51 replies to this topic

[nehebkau]

I’ve been conducting a bit of an experiment. Now I know I am not going to win any awards for my scientific method but it’s hard to be perfect when you control so little of the environment you are operating in.

First, some background – I don’t use VOIP, nor do I ever group up with anyone; my lot in life is to be the singleton filling your premade or another pawn in the PUG roster. I’ve had over 4100 matches, about 1350 in lights, about 750 in mediums, about 1300 in heavies and about 700 in assaults. Up unti recently I’ve began to see an improvement in my KDR to 1.40 and my earnings. (In a few mechs I am at the 3 KDR level – ill explain below). My test has been concerned with determining if playing for yourself (i.e. being selfish) or playing for the team earns more C-bills and experience.

Playing Selfish:
In playing selfish I would follow a simple rule do what you can to get as many kills and hits for yourself as you can and getting hit as little as possible. Usually that consisted of:

• holding back from the initial battles, waiting for enemy armor to get stripped and occasionally taking distance pot-shots (if it wouldn’t reveal my position).
  
• Letting my team-mates get butchered, weakening the enemy so that my shots would not have as much armor to go through.
  
• Abandoning allies when the odds turned to preserve myself and therefore my duration in the fight
  
• Ignoring capping or other non-battle game conditions (even if it means a loss).
  
• Equip a mech for as much pin-point damage as possible.
  
• Only providing intel to serve my interests, even providing misinformation if it served my purpose.

Playing Friendly
In playing friendly I would follow the rules of altruism, helping my team and allies whenever necessary. This usually consisted of:

• Going for objectives in non-skirmish games where needed.
  
• Equipping team-helping modules and consumables like UAV, artillery strike etc.
  
• Equipping team-helping equipment like BAP, ECM, AMS, NARC and TAG, using those wherever possible
  
• Providing accurate intel and numbers to the team in chat
  
• Sticking with the team and providing support during retreats and back filling allied mech vulnerabilities (I.e. protecting assaults from light-swarms)
  
• Going to help isolated or outnumbered team-mates.
  
• Use mechs that are equipped help support other team-mates.

Mech choice examples:

Typical self-interest mechs would be like these:

Muromets-B 3 AC10, 2 SML

Jenner JR7F – 6ML

Shadowhawk SHD-2hp 1 AC20, 1 ERLL

Typical group friendly mechs would be:

Battlemaster BLR-1s 2-LRM 20, 3ML, TAG, BAP, AUAV

Jenner JRS-D(s) NARC, 4ML, AMS, AUAV,

Kintaro KTO-18 5 SSRM2, 2ML, BAP, UAV,

What Did I find out? For 120 games played, following this method, I found that for group friendly play style, my earnings were typically much lower (50 K average difference), my costs in group friendly games were typically higher (consumables) and my win loss ratio was much worse -- .096 (friendly) vs. 1.26 (selfish). Of course, my KDR was much higher playing selfish, averaging 1.0 (friendly) vs 2.54(selfish). In many instances, I would come out with more cbills and exp on a selfish play style loss than a group-friendly win.

Now, I must admit I enjoyed playing the friendly style more than the selfish style – but that’s just my personality but I can’t ignore that in a game with GXP, exp and C-bills are king, the rewards for being, well, a jerk, would be much greater than being a ‘stand-up’ guy. Usually, the rewards for TAGing, NARCing and UAVing were far less than the cost of using them or cost in weight and lost equipment slots and the rewards for completing non-combat mission objectives are non-existent.

So, is this an anomaly that I’ve encountered just in my play experience or is this really what is happening out there? Is the best way help your team to load as much pin-point damage on the CT of your enemy as possible ignoring everything else? If it is the current state of the game, is that really where we want it to be?

[Khobai]

Its definitely a messed up system.

Shooting assault mechs in the arms and legs and racking up damage is worth way more than killing them efficiently with headshots or well-placed backshots.

This is the only game I know of where killing the enemy as inefficiently as possible is rewarded.

[DaZur]

The problem stems from emphasizing reward over survival and being team-centric... A hurdle that cannot be avoided save removing the profit mechanic from the game.

The only way to mitigate this effect would be to construct mission parameters that reward being team-centric over selfish game-play.

[wanderer]

Have salvage matter more for C-bills and blowing bits off a 'Mech matter more for exp.

Things should balance a bit more

[Joseph Mallan]

Just a point, if one is playing to be a true team player, then his personal results are not even on his mind. Back when I was raining fire support from my Atlas, I din't get lots of kills but did help (there wasn't assists back then so I don't have raw data.

I prefer Cap to Mach Any day.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 February 2014 - 09:33 AM.

[DaZur]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 February 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

I prefer Cap to Mach Any day.

I like you choose Cap'Merica...

I'd hazard the guess as to "why" being that we (and players like us) are playing out some pseudo role-playing, even if it's in our minds... where we are doing more than mechanically dropping into a mission and mindlessly shooting enemies with no repercussion or recourse.

