63 replies to this topic

[SaltBeef]

New rewards system is all right I even broke 300000 a few times but if your on the losing team of a Rollstompfest you will get little to nothing. This will make Bad days even worse and Noobs leave the game IMHO. Bump rewards for surviving family member insurance program.

[Bront]

Russ Bullock, on 22 October 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

We will be looking at a pile of data today in the community averages. But also cherry picking some volunteers and looking at their pre and post earnings.

Feel free to check mine out. I think the XP hit has been harder on me than the CBill hit, but the good games range from almost right to strangely bad with PT, while the bad games are downright insulting, even if I didn't have a really bad game. XP wise, I should have had at least double. Even the good XP farming match felt like I should have had more.

I think my CBill earnings average went down by 4,000 per match on average (as in, in my stats they went down from 111,000 to 107,000) and I have PT running right now.

[Nightmare1]

I'm lovin' the new system! I haven't needed to change my play style, and I'm earning right about what I used to for my "average" matches. Good wins are netting me about 20,000 C-bills more than I previously earned, and the same goes for my bad losses.

There hasn't been a noticeable increase or decrease to my XP each match; that seems to have been unchanged.

Major thumbs up PGI! This is one of your best updates yet!

Edited by Nightmare1, 22 October 2014 - 09:43 AM.

[Bront]

AdamBaines, on 22 October 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

Interesting to me that PGI is reporting a flux of 5-10% but the players base is reporting much higher. It would be nice to see the proof on both sides of this. From PGI their hard data that point to their average vs players here show their before and after scores. Maybe the players here reporting to heavy loss are out-liars? I have not had a chance to login and play yet, but Im already prepping my pre patch scores so I can compare.

Averages can do that.

You earn 200,000 a match, I earn 100,000 a match, average is 150,000. With rebalance, you earn 250,000, I earn 50,000, and average is still 150,000, but you're happy you got a small bump, while I'm upset I got a huge nerf (% speaking). Now, when players can pull in 400,000 easier, it averages out the players making under 40,000 and makes it look better as an average. What they need to do is examine not only the averages, but the spreads, because I think they'll find the average is back-loaded with bad games being pulled up but the very good games.

[Meta 4]

I agree that the dichotomy between wins and losses is much greater! I have had some great games where I earn a lot of C-Bills. I seem to earn more in my lights, but when I have a meh or bad game in a medium or above I have seen really terrible terrible payouts. I used to use UAV's to help my team, but now it is far too risky to waste one and possible net -10k on a game.

I think this may end up creating more player hate and rage quits because people will be PISSED when they lose. (Of course it is everyone else's fault but their own...)

My recommendations: Increase some of the C-Bill things by ~10% & Lower the cost of consumables.



My recommendations:

[Deathone]

Alexander Schmidt, on 21 October 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

The outcome that you should see is a bigger difference between bad rounds and good rounds that went really well.

So the winners of Reward 2.0 are the winners from pre-Reward 2.0. Good player (or lucky players with a good group) will earn more, all others earn nothing.

I just had 7 bad games in a row and i earned nothing. In the first games i made the mistake to use airstrikes or UAV as i did it pre-Reward 2.0. At the end i payed CBills to loose a game plus 10minutes of my lifetime. Wow thats funny *sarcasm*

Sorry believe it or not .. this is a step more in the P2W direction.

[Enaris]

I haven't played a great deal in the new system yet, but I do think that the point about new players being overly punished is a quite important.

Further, a system where you are (not very subtly) encouraged to play in a particular manner is also going to be very hard on new players. It's approaching the point of information overload. They're still trying to figure out the basics of running their mech, but now have to add all the "role" aspects into their brain just to try to scavenge a little bit of money. I honestly think that if the system stays this way to this extent, you'll see even more new player churn.


Russ, I don't have a huge pile of games of late, but feel free to use me as a guinea pig if you want.

[Bront]

Just another comment on the rewards.

