28 replies to this topic

[Chryckan]

Now during the lootbag event as everyone is scrambling to get those precious 150 points it has become obvious that the one thing you don't get rewarded for is paying smart or even winning.

That the score mechanic is something of a mystery is no secret. Still what you can tell is that kills and damage counts against most of the score.
After all you can get a higher score if you just do enough damage as you lose when your team gets stomped, than if you win a game by capturing an enemy base without firing a shot.

Case in point.
I recently won an assault scenario game on Crimson Straights where my entire team won the game by capturing the base without a single death on either team and I doubt less than a third on my team even fired at an enemy mech.

You can argue that such a game is boring or lame.

But it doesn't change the fact that it was smart or a win. An easy win in fact.

It was in truth a perfect game. The equivalent of a shut-out in hockey. Pitching a no hitter in baseball.

Yet no one on our team got a score above 100. Most of us didn't even break 50.

So the score we got for winning the scenario flawlessly was a lot less than what we would have received by going out fighting while getting stomped.

Which is a bit unfortunate since you'd want a scoring system to reward skill and smarts.

And if you introduce game scenarios like assault, capture and domination were brute force isn't a required victory condition.
Then winning those scenarios by fulfilling the victory conditions by using smarts and not force should be rewarded in the score more than brute force.

[Alistair Winter]

I've just repeat what I've said countless times.

MWO is the only FPS games I've played where neither the players nor the devs are actually encouraging flawless victories. If you can win the match immediately, without taking any casualties, then the devs will punish you (smaller rewards) and the other players will moan at you.

Does that sound like good game design?

[Dracol]

Alistair Winter, on 20 June 2016 - 02:43 AM, said:

I've just repeat what I've said countless times.

MWO is the only FPS games I've played where neither the players nor the devs are actually encouraging flawless victories. If you can win the match immediately, without taking any casualties, then the devs will punish you (smaller rewards) and the other players will moan at you.

Does that sound like good game design?

Considering we're spending time out of match to build and tweek our mechs with weapons and armor, and each match we only have 1 life to utilize said weapons... in my opinion, yes. Its a game design philosophy that encourages the behavior most people are here for: Mech Combat.

[Alistair Winter]

Dracol, on 20 June 2016 - 06:25 AM, said:

Considering we're spending time out of match to build and tweek our mechs with weapons and armor, and each match we only have 1 life to utilize said weapons... in my opinion, yes. Its a game design philosophy that encourages the behavior most people are here for: Mech Combat.

No, game modes that encourage mech combat would encourage the behavior most people are here for. When your game mode has a way to win quickly and without casualties, but punishes you for winning that way, it's bad game design.

Imagine if everyone started booing and hissing if a chess player won a match in 10 moves or if a heavyweight boxer won by knockout after throwing a single punch? Doesn't happen. Good games, good competitions, good sports are designed to be won.

[El Bandito]

Chryckan, on 20 June 2016 - 02:29 AM, said:

Now during the lootbag event as everyone is scrambling to get those precious 150 points it has become obvious that the one thing you don't get rewarded for is paying smart or even winning.

PGI should reward more points for getting the objectives. It's something so simple to understand, yet...

Alistair Winter, on 20 June 2016 - 06:31 AM, said:

Imagine if everyone started booing and hissing if a chess player won a match in 10 moves or if a heavyweight boxer won by knockout after throwing a single punch? Doesn't happen.

Actually, round 1 knockouts are frowned upon by the audience as their entertainment bought with significant amount of money just got cut off within 1 minute. There will also be suspicions of match fixing.

Edited by El Bandito, 20 June 2016 - 06:44 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

El Bandito, on 20 June 2016 - 06:38 AM, said:

Actually, round 1 knockouts are frowned upon by the audience as their entertainment bought with significant amount of money just got cut off within 1 minute.

Yeah, that certainly explains why Mike Tyson was never a big star. All those first round knockouts really ruined his career.

Not to mention when Conor McGregor knocked out Jose Aldo in 13 seconds. People really hated that. Now nobody knows who Conor McGregor is, and only no name fighters like Floyd Mayweather are willing to fight him.

Do you watch combat sports at all?

