16 replies to this topic

[JigglyMoobs]

Lately I've been encountering lots of situations on the solo queue where a member of the team made some important contribution that's not reflected in match score.

Usually this is somebody doing a timely radio call, a -really- good UAV launch, giving some good directions, spotting for lrms or pausing to helping a teammate in trouble, etc.

The automatic bonus scoring system catches some of this but not always, especially if information is reported over voice comms or text chat.

I wish there was a way for teammates to give each other brownie points at the end of a match.

For example, every player who sticks by to match end gets a star to give a teammate, if they wish. The person getting the star gets rewarded with significant extra C-bills and XP. If a person gets a set number of stars, extra achievements are unlocked.

I think this would both foster better teamwork, and give a valuable high fidelity data stream for input into PSR.

I'm suggesting this only for the solo queue since it might be open to farming and other abuse in group queue and CW.

What do you guys think?

Edited by JigglyMoobs, 13 November 2015 - 03:32 AM.

[Ascaloth]

"Gimme stars or report u"

[sycocys]

Are we going back to grade school? Why do we need gold stars and participation awards?

[JigglyMoobs]

sycocys, on 13 November 2015 - 03:32 AM, said:

Are we going back to grade school? Why do we need gold stars and participation awards?

No, we need C-bills and XP.

And.... ok, yeah, some times solo queue games do feel like grade school.

[sycocys]

Nothing is going to foster teamwork in standard queue. The vast majority of those people can't comprehend that it's not "solo" queue and this is a team based game.

Having the only/primary objective being kill the other team limits any opportunity of moving beyond the generic FPS deathmatch mentality.

[pwnface]

I actually don't think this is a bad idea at all.

Alternatively, we could allow players to cast MVP votes for their team when the match ends. Reward the player on each team with the most votes with 100k cbills. Even if someone isn't top damage or kills, players could reward each other for pulling out a clutch victory or leading the charge in a push that won the match. There are definitely intangibles that the current system can not properly award rewards for.

[JigglyMoobs]

pwnface, on 13 November 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

I actually don't think this is a bad idea at all.

Alternatively, we could allow players to cast MVP votes for their team when the match ends. Reward the player on each team with the most votes with 100k cbills. Even if someone isn't top damage or kills, players could reward each other for pulling out a clutch victory or leading the charge in a push that won the match. There are definitely intangibles that the current system can not properly award rewards for.

by either method I think this would be a good way to encourage more team oriented behavior, and possibly even coaching of new players.

with steam debu imminent well need this more than ever.

[Flyby215]

I wholeheartedly agree that there are players whose contributions may not be reflected in the score. I remember a match awhile back in my Gridiron where an Atlas just face tanked everything, keeping me safe and happily firing away. Unfortunately, in such a voting or 'gold-star' scenario, the guy with the highest damage or most kills would just get an even bigger payout than was already earned. In my case, my Gridiron pumped out 5 kills and just over 800 dmg, but none of that would have been possible without the Atlas. Needless to say, I got a few "good job hunchie" comments, but no one even acknowledged the Atlas who protected me the entire match.

I try to make the effort to point out at least a "thanks" when people do something exceptional that isn't reflected in the score, if I could hand out my own c-bills willy nilly to players in gratitude I certainly would. Though, for economy reasons, I don't think the latter is feasible.

[Lugh]

JigglyMoobs, on 13 November 2015 - 03:33 AM, said:

No, we need C-bills and XP.

And.... ok, yeah, some times solo queue games do feel like grade school.

Sometimes?

[JigglyMoobs]

Flyby215, on 13 November 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

I wholeheartedly agree that there are players whose contributions may not be reflected in the score. I remember a match awhile back in my Gridiron where an Atlas just face tanked everything, keeping me safe and happily firing away. Unfortunately, in such a voting or 'gold-star' scenario, the guy with the highest damage or most kills would just get an even bigger payout than was already earned. In my case, my Gridiron pumped out 5 kills and just over 800 dmg, but none of that would have been possible without the Atlas. Needless to say, I got a few "good job hunchie" comments, but no one even acknowledged the Atlas who protected me the entire match.

In that case you can at least give your star to the Atlas.

I'm thinking that because each player has such a limited perspective over what's happening in a match, every gold star should count for something.

An MVP award can then be a bonus achievement that gets unlocked if you get the most stars past some threshold.

Also, it wouldn't be a bad idea at all to be able to give an extra star by spending some of your own c-bills.

[JigglyMoobs]

Haha, since we are supposed to be mercs maybe we can even have an in game reward system that gets dropped as a consumable.

Eg:

Target enemy mech X and drop 10K bonus reward for killing him.

Or.

Put 20k incentive for grid xy for a certain mech class. First mech to make it there that matches class restriction (so its not always a light) get the bounty.

