Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Ocrooch

Victory condition

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[-FWS-]
[-FWS-]
Beta Tester
59 posts
14,320 battles

This game has many frustrating aspects, pushing me slowly off. Unfinished CVs, he spam, imbalanced ships, containers, bots, just to name a few. But the most frustrating aspect are the teams. Seems the game has more and more players who just want to shoot at something and don't care much about strategy,  team support and win. All these so called potatoes. A player above 50% winrate is becoming a rarity. But some people, including me, want to achieve something, be it the mission, or credits or experience, and best way to boost it is to win a battle. Frustrating part is my results depend in large portion on my team mates engagement, but many of them just don't care. On one hand, it is their right too play the game as they see fit. On the other hand, I am investing a lot, money and time, and I get really annoyed when I see it goes wasted because of other players just do not bother.

This topic has been raised many times in context of "more fair" matchmaker, but WG rejects this idea, because, apparently, it would make things complicated and even more frustrating.

 

I would like to propose another idea. Make "win" just an honorary achievement, with no profits attached to it. Remove victory conditions from all missions - make them XP based instead.  Battle rewards - XP and credits should only depend on my contribution to battle and team, and not win or lose.

If I try hard and make some impact, I should be rewarded accordingly, regardless of win or lose. If I play like said potato and die in first 5 minutes , I should not get much reward from such battle, even if rest of my team wins the battle for me.

 

This way, people will need to try harder to progress in game, as they cannot rely on others to win games for them. It would reduce frustration and saltiness on my team mates, because my results depend only on me. It would reduce my frustration if I'm hit by losing streak, because 5 or 10 losses in a row do not matter, I still get my reward if I play well.  Effectively I would not be put off the game session early. And most importantly, it should be relatively trivial for WG to implement.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,170 posts
14,910 battles

You complain about people who just want to shoot stuff and then suggest to remove rewards for winning?

This will make it worse, not better.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GJE]
Players
306 posts
4,302 battles

I like the idea, I would put more emphasis on team play as well, eg more XP for spotting, capping, damage on spot etc. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
851 posts
18 minutes ago, Ocrooch said:

...

Remove victory conditions from all missions - make them XP based instead. 

...

Generally agree, but based on recent directives I'd prefer WG didn't scrap 'X wins' and substitute 'Y XP' across the board, purely because the amounts of XP they keep asking for are getting more and more sizeable with each event and tend to require far more matches than the wins do (even at the average WR%)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,083 posts
9,479 battles

So because someone who dies before the first 5 mins gets like 600 XP instead of 400, people who carry their asses of for wins should basicly never get >2k XP? At best we are talking even like 1500-1700 XP, which usually ends up in the ~2500 region with a win.

 

Nah, if you want to punish suiciders, lower the XP if you die that early. They dont deserve the XP they get. People who play at the maximum for the entire battle deserve their >2k BaseXP.

And btw, those people are bad, they profit regardless if they die early, because they are incapable of getting high Base XP. Speed-YOLO-grinding ftw!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,839 posts
11,253 battles
23 minutes ago, Ocrooch said:

If I try hard and make some impact, I should be rewarded accordingly, regardless of win or lose.

 

Huge contradiction here. Ill give you one example, that shuts down your entire idea.

 

2 mins left on the clock. standard battle. My team is leading with 100 points. Im the last guy standing, a Cruiser with 50 HP. Enemys have 2 Battleships left. Full health.

 

A) What I currently do: Nothing. I run and hide. Secure the 100% win because enemys cant win by points, cap or time. I get additional XP because I got the win home.

B) What I would do in your system: Run in, YOLO and try to get some damage in. Because it will get me more XP then just hiding, winning and doing nothing.

 

27 minutes ago, Ocrooch said:

This way, people will need to try harder to progress in game

 

Yea. No. As explained above. I would litterally have to throw games to gain a few XP more.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
5,487 posts

So there are several problematic factors here, not least because we have two reward categories, credits and XP in its various forms. One aspect is that what is determined a 'win' in terms of the game mechanics, can be pretty far from a win in tactical terms.

 

One way would indeed be to have a multiplier that is simply time based. The rewards will get better the longer you stay in the battle, meaning if you contribute more in the first half of the battle, you will still personally be rewarded due to the multiplier if you just stay afloat till the end of the battle. Some may be quick to argue this isn't fair, but IMO it would be tactically fair because numbers count, both in terms of game mechanics (points scoring) and tactical strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,170 posts
14,910 battles
6 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

So there are several problematic factors here, not least because we have two reward categories, credits and XP in its various forms. One aspect is that what is determined a 'win' in terms of the game mechanics, can be pretty far from a win in tactical terms.

