemy or by completing consecutive matches. Lose Honour by backing out of matches. Still need to account for bypassing Honour deductions by going idle / AFK. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)

Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1	Posted - 2015.06.23 16:29:00 - [11] - Quote Liking the feedback. Up voting is an interest idea, but I'd prefer if a high standing reflected consistent match completion, and a lack of negative votes. I'd be OK with up voting as long as it cost you 5 Honour points or so. Meaning to up vote someone you need to sacrifice some of your own standing, preventing corps from just voting themselves to 100. Official CPM Platform
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1	Posted - 2015.06.23 16:33:00 - [12] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Talos Vagheitan wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Downvoting seems like it might have potential to be abused. By alts, for example. Or by "honour-bombing". I appreciate that the idea is to solve a problem, but the potential negativity here could turn into one more thing which frustrates players. A single match might net a merc -30 honour should an entire squad decide to single him out and burn him. If I invested time working toward a high honour ranking, then got I honour-bombed for reasons beyond my ability to influence or control, I'd be pretty frustrated. TL;DR: Downvoting affords too much influence over the disposition of other players, methinks. A proposition which potentially adds to player frustration is potentially bad for headcounts. There will always be a 'potential to be abused' I encourage you to re read the OP. I've covered pretty much all the ways this could be abused, and the checks and.balances required. - Must in the same game, on the same team. - Must have a good honour rating yourself to be able to down vote - can only down vote someone once, ever. Doing this to too many people downgrades you, to the point you can no longer down vote. I've reread the OP per your request. Hypothetical: Aeon values his hard-earned Honour Ranking. I see Aeon in game on our side, and it occurs to me that it'd be funny to push his buttons and see him go ballistic. I convince everyone in my squad to take the -5 hit to "Honour Bomb" Aeon. Giggling, we impact Aeon's ranking by -30. We recover our individual losses the same day. It will take Aeon a week to recover. We see Aeon the next day and we do it again. Aeon explodes on the Forums. People think its funny, so they do the same thing. Aeon's Honour Rank is perpetually negative, through no fault of his own. PS: I wouldn't do this, but I don't think it unreasonable to anticipate that others might. I agree that most (perhaps all) systems are subject to potential abuse, but not all systems facilitate spiteful interactions like this. PPS: Not saying that your idea is bad, Talos. I'm suggesting that we stress test it and consider different ways in which it might be misused. I specifically say in the OP that you would be unable to down vote the same person twice, even in different battles. Your evil plan would not work. Also, if you are part of an evil squad to try to go around honour bombing people, then you will damage your own standing to the point where you can can no longer vote. Alts cannot vote either unless they get up to +30 or so. Making Alt bombing a major pain. I've really covered the abusable bases here. Official CPM Platform
Piercing Serenity Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 907	Posted - 2015.06.23 19:21:00 - [13] - Quote Perhaps we could have an "upvote" Honor system where DCs, leaving matches cost 1 honor per battle. To prevent friendly abuse, there could be a system where you cannot upvote the same person within X battles of each other. The "stick" in this model could be that Honor modulates the cost of in game services. For example: Player trading is unlocked at a Loyalty rank 4 with honor less than or equal to 0, at Loyalty rank 3 with A honor, and at Loyalty rank 2 with B honor Daily SP rewards are reduced by 1000 with honor less than or equal to 0, 500 at A honor and 0 at B honor Forum Profile gains the title "War Hero" at B honor, "Honorable" at A honor, and quitter at honor less than or equal to 0 In this way, leaving battles doesn't punish you in an extreme way, nor does it take away any "fundamental" player rights, but it does incur the psychological response to loss that may prevent people from leaving battles or breaching contracts. Furthermore, Honor would only apply to public matches - if a corp or FW team wants to take someone with -30 honor into their match, that is their prerogative I got enemies, got a lot of enemies , got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
DJINN Jecture Templar of the Glowing Blade 412	Posted - 2015.06.23 20:45:00 - [14] - Quote -1 *-ç +æ+Ä ß+¦ß¦+Gé¦ß+¡ !!!* *ß¦äß¦â-à*
Thokk Nightshade Montana Militia 911	Posted - 2015.06.23 23:54:00 - [15] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Or... If you leave a match you started in, you get 20 kills subtracted from your lifetime KD rating. The problem with that is there are too many mercs (like me) who couldn't give 2 f**** about our KDR. I'm a logi with a .82 KDR anyways, so this means nothing. +1 for variety, though. Thokk Kill. Thokk Crush. Thokk Smash.
