44 replies to this topic

[DYSEQTA]

BattleBunny, on 23 October 2014 - 05:58 AM, said:

When I am in a game, all my thoughts and actions are based on trying to win that match. I dont want to "farm" matches, I want to win matches. That might be just me though. Maybe more people enjoy farming cbills and exploiting the money system then I imagine.

You don't farm or exploit. You just play well. Playing well gets rewarded.

If anything the previous system was more about cbill farming than the new one.

[o0Marduk0o]

WHY WAS THIS THREAD CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Edited by o0Marduk0o, 23 October 2014 - 06:23 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

o0Marduk0o, on 23 October 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

WHY WAS THIS THREAD CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

to vent

[Iskareot]

BattleBunny, on 23 October 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

(can I correct the typo in the title?)

There are a lot of threads up about the new reward system, but all seem to focus on the system itself. Maybe I missed it, but nobody seems to ask why it was done in the first place.

from developer Alexander Schmidt:



allright. but why?
From where I am sitting this is , with all due respect, an incredibly stupid idea. Assuming the average amount of cbills earned by all players per match is about the same this means:

1. Good players/veteran players/good groups/ players with good mechs (timbies):
will get the bigger rewards here. Do we really need the 1% to get even more money?

2. New players / bad players/ casual players / bad groups:
will struggle to make a buck. consumables for these people are simply out of reach now. Getting stomped was bad enough, Now you are getting stomped without any reward.

These consequences should be obvious, even way before implementing whatever system to achieve the goal specified the quote.

so what is the idea here PGI? why actively gimp newcomers? even with the incoming increase from 10k to 20k for a loss, my 4 casual friends will all have a hell of a hard time getting a new mech. I still get cute screenshots from these guys in my email saying "look I broke 400 damage!" after 3 months of play. Will these people have no place anymore in the game?

This is like saying:

"Why pit newcomers to older players in drops after they win like 4 matches... that alone is bad.".... There is soo many (Why do this with new people).

[Hades Trooper]

o0Marduk0o, on 23 October 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

WHY WAS THIS THREAD CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Cause people have learnt that if that cry and moan and whinge enough PGI will save them.

so in some regards PGI needs to learn to listen to the masses and such but don't just knee jerk react to forum whingers

[Napoleon_Blownapart]

Livewyr, on 23 October 2014 - 06:15 AM, said:

Think of it as incentive to improve your teamwork and tactics.

you know, those guys you still can barely talk to, or come to a stop trying to type to them....

[Joseph Mallan]

Iskareot, on 23 October 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

This is like saying:

"Why pit newcomers to older players in drops after they win like 4 matches... that alone is bad.".... There is soo many (Why do this with new people).

We all start out sometime and throwing me into the mix is just how I like to learn. Now having a better tutorial would be helpful but it won't be the same as Live fire!

[bluepiglet]

The role of recon was neglected before the patch, so they gave extra rewards to encourage players to play lights. But someone working for PGI determined not to increase the average income of the general population. So these buffs for light came at the cost of the rewards of other classes.

[Nightmare1]

New system seems great to me. I made >80,000 C-bills yesterday on a match that, pre-patch, would normally have only rewarded about 50- or 60,000.

When I win, I'm making over 200,000 a match on rounds where I used to only make 180,000-200,000.

This new system rocks!

[Chrithu]

Gotta say I agree. While having more rewards specific to particular roles is nice and should definatly be expanded upon, the idea of creating a larger difference between good and bad matches kind of backfires. And upon all it contradicts PGI's old idea of making sure there is a certain baseline in CBill rewards that isn't underrun.

But I am sure there will be a lot of tuning to the numbers in the coming patches. It is quite clear that the system is prone to creating frustration but I believe that this is absolutely fixable without rolling back.

On another note I also have to critizise the approach of saying: we reduce the existing rewards and spread the difference across the new rewards in hopes to keep the average earnings stable. It is quite obvious that it cannot work when the new rewards are supposed to be role warfare based and thus not every mech will take advantage of them in every match. Besides that there are still some roles that aren't properly covered The system needs fine tuning (more emphasize on protection reward, less difference between assist/kill/solo kill/brawler, higher baseline reward for lost matches) and a few more role based awards (LRM support, Sniping Support).

But all cirtics aside the new system still is an improvement over the old into the right direction and should be the base for the future.

[Livewyr]

Bringing back a Vassagoism- with a twist: "Space Poors"

[Angel of Annihilation]

I think the concept behind the new rewards but the execution is bad.

One of the main issues is that changing the reward structure changes the rewards each player receives based on play style. Even if the overall reward averages out over the entire player base to what it was before your still going to have people who are either getting much more reward and others who are getting much less. Obviously anyone making less now is going to be unhappy.