Id very hapily spend some credits to command the PUGs

Edited by JigglyMoobs, 13 November 2015 - 11:07 AM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Not sure it'll help, but what the hell let's give it a go.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Hopefully Rewards 3.0 will help identify these issues with a broader range of reward possibilities by introducing staged rewards.

Example of staged rewards:
Stage 1: Shooting down a UAV within 5 sec after launch gives a “Bird Watcher” reward. 7500CB, 200XP
Stage 2: After 5 seconds, Stage 1 is no longer achievable, and rewards are reduced to 2500CB, 50XP
Stage 2 On-going: The obtainable reward reduces at a rate of 100CB/second while the UAV is in the air. (UAV’s only last 30 seconds anyways, right?)

It’d be great to be able to further identify match contributions by also comparing their actions against the game mode.
Such as if you were heavily involved with capping on conquest: Even though you lost to a cap win (say 690 to 750 for example) you’ll be rewarded as you earned a large portion of those points.
Skirmish could put heavier emphases rewards on killing and surviving (survival rewards based on % of mech remaining at the end of the match)
Base capping in assault can be rewarded in its own way as well. Such as further rewarding base defenders, cappers, and scouters.

[draiocht]

JigglyMoobs, on 13 November 2015 - 03:29 AM, said:

For example, every player who sticks by to match end gets a star to give a teammate, if they wish. The person getting the star gets rewarded with significant extra C-bills and XP. If a person gets a set number of stars, extra achievements are unlocked.

That's a nifty idea, but I wouldn't tie it to such direct in-game benefits. C-bills/xp/etc would sadly open it to sleazy social behavior, even if limited to solo queue. Healthier rewards would be something in the area of PSR, achievements (titles), or leadership functionality (if pgi would develop that further).

Or heck, even if just gold stars next to the name (that eventually tarnish and fade away if people stop voting for that player).

[Felio]

It would just end up going to the people with the most damage/kills, which are already richly rewarded.

[pwnface]

MoonUnitBeta, on 13 November 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

It’d be great to be able to further identify match contributions by also comparing their actions against the game mode.
Such as if you were heavily involved with capping on conquest: Even though you lost to a cap win (say 690 to 750 for example) you’ll be rewarded as you earned a large portion of those points.
Skirmish could put heavier emphases rewards on killing and surviving (survival rewards based on % of mech remaining at the end of the match)
Base capping in assault can be rewarded in its own way as well. Such as further rewarding base defenders, cappers, and scouters.

I'm not sure this is a good idea in the current implementations of those game modes. Players that capped a lot should get extra rewards only if the match ends with a cap win in their favor. A lot of times conquest players will ignore the enemy team to go cap at the detriment of the team. Quick anecdote:

I was playing a match in conquest and a player from my unit was one of the last mechs remaining. We had 3 mechs including my unit member and the enemy team had 2 mechs. My buddy was busy fighting the last 2 enemy mechs and was yelling over VOIP for help from the 2 other mechs on our team who were in lights. Instead of coming to assist they ran the opposite direction to a cap point when we were not in danger of losing by cap. My unit member got overwhelmed eventually and the 2 enemy mechs were able to finish off our last 2 remaining lights as well. Only focusing on capping in conquest without contributing to the actual battle will often cause your team to lose.

[MoonUnitBeta]

pwnface, on 13 November 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:

I'm not sure this is a good idea in the current implementations of those game modes. Players that capped a lot should get extra rewards only if the match ends with a cap win in their favor. A lot of times conquest players will ignore the enemy team to go cap at the detriment of the team.

No, it can’t be rewarded only on a win. That’s the whole point and is the problem that.this is trying to solve. Win or lose, players should be rewarded for attempting to carry out the purpose of the game mode. Your anecdote proves this by illustrating that our current expectation, in a capping game mode, is to play skirmish. The reason for that is because we don’t actually see any benefit to capping which is why probably the entire match the other team was clumped together. We have to change our way of thinking, and stop catering to winning all the time. At this point, I’d really just like to have good games where people are performing more roles than simply DPS machines, and everyone is fighting to win in their own way.

When you reward those who play the game mode for what it actually is about, you are removing their risk of losing out on c-bills. And I’m certain that a big portion of the issue is that players don’t feel like the extra effort is worth it. And the other part of the problem is that we put so much damn much pressure on wins. You either win the jackpot, or not.

So to bring up your anecdote again, I wasn’t at the game, and who knows what those light mechs were thinking lol. I’m not saying eradicate mech fighting in conquest, but simply reduce the risk involved with branching out and doing something else other than clumping together. Remember that the other team you were facing is affected by this incentive as well. Wouldn’t it be great if the risk and pressure on losing wasn’t so high? Win and lose still mattered, but not to the degree that we have now (see: PSR, C-bill earnings…)?

Anyways, I think that’s the cause of our issue, (the risk associated with W/L) and it’s altering our way of thinking and affecting how we play the game. There should be more ways than one to play three game modes...

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 13 November 2015 - 02:25 PM.