29 replies to this topic

[pulupulu]

Vanguard is the most dangerous job in a team. The difference between a good one and a bad one can often result in a win or lose.

There are very few players that is willing to risk taking the first hit.

In my opinion, first player that can do more than 250 dmg within 300m and survive more than 15 seconds right after that deserve recongnition. Reward in form of more c-bill, exp, or something else.

Any thought? Number not fitting?

Edited by pulupulu, 14 August 2013 - 08:28 PM.

[El Bandito]

pulupulu, on 14 August 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

In my opinion, first player that can do more than 250 dmg within 300m and survive more than 15 seconds right after that deserve recongnition.

So you wish to reward those broken-*** Spiders even more?

Edited by El Bandito, 15 August 2013 - 06:08 AM.

[pulupulu]

El Bandito, on 14 August 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

So you wish to rewards those broken-*** Spiders even more?

are you saying that vanguard dont deserve reward even after spider is fixed?

[El Bandito]

pulupulu, on 14 August 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

are you saying that vanguard dont deserve reward even after spider is fixed?

After the hit-reg and Spider hit-boxes are fixed, then lets talk.

[xengk]

[Homeless Bill]

pulupulu, on 14 August 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

first player that can do more than 250 dmg within 300m and survive more than 15 seconds right after that deserve recognition.

But see how arbitrary and random that sounds? It's difficult to actually put into a set of conditions that is vague enough to be useful but strict enough to not be easily abused. What about damage taken? Time enemies were shooting at you? There are many things on the battlefield that aren't rewarded, but it's too difficult to quantify proper conditions.

Damage taken could have been a big use, you having stayed alive and torso twisted to tank for your team. It could also mean you were bad and cowardly, and the eight remaining vultures descended upon you so fiercely that your entire 'mech melted. How would you quantify time being shot at? Time locked on? What if you have ECM or they just aren't targeting you. It's all just too difficult to put into code.

I remember a particular match where I broke up the enemy blob by distracting five of them, leading them away from their base and out towards the Epsilon area. The other seven guys on my team steamrolled, and the fact that I split them early and stayed alive a ridiculous amount of time outweighed the fact that I'd done almost no damage.

Sadly, I don't think there's a good way to score some of the more abstract concepts of battlefield utility.

[Zuesacoatl]

It would make bad players even worse. Just imagine, you have players that do not want to learn group tactics and just run off on their own, now they will get paid more to be dumb...Nah, I think those players that last the entire match need a bigger bonus, they used tactics and more often than not, team play to win. Sure you have the cowards that hide, but to last a whole match takes far more skill than it does to run in first and get your mech shot out from under you.

[pulupulu]

Homeless Bill, on 14 August 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

But see how arbitrary and random that sounds? It's difficult to actually put into a set of conditions that is vague enough to be useful but strict enough to not be easily abused. What about damage taken? Time enemies were shooting at you? There are many things on the battlefield that aren't rewarded, but it's too difficult to quantify proper conditions.

Damage taken could have been a big use, you having stayed alive and torso twisted to tank for your team. It could also mean you were bad and cowardly, and the eight remaining vultures descended upon you so fiercely that your entire 'mech melted. How would you quantify time being shot at? Time locked on? What if you have ECM or they just aren't targeting you. It's all just too difficult to put into code.

I remember a particular match where I broke up the enemy blob by distracting five of them, leading them away from their base and out towards the Epsilon area. The other seven guys on my team steamrolled, and the fact that I split them early and stayed alive a ridiculous amount of time outweighed the fact that I'd done almost no damage.

Sadly, I don't think there's a good way to score some of the more abstract concepts of battlefield utility.

I believe our main difference is that, I believe vanguard fight and scout distract. If you caught their attention and made them chase you 500m, you are a scout that was distracting them.

However, I do agree getting the right number to reward vanguard would be difficult.

El Bandito, on 14 August 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

After the hit-reg and Spider hit-boxes are fixed, then lets talk.

I am posting this because I am willing to bet that spider is fixed before this thread get considered by PGI more than 2 cents.

I also absolutely don't want broken spider get rewarded.

Zuesacoatl, on 14 August 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

It would make bad players even worse. Just imagine, you have players that do not want to learn group tactics and just run off on their own, now they will get paid more to be dumb...Nah, I think those players that last the entire match need a bigger bonus, they used tactics and more often than not, team play to win. Sure you have the cowards that hide, but to last a whole match takes far more skill than it does to run in first and get your mech shot out from under you.

