29 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

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.

Maybe we actually need less individual rewards?

If the best way to earn C-Bills and XP is too shoot other people (ideally getting lots of assists along the way), but this is actually not the best way to win a match, then the reward system creates tension between the strategy to win a mathc and the strategy to win rewards.

So what, you barely got damage but split up the enemy team so your team could steamroll: T his should manifest in your team's results - the othe rplayers would have gotten more kills, and should have suffered less damage and less losses because of your actions, even if your own damage output, kills or assists where pathetic.

If you would have just run away and hid' in a corner, your enemy team couldn't have done what you did, but your individual score might actually look just as bad.

So, give "team-effort" based rewards. Give the team extra money for every survivor they had, extra money for taking little damage, and shift the overall reward scheme so the rewards for team effort are worth sufficient amounts that "taking one for the team" is worth it.

[Screech]

Or you could change the name from vanguard to cannon fodder and you don't need a reward system, just a shallow grave.

[Modo44]

Yes, make a reward for people who run straight into the open/enemy team. That will greatly improve teamwork.

[PEEFsmash]

I think it would be reasonable to give a cbill reward (maybe 20k) to the player who soaked the most damage.

[Coolant]

never heard of vanguard used that way before, but sure I agree with OP why not have some kind of bonus, but it would have to be a considerable bonus, because I don't like to sit out the rest of the game watching someone else in spectator which is usually what happens if you charge. Now when dropship or whatever they are calling it now (lobbies?) allow you to take multiple mechs in a match, I'll be more careless. There are those that despise rushing in, I'm not one of those, I want to rush in, I just don't currently, because there is a heavy penalty....death. But, when I know I have another mech waiting, it's another story. I played almost exclusively respawn in MW4:Mercs, and prefer it. But it is what it is right now, and I'll be patient and bode my time in matches for now. But, I'll let loose more when another game mode comes out.

[Mystere]

Given that I have a whole lot of experience with this (anyone remember my Banzai charges? ), I say award:

C-Bills = 2^n * normal C-Bill Kill Earnings
XP = 3^n * normal XP Kill Points

where:

n = number of kills

This should be a fair reward for being a vanguard.

[pulupulu]

Mystere, on 17 August 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

Given that I have a whole lot of experience with this (anyone remember my Banzai charges? ), I say award:

C-Bills = 2^n * normal C-Bill Kill Earnings
XP = 3^n * normal XP Kill Points

where:

n = number of kills

This should be a fair reward for being a vanguard.

are those the only condition? if so... what if the first person charge in, hit a mech to 1% hp then died from 8 alpha at the same time; 2nd guy come in and kill the 1% guy, the 2nd guy take the reward?

MustrumRidcully, on 15 August 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

Maybe we actually need less individual rewards?

I think this might be the best direction for a TEAM ORIENTED game.

Why put in reward that can be harmful to the team chemistry?

IMO, they should completely elminate individual reward and just have team reward that is split evenly. I would rather take even pay cut than take less than people who contribute less.

I do expect people to try in a game, unlike what happen in real life communism though.

oh well, i have already played too many game where win or lose is determined by which team had more player that is willing to do dirty job... this will probably be just another.

Edited by pulupulu, 18 August 2013 - 01:11 AM.

[Jestun]

I'm not sure I agree that people should be rewarded for charging in before the rest of their team.

If they are good at it they will be already be rewarded in stats (which then turn into xp / c-bills).

[Stoicblitzer]

in coordinated teamplay back in the day (6-7 months ago), there used to be brawling atlases that went into the enemy and wrecked faces. we called them red team. those guys are no joke.

in pugs...who gives a ****?

Edited by Stoicblitzer, 18 August 2013 - 07:51 AM.

[Jman5]

The idea of rewarding the Vanguard role is an exciting idea because its importance is often overlooked. Unfortunately there are a lot of problems with separating good play that helps the team and bad play that hurts the team.

• How do you determine someone is a vanguard? I don't think there is an easy way to program "first guy over the ridge".
  
• How do you separate a good vanguard charge from some guy just suicide farming? If the rewards for vanguards warrant it, people will just charge over the ridge at the start and torso twist until dead.
  
• Will rewards only be handed out to the dead? What about the guy who took hits and made it out as a stick?

It seems to me that a sort of soft reward feature is the best approach. One that doesn't directly have to be tied to the act of leading the charge over the ridge, but still rewards that type of play best. Otherwise it's probably impossible to divorce a pure vanguard player from a normal player.

• Absorbing damage reward as a function of teammates left. Basically the more players in the game, the more reward you get for absorbing damage. This way, some guy who sat in the back all game isn't going to rake in the cash when 8 enemies converge on him at the end of a wipe. However, this doesn't solve the issue of suicide farmers.
  
• Create a decaying reward timer for every second no one shoots the mech that shot you. Timer resets as soon as someone shoots him. So for example, an Atlas shoots you for 100 damage and you eventually die. You have 30 seconds for someone to shoot that Atlas before your 100 damage absorption reward is gone forever. Reward is not given until the Atlas dies. This solves the issue of some guy just running over the ridge at the start and suiciding. This also solves the issue of poking over the ridge, getting hit, and then cowering back behind the ridge again. If no one shoots that same mech within 30 seconds that damage you took was for naught.

The only issue left, that I'm unsure about is if it's even possible to reward players for damage directed at them that miss. If I lead the charge, but 90% of the enemy fire misses, I'm still performing the same benefit. Perhaps staying in one piece is its own reward. I'm not sure.

Edited by Jman5, 18 August 2013 - 09:34 AM.