DUST Search - So, people leaving games early...

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

So, people leaving games early...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:31:00 - [31] - 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.
Snake Sellors Hellstorm LLC 506	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:34:00 - [32] - Quote well, something needs to be done so well done for thinking something up. personally my approach would be simple. a new daily mission, complete 5 games in a row without leaving a battle and receive 1 key for the ever increasing strongboxes, I say keys as they lead to some decent gear but another good idea, in my opinion possibly even better, would be warbarge components. I think though you will have to make it genuinely impressive and worthwhile to achieve what your aiming for as there are some maps on dust at the moment where the team gets so heavily redlined that the enemy team are literally running around the mcc and ground spawn killing everybody who spawns in. and in those circumstances it takes some real effort just to stay in the round also there is a matter of players not liking certain maps so they will leave at the start of the battle. overall I think that the carrot is better than the stick after all this is a game and although its designed to be played by serious gamers players still need to enjoy the experience and forcing them to suffer through things they don't enjoy will probably make them decide they don't enjoy the game. this way they leave battles they don't get their rewards.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 2	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:36:00 - [33] - Quote @OP POST: I agreed totally - until the idea of using Mu as a penalising factor. The very delicate and barely working matchmaking/team balancing shouldn't be used for that purpose. Especially because MM/team builder's purpose are to create enjoyable and playble matches for all. Now, if this suggested penalty is used, it breaks the function of team building and therefore breaking the game experience for 15 (FIFTEEN) other people in the match. That is way too much collateral damage. KERO-TRADER is my official Eve character for Dust trading.
Starlight Burner Titans of Phoenix Damage LLC 540	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:41:00 - [34] - Quote 3 words. Fuk this idea. Complete horseshit to punish players for this. CEO of Arrary of Clusters, a close relations corporation Caldari Factional Warfare, enlist today! Thank you for DUST
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:44:00 - [35] - 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.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:54:00 - [36] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: 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. Of course stomps are still going to turn into **** situations but the goal is to incentive actually being productive towards the common goal of a victory to try to hold off stomps. 100k is hardly an extra reward for stomping when one pro suit costs more than that. The idea here is to just unify the team under a common goal. To a newbie 100k on victory is serious incentive to actually keep spawning in instead of turning into a paper weight which is the cause for many stomps. I am working on a proposal that takes participation into account to provide bonuses in certain situations to make stomping higher risk but it is taking me longer than I expected to balance the numbers while keeping it in a simple form that hopefully CCP would be able to implement easily. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:05:00 - [37] - 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.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:11:00 - [38] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: 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... That is exactly what I am working on in my proposal. Specifically higher rewards for people that do stay and battle it out but so far every thing I have come up with either involves a new mechanic which would be overly complicated or be farmable beyond belief. You have to admit that within the current system winning simply does not reward enough meaning that at the slightest hint of the battle being lost everyone goes into their own form of ISK preservation mode be it MLT / APEX suits or just going AFK and this is a big issue that can be both quickly and easily addressed. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 16	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:16:00 - [39] - Quote Haolo Geardreck wrote: I fully agree with an option to leave if your ping gets too high, but not auto-boot. I get spikes during most matches, but its generally low ping. And I mean spikes that seem to be about 2500 for a few seconds. I'm suggesting that low-latency and high-latency players be grouped by like type. I've no technical understanding of how these things work, but if instances exist wherein one player's connection is causing framerate drops and rubberbanding for other players, that player is ruining the match and needs to go. Dropsuit Usage Rates
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:29:00 - [40] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Haolo Geardreck wrote: I fully agree with an option to leave if your ping gets too high, but not auto-boot. I get spikes during most matches, but its generally low ping. And I mean spikes that seem to be about 2500 for a few seconds. I'm suggesting that low-latency and high-latency players be grouped by like type. I've no technical understanding of how these things work, but if instances exist wherein one player's connection is causing framerate drops and rubberbanding for other players, that player is ruining the match and needs to go. This sounds highly exploitable in my opinion and would probably make lag switches a real thing. Forcing yourself into that lower group and then bumping your connection back up to normal to farm those who have lower connections would be the padding of all padding. Between net code, server side hit detection, and an insane amount of calculations I see the whole thing as a cluster **** which personally I am glad I am not one of the ones trying to fix it. I feel like step 1 should be damage normalization, reducing the load on the server when it comes to applying damage would be a big help. It does not sound like much but when you are dealing with ping times as low as 20 - 30ms for some people a simple 10ms extra time processing on the server suddenly becomes huge. Going beyond that I really do not see any great way to handle high latency players without either punishing them or hurting game play for everyone. I feel like pretty good work has been done reducing the benefit of fast suits used in conjunction with a slow connection and whatever was done we could use a lot more of. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.