Thokk Nightshade Montana Militia 911	Posted - 2015.06.24 00:03:00 - [16] - Quote Why worry about the whole "voting" mechanism in the first place? Just leave it at your initial thought. Finish 3 matches, +1 honor. Leave a match, -1 honor. The higher your honor. the more rewards you receive. Every 1 honor is a + .25% bonus to ISK/SP rewards at the end of the match. So 4 honor points nets 1% bonus to ISK/SP, up to 25% bonus at a level 100 Honor. Negative honor has penalties but aren't nearly as harsh. Each -10 Honor is -1% ISK/SP up to a -10% at -100 honor. Of course, at -100 honor, you are never finishing a battle to get the rewards anyways so it becomes a moot point. This basically mirrors the Loyalty ranks. Higher your honor, better your rewards. The #'s can be tweaked if this is too much or too little incentive to stay in matches. Edit I also like the streaking idea. For every 10 matches consecutively finished, +2 bonus honor. For every 3 matches consecutively left, a penalty of an additional -2 Honor. Thokk Kill. Thokk Crush. Thokk Smash.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.24 00:12:00 - [17] - Quote Thokk Nightshade wrote: Why worry about the whole "voting" mechanism in the first place? I strongly dislike the mechanic, but I think I understand what Talos is shooting for. The point of downvoting is to encourage players to police for AFK. Should leaving battle return a negative effect, the rates of AFK would very likely increase. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Thokk Nightshade Montana Militia 912	Posted - 2015.06.24 00:18:00 - [18] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Thokk Nightshade wrote: Why worry about the whole "voting" mechanism in the first place? I strongly dislike the mechanic, but I think I understand what Talos is shooting for. The point of downvoting is to encourage players to police for AFK. Should leaving battle return a negative effect, the rates of AFK would very likely increase. I get what he's shooting for as well. The AFK'ers drive me nuts. I will switch to a Starter fit or a cheap heavy suit and spam attack you and die 15 times before AFKing. I might switch to Sniping, but that is a different conversation. That is actually one part of my issue. The fact it is willy nilly and can be done to anyone. If someone sees me sniping, they automatically downvote me because "Git Gud POS Sniper." Maybe have something where it can only be at the end of battle, and someone can only downvote someone with less than 300 WP or something? Of course, if someone only has 125 WP but has a 2/17 KDR, he was trying at least. Can he still be downvoted? Therein is my biggest problem with this. I guess I have the old adage in my head: "Who will watch the watchers?" I just don't trust the community to be honest in this situation where it can have an actual impact on the player. Thokk Kill. Thokk Crush. Thokk Smash.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.24 00:18:00 - [19] - Quote Talos Vagheitan wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Talos Vagheitan wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Downvoting seems like it might have potential to be abused. By alts, for example. Or by "honour-bombing". I appreciate that the idea is to solve a problem, but the potential negativity here could turn into one more thing which frustrates players. A single match might net a merc -30 honour should an entire squad decide to single him out and burn him. If I invested time working toward a high honour ranking, then got I honour-bombed for reasons beyond my ability to influence or control, I'd be pretty frustrated. TL;DR: Downvoting affords too much influence over the disposition of other players, methinks. A proposition which potentially adds to player frustration is potentially bad for headcounts. There will always be a 'potential to be abused' I encourage you to re read the OP. I've covered pretty much all the ways this could be abused, and the checks and.balances required. - Must in the same game, on the same team. - Must have a good honour rating yourself to be able to down vote - can only down vote someone once, ever. Doing this to too many people downgrades you, to the point you can no longer down vote. I've reread the OP per your request. Hypothetical: Aeon values his hard-earned Honour Ranking. I see Aeon in game on our side, and it occurs to me that it'd be funny to push his buttons and see him go ballistic. I convince everyone in my squad to take the -5 hit to "Honour Bomb" Aeon. Giggling, we impact Aeon's ranking by -30. We recover our individual losses the same day. It will take Aeon a week to recover. We see Aeon the next day and we do it again. Aeon explodes on the Forums. People think its funny, so they do the same thing. Aeon's Honour Rank is perpetually negative, through no fault of his own. PS: I wouldn't do this, but I don't think it unreasonable to anticipate that others might. I agree that most (perhaps all) systems