Part of the problem is that not all mechs engage in the same style of play. For example, mech A might be a fast flanker and they get all kinds of bonuses for flanking and such which gives them a 300k reward every match but other mechs like a slow Assault might not be able to take advantage of this and have to rely on other rewards that don't equal up to the same as a fast flanker and this is what I think it going on right now. That being said, you potential end up with an unfair distribution of reward.

What they really should do is make the reward be generated primarily by the teams performance, say 80% of your reward is a even 12 way split. This would encourage team play. Then make the other 20% of your reward come from individual play. This is basically a bonus that you get for playing well.

For example:

Team A wins the match and gets as a team 2,496,331 C-bills for every action that the entire team does. This is the sum reward amount for all actions of every team player.

Then the system looks at the activity level of each player and looks for how long that player is moving and actively engaging in the match.

70% activity and greater = full share
50% activity and greater = .75 share
30% activity and greater = .50 share
Less than 30% = .10 share

Then based on this activity level, that 2,496,331 get divided and this is the team share a player gets.

Then the reward system looks at individual activity and awards out C-bills based on individual actions and activity. This accounts for roughly 20% of the total reward.

It would end up looking like this:
9 Players at 70% = Full share
2 Players at 50% = .75 Share
1 Player at 30% = .50 Share
Total shares = 11

2,496,331/11 = 226,939 per share

9 players get team reward of 226,939 each
2 players get team reward of 170,204 each
1 player gets team reward of 113,465

Then calculated out individual rewards which would equal out to up to a 20% bonus give or take and you have something like this.

9 players = between 226k and 260k depending on their individual contribution,
2 players between 170k and 215k depending on their individual contribution,
1 player between 113k and 168k depending on their individual contribution.


Obviously this is rough and would need to be tweaked but the end result is a much more fair distribution of reward that encourages both team play and activity while still rewarding individual play and actions.

[UnsafePilot]

bluepiglet, on 23 October 2014 - 06:29 AM, said:

The role of recon was neglected before the patch, so they gave extra rewards to encourage players to play lights. But someone working for PGI determined not to increase the average income of the general population. So these buffs for light came at the cost of the rewards of other classes.

I don't own any lights and my earnings have increased since the last patch. I think there's a few more variables in the equation than just light's stealing earnings from other places.

[Matta]

New reward system is implemented first and foremost to finally give lights and mediums reason to be in the game.

Aditionally, new reward system rewards active players who contribute to the game and punishes player who suicide runs into enemy just to farm C-Bills.

New reward system does NOT punish new player if new player has any clue what he needs to do in the game.
If he doesn't have any clue then, I'm sorry, but he needs to learn how to play the game, just as any other game on the market.

On my behalf - PGI, excellent job on the new reward system. My lights and mediums thank you for it !

[o0Marduk0o]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 October 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

to vent

I see, makes sense!

[Xione87]

UnsafePilot, on 23 October 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

Savior kills and flanking rewards come from 'actually shooting stuff'.

Ah correction: I meant straight up shooting people in the face. I keep trying to shoot mechs in the back using my mediums but I rarely get a 'flanking' shot. However LRMs that come in from 600m dead on are somehow considered flanking because the shooter isn't enganged...

Saviour kills are very situational, you might do a lot of damage to a target but not get the saviour kill because it wanders off and somebody else later finishes it.

I think the mentality of the new system is good, but it just needs tuning. Perhaps reducing Flanking and Saviour rewards a bit and putting this money in areas that are lacking, such as damage dealt and perhaps damage taken (assuming your team wins).

[Livewyr]

Viktor Drake, on 23 October 2014 - 06:35 AM, said:

What they really should do is make the reward be generated primarily by the teams performance, say 80% of your reward is a even 12 way split. This would encourage team play. Then make the other 20% of your reward come from individual play. This is basically a bonus that you get for playing well.

I would quit... flat out.
Holy mother of god would I quit. (MWO wealth redistribution economy...to the letter.)

If am going to carry a team.. I am not going to give them around 80% of my earnings because they existed.

If they want earnings.. then can you know.. "earn" them.
If I am going to make cbills, I am going to earn them. If I do something stupid, get off'd early.. I am not going to expect much.

I refuse to rely on my team either way... especially pugs.



(Please tell me this was a troll post?)

[Livewyr]

You get what you earn.

The team aspect is already taken care of with capture rewards, proximity rewards, etc..

Edited by Livewyr, 23 October 2014 - 08:05 AM.

[Macksheen]

And really, they uplifted the rewards in general I think - there's more $ to be made.

You don't get the TAG and NARC bonuses folks are complaining about unless, you know, someone does damage and kills the thing presumably you helped light up.

[Tynan]

The new system is infinitely better, they just need to increase the payout on some of the values. This should be expected, frankly, for such a large change. They're already increasing some today in the hotfix, and if rewards generally continue to be subpar we can probably get them bumped up again.

As to why a bad match should pay out less than a good match...I'm not certain why that even warrants a response.

But to answer the subject question, it was implemented because the old system was godawful.