Aeon Amadi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:32:00 - [41] - Quote Thought of an interesting way to 'punish' players for leaving a match that winds up being beneficial. Rather than hitting their wallet, I think we should institute a mandatory survey. If you leave three matches in a day, you're fine, but any more than that and you have to take a mandatory survey explaining why you left the match each time you quit out. This would last until downtime, so if you left mid-match you wouldn't have to complete the survey after downtime the next day. This way we can track reasons why players leave and collect data while also forcing them to take a bit of time to complete the survey before proceeding to their next match, acting as a soft-deterrent from leaving future matches. Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog Skype: nomistrav
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:41:00 - [42] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Thought of an interesting way to 'punish' players for leaving a match that winds up being beneficial. Rather than hitting their wallet, I think we should institute a mandatory survey. If you leave three matches in a day, you're fine, but any more than that and you have to take a mandatory survey explaining why you left the match each time you quit out. This would last until downtime, so if you left mid-match you wouldn't have to complete the survey after downtime the next day. This way we can track reasons why players leave and collect data while also forcing them to take a bit of time to complete the survey before proceeding to their next match, acting as a soft-deterrent from leaving future matches. Then we end up with double the amount of AFK players per battle. Any obvious and intentional negative effect for leaving battle only leads to worse game play for everyone else. We already have enough people that go AFK without further incentive to do so. All that is needed is a way for us to be able to bump the refill rate way back up so that leaving battle is not equal to sabotaging the match because it is guaranteed to be lopsided. I can tell you now that many people leaving battle is nothing more than a domino effect of people realizing the match is now lost because there is no good players left on your team. The refill rate being way down is also killing match times while increasing the chances that you will have a bunch of randoms against squads. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:45:00 - [43] - 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.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 441	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:47:00 - [44] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: @ 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. It's on both ends worse for Pilots, but pretty much this.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:50:00 - [45] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: @ 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. I agree that fighting a lost battle should have more incentive but there also needs to be incentive to stop it from turning into a stomp in the first place. The numbers I am currently toying with involve a WP multiplier for the losing team once the match has reached a certain inequality. This would lead to a higher cut of the ISK pool for those who continue to fight as well as increasing SP gain for those same people. Obviously with no numbers there it is hard for you to answer but do you feel like this would be a step towards solving the issue that we are talking about here? The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 22:01:00 - [46] - 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.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 22:02:00 - [47] - Quote 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? The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 5	Posted - 2015.10.09 22:51:00 - [48] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Haolo Geardreck wrote: I fully agree with an option to leave if your ping gets too high, but not auto-boot. I get spikes during most matches, but its generally low ping. And I mean spikes that seem to be about 2500 for a few seconds. I'm suggesting that low-latency and high-latency players be grouped by like type. I've no technical understanding of how these things work, but if instances exist wherein one player's connection is causing framerate drops and rubberbanding for other players, that player is ruining the match and needs to go. This sounds highly exploitable in my opinion and would probably make lag switches a real thing. Forcing yourself into that lower group and then bumping your connection back up to normal to farm those who have lower connections would be the padding of all padding. Between net code, server side hit detection, and an insane amount of calculations I see the whole thing as a cluster **** which personally I am glad I am not one of the ones trying to fix it. I feel like step 1 should be damage normalization, reducing the load on the server when it comes to applying damage would be a big help. It does not sound like much but when you are dealing with ping times as low as 20 - 30ms for some people a simple 10ms extra time processing on the server suddenly becomes huge. Going beyond that I really do not see any great way to handle high latency players without either punishing them or hurting game play for everyone. I feel like pretty good work has been done reducing the benefit of fast suits used in conjunction with a slow connection and whatever was done we could use a lot more of. For those who know how, yea, it would be an easy exploit. High latency players shouldn't even be trying to play something so fast-paced in my opinion. I've been the laggy guy before, I just picked up a different game instead of ruining it for everyone. If they don't have that decency or are simply unwilling to get better internet (if available), I feel like