DUST Search - In Regards to SP cap

charlesnette dalari wrote:

a cap I think would be fine just don't cap the total. instead cap the Max SP you can get from an individual object so the cheat people are using now of bounce drop ship of a wall land-repair-repeat wouldn't work without adding the step of destroy that drop ship and deploy a new one. so basically cap the amount of SP you can be rewarded from your activities involving a particular instance of an object. this way to get the SP they are farming they would have to spend isk to buy a new dropship when they hit the cap or in the case of prepping a drop suit the other person must die and respawn to lift cap. just a thought but I think this would solve most of the SP boosting if not all. programmatically this shouldn't be that hard since each object on the battlefield somehow now has to be tracked anyway with a unique identifier for that match to determine who loses the asset when it is destroyed. my fix idea is less likely to punish the good players to lessen cheating.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nyefari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2012.09.25 15:54:00 - [1] - Quote I would do it as an arc-tangent function, not as a hard cap. Doing it this way would allow people to earn CCP to change the "stretch" of the function to find out the sweet spot in terms of work vs reward as well as allow them to set a cap without having the issue of someone who did really well in a game getting equal SP as someone who still did great but not as well.
Tarn Adari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 157	Posted - 2012.09.25 16:27:00 - [2] - Quote I wouldn't do a cap at all...that wouldn't solve anything. The boosters will still boost until the cap, the others get the shaft, if they are doing extremely well. I'd just lower the SP reward for individual actions (kills, assists, repairing, hacking...i.e.everything) by a factor of 5 or 10, and then add a substantial SP bonus for winning a match. That way boosters would be inclined to work for winning the match and all others will be tempted to work together as a team, to have a better chance of winning. Good players will still be rewarded (less than now, but still...). As it is now, people just work for maximizing their WPs, the outcome of the battle is irrelevant.
Lavirac JR DUST University Ivy League 129	Posted - 2012.09.25 19:13:00 - [3] - Quote Here is what I'd do. 1- Deaths would subtract from SP and at double what Kills garner. So a death would be -100 SP and if in a match you lost more SP than gained, then it would subtract from your total SP after the match. 2- Losing a match should reduce your your SP bonus by 75% (No effect on your loss of SP, if you calculated into negative SP after a match). If you have a net negative SP, then you have to cover that negative SP before you can get positive SP to train for skill. There SP exploiting solved without use of a cap that punishes excellence. This also promotes players having an interest into winning the match.
Sean Dustbunny Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 6	Posted - 2012.09.25 20:06:00 - [4] - Quote Lavirac JR wrote: Here is what I'd do. 1- Deaths would subtract from SP and at double what Kills garner. So a death would be -100 SP and if in a match you lost more SP than gained, then it would subtract from your total SP after the match. 2- Losing a match should reduce your your SP bonus by 75% (No effect on your loss of SP, if you calculated into negative SP after a match). If you have a net negative SP, then you have to cover that negative SP before you can get positive SP to train for skill. There SP exploiting solved without use of a cap that punishes excellence. This also promotes players having an interest into winning the match. And new/less good players would quit out of frustration. Substracting SP would be extremely frustrating. It's hard enough as it is to compete in milita gear.
Tarn Adari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 157	Posted - 2012.09.25 20:09:00 - [5] - Quote How does this solve anything? It just punishes those who take part in battle even more...I can't think of a more stupid way to try and solve the exploits...You know that these don't die? They just stay in the starting area and bounce their dropship between two rocks and repair it afterwards...
Nyefari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2012.09.25 20:33:00 - [6] - Quote Yeah, I was trying to figure out a way to kindly put down Lavirac's idea but it just seems... bad. If I go 18 and 10 I should lose SP? I don't think so. I could understand deaths being negative warpoints, but if you make it twice as much then by definition 2/3 of the people in a game would go negative. That's obviously not gonna fly with CCP who has been trying to equal the playing field. Tarn I do like your idea of have the sp be more dependent on the win/loss of the match, and that should be implemented as well. However, I've seen people legitimately get 120k sp, and I suspect that the limit would be somewhere thereabouts. I would like to note that by the way it goes an arc-tangent curve would best support the shift from a negative team player to a positive team player, since that is where the slope of the curve is the greatest. I don't think it should be seemingly infinite possible rewards for a match as it is now because that would reward people who play constantly over people who can only play a few times a week way too much, even if they are the same actual skill level. For example, I am almost constantly in the top three on my team, however I work an hour and a half away from where I play. Often on days that I work I don't get to play at all, so I'm all for catering to the "casual" gamer like me. In terms of additions to my original idea, I would like to point out that CCP could also include the number of games played for the day into the equation for the top asymptote of the arc-tangent curve in order to incorporate the diminishing returns that we see
