DUST Search - Alternative SP idea: Rated Merc Battles

Beren Hurin wrote:

Parson Atreides wrote:

...Imagine Corp A is very good and has a decent number of players.

Corp A gets a bunch of their guys in 4-man squads, and they all queue for 0 to .2. A couple of scenarios can take place:

also if I wasn't clear here. Most conflicts wouldn't be a .2 contractor vs. a .2 contractor. It would be something more like:

Contract A listed for Keikaken IV [Defender]
"The Caldari Navi is contracting all mercenaries at a .9 security level contract to fight on Planet IV on the Keikaken system. They will be providing a bonus of 10% above the normal war bonuses if their efforts are successful. Due to the Navy's logistical and geographic superiority they will cover up to 75% of all combat losses."

Contract B listed for Keikaken IV [Aggressor]
"The Guristas Pirates are contracting only the most experienced mercenaries at a .02 security level contract to fight against the Caldari Navy on Planet IV in the Keikaken system. They will be providing a bonus of 200% above the normal war bonuses if their efforts are successful. Having no logistical foothold in this system, mercenaries will be responsible for providing all of their own equipment and logistics."

Quote:

Ultimately, in your scenario 1&2, if 50% of Corp A was throwing matches, that is 50% of the corp that could at least be winning in less risky matches or getting minimal SP in pub matches. Also, since SP/WP/and isk gain would scale with the amount of damage done, that would have to be in corp assets that are basically churned and more than likely lost, just for the farming side of the corp to gain SP. Either way it is very easy to make it sub-optimal for isk and SP gain if people want to scam it. Also, if they allow for FF and your team starts to 'throw the match' you can just turn on those blues to keep the reds from racking up their own WPs.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Parson Atreides Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 131	Posted - 2013.02.11 19:09:00 - [1] - Quote My only major concern is this system seems open to exploitation. Imagine Corp A is very good and has a decent number of players. Corp A gets a bunch of their guys in 4-man squads, and they all queue for 0 to .2. A couple of scenarios can take place: 1. They end up with a number of squads fighting each other with no other corps present, in which case one side throws the game so the other side gets a bunch of easy ISK and SP. 2. They end up with a number of squads fighting each other with other corps presents, in which case the same as 1. happens and they throw the match (essentially like an 8v16). 3. They end up mostly on the same side, which essentially just makes this a Corp match for them, while the other side may be several corps working together. 4. Worst case scenario is they have their squads spread across multiple games, in which case they have a better than 50/50 shot at winning because they're a very good corp. How often this scenario takes place depends entirely upon how many people are queuing, which I fear wouldn't be a lot (see below). 5. They can queue up at obscure times to essentially guarantee either 1. or 2. happen. The reason this sort of system lends itself to exploitation is very few, if any, mercs are going to be solo-queuing for battles where they know they're going up against the best players (both due to ISK payout and WP requirement). That's a large percentage of the population you're taking out of the picture. Ultimately, it seems like it heavily favors exploitation, though the idea of four corps (two on a side) battling it out in a high-stakes match seems pretty cool.
Parson Atreides Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 131	Posted - 2013.02.11 19:52:00 - [2] - Quote Beren Hurin wrote: Parson Atreides wrote: ...Imagine Corp A is very good and has a decent number of players. Corp A gets a bunch of their guys in 4-man squads, and they all queue for 0 to .2. A couple of scenarios can take place: also if I wasn't clear here. Most conflicts wouldn't be a .2 contractor vs. a .2 contractor. It would be something more like: Contract A listed for Keikaken IV [Defender] "The Caldari Navi is contracting all mercenaries at a .9 security level contract to fight on Planet IV on the Keikaken system. They will be providing a bonus of 10% above the normal war bonuses if their efforts are successful. Due to the Navy's logistical and geographic superiority they will cover up to 75% of all combat losses." Contract B listed for Keikaken IV [Aggressor] "The Guristas Pirates are contracting only the most experienced mercenaries at a .02 security level contract to fight against the Caldari Navy on Planet IV in the Keikaken system. They will be providing a bonus of 200% above the normal war bonuses if their efforts are successful. Having no logistical foothold in this system, mercenaries will be responsible for providing all of their own equipment and logistics." Ah, I like that way as opposed to just queuing up for .2 vs .2 or whatever. Quote: Ultimately, in your scenario 1&2, if 50% of Corp A was throwing matches, that is 50% of the corp that could at least be winning in less risky matches or getting minimal SP in pub matches. Also, since SP/WP/and isk gain would scale with the amount of damage done, that would have to be in corp assets that are basically churned and more than likely lost, just for the farming side of the corp to gain SP. Either way it is very easy to make it sub-optimal for isk and SP gain if people want to scam it. Also, if they allow for FF and your team starts to 'throw the match' you can just turn on those blues to keep the reds from racking up their own WPs. I still think you're going to have to watch out for corps abusing the system, especially if they can see both contracts at the same time. As for ISK gain, if it's based purely on the type of gear destroyed in a match, then I'm fine with it. But if it like some of these other matches where you can still get like 150k + just by being present, you might have think about tweaking it. I'm not sure SP gain is ever going to factor into this, since it's pretty easy to hit the cap within a week. I like the idea overall, I'd just like to make sure it's not exploitable because that's what some people do when you're talking about 200% ISK gains.