|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
12
   |
Posted - 2015.10.09 20:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
Yes, leaving battles is a problem, but you will never fix it by penalizing leaving players.
While I think there are some @$$hats who leave for lame reasons like kdr, there are a vast majority who leave for other, legitimate reasons.
I have suggested this before, but will suggest this again.
First, you need a metric to measure how often each merc leaves battle. A simple measure such as games completed per games deployed. This will give you a baseline to see how bad the problem is.
What is more, you can identify the top 5 percent of people who actually stay, and find out the reasons they leave. This could help identify matches where squads don't fully deploy or other bugs that could be fixed.
The metric would also allow you to identify the worst offenders.
Then, I would suggest using the measure to reward people that stay, especially those who enter partway through..
If you penalize people who are trying their best to enjoy a game despite its large, and great many flaws, they will simply decide not to play. Your numbers will likely drop even more, which is a significant part of the problem itself already.
Penalizing players will be counter productive.
Its been counter productive to reward stompers, and you forced people to leave because they can't afford to fight in stomps.
It is time to fix the incentives such that they improve circumstances and stop with well intentioned but ludicrous incentives that only make problems worse!
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 20:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
deezy dabest wrote:
Add a base pay system in its place. Something like 25k for a defeat and 100k for a victory would be perfect in my opinion.
This is the kind of counter productive incentive I am talking about.
While I agree with diminishing passive isk, if you oulandishly reward winners, and people realize throughout a game that their side is being stomped, there is no incentive to stay.
I have played games where I was one of a few people trying, which means I was against several proto players by myself. What is the incentive to stay? The only way to make money would be to run nothing but starter fits.
If you reward stomps, that is all you will see.
If you want people to stay and play despite stomps, you have to offer them enough incentive to do so, and this suggestion does the opposite.
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 21:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
If you want to reward productivity, reward based on acttivity. Reward each kill, hack, assist, etc.
If you simply reward winners, people will leave. Which means people on the winning team will not have fun cause there is no one to kill, and people on the losing team will not have fun because they are vastly outnumbered, and accomplishing anything will be much more costly, with next to no reward.
That doesn't sound like a fun game worth my time to me...
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 21:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
@ deezy
People do not leave when they see they are losing because winning isn't rewarded enough.
That is counter intuitive.
People leave when losing because LOSING does not reward enough.
Reward the losers who try, and you will see closer battles. If trying and losing are profitable, people will stay. If its not, people will leave.
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 22:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Incentives can only go so far.
You can't offer a massive incentive and suddenly make people more skilled. You can only incentivize effort. If teams are mismatched from the beginning, there is nothing that can totally prevent a stomp.
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 23:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
deezy dabest wrote:One Eyed King wrote:Incentives can only go so far.
You can't offer a massive incentive and suddenly make people more skilled. You can only incentivize effort. If teams are mismatched from the beginning, there is nothing that can totally prevent a stomp. Any answer to the second part?
That was kind of my point with the leaving battle metric. It could be used as a multiplier in some way such that people who stick out battles are rewarded more than those who leave, without it being so burdensome to those who only leave on occasion for legit reasons.
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 04:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
Shaun Iwairo wrote:I'm trying my hardest but I can't think of another game with a similar mechanic to scanners function of 'revealing enemy players on the map without actually seeing them'. I'm sure a lot of you have played Destiny, so you'll know that one of the things that made Thorn OP was that you could see you enemy through walls from their DoT ticks. Unlike scanners, you had to see them and land a shot on them first to get that effect. If anyone knows any other examples of Dusts scanner in other FPSs I think they'd be worth discussing.
As for balancing the scanner, why not have it only highlight enemies within line of sight to the person doing the scanning? It would change it from being more or less a wallhack to something more like an auto-spotter.
In some of the previous CoD games, you could call in a drone that would give away enemy positions. One specific type would also reveal the direction enemies face.
There were also perks that would prevent showing up, and you could shoot down the drone with a missile, but that doesn't take away from the fact this is essentially an active scan.
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 23:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kevall Longstride wrote:Sorry I've not checked up since the OP..
Real life has been very busy at the moment, looking to buy my first house. Which is far too responsible for my taste. I'll plough through the pages and give my thoughts on your feedback so far.
Good luck!
Are tiny houses all the rage where you are?
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 23:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:A system based solely on rewards breeds entitlement. A system based solely on punishments breeds resentment. A system with both breeds motivation.
Why don't we use the carrot AND the stick? Why not reward staying and punish losing?
From my perspective, a system involving a games deployed/completed ratio could be tailored to reward the top 25% of players staying above normal, keep the payouts for the middle 50% approximately the same, and give the bottom 25% a reduced payout.
Should be just a matter of playing with the numbers, assuming that games deployed/completed is an easy ratio to track and add to the payout calculation.
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
|
|
| |
|