[El Bandito]

Alistair Winter, on 20 June 2016 - 06:40 AM, said:

Yeah, that certainly explains why Mike Tyson was never a big star. All those first round knockouts really ruined his career.

Not to mention when Conor McGregor knocked out Jose Aldo in 13 seconds. People really hated that. Now nobody knows who Conor McGregor is, and only no name fighters like Floyd Mayweather are willing to fight him.

Do you watch combat sports at all?

On TV or YouTube, where I don't spend money. I have no issue with round 1 knockouts there. But if I buy the ticket for hundreds of dollars, drive for hours to get to the place and mingle with the crowd just to have the match end in 1 minute, I will be pissed.

Edited by El Bandito, 20 June 2016 - 06:46 AM.

[Paigan]

I would already be happy if the match score would be halfway sane.
Currently, if you were a god-like perfect player (headshotting all 12 mechs - without aimbot, i mean), you would get a mediocre score.
If you uselessly spray 1000 damage accross all components of all enemies, you get fantastic score.

This CANNOT be sane.

See the link in my sig for details.


Imho, the match score should at the very least reflect _EFFECTIVE_ damage (damage that contributed to destroying an item / a component / a Mech).

Short of that (not to mention more sophisticated factors like properly accounting for UAV kills etc), all match score calculation is the game mechanical equivalent of eating crayons.

[Mystere]

Alistair Winter, on 20 June 2016 - 02:43 AM, said:

I've just repeat what I've said countless times.

MWO is the only FPS games I've played where neither the players nor the devs are actually encouraging flawless victories. If you can win the match immediately, without taking any casualties, then the devs will punish you (smaller rewards) and the other players will moan at you.

Does that sound like good game design?

Well, I'm sad to say that this alleged "Thinking Person's Shooter" is obviously anything but, being a "minimally viable product" and all. <shrugs>.

[Widowmaker1981]

Chryckan, on 20 June 2016 - 02:29 AM, said:

And if you introduce game scenarios like assault, capture and domination were brute force isn't a required victory condition.
Then winning those scenarios by fulfilling the victory conditions by using smarts and not force should be rewarded in the score more than brute force.

Do you really want people playing zoom farm the base cap mode for super fast cbills? because thats what you get if you give good rewards for early base caps.

For assault, id be fine with caps being rewarded strongly if bases only became cap-able after say 7 mins of game.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 20 June 2016 - 06:49 AM.

[Mystere]

Widowmaker1981, on 20 June 2016 - 06:49 AM, said:

Do you really want people playing zoom farm the base cap mode for super fast cbills? because thats what you get if you give good rewards for early base caps.

For assault, id be fine with caps being rewarded strongly if bases only became cap-able after say 7 mins of game.

I will repeat a slightly modified version of what I have been saying with regard to Assault mode for four years now:

Defend your ******* base!

If you do so, you get the fight you are all desperately thirsting for.

Edited by Mystere, 20 June 2016 - 06:53 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Mystere, on 20 June 2016 - 06:53 AM, said:

I will repeat a slightly modified version of what I have been saying with regard to Assault mode for four years now:

Defend your ******* base!

If you do so, you get the fight you are all desperately thirsting for.

Or, you will get two teams waiting forever for the other team to come attack them?

to be quite honest, assault should be asymmetrical with one team as attacker and other as defender. Then you can have the base cap reward as well as you like, since there will be defenders.

My point still stands - reward early base caps well, and people will farm the mode in fast mechs for fast cbills, avoiding combat.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 20 June 2016 - 06:57 AM.

[Tatula]

There really should be some way to reward truly smart plays. Like the light that popped the perfect UAV that helped the team win the match (and probably died for its efforts with little or no damage dealt). Or the PUG who took command that led the team to victory. Or that smart LRM boat who was able to keep the enemy running for cover so the team can advance. Or even the lone medium who went back to base to kill the lights that were capping the base.

How about adding an MVP bonus at the end of match score screen that allows team member to vote for a teammate who did the exceptional. Maybe an extra 100,000 cbills and 500 XPs.

Edited by Aloha, 20 June 2016 - 07:04 AM.

[Mystere]

Widowmaker1981, on 20 June 2016 - 06:56 AM, said:

Or, you will get two teams waiting forever for the other team to come attack them?