 

One way would indeed be to have a multiplier that is simply time based. The rewards will get better the longer you stay in the battle, meaning if you contribute more in the first half of the battle, you will still personally be rewarded due to the multiplier if you just stay afloat till the end of the battle. Some may be quick to argue this isn't fair, but IMO it would be tactically fair because numbers count, both in terms of game mechanics (points scoring) and tactical strength.

More camping...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
5,487 posts
9 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

More camping...

 

Depends. As I was suggesting it is a multiplier so unless you actually do contribute, it won't just help you hanging around. IMO it would rather limit yoloing, especially later in the battle. It would probably lead to more cautious play, but remember that actual camping is more due to the game mechanics and map design than actual player choice, IMHO.

 

The multiplier idea would mean that people would have to contribute. While overall I don't like that there is a reward system of credits and xp in place, I am aware that for a multiplayer game it would be difficult to set up differently. Psychologically speaking, there has to be an incentive to not only to play as well as you can but also to score a win for the team, because in terms of real consequences there's nothing at stake in terms of winning or losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GJE]
Players
306 posts
4,302 battles
16 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

So there are several problematic factors here, not least because we have two reward categories, credits and XP in its various forms. One aspect is that what is determined a 'win' in terms of the game mechanics, can be pretty far from a win in tactical terms.

 

One way would indeed be to have a multiplier that is simply time based. The rewards will get better the longer you stay in the battle, meaning if you contribute more in the first half of the battle, you will still personally be rewarded due to the multiplier if you just stay afloat till the end of the battle. Some may be quick to argue this isn't fair, but IMO it would be tactically fair because numbers count, both in terms of game mechanics (points scoring) and tactical strength.

I disagree, strongly. So BB that is camping on the back and farming damage with little influence on the game will get more XP than DD that is spotting for this BB and dies 5 mins before the end fighting for cap? That would encourage players to avoid fight and HP loss = more camping and map border hugging. I would so much prefer that WG promoted team play elements...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
1,887 posts
3,919 battles
1 hour ago, Ocrooch said:

This game has many frustrating aspects, pushing me slowly off. Unfinished CVs, he spam, imbalanced ships, containers, bots, just to name a few. But the most frustrating aspect are the teams. Seems the game has more and more players who just want to shoot at something and don't care much about strategy,  team support and win. All these so called potatoes. A player above 50% winrate is becoming a rarity. But some people, including me, want to achieve something, be it the mission, or credits or experience, and best way to boost it is to win a battle. Frustrating part is my results depend in large portion on my team mates engagement, but many of them just don't care. On one hand, it is their right too play the game as they see fit. On the other hand, I am investing a lot, money and time, and I get really annoyed when I see it goes wasted because of other players just do not bother.

This topic has been raised many times in context of "more fair" matchmaker, but WG rejects this idea, because, apparently, it would make things complicated and even more frustrating.

 

I would like to propose another idea. Make "win" just an honorary achievement, with no profits attached to it. Remove victory conditions from all missions - make them XP based instead.  Battle rewards - XP and credits should only depend on my contribution to battle and team, and not win or lose.

If I try hard and make some impact, I should be rewarded accordingly, regardless of win or lose. If I play like said potato and die in first 5 minutes , I should not get much reward from such battle, even if rest of my team wins the battle for me.

 

This way, people will need to try harder to progress in game, as they cannot rely on others to win games for them. It would reduce frustration and saltiness on my team mates, because my results depend only on me. It would reduce my frustration if I'm hit by losing streak, because 5 or 10 losses in a row do not matter, I still get my reward if I play well.  Effectively I would not be put off the game session early. And most importantly, it should be relatively trivial for WG to implement.

so basically "Save a star" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,170 posts
14,910 battles
1 minute ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

Depends. As I was suggesting it is a multiplier so unless you actually do contribute, it won't just help you hanging around. IMO it would rather limit yoloing, especially later in the battle. It would probably lead to more cautious play, but remember that actual camping is more due to the game mechanics and map design than actual player choice, IMHO.