It's called "playing a game"... wish more players would remember how to "play".

Edited by DaZur, 19 February 2014 - 09:42 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Well, can't you play both? The "selfish" builds are all centered around pin point damage where as your "friendly" builds are more scattered with missiles. The truth is that missiles are borked from the jump and highly unreliable. I run a meta Victor, though I admit to not being anywhere near as the great ones, but I don't play the game, while in that mech, any differently then I would any other mech. I cover my teammates, I try to seal off edges, I back off and flank with others, etc. I run a TAG Locust with an ER Lrg but I only take that when I'm with a group that is running LRMs (no point when you don't know if anyone in the PUG mass has LRMs or even knows how to use them let alone which end does what). I typically don't run AMS because, aside from derp moments, I hug the terrain and set up shop in spots where I have cover. My ECM mechs (Cicada 3M and Atlas D-DC) both play close to the group to cover them but I make breaks/pushes when the window is open.

My rambling aside, the point still remains: You can play both ways despite your builds. The end result is how you feel about the game and not so much about the e-rewards from the game. Go for the win and let everything else be secondary.

[IronChance]

The problem with playing team-friendly is that it's only going to work well if the majority of your teammates are also playing team friendly, as I'm sure the OP found out. This is why I went to teamspeak as fast as possible when I started playing the game and have never looked back.

When I pug drop now, I'll occasionally play team-friendly, but only if the situation calls for it. A perfect example is going for Epsilon on Terra Therma Conquest. If I start in the lance nearest or even NEXT nearest, I'll go there and I'll fight to the last armor point supporting them. That being said, however, most of the time I honestly think I support the team just fine by staying alive as long as possible and inflicting as much damage as possible. Coordinating any finer team play without TeamSpeak is just too much of a headache.

[Ragnar Darkmane]

DaZur, on 19 February 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

The problem stems from emphasizing reward over survival and being team-centric... A hurdle that cannot be avoided save removing the profit mechanic from the game or adding Community Warfare.

The only way to mitigate this effect would be to construct mission parameters that reward being team-centric over selfish game-play.

Fixed that for 'ya.

[Sandpit]

You SHOULD have a control group. That would be the group that gives you a baseline without having any deviations or modifications. It's near impossible to do here though.

I do better in some builds than I do others simply because they fit my playstyle better and do better with them even if I'm dropping solo. I liked that you actually collected some data over a long period though. I think if a lot more did this instead of "Here's 4 screenshots out of 40 matches" type stuff and looked at it in an unbiased manner they'd learn it's not as bad as they want it to be.

It's interesting though, I'm starting to see more and more players running "experiments" like this and many are surprised.

I DO think the team rewards need to be worth much more than individual though. That alone would change how some play. Although then you'd get the "elite" solo players complaining about how their rewards have dropped and their individual skill should net them greater rewards.

[Bhael Fire]

As a predominantly solo player, I'm always looking out for me first; I have no problems "kill stealing" a near-death mech or abandoning a hopeless battle...

However, I also try to win as often as I can...and as it turns out helping your team is often the best way to accomplish this.


But I completely agree that the reward system in this game rewards very bad behavior and discourages role warfare. It's all about the kills, damage and component destruction.

[DaZur]

Ragnar Darkmane, on 19 February 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

Fixed that for 'ya.

I wish that were true... and It is my long-term hope for it to be so...

That said, in it's raw format, CW will still be nothing more than the existing play-style with the balance of a planet or some asset hanging in balance.

In order for CW be anything more than a soulless cause/effect mechanism... missions will need some legs, I.e... a depth of play reminiscent of goal based single-player stuff that requires players to make deeper decisions than "go right" or "go left" and "whom to shoot"...

[Deathlike]

This thread is interesting, and I would like to subscribe to this random newsletter.

I don't play "solo hero" as much, because I don't have enough individual skill to kill stuff on my own (unless, I'm pretty sure I can nail it based on the situation). It doesn't help me win.

Since I'm usually relegated to team player (which I'm more than fine with), collecting the rewards is easy (Khobai has it right) where skimming everything for assists is the only way to make C-bills in this game. The thing rewarded correctly is XP, where your contribution tends to get you XP. C-bills for Assists are simply NOT SCALED CORRECTLY for this purpose at all.

The best way to succeed is to learn/know your role, despite the lack of real role warfare, and usually success follows.

Unfortunately, some players "won't get a clue", so you may be more or less resigned to your fate. Mechs/builds don't affect it too much... it's the people willing to understand and figure out "what is the best course to win?" Not everyone is born to figure this out.

Note: All games where you know it is hopeless, it becomes almost sad that reverting to "solo warrior" is the goto choice. It happens more than you think.

Edited by Deathlike, 19 February 2014 - 10:59 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 19 February 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

You SHOULD have a control group. That would be the group that gives you a baseline without having any deviations or modifications. It's near impossible to do here though.