That's what ninja assassins are for. Kill 1 or 2 and then smack talk the enemy into attacking you. If they do nothing, they lose.

Couple this with a 200 match score for winning -- and zero for losing -- and see what happens.

I think this is also the appropriate time to request a switch to a winner-takes-all system.

[Alistair Winter]

El Bandito, on 20 June 2016 - 06:42 AM, said:

On TV or YouTube, where I don't spend money. I have no issue with round 1 knockouts there. But if I buy the ticket for hundreds of dollars, drive for hours to get to the place and mingle with the crowd just to have the match end in 1 minute, I will be pissed.

Of course, different people have different preferences. But most sports and games are set up to incentivize the desired behaviour. In combat sports, the people want knockouts, and most people are happy if they happen quickly. People who win by fast knockouts bring a lot of viewers, so they get good contracts. They often get fight bonuses for quick knockouts too. Again, as incentives.

[Chrithu]

That discussion's as old as MWO. Having been here since beta I know we had it worse already.

I agree with all you guys said here. Winning by fulfilling the main conditions must be rewared a lot better.

I also agree that damage should be scored/rewarded a lot more contextually. The mere damage number should have less Impact on score/reward and in turn the score/reward for kills/kills most damage/killing blows and component destruction should be increased.

And as stupid as it sonds: There absolutely needs to be a reward/score for locking targets and aiming at weak points. Like damage done to unarmored areas counts double.

Edit:

AND YES ASSAULT SHOULD BECOME ASYMMETRIC. WE BEEN TELLING THAT TO PGI EVER SINCE THEY INTRODUCED IT!!!!!!!!! Christ's sake.

Edited by Jason Parker, 20 June 2016 - 07:25 AM.

[Mawai]

Mystere, on 20 June 2016 - 06:53 AM, said:

I will repeat a slightly modified version of what I have been saying with regard to Assault mode for four years now:

Defend your ******* base!

If you do so, you get the fight you are all desperately thirsting for.

Not usually .

If both sides defend their bases nothing happens.

One or most likely both sides have to leave their bases for an engagement to occur ... so if folks followed your suggestion nothing would happen.

Splitting your force to both defend your base and attack the opponents is a recipe for a loss since you are most likely to have a fraction of your force run into all of the opposing force.

So ... what is the best PUG tactic to obtain a good game in assault? March out, find the opponents, either obtain a decent defensive position or find a good flanking position to push on them in a large mass. If their lights try to cap send some of your lights to defend. (this is how 70 to 90% of assault matches play out).

If all of the opposing team goes to cap your base. Let them end the game quickly and move onto the next. They probably won't do it next time since they received nothing for it. (which is the problem the OP is referring to in the first place). Since their match score is so low anyway, even the winners PSR won't go up.

Unless your team is relatively close to your base, the worst response to a mass attack on your base is to run back one by one. You lose anyway, but the team sitting near your base gets the damage and kills.

If you actually want to play it out, get some harassers in position to slow the cap and pull back all of your forces together to assault your base in force.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

150 points means you gotta hit around 300 damage.

No problem.

[PhoenixFire55]

People play this game in order to shoot robots. You want a walking simulator, go play a walking simulator. There is literally zero fun in capping the base, zero c-bills/exp for capping the base and zero skill involved in capping the base. If you think you are playing so smart when you run from point A to point B then stand on point B for several seconds then think again. Some people that aren't dwelling in a highly populated T3 wait for 10-15 mins for each match and when it results in both teams doing nothing you can understand their frustration.

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 20 June 2016 - 07:17 AM.

[Mystere]

Mawai, on 20 June 2016 - 07:10 AM, said:

Not usually .

If both sides defend their bases nothing happens.

One or most likely both sides have to leave their bases for an engagement to occur ... so if folks followed your suggestion nothing would happen.

Mystere, on 20 June 2016 - 07:01 AM, said:

That's what ninja assassins are for. Kill 1 or 2 and then smack talk the enemy into attacking you. If they do nothing, they lose.

Couple this with a 200 match score for winning -- and zero for losing -- and see what happens.

I think this is also the appropriate time to request a switch to a winner-takes-all system.