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.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Beren Hurin OMNI Endeavors 183	Posted - 2013.02.11 17:27:00 - [1] - Quote I think that there is a valid point that for the average player, in a year's time SP grinding wont be as important as it is now. Regardless, I think the general problems with either side of the SP cap issue is that SP grinding and isk griding are fairly disconnected from each other. tl;dr Allow players to choose how much risk they want to leverage in order to get more or less SP/isk based off of the quality of battles that they choose. In my opinion, if players are going to grind for SP they should do it in a way that could generally feed the market more. This could be a potential solution to the 'people don't bring better stuff to the game' problem also. So use mercenary battles like the next tier of pub matches, only have them rated at different 'contractor security levels'. In Eve, security level corresponds to the level of control that an empire has over certain sections of space. Higher levels means more control, lower means less. The amount of battles offered at different levels could be automated based on the amount/level of players on at any given time. They don't exactly correspond with that staging system's security but more the factions involved in the fighting. You could accept a contract from either faction who each have a different security level depending on the battle. It is more difficult for a pirate corp to stage a battle in highsec then lowsec. Different security levels would then correspond with the amount of risk and reward that a merc takes on for himself (see below): 1.0 and .9 contracts (safest)- No WP minimum is required. Contractor insures 75% of all losses. If the mission is successful, mercenaries receive a 10% SP/isk bonus to their normal (pre SP-cap rate) reward. If the mission is a failure, they only recoup their insured losses. Empires would issue these contracts in highsec against aggressing pirate corps. .8 to .6 contracts (moderate risk)- 25,000 WP minimum to be employed on this contract. Contractor insures 50% of all losses. If the mission is successful the mercenaries receive a 20% SP/isk bonus to the normal reward. If the mission is a failure, they only recoup their insured losses. There could be a variety of situations where this level applies. (Pirates in lowsec, empires in lower rated high-sec space). .3 to .5 contracts (high risk) -100,000 WP minimum to be employed on this contract. Contractor insures 25% of all losses. If the mission is successful, the mercenaries receive a 50% SP/isk bonus to the normal reward. If the mission is a failure, they only recoup their insured losses (no SP gain). This could be an 'empire on empire' contract, or pirates attacking .6 to .8 systems. .0 to .2 contracts (extreme risk)- 500,000 WP minimum to be employed on this contract. Contractor insures no losses. If the mission is successful, the mercenaries receive a 200% SP/isk bonus to the normal reward. This would be the pirate side of the contract in highsec, or an empire contract assaulting a planet in pirate NPC space.
Beren Hurin OMNI Endeavors 183	Posted - 2013.02.11 17:28:00 - [2] - Quote So functionally, this assumes that there is a cap that then forces people in one of a few directions... A) They continue on in no-risk but sp soft-capped (1000 SP) pub matches and basically make isk at a decent rate and SP at an extremely slow rate. B) They decide that they will look for mainly low risk mercenary matches where a loss wouldn't be much of one, will be more competitive with bigger more expensive battles, and they stand to gain much more SP/isk in a victorious match than continuing on in pub matches. A average scoring player that has a 1:1 W/L ratio will generally make 10-15% more than in pre-cap pub matches. Non-competitive scrubs over time will lose isk, but be more enticed to bring their bigger weapons. C) They decide to be more risky knowing that the less skilled and less organized players are taking the easier contracts, thus they use their innovationg and isk-efficiency mindset to get on high-risk contracts that they have a good chance to win. The minimum requirements means that basic competence is expected. Also, it is more likely that pre-formed squads will take this part of the contract as coordination will be key for the underdog. Winning even 1 in 4 times could pay significantly well as they payoff against players bringing much higher value gear that is 75% insured means lots of carnage for you. D) They log off, because they don't want to try any more.
Beren Hurin OMNI Endeavors 183	Posted - 2013.02.11 18:30:00 - [3] - Quote To reiterate, what I think we really want to happen before we open up to Eve is having better isk churning. We need our market to be in the trillions per week before we are significant. I don't even think we've generated a trillion isk in losses to date. As far as SP goes the math is as follows: You can do absolutely nothing and get 134k SP (passive). You can spend a little $$ each week and get 67k additional SP. Then you can play about 20 games each week and get +190k SP (active). You can spend a little more $$ each week and get about 95k more SP. That's pretty much 40% from spending time in a match (regardless of skill or risk), 35% from something you have bought, and 25% just from your character existing. Without boosters its 60% from game time and 40% from passive. An additional 20 games each week (right now with the 1000 SP cap) gets you about +5-6% SP and maybe 4-5 million isk if you are decent and maybe only +1-2% and 0 additional isk if you are a poor player. So with the cap we are saying that if you double your time in the game you get 1/20th of the reward. It is no wonder people quit after the cap. What I think CCP wants is an excuse for any level of player to stick around, but also for everyone to be rewarded for their level of skill. I think this gives the highly skilled players a fun way to use their coordination and tactical abilities creatively, while it gives the unskilled players a way to use the SP they have grinded for. In addition to the above benefits, this system would increase the rate of isk churn as it could effectively and fairly match up less skilled players against more skilled players in a sort of 'handicap through insurance' format. It would effectively grow the market for all of the equipment by 100 times or more which would make our market that much more enticing to Eve players. Different content would also be available from these mercenary battles as there would be more on the line to gain and to lose the equipment that you have skills for.
Parson Atreides Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 131	Posted - 2013.02.11 19:09:00 - [4] - 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.
Beren Hurin OMNI Endeavors 183	Posted - 2013.02.11 19:24:00 - [5] - Quote Parson Atreides wrote: ...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. I agree that it looks that way on the surface, but I am not committed to those numbers, and I think there is a way to tune the pairings so that there is real risk on either side, but that the real gain comes from performance over time. 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. If you had seen the game show matches, that is the format I"m thinking of. No more than 10-15 contracts taking place at once. You would have to act quick to get into the battle with your squad, if you miss it, you miss it.
Beren Hurin OMNI Endeavors 183	Posted - 2013.02.11 19:38:00 - [6] - Quote 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."
R F Gyro ZionTCD Legacy Rising 315	Posted - 2013.02.11 19:42:00 - [7] - Quote Good ideas. Pretty similar to mine actually.
Parson Atreides Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 131	Posted - 2013.02.11 19:52:00 - [8] - 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.


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