some firm of punishment is in order, even if its just the first part of the stick: a longer queue or such. The server will also know their lag and keep from making their punishment harsher for simple disconnects. Due to a terrible ISP. G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 5	Posted - 2015.10.09 23:03:00 - [49] - Quote People who just afk commonly should get a beautiful permaban :/ G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 16	Posted - 2015.10.09 23:09:00 - [50] - Quote Haolo Geardreck wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Haolo Geardreck wrote: I fully agree with an option to leave if your ping gets too high, but not auto-boot. I get spikes during most matches, but its generally low ping. And I mean spikes that seem to be about 2500 for a few seconds. I'm suggesting that low-latency and high-latency players be grouped by like type. I've no technical understanding of how these things work, but if instances exist wherein one player's connection is causing framerate drops and rubberbanding for other players, that player is ruining the match and needs to go. This sounds highly exploitable in my opinion and would probably make lag switches a real thing. Forcing yourself into that lower group and then bumping your connection back up to normal to farm those who have lower connections would be the padding of all padding. Between net code, server side hit detection, and an insane amount of calculations I see the whole thing as a cluster **** which personally I am glad I am not one of the ones trying to fix it. I feel like step 1 should be damage normalization, reducing the load on the server when it comes to applying damage would be a big help. It does not sound like much but when you are dealing with ping times as low as 20 - 30ms for some people a simple 10ms extra time processing on the server suddenly becomes huge. Going beyond that I really do not see any great way to handle high latency players without either punishing them or hurting game play for everyone. I feel like pretty good work has been done reducing the benefit of fast suits used in conjunction with a slow connection and whatever was done we could use a lot more of. For those who know how, yea, it would be an easy exploit. High latency players shouldn't even be trying to play something so fast-paced in my opinion. I've been the laggy guy before, I just picked up a different game instead of ruining it for everyone. If they don't have that decency or are simply unwilling to get better internet (if available), I feel like some firm of punishment is in order, even if its just the first part of the stick: a longer queue or such. The server will also know their lag and keep from making their punishment harsher for simple disconnects. Due to a terrible ISP. Again, I've no understanding of how these things work ... but why wouldn't this work? Set Low Latency queue's bounce threshold at Ping(A) - Ping(C). Set High Latency queue's bounce threshold at Ping(X) - Ping(Z). Group players by region and ping. If a player with Ping(A) - Ping(C) is detected in the High Latency Queue, kick him. If a player with Ping(X) - Ping(Z) is detected in the Low Latency Queue, kick him. If a player spoofs his latency to get into the wrong queue, he'd be booted when he "unspoofs" and exceeds the queue's thresholds. Right? Dropsuit Usage Rates

One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 23:35:00 - [51] - 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.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.10 00:38:00 - [52] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Haolo Geardreck wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Haolo Geardreck wrote: I fully agree with an option to leave if your ping gets too high, but not auto-boot. I get spikes during most matches, but its generally low ping. And I mean spikes that seem to be about 2500 for a few seconds. I'm suggesting that low-latency and high-latency players be grouped by like type. I've no technical understanding of how these things work, but if instances exist wherein one player's connection is causing framerate drops and rubberbanding for other players, that player is ruining the match and needs to go. This sounds highly exploitable in my opinion and would probably make lag switches a real thing. Forcing yourself into that lower group and then bumping your connection back up to normal to farm those who have lower connections would be the padding of all padding. Between net code, server side hit detection, and an insane amount of calculations I see the whole thing as a cluster **** which personally I am glad I am not one of the ones trying to fix it. I feel like step 1 should be damage normalization, reducing the load on the server when it comes to applying damage would be a big help. It does not sound like much but when you are dealing with ping times as low as 20 - 30ms for some people a simple 10ms extra time processing on the server suddenly becomes huge. Going beyond that I really do not see any great way to handle high latency players without either punishing them or hurting game play for everyone. I feel like pretty good work has been done reducing the benefit of fast suits used in conjunction with a slow connection and whatever was done we could use a lot more of. For those who know how, yea, it would be an easy exploit. High latency players shouldn't even be trying to play something so fast-paced in my opinion. I've been the laggy guy before, I just picked up a different game instead of ruining it for everyone. If they don't have that decency or are simply unwilling to get better internet (if available), I feel like some firm of punishment is in order, even if its just the first part of the stick: a longer queue or such. The server will also know their lag and keep from making their punishment harsher for simple disconnects. Due to a terrible ISP. Again, I've no understanding of how these things work ... but why wouldn't this work? Set Low Latency queue's bounce