I don't believe bad players can get 250 dmg before melting into wreckage. I have never seen it happen. Bad player just die early and do less than 100 damage, or die last and do less than 200 damage. Don't forget, you still have to survive quite a bit after doing that damage. Bad player just can't get vanguard under the condition I listed.

Edited by pulupulu, 14 August 2013 - 09:30 PM.

[Navy Sixes]

pulupulu, on 14 August 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

However, I do agree getting the right number to reward vanguard would be difficult.

I think getting the definition of 'vanguard' right would be the challenge. I've seen other suggestions like this: rewards for "flanking," "ambush," and the like. I would love to see more diverse tactics on the MWO battlefield, but I don't think rewards like these are the solution. If you did it and did it well, your reward will be "baked in" to your stats at the end: more damage done, more kills, more crits, and a win.

It's no easy thing to be the first man "over the top." I salute you. But there are other roles in MWO that don't get special rewards. How about a "support reward" for doing 200+ dmg via indirect LRM fire? If you've ever fielded LRMs you'd know that's not easy, either. How about a "lightbringer reward" for taking out an enemy's ECM units? How about a "hunter/killer reward" for lights/mediums that take down all of an enemy's lights? We all agree what a pain those Spiders are...

The thing is, all of these things are rewarded, along with executing a successful ambush, flanking, and leading the vanguard. Your team wins. Once you start dishing out extra rewards for people doing what they should to be doing, where do you draw the line?

[pulupulu]

Flanking and ambush get reward from kills.

LRM get reward for getting a ton of damage and often kills.

Hunter/chaser also get kills as reward.

It is unlikely for vanguard to get a kill, and it is also unlikely for vanguard to have enough left of him to get more kills/assist. All other role in the game enable you to do more after, except vanguard. The only thing they get right now is assist, but so do everyone else. While your team win game, everyone else get more reward than the vanguard. Hence I believe reward is needed.

250 dmg within 300m means u r close enough to get hit and still stood (not stand still lol) and fought to allow team mate to come up and support you. Living a bit after that means you were smart to catch attention and still have escape route planned after doing that damage. I think that's pretty impressive. Most likely the vanguard by now is a walking corpse. If you didn't live after initial 250 damage, it means that the opponent didn't need to waste time dispatching you, so that is unimpressive even with 250 damage (and chance of losing ithe match is much higher, since it was just a suicide instead of vanguard).

Edited by pulupulu, 14 August 2013 - 11:55 PM.

[Johnny Reb]

Heh, something like that should be medium or heavy only! That is the lights job.

[pulupulu]

Johnny Reb, on 14 August 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

Heh, something like that should be medium or heavy only! That is the lights job.

I think the ideal mech that is able to pull off the condition I set is most of the medium, faster heavy, and faster assault.

If a light is able to be the first one to do 250 damage and live after, I think that is quite impressive as well. Because a lot of time, 250ish damage is what the light end the game with; it would mean the light stayed longer than other weight class to get that damage.

If a team let a light do that though... they really deserve to lose. (assuming no BS like spider hitbox)

Edited by pulupulu, 14 August 2013 - 11:53 PM.

[Divine Retribution]

I'm not afraid of running in first, and I'm sure I die far more often then I otherwise would, but I don't need an extra reward for it. I stopped doing it in pure pug play because far too often the team just watches me die before the next one goes in, then the next, etc. So I'd rather those that follow me in get a reward for two reasons.

Firstly I'll live more often. Right now with 4 friendly mechs behind me, if I lead the charge against 3 enemy mechs (5v3), it is all too common that I die within 100m of friendlies that refused to turn the corner (I call 'em cowards). If I do serious damage on my own 1-2 will become vultures and try to finish the enemy off (usually go in 1 at a time and fail). I'd think me taking the hits would convince them to pop out and take some free shots, but that fear of getting hit freezes them up.

Secondly it encourages team play rather than having a group on comms, 2-3 who follow along and try to work as a team, and 6 Rambo mechs. That kind of leads back to the first point. If those who backup the mech on point get a bonus, more will follow behind, the mech on point will be more likely to live, and through living the mech on point has the opportunity to earn more rewards.