are subject to potential abuse, but not all systems facilitate spiteful interactions like this. PPS: Not saying that your idea is bad, Talos. I'm suggesting that we stress test it and consider different ways in which it might be misused. I specifically say in the OP that you would be unable to down vote the same person twice, even in different battles. Your evil plan would not work. Also, if you are part of an evil squad to try to go around honour bombing people, then you will damage your own standing to the point where you can can no longer vote. Alts cannot vote either unless they get up to +30 or so. Making Alt bombing a major pain. I've really covered the abusable bases here. I concede that I missed the "one shot" restriction, but my hypothetical evil plan still worked well enough. I hit Aeon for -30 for no good reason whatsoever, and it will take him lots of time and effort to recover from the blow. If he flames on the Forums about it, there's a very good chance that others will do the same. For no good reason whatsoever. The system as proposed is neat, but it also creates new problems and new sources of player frustration. If asked for an opinion, I'd propose we remove the human element altogether. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 00:33:00 - [20] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Point taken. A plan like this might well be better off without the human element, as some mentioned, but I wanted a system that would also effect AFKers and AWOXers as well. I just don't think abuse would be that much of a problem though, especially with the checks I proposed. Not everything has to (or even can) be made 100% troll proof. Think of it this way, your hypothetical evil squad of jerks can join an FW match and start team killing, AWOXing, blowing up your own up links etc. And completely ruin the experience for everyone. But you don't, and I've never heard of that happening. And even if it did happen a few times, I think you would agree that wouldn't warrant turning off FF for FW. On a different note: While we debate the potential of abuse, are there any other objections you'd have to this idea? Official CPM Platform

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.24 02:28:00 - [21] - Quote Talos Vagheitan wrote: On a different note: While we debate the potential of abuse, are there any other objections you'd have to this idea? Voting withheld, I think a system like this could work very well, provided it was paired with changes directed at the reasons behind folks leaving matches. If possible, we should try to understand and treat the cause in addition to treating the symptoms. Think Rattati has something similar on Trello ... digging ... here. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Starlight Burner Arrary of Clusters 285	Posted - 2015.06.24 13:59:00 - [22] - Quote I like the idea; however make it harder to be able to give honor to someone. - Loyalty Rank required: 2 - Minimum SP Level required: 15m(Million) (With this horrible SP week increase, you can earn 2,250,000 in 3 weeks. Promotes someone to play more and understand a little more.) - Honor Points required: 60 (High enough to grind for, too high to abuse, and is a good number to have) - Minimum WP Required per game to vote: 1.4k(1400) (Have to work for it and contribute either that being in Kills, Logi-ing, or both) - After down or up voting someone, 5h submission process to CONCORD to process the report. (Gives time for you to decide to keep that down vote on them [Should you find someone else]. Also, prevents abuse bombing.) - Show gained Honor with new window, with a notification email when changed. Really like your idea, I love it! x Starlight Burner CEO of Arrary of Clusters, a close relations corporation Caldari Factional Warfare, enlist today! Thank you for DUST
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 15:22:00 - [23] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Talos Vagheitan wrote: On a different note: While we debate the potential of abuse, are there any other objections you'd have to this idea? Voting withheld, I think a system like this could work very well, provided it was paired with changes directed at the reasons behind folks leaving matches. If possible, we should try to understand and treat the cause in addition to treating the symptoms. Think Rattati has something similar on Trello ... digging ... here. That's a good point. I just want to point out, this idea is not intended to fix match-leaving on it's own. The real problem boils down the massive gap in competitiveness amongst our relatively small player base. While I think this idea might help a bit, in rewarding people who always choose to stay, It's mostly intended as just a novelty/vanity reward. Official CPM Platform