 

The multiplier idea would mean that people would have to contribute. While overall I don't like that there is a reward system of credits and xp in place, I am aware that for a multiplayer game it would be difficult to set up differently. Psychologically speaking, there has to be an incentive to not only to play as well as you can but also to score a win for the team, because in terms of real consequences there's nothing at stake in terms of winning or losing.

People would contribute later in the game and wait around the first minutes.

 

Camping is not the result of game mechanics or map design, but the result of player ineptitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
5,487 posts
1 minute ago, dommo77 said:

I disagree, strongly. So BB that is camping on the back and farming damage with little influence on the game will get more XP than DD that is spotting for this BB and dies 5 mins before the end fighting for cap? That would encourage players to avoid fight and HP loss = more camping and map border hugging. I would so much prefer that WG promoted team play elements...

 

So would I, but it's been pointed out previously that it is not that easy for the game determine what is good teamplay and what isn't. They have to assign the XP and credits to something that can be easily measured. Spotting damage is one of the areas where I think the game fails currently, because spotting is very important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GJE]
Players
306 posts
4,302 battles
Just now, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

So would I, but it's been pointed out previously that it is not that easy for the game determine what is good teamplay and what isn't. They have to assign the XP and credits to something that can be easily measured. Spotting damage is one of the areas where I think the game fails currently, because spotting is very important.

Yes, I can imagine it is not easy, and the main reason probably why WG doesn't want to touch it. But like you mentioned there are elements of team play already in the game that should be rewarded more generously. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
5,487 posts
1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

People would contribute later in the game and wait around the first minutes.

 

Camping is not the result of game mechanics or map design, but the result of player ineptitude.

 

For the multiplier as I meant it, it wouldn't matter at which point people contribute, they would get the full benefits with full battle time. Obviously, they'd also be rewarded more if they contributed more as well.

 

Camping can be due to 'ineptitude' as you say, either general ineptitude or inability to play within the narrow parameters given by the game mechanics which is I guess what you would still call ineptitude whereas as I call it bad game design. Our perspectives may be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,083 posts
9,479 battles
12 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

One way would indeed be to have a multiplier that is simply time based

 

Im pretty sure that already exists, however, it is one that counts for everyone (atleast on the winning team, not sure about the losing side).

Ive seen games lasting >17 mins, where everyone got >1k base XP on the winning team, despite doing anything. One game in particular i remember, where we had 3 guys dead after 4 mins, and almost all of them got 1k baseXP, and i can assure, they didnt do anything.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
5,487 posts
3 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Im pretty sure that already exists, however, it is one that counts for everyone (atleast on the winning team, not sure about the losing side).

Ive seen games lasting >17 mins, where everyone got >1k base XP on the winning team, despite doing anything. One game in particular i remember, where we had 3 guys dead after 4 mins, and almost all of them got 1k baseXP, and i can assure, they didnt do anything.

 

Interesting. Haven't paid attention to that because I'm frequently using XP bonus stuff so I don't keep an eye on base XP. Still, there are times when I contribute very little, stay around till the end and also get very little base XP, somewhere around 200-400 range or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,170 posts
14,910 battles

That is not a time multiplier, but is based on the actions of the whole team.

The more the whole team does, the more everyone gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
5,487 posts
4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

That is not a time multiplier, but is based on the actions of the whole team.

The more the whole team does, the more everyone gets.

 

Collective damage multiplier or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,170 posts
14,910 battles
3 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

Collective damage multiplier or something?

Probably not, but was not specified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,083 posts
9,479 battles
31 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

That is not a time multiplier, but is based on the actions of the whole team.

The more the whole team does, the more everyone gets.

 

Got a source for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,240 posts
21,447 battles
9 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

So because someone who dies before the first 5 mins gets like 600 XP instead of 400, people who carry their asses of for wins should basicly never get >2k XP? At best we are talking even like 1500-1700 XP, which usually ends up in the ~2500 region with a win.

 

Nah, if you want to punish suiciders, lower the XP if you die that early. They dont deserve the XP they get. People who play at the maximum for the entire battle deserve their >2k BaseXP.

And btw, those people are bad, they profit regardless if they die early, because they are incapable of getting high Base XP. Speed-YOLO-grinding ftw!

 

Now imagine someone going forward, killing three enemy ships within the first five minutes solo, but then going down, while all the rest of the team is hanging back doing nothing until the battle ends...

Winning side 12 kills - losing side 3 kills... 11 people get rewarded for being slaughtered like good little do nothing piggies but living longer than the one who had some impact on the game, even though not on the outcome...

 

not really, right?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×