threshold to tolerate Ping(A) - Ping(C). Set High Latency queue's bounce threshold to tolerate Ping(X) - Ping(Z). Group players by region and ping. If a player with Ping(A) - Ping(C) is detected in the High Latency Queue, kick him. If a player with Ping(X) - Ping(Z) is detected in the Low Latency Queue, kick him. If a player "spoofs" his latency to get into the wrong queue, he'd be booted when he "unspoofs" and exceeds that queue's thresholds. Right? That is absolutely a programming night mare not to mention terrible for the player base. What about people that have unreliable internet? Are they suppose to just get kicked from every battle because someone in the house started or stopped downloading a torrent? You also have to account for additional server load of monitoring 32 people per battle times how ever many battles. Why would anyone ever bother logging into a game that they are out right punished because their internet is not the greatest. Not everyone lives in a large metropolitan area and has access to cable or fiber like we do. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 16	Posted - 2015.10.10 01:26:00 - [53] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: That is absolutely a programming night mare not to mention terrible for the player base. What about people that have unreliable internet? Are they suppose to just get kicked from every battle because someone in the house started or stopped downloading a torrent? You also have to account for additional server load of monitoring 32 people per battle times how ever many battles. Why would anyone ever bother logging into a game that they are out right punished because their internet is not the greatest. Not everyone lives in a large metropolitan area and has access to cable or fiber like we do. I was under the impression that player pings are already being logged and monitored (source). Either way, you have a good point. To be clear, I'm not looking to "punish" anyone for having less-than-reliable internet (or a roommate), and I wouldn't want to propose anything which might detrimentally impact headcounts. The above idea is probably bad for reasons you've provided, but the goal -- to improve match stability -- is not a bad goal. I've played lots of AAA shooters over the years at a wide range of connection speeds; latency problems came up from time-to-time, but never have I experienced recurring issues with framerate drops and rubberbanding like so many of us do here in DUST. All of this is relevant to Dennie's concerns. DUST has stability issues. Some players "work around" those issues by leaving broken battles in hopes of finding better ones. This is reasonable behavior. It would be unreasonable to punish these players for wanting to play smooth matches. Dropsuit Usage Rates
ROMULUS H3X research lab 791	Posted - 2015.10.10 02:00:00 - [54] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: I want no part of this, lol. I will always appreciate the carrot over the stick when it comes to match leaving. I'm a firm believer that if players are leaving matches there is a fundamental reason as to why and that needs to be addressed long before penalizing match-leaving. Soo... as your job as CPM, go out there and get in touch with these constant offenders.. IF you want, I can give you a list of the players that I mostly see leaving battle. Most of the time it's the cowards and K/D padders leaving. Yet there are many instances where people leave because one of their squadmates gets "Scottied" aka "screwed." Leaving battle is the only way to be fair to your buddy, not his/her fault Scotty is on the rag. Sometimes this happens multiple times in a row. There are also quite a few cases where people leave battle because they know they won't get the much needed '1 Victory for a Key' Mission... Some mercs actually do have jobs beyond DUST 514 believe it or not and they don't really HAVE all day and night to do so. Fixing the "Something went wrong with Scotty" scenario and fixing the Victory = Key missions will deff help alleviate the confusion to WHO and WHY they are still leaving battlle. Now lets get the ball rolling, FORGE/FLAYLOCK/FISTS PLASMA/PISTOL/PUNCH ALL OF YOU PUNKS GET HUMILIATED AFTER LUNCH!
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood RUST415 836	Posted - 2015.10.10 03:58:00 - [55] - Quote Make in-progress battles (that are uneven) special contracts with higher payout. This will incentivize stomp squads to join battles against other stomp squads that others have left due to being unable to compete.
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars 440	Posted - 2015.10.10 05:47:00 - [56] - Quote I would be ok with players having incentives to stay in matches and also contribute in combination with a system that punishes players for leaving matches after they have passed a tolerance level. Examples That I would like implemented into the game: Officer gear is rated much higher in ISK value within public matches than they already are, thus when they are destroyed in pubs, the total amount of ISK is increased much more than it does today, that is awarded to the team that destroyed that officer gear. Killing Proto gear enemies awards players with 65 WP and killing officer gear awards players 90 WP instead of 50 WP. Terminating enemies awards 1 WP. The amount of players on team 1 creates a ratio ((no of players of team 1) / 16) and the total amount of ISK awarded to team 1 is divided by that ratio ( 0 < ratio < 1 ). This would increase the ISK payouts to small teams with a smaller amount of players compared to the opposite team in the match. The same effect is applied to the opposite team. Players are allowed to leave 5 battles every day without penalty but are penalized 50 000 ISK on the 6th time they left a battle. Then keep multiplying that 50 000 ISK penalty by 3, every time they leave a battle that day. (this penalty shows up on the player wallet history). Example: (50 000 6th), (150 000 7th), (450 000 8th), (1 350 000 ISK 9th)..... etc.