charlesnette dalari Creative Killers 159	Posted - 2012.09.25 20:42:00 - [7] - Quote a cap I think would be fine just don't cap the total. instead cap the Max SP you can get from an individual object so the cheat people are using now of bounce drop ship of a wall land-repair-repeat wouldn't work without adding the step of destroy that drop ship and deploy a new one. so basically cap the amount of SP you can be rewarded from your activities involving a particular instance of an object. this way to get the SP they are farming they would have to spend isk to buy a new dropship when they hit the cap or in the case of prepping a drop suit the other person must die and respawn to lift cap. just a thought but I think this would solve most of the SP boosting if not all. programmatically this shouldn't be that hard since each object on the battlefield somehow now has to be tracked anyway with a unique identifier for that match to determine who loses the asset when it is destroyed. my fix idea is less likely to punish the good players to lessen cheating.
Nyefari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2012.09.25 20:59:00 - [8] - Quote charlesnette dalari wrote: a cap I think would be fine just don't cap the total. instead cap the Max SP you can get from an individual object so the cheat people are using now of bounce drop ship of a wall land-repair-repeat wouldn't work without adding the step of destroy that drop ship and deploy a new one. so basically cap the amount of SP you can be rewarded from your activities involving a particular instance of an object. this way to get the SP they are farming they would have to spend isk to buy a new dropship when they hit the cap or in the case of prepping a drop suit the other person must die and respawn to lift cap. just a thought but I think this would solve most of the SP boosting if not all. programmatically this shouldn't be that hard since each object on the battlefield somehow now has to be tracked anyway with a unique identifier for that match to determine who loses the asset when it is destroyed. my fix idea is less likely to punish the good players to lessen cheating. This is a brilliant idea, as it rewards flexibility on the field towards team play, and would remove the issue of using an exploit on one thing to max out the total cap.
Ranger SnakeBlood 38	Posted - 2012.09.25 21:02:00 - [9] - Quote Lavirac JR wrote: Here is what I'd do. 1- Deaths would subtract from SP and at double what Kills garner. So a death would be -100 SP and if in a match you lost more SP than gained, then it would subtract from your total SP after the match. 2- Losing a match should reduce your your SP bonus by 75% (No effect on your loss of SP, if you calculated into negative SP after a match). If you have a net negative SP, then you have to cover that negative SP before you can get positive SP to train for skill. There SP exploiting solved without use of a cap that punishes excellence. This also promotes players having an interest into winning the match. Oh no i dissagree completely on the terms of being a logistics character i try to keep my kdr positive but some matchs it is simply not possible and it calls for us to take one for the team for greater good, theonly people this is going to benifite is KDR enthusiasts and tower defen.......... or i mean snipers the support roles need valid sp sources that is a issue withdust now its all about kills
Nyefari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2012.09.25 21:23:00 - [10] - Quote I'm just gonna put this out there. Camping tactics are valid tactics. If you aren't prepared to deal with the snipers that's not their fault. I rarely see snipers who enjoy the long-range combat come on the forums and argue that assaulters shouldn't be able to come up into their business simply because that's not the range at which they are wishing to play. Snipers are also a support role, and I would personally appreciate it if people began to see that. I personally disagree with the tactic of using a dropship to get on top of the towers, because it limits my mobility and silhouettes me against the sky, but I don't think that going up there is an exploit because any fool with a dropship and a gunner could also fly up there and take them out. If there's a counter-tactic its not an exploit, IMHO. I know I just de-railed my own thread but this sort of thing shouldn't even come up. Its an in-game tactic and does not manipulate any of the in-game mechanics in order to carry itself out. It also does not provide an unfair advantage because it is easily countered by any good sniper, or failing that a dropship with some decent players. I would appreciate it if we could keep future off-topic comments (no matter how subtle they are) out of this discussion since I believe it offers a completely viable mathematical way to implement a feature that has been taken into consideration by the CCP in a fair way.

Lavirac JR DUST University Ivy League 129	Posted - 2012.09.26 02:46:00 - [11] - Quote Was definitely not my best idea now that I look at the arguments against.... I guess caps probably are the most simple way to attempt to curtail an exploit. Just wish there was a less crude way, something more "artistic," heh...
Nyefari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2012.09.26 02:53:00 - [12] - Quote Lavirac JR wrote: Was definitely not my best idea now that I look at the arguments against.... I guess caps probably are the most simple way to attempt to curtail an exploit. Just wish there was a less crude way, something more "artistic," heh... We could always use Dalari's idea along with mine to have a mathematically artistic form. BTW, the idea I m referencing is the cap on a specific type of earning sp rather than a cap overall, so that abusing one form of gaining sp will not be as boosting as being an all around team player.


Pages: 1 :: [one page]