Providing benefits to the mech on point encourages Rambonomics (my new word and I like it), as whoever blindly rushes in first and does decent damage gets a cookie. Makes me think of the suicide rushing tournaments....

[pulupulu]

Divine Retribution, on 15 August 2013 - 12:18 AM, said:

I'm not afraid of running in first, and I'm sure I die far more often then I otherwise would, but I don't need an extra reward for it. I stopped doing it in pure pug play because far too often the team just watches me die before the next one goes in, then the next, etc. So I'd rather those that follow me in get a reward for two reasons.

Firstly I'll live more often. Right now with 4 friendly mechs behind me, if I lead the charge against 3 enemy mechs (5v3), it is all too common that I die within 100m of friendlies that refused to turn the corner (I call 'em cowards). If I do serious damage on my own 1-2 will become vultures and try to finish the enemy off (usually go in 1 at a time and fail). I'd think me taking the hits would convince them to pop out and take some free shots, but that fear of getting hit freezes them up.

Secondly it encourages team play rather than having a group on comms, 2-3 who follow along and try to work as a team, and 6 Rambo mechs. That kind of leads back to the first point. If those who backup the mech on point get a bonus, more will follow behind, the mech on point will be more likely to live, and through living the mech on point has the opportunity to earn more rewards.

Providing benefits to the mech on point encourages Rambonomics (my new word and I like it), as whoever blindly rushes in first and does decent damage gets a cookie. Makes me think of the suicide rushing tournaments....

we already have reward for those that follow up the lead man. It is savior kill. It give quite a bit of exp. Bad player will be bad player, reward or not; so, we should reward the good players sacrifising themselves.

Edited by pulupulu, 15 August 2013 - 12:52 AM.

[Budor]

I would like something along those lines. The often cited group tactics and players running of on their own being bad are total nonsense in pugs.

Most of the time the self proclaimed tacticians are just a bunch of boring campers that blob the same spot for the duration of the match.

Edited by Budor, 15 August 2013 - 10:22 AM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Award c-bills for damage taken?

[Prezimonto]

Homeless Bill, on 14 August 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

But see how arbitrary and random that sounds? It's difficult to actually put into a set of conditions that is vague enough to be useful but strict enough to not be easily abused. What about damage taken? Time enemies were shooting at you? There are many things on the battlefield that aren't rewarded, but it's too difficult to quantify proper conditions.

Damage taken could have been a big use, you having stayed alive and torso twisted to tank for your team. It could also mean you were bad and cowardly, and the eight remaining vultures descended upon you so fiercely that your entire 'mech melted. How would you quantify time being shot at? Time locked on? What if you have ECM or they just aren't targeting you. It's all just too difficult to put into code.

I remember a particular match where I broke up the enemy blob by distracting five of them, leading them away from their base and out towards the Epsilon area. The other seven guys on my team steamrolled, and the fact that I split them early and stayed alive a ridiculous amount of time outweighed the fact that I'd done almost no damage.

Sadly, I don't think there's a good way to score some of the more abstract concepts of battlefield utility.

Actually, time spent with lock on you wouldn't be a bad way to approximate it. If you manage to pull 3 or 4 mechs to chase you there's probably a good chuck of their team that's focused on you alone for a good amount of time.

In addition, I recognize the downside of damage taken, but I still think it should be a game reward in general and a bonus on assault mechs.

[DaZur]

The only way a vanguard bonus could feasibly be instituted would be if the recipient survived at least .50% of the match length AND obtained a kill or contributed (assist) to the despatch of a mech AND inflicted at least half the applied damage to the assist.

Anything other than a higher expectation would simply lead to players doing their best Leroy Jenkins impersonation in a feeble attempt to garner the bonus regardless of the consequences.

Edited by DaZur, 15 August 2013 - 04:54 AM.

[Sprouticus]

I have always said that rewards should be based upon role. We should select role when you select mechs, and all rewards should be based upon role.