The only time I broke 200,000 (that I remember, and with PT) rewards was with LRM Boats. Why? Because not only did I stay in a pack (which I tend to do anyway, but easier to do with a boat), but I got more spotting and flanking bonuses than I might have otherwise, as did my team. With the TAG and NARC bonuses as well, it seems LRM boating is heavily rewarded as a team more than other play styles.

And my rewards still felt low.

[Tvrdoglavi]

Great changes. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up needing some tweaking along the way but this is the right direction for game rewards.
Only suggestion I have would be to increase the reward for damage done and tie it to mech tonnage by making it damage/ton.Feel free to use my data for looking at the rewards.

Edited by Tvrdoglavi, 22 October 2014 - 10:07 AM.

[Orbit Rain]

Russ Bullock, on 22 October 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

We will be looking at a pile of data today in the community averages. But also cherry picking some volunteers and looking at their pre and post earnings.

Say the community average stays the same, but if it turns out that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, you're gonna lose some percentage of the poorer players. It's money put of your pocket. The rich have less incentive to premium, and the poor get too aggravated to stick around.

Edited by Orbit Rain, 22 October 2014 - 10:02 AM.

[PappySmurf]

I was expecting PGI to be smart with the new reward system and leave everything the way it was for everyone and just add in more rewards for those players that carried harder so regular and new players still averaged 80k-120k C-bills per battle with minimal effort and those that excel get like 120k-300k per battle when they carry a team.

But no PGI has to try and make it so dam complicated and pisss off all there player base in a over effort to balance C-bills-MC purchases.If PGI wants to alienate there old players which is still there gravy money and have all the casual and new players uninstall well brother there on the right path.

If Russ is not brainstorming this debacle I would find who is and give them a free golden mech and a pink slip.

[Prezimonto]

clownwarlord, on 22 October 2014 - 04:21 AM, said:

The only down side I have noted so far is Assault Brawlers do not earn as much as other mech builds. The bonus help a lot of other mech builds in the C-Bill grind but since damage is the biggest thing that Assault Brawlers do and really nothing else they will most likely suffer from it until people either do combo builds (lrms, ac20, and medium lasers in an atlas) or make a switch to a completely different role build such as weapon platform sniping or lrm boating in their assault mechs. This also might help get people out of their assault and heavy mech which of late they have been the biggest groups in mech que.

What they need is the opposite rewards to the "protect" rewards for lights and mediums. So if you're engaged in the those mechs and taking damage instead of your little buddies, you're also earning pay. Unless that's already how it works, in which case sorry for wasting everyone's time.

[Kivatu]

the reward 2.0 is fine,was shocked at first.. i had a match as low as 17k (tho i honestly think me and the team perform badly in that match, ppl spreading out . no coordination ,our lights doing banzai early in the match... etc)...and another match where i have made 444 damage but end up with 90+k ... but there are some matches where i hit 210+k ..with no premium time activated mind you, and wow the feeling was awesome,, we all performed very well ...and thats how reward should be..should feel. .. heck no coach will throw a party for his team at the pizzaria after losing a football match 12-5...and naaaa not even for his top scorer that singlehandedly scores all their 5 goals for the team.

[AdamBaines]

Bront, on 22 October 2014 - 09:46 AM, said:

Averages can do that.

You earn 200,000 a match, I earn 100,000 a match, average is 150,000. With rebalance, you earn 250,000, I earn 50,000, and average is still 150,000, but you're happy you got a small bump, while I'm upset I got a huge nerf (% speaking). Now, when players can pull in 400,000 easier, it averages out the players making under 40,000 and makes it look better as an average. What they need to do is examine not only the averages, but the spreads, because I think they'll find the average is back-loaded with bad games being pulled up but the very good games.

So then if its about averages...where PGIs data shows on average is balancing out within 5-10%, the people here who are seeing a 50% difference are more then likely to be outliers, on the out edges of the bell curve.