Regnier Feros Dead Man's Game 874	Posted - 2015.10.10 07:31:00 - [57] - Quote ._. I LIKE PIE
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.10.10 08:21:00 - [58] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: 3) Add an ISK/SP bonus for completing consecutive matches. 4) Fix what's wrong with pub pay. Coming into a match late should not guarantee a paycheck of pennies. Same goes for being put on a team with a disproportionately high number of rep logis. Err on the side of your customers. Too much pay is better than not enough. I think these are great ideas. Completing consecutive matches in a day could earn you a "reliability bonus". Basically, employers know that you are likely to stay for the duration of the contract and so pay more for your services. Also CCP should lessen the pain of team members dropping out, or of joining a match late, by increasing the payout for players that stay with the smaller team. So you could have a team-wide payout at the end, split amongst the players left at the end, according to contribution. This means that you will get a larger proportion of the payout if you have a smaller team, as there will be less mercs for the isk to be divided by. For example: 16 player team at the end. 1600000 isk split 16 ways (assuming equal warpoints) = 100000 isk each. 8 player team at the end. 1600000 is split 8 ways (assuming equal warpoints) = 200000 isk each.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.10.12 09:44:00 - [59] - Quote Lavallois Nash wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: REALITY CHECK: This is not war, this a videogame. A videogame requires balance between players or it's not enjoyable to play. If it's not enjoyable to play your game dies. Balance > Realism. Let's say you put down the keyboard until you recognise the difference between a war and an entertainment source. Ok, so if you dont want to participate in the meta, why are you here? Why dont you go play Mario Party or something? Did you ever consider that the whole concept of a universe and of meta and of mercs actually might be entertaining to people? People who dont just sign onto a game to get a sense of self worth from numbers? You talk about balance but listed "cheap tactics" as a reason for quitting. A cheap tactic has nothing to do with balance it just means you arent smart enough to have developed a counter. Maybe if you spent less time rage quitting and more time being creative there would be no "cheap tactics" used against you. Kid if you enjoy waving your HTFU flag that much, go play EVE and quit trying to force a lobby shooter to hold to the standards of an enormous space sandbox with PvE, PvP, actual events, proper mechanics, Concord, etc. Meta can be fun, but meta doesn't keep a game alive on its own. Cheap tactics are a balancing issue, as evidenced by CCP's attempt (and failure for the most part) to fix RE Frisbees among other things like tower forge sniping, the original thukker grenades, the old broken Gal logi standing in repping hives, etc. The fact that cheap tactics have counters has nothing to do with whether or not they belong in the game and whether or not they hurt te gameplay. Try thinking through all of the factors involved with a decision before jumping on a self-destructive bandwagon. Winmatar Assault, Proficiency 5 SMG's & Proficiency 5 Swarms Since Uprising 1.0 I GÖú Puppies (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.*pâ+n+ín+ƒ.
maybe deadcatz TRUE TEA BAGGERS Smart Deploy 1	Posted - 2015.10.12 10:46:00 - [60] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: This is obviously a problem. And for those that stick to the end of a game it frankly annoys the hell out of them. So chatting amongst the CPM about it, I had an idea and just wanted to bounce it off you all. The main reason people leave is either the map, they don't like their chances against the opposition and want to protect their KDR. As for the map, well as a Merc you're contracted to do a battle and it's a sign of bad faith if you back out. As for those those that want to go up against players that might present a challenge..... I personally don't have any time for that way of thinking. So my idea is this. New Eden is all about consequences based on your choices. I want to add consequence to backing out of a contract. Say there's a set number of times in day (DT-DT) that the game might allow you leave a battle. Things happen in RL. But after that number, your Merc is fined, heavily and direct from the wallet by CONCORD for cowardice. On top of that, your avatar in game is 'branded', showing you as a Merc that doesn't honour his/her contracts. Removing the brand is easy. Complete a set number of matches from beginning to end. But for the persistent offenders.... Their MU is boosted to the maximum level. They will be put up against the best players and have to take a hit to their precious KDR in order to return to the correct level. It'll also mean that they're kept separate from the rest of the player base until they learn the error of their ways. Like I say, there's likely all sorts of problems with this idea that you'll point out to me but that's why I'm asking. That's so evil that even the little voice in my head says "why didn't we think of that?" Ha! You can't kill me! I'm already dead!



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

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

I LIKE PIE