Sicerly Yaw Quantum times 357	Posted - 2015.06.25 05:39:00 - [24] - Quote this could easily be exploited, choose a person that you don't like and or don't want to see in FW and get some high honour players to down vote em, you only lose a few points each but you effectively get rid of a player yes this is a good idea but you can already kick someone out of FW if they are team killing or damaging their own team I dont think the down vote is a good idea otherwise everything else seems fair https://dust514.com/recruit/kWK05m/
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1	Posted - 2015.06.25 14:03:00 - [25] - Quote Sicerly Yaw wrote: this could easily be exploited, choose a person that you don't like and or don't want to see in FW and get some high honour players to down vote em, you only lose a few points each but you effectively get rid of a player yes this is a good idea but you can already kick someone out of FW if they are team killing or damaging their own team I dont think the down vote is a good idea otherwise everything else seems fair Thanks for the feedback. To be honest, I really don't think exploitation would be an issue. You and your squad would all have to join a match on the same side to down vote this guy, and you could only do it once. If you and your squad are that dedicated to grief someone, what's stopping you from all taking turns TKing him in FW? Official CPM Platform
DJINN Jecture Templar of the Glowing Blade 412	Posted - 2015.06.25 14:34:00 - [26] - Quote The idea of changing the way fights are joined (via discovery rather than lobby que) would remove the issue altogether, people may leave the battle but running as far away as you can get is different than fleeing back to the MQ, see Talos's other thread that I hijacked for more details on Open World. *-ç +æ+Ä ß+¦ß¦+Gé¦ß+¡ !!!* *ß¦äß¦â-à*
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 388	Posted - 2015.06.25 16:49:00 - [27] - Quote Replace K/D with a stat based on contracts taken successfully, failed and/or abandoned. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.25 19:36:00 - [28] - Quote DJINN Jecture wrote: The idea of changing the way fights are joined (via discovery rather than lobby que) would remove the issue altogether, people may leave the battle but running as far away as you can get is different than fleeing back to the MQ, see Talos's other thread that I hijacked for more details on Open World. Poked Cross with a similar idea last week ... spitballing ... * Underway matches are listed under Special Contract, as was observed during the Anomaly Event. * Provided slots are available, players can elect to accept a contract to join either side of an underway battle. * The current "Security Status" is displayed for each contract; the lower the security, the higher the contract risk. * High-Risk Contracts pay an increased EOM premium; Low-Risk Contracts pay a decreased premium. * Security Status is a function of Mu disparity, headcount disparity and match progress. * Extremely low security contracts may pay a "suicide bonus" or "savior bonus" depending upon match outcome. * Contracts displayed in orange indicate that a corpmate is known to be fighting in the affected battle. ... / spitballing Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC 1	Posted - 2015.06.25 19:56:00 - [29] - Quote Talos Vagheitan wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Downvoting seems like it might have potential to be abused. By alts, for example. Or by "honour-bombing". I appreciate that the idea is to solve a problem, but the potential negativity here could turn into one more thing which frustrates players. A single match might net a merc -30 honour should an entire squad decide to single him out and burn him. If I invested time working toward a high honour ranking, then got I honour-bombed for reasons beyond my ability to influence or control, I'd be pretty frustrated. TL;DR: Downvoting affords too much influence over the disposition of other players, methinks. A proposition which potentially adds to player frustration is potentially bad for headcounts. There will always be a 'potential to be abused' I encourage you to re read the OP. I've covered pretty much all the ways this could be abused, and the checks and.balances required. - Must in the same game, on the same team. - Must have a good honour rating yourself to be able to down vote - can only down vote someone once, ever. Doing this to too many people downgrades you, to the point you can no longer down vote. I think if you drop the down voting, and add incentives beyond cosmetic to high honor (as you did mention), you would have a solid idea to work with. No reason for down voting, leaving a match early should be enough. I know you are trying to target AFK'ers with this, but those AFKing would really not care to start with. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1	Posted - 2015.06.25 21:14:00 - [30] - Quote Well, unless the incentives to high honour were worth having. Such as +5% to SP accrual etc. Voting would also be for general griefers, AFKers. Etc Official CPM Platform



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page