I do better in some builds than I do others simply because they fit my playstyle better and do better with them even if I'm dropping solo. I liked that you actually collected some data over a long period though. I think if a lot more did this instead of "Here's 4 screenshots out of 40 matches" type stuff and looked at it in an unbiased manner they'd learn it's not as bad as they want it to be.

It's interesting though, I'm starting to see more and more players running "experiments" like this and many are surprised.

I DO think the team rewards need to be worth much more than individual though. That alone would change how some play. Although then you'd get the "elite" solo players complaining about how their rewards have dropped and their individual skill should net them greater rewards.

I would love to take part in something like this. Being part of studies on how this that or the other works in this game would be interesting in a good way I think.

We have time since we have yet to see what the actual game is like.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 February 2014 - 11:00 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

DaZur, on 19 February 2014 - 09:42 AM, said:

I like you choose Cap'Merica...

I'd hazard the guess as to "why" being that we (and players like us) are playing out some pseudo role-playing, even if it's in our minds... where we are doing more than mechanically dropping into a mission and mindlessly shooting enemies with no repercussion or recourse.

It's called "playing a game"... wish more players would remember how to "play".

Its more cause that is just who I am. I was out with my 1st wife having dinner when the restaurant's kitchen belched out smoke. I got my wife out of the building, Then ran back in to see if anyone was still inside.

Turned out the fire suppression system malfunctioned and extinguished the grill! My inner hero didn't know that. I just reacted. That day my fight or flight was set to Hero mode.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 February 2014 - 11:04 AM.

[SI The Joker]

Sandpit, on 19 February 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

I DO think the team rewards need to be worth much more than individual though. That alone would change how some play. Although then you'd get the "elite" solo players complaining about how their rewards have dropped and their individual skill should net them greater rewards.

+1 - team rewards need to be the focal point. KDR means nothing in this game. Your team record, to me at least is what matters. If you are looking for how 'skilled' a player is... I'd say accuracy is a better judge.

DaZur, on 19 February 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

That said, in it's raw format, CW will still be nothing more than the existing play-style with the balance of a planet or some asset hanging in balance.

In order for CW be anything more than a soulless cause/effect mechanism... missions will need some legs, I.e... a depth of play reminiscent of goal based single-player stuff that requires players to make deeper decisions than "go right" or "go left" and "whom to shoot"...

I'll harp on this till the day I die. PGI should not be trying to implement something for CW. Provide the game & APIs to authenticate via your profile and provide data so that folks with application/database experience can build this themselves like has been done with every other MW game in the past. The leagues were so deep... politics and betrayal was common. I truly believe that anything less will leave this community even more dissatisfied.

Build an incredible game and let the community decide how best to setup & manage its own competitive atmosphere.

EDIT: Now that's not to say that PGI couldn't do a solaris setup instead of their plans for CW. That still gives them something to monetize which caters to the more casual players. You want leaderboards? There they are. You want depth, intrigue, politics, betrayal, economics, planetary assault & management... let the community handle that.

Edited by SI The Joker, 19 February 2014 - 11:12 AM.

[Sandpit]

Bhael Fire, on 19 February 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

But I completely agree that the reward system in this game rewards very bad behavior and discourages role warfare. It's all about the kills, damage and component destruction.

I've actually found I get more money on average by getting assists more than anything else well that and savior kills

[Joseph Mallan]

SI The Joker, on 19 February 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

+1 - team rewards need to be the focal point. KDR means nothing in this game. Your team record, to me at least is what matters. If you are looking for how 'skilled' a player is... I'd say accuracy is a better judge.



I'll harp on this till the day I die. PGI should not be trying to implement something for CW. Provide the game & APIs to authenticate via your profile and provide data so that folks with application/database experience can build this themselves like has been done with every other MW game in the past. The leagues were so deep... politics and betrayal was common. I truly believe that anything less will leave this community even more dissatisfied.

Build an incredible game and let the community decide how best to setup & manage its own competitive atmosphere.

EDIT: Now that's not to say that PGI couldn't do a solaris setup instead of their plans for CW. That still gives them something to monetize which caters to the more casual players. You want leaderboards? There they are. You want depth, intrigue, politics, betrayal, economics, planetary assault & management... let the community handle that.

That's all I have to say abut that.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 February 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

I would love to take part in something like this. Being part of studies on how this that or the other works in this game would be interesting in a good way I think.

We have time since we have yet to see what the actual game is like.

I don't know how you would actually do it though. Without knowing Elos, private matchmaking, etc. I'd love to do some actual "good" data collection for a few reasons, the primary one being that I think a lot of the complaints we get (aside from the "legit" and "i want an easy button" ones) are based in misinformation which leads players to draw the wrong conclusions AND players complaining about an issue that PGI doesn't see which means they are listening but don't see the issue many may be complainign about because they may very well be complaining about the wrong issue.

[Joseph Mallan]

Yeah they have pretty much all the data, it would be nice to see more, "This is the way Elo has been working, If you see something outside of this notify us!"