7 replies to this topic

[Blind Squirrel]

PROBLEM (as I see it)
The current method of calculating Event Leaderboards uses a cumulative scoring system. The only competition that this scoring system generates is Game vs. Life and gives a distinct advantage to players who are able to play more often. NOTE: I'm not complaining. I'm attempting to offer constructive feedback that may/may not be an improvement to the game.

SOLUTION

• Stop summing the scores for an ever-increasing [Total Score]
  
• Start using an average score [Average Match Score] = [Total Match Scores]/[Total Games]
  
• Minimum 20 games to qualify (per Chassis or Variant depending on Event type)
  
• Tie-breakers apply in this order:
  
  • [Total KMDDs]
    
  • [Total Damage]-[Total Team Damage]
    
  • [Total Components Destroyed]
    
  • If still tied, award to tied players and remove the next Leaderboard Rank (Ex: 2 5th place finishes would push 6th place finisher to 7th)
• Award every player who competes [Average Match Score]*10,000 C-bills (Ex: If [Average Match Score] = 200, player is awarded 2 million C-bills)
  
• Remove all C-bill awards from the Personal Challenge Reward Tables
  
• Change the Personnel Challenge Reward Tables to be based on [Average Match Score] at the end of the event as follows:
  
  • [Average Match Score] > 100, receive 1000 GXP
    
  • [Average Match Score] > 200, receive above and 1 Supply Key
    
  • [Average Match Score] > 300, receive above and 1 Supply Cache
    
  • [Average Match Score] > 400, receive above, plus 1 Supply Key and 1 Supply Cache
• Remove all C-bill awards from Leaderboard Reward Tables
  
• Change Leaderboard Reward Tables awards to the following:
  
  • Top 5, receive 1000 MC
    
  • Top 10, receive 2 Supply Caches
    
  • Top 25, receive 5000 GXP and 1 Supply Key
    
  • Top 50, receive random cockpit item or decal
    
  • Top 75, receive 1 Supply Key

[El Bandito]

PGI is using grind based system to keep the population playing, during events. Not what I want, but that's probably the reason.

[Blind Squirrel]

I agree with you, El Bandito. However, this is "supposed" to be a competitive shooter. There's no real competition if the winner is just the person with the most time to play.

[Nameless King]

Change it would be to limit everyone to 20 total matches that count.

[Taffer]

Eh as long as solo and group are combined for the same tourney, i think it's shite.

Edited by Taffer, 23 July 2016 - 09:25 PM.

[Mystere]

Winning accounts for a grand total of ... drum roll please ... 5 points. Excellent.

It's no wonder a large chunk of the player base act like extremely selfish and cowardly morons.

Taffer, on 23 July 2016 - 09:24 PM, said:

Eh as long as solo and group are combined for the same tourney, i think it's shite.

Well, how else would you expect players hanging on the coattails of their unit mates to perform?

Edited by Mystere, 23 July 2016 - 09:46 PM.

[Blind Squirrel]

Taffer, I don't really have any issues with splitting rewards based on Solo and Group Quick Play. I think it would make it more interesting if the 2 types had different rewards.

How about rewarding entire participating units based on their members' performance? I'd have to put some more thought into how that reward chart might look, but maybe C-bill bonuses to coffers or free membership slots?

Edited by Blind Squirrel, 24 July 2016 - 07:52 PM.

[KinLuu]

Blind Squirrel, on 23 July 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

I agree with you, El Bandito. However, this is "supposed" to be a competitive shooter. There's no real competition if the winner is just the person with the most time to play.

But this is not the case, as only the ten best games are counted. You do not need that many games to score high up on the leaderboard. You just need enough good ones.