[Munin]

so far all the matches I played yesterday showed a mark decrease in income. if you aren't in a meta-style mech and doing well as a result, you get screwed. I ran around with a Huginn, and did my average *200-400 damage, usually a kill or two depending, lot of assists, bit of scouting*, and got on average 40,000-50,000 c-bills instead of the 80,000-100,000 I would average before. I think the problem their running into with peoples reactions is they've lowered the floor and made it so you HAVE to minmax the role warfare to break even, rather than leaving the base amount decent and make the role warfare just make it that much better. if you're a new player and have no idea what the role warfare even is, they are gonna get screwed. if you use a tactic that doesn't mesh with the role warfare, again your still gonna get screwed. even when playing with my group over voicechat and using tactics I STILL was making much lower than I usually make for the same output *for those that say 'be a team player and stop running and hiding', not the case*.

[Bront]

AdamBaines, on 22 October 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

So then if its about averages...where PGIs data shows on average is balancing out within 5-10%, the people here who are seeing a 50% difference are more then likely to be outliers, on the out edges of the bell curve.

Possiby, but I was doing an average of 2 people. Let's try 12.

Team 1 Team 2
Player 1 180000 280000
Player 2 170000 265000
Player 3 160000 240000
Player 4 150000 140000
Player 5 140000 125000
Player 6 130000 100000
Player 7 120000 90000
Player 8 110000 70000
Player 9 100000 55000
Player 10 90000 50000
Player 11 80000 45000
Player 12 70000 40000
Average 125000 125000

In one, earnings are spread out pretty evenly. In the other, the earnings are top and bottom heavy, and less people make the average, because it's easier to blow past the average for a high game than it is to pull the average down due to the earnings floor.

I think we're in an economy where we're closer to team 2.

[Alaskan Nobody]

SaltBeef, on 22 October 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

surviving family member insurance program.

So long as they call it something like that, sure!

[Votanin FleshRender]

Speaking for myself, I LOVE the changes, and I don't believe it affected my earning at all. Yeah, my bad games I only made 30-40k, but my good games I easily made 200k, and broke 300k sometimes, so I feel pretty strongly it evens out for veteran players.
And I'm a mediocre player at best.

But I also completely agree with the new/bad player experience being bad enough already. Lowering their earnings ain't gonna help.

[AdamBaines]

Bront, on 22 October 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

Possiby, but I was doing an average of 2 people. Let's try 12.

Team 1 Team 2
Player 1 180000 280000
Player 2 170000 265000
Player 3 160000 240000
Player 4 150000 140000
Player 5 140000 125000
Player 6 130000 100000
Player 7 120000 90000
Player 8 110000 70000
Player 9 100000 55000
Player 10 90000 50000
Player 11 80000 45000
Player 12 70000 40000
Average 125000 125000

In one, earnings are spread out pretty evenly. In the other, the earnings are top and bottom heavy, and less people make the average, because it's easier to blow past the average for a high game than it is to pull the average down due to the earnings floor.

I think we're in an economy where we're closer to team 2.

Interesting info. Thanks. Well we will see how it is over time as players adjust to the new rewards system.

[Deathlike]

One of the biggest things I believe that is missing in the rewards... is defending a cap, specifically in Assault.

There are certain times where generally both teams "miss each other" and decide to cap the base. What tends to happen is that the Light mechs get to their base to slow/prevent the cap while their team caps the opfor's base or comes back to defend the base.

The problem is that the Light that "slows down" the cap isn't rewarded. Maybe I'm not seeing which reward does what (there are too many to account for at this point in time), but I've felt this was missing or forgotten somewhere along the lines... because of the mech's sacrifice (it's not always a Light, but generally happens to be that way) and it goes unrewarded (especially since you stop really gaining rewards by dying).

So, that really needs to be looked at.

Edited by Deathlike, 22 October 2014 - 11:06 AM.