Scouts: get rewarded for:

Primary (20-50 points): spotting mechs. re-spotting mechs (every 30-45 sec)
Secondary (10-20 points): tagging/arning, capping (not just finishing, but or every 5 sec on cap, double rewards for damage to enemy scouts
Tertiary (1-5 points): Damage to all others


Harasser/Flanker:
Primary: double points for dmg to enemy support and command mechs, double rewards when damaging mech while more than 200m from anyone not in your lance)
Secondary: Spotting- initial
Tertiary: capping (less rewards than scouts), dmg to other mechs

Support:
Primary: Double dmg rewards to mechs >500m or out of LoS
Secondary: 1.5x dmg to enemy offensive and defensive mechs
Tertiary: 1/2 dmg rewards to mechs <500m

Offense:
Primary: 1.5x rewards for kills, double dmg rewards to enemy defensive mechs
Secondary: Dmg rewards to others
Tertiary: 1/2 dmg rewards to enemy offensive mechs

Defense

Primary: 1.5x rewards for kills, double dmg rewards to enemy offensive, harasser, and scout mechs
Secondary: Dmg rewards to others
Tertiary: 1/2 dmg rewards to enemy Defensive, command, and support mechs

Command:
Primary: double rewards for wins, rewards for mechs following order (needs to be flush out)
Secondary: Rewards for scouts scouting, flankers flanking, support supporting, offense getitng kills and defense defending
Tertiary: 1/2 rewards for dmg and kills


I know that is a bit complex, and it probably needs work to balance it, but that is the gist.


On the upside, this would also allow the MM system to put the companies together properly. (1-2 command, 2-3 scouts, 2-3 harasser/flanker, 1-2 support, 3-4 offenders, 2-4 defenders)

Edited by Sprouticus, 15 August 2013 - 05:29 AM.

[Divine Retribution]

pulupulu, on 15 August 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

we already have reward for those that follow up the lead man. It is savior kill. It give quite a bit of exp. Bad player will be bad player, reward or not; so, we should reward the good players sacrifising themselves.

The savior kill would only be useful if the point mech were seriously shot to pieces, stayed alive, and the enemies were destroyed.

I've been thinking of a way for the vanguard mech to get a bonus without rewarding bad decisions. I'll run through a few scenarios, the first of which I think might work (but still wouldn't work properly all the time), and the others I'll explain why I think the system would reward bad decisions or not reward noble sacrifice.

#1: Vanguard bonus: Lead mech takes damage from x amount of enemy mechs within a set time period (10 seconds as a guess). Vanguard mech gets a bonus based on the damage done by teammates to those enemy mechs within another set time period (30 seconds as a guess). Bonus scales with the number of enemy mechs the vanguard takes damage from, and the number of friendlies that return damage to the attackers in the time frame. The time frame is key; too long of a time frame and the vanguard gets bonuses after the fact; too short and the vanguard doesn't get what he/she sacrificed for.

That could work, a lone mech running into the enemy wouldn't get any bonus. Even with 2-3 mechs charging together, the lead mech wouldn't get a whole lot. The vanguard mech could receive a decent reward if multiple mechs backed it up did serious damage to the mechs that did damage to the vanguard mech. It relies on the backup mechs, if they are terrible the vanguard mech dies in vain with little reward. If the backup is good, then the charge was not in vain and the vanguard receives a decent bonus.

Potential to encourage bad decisions (a few charging many), but wouldn't reward those decisions very much. Could generate rewards in the wrong way, e.g. 3 mechs charge a large group and target one mech. The three are shot to pieces but the one mech that took damage on the opposing team from the 3 mechs receives a vanguard bonus.

#2: Damage taken reward: This rewards the pilots who can turn to spread out damage to themselves. It also isn't conditional, so a lone mech could build up a decent bonus from being stripped before dying. Serious potential to reward bad decisions (rambonomics).

#3: First mech to charge in and do x amount of damage in brawling range (as in OP's example). Leads to suicide rushes, either alone or in groups. In a large fight the vanguard probably wouldn't get the bonus (would die first). The second or third mech in would probably receive the bonus most of the time. Serious potential to reward bad decisions (rambonomics).

#4: (From DaZur) recipient survived at least .50% of the match length AND obtained a kill or contributed (assist) to the despatch of a mech AND inflicted at least half the applied damage to the assist.

It would apply to a range of situations because there is no dependency on a mech sustaining damage, unless the vanguard is required to die after the set match length percentage. If the vanguard does need to die then in a large engagement it is likely the vanguard wouldn't live long enough to do 50% of the damage to a target. That's if the vanguard mech manages to survive the required percentage of the match.

Do those assessments seem reasonable? Feel free to point out anything I've overlooked.

Edited by Divine Retribution, 15 August 2013 - 06:19 AM.