58 replies to this topic

[JediPanther]

Don't worry about it just play the game. And if you think standing around doing nothing is fun than pgi has the mech and quirks for you! New spider 5v! New 80% capture quirk! Be the savior you always wanted to be! with TWO not one energy hard points only in the ct nothing can stop your mech from dying due to side torso loss! Hurry buy now supplies are limited! Order now and we'll throw in an lfe 200 with TWO not one standard heat sinks! But wait there's more! we'll even give you TWO free medium lasers when you buy now! HURRY HURRY HURRY! Operators are standing by to take your order!

[VonBruinwald]

BlaizerP, on 18 September 2020 - 06:43 AM, said:

You weren't punished.

You won the game and got paid for it.

If you want to raise your PSR you'll need to contribute more to the fight - all there is to it.

This, PSR//Matchscore is broken and overly-favours damage above all other contributors.

It's not that you're playing the game wrong, rather the rewards system is broken.


The whole "you're playing it wrong" is a misnomer derived from rewards driven gameplay, and by extension a broken rewards system.

[thievingmagpi]

One could look to a disaster like World of warships where qp matches regularly end with 3/4 of the match population still on the map.

Generally objectives should exist to avoid some twirp hiding at the end of the match and wasting everyone's time.

If you want to end a match by standing around, sure, go ahead. No reason you should be highly rewarded for it.

[VonBruinwald]

thievingmagpi, on 18 September 2020 - 03:48 PM, said:

Generally objectives should exist to avoid some twirp hiding at the end of the match and wasting everyone's time.

That's what match timers are for, to prevent endless stalling/trolling.

Objectives are there to provide tactical depth.

[crazytimes]

thievingmagpi, on 18 September 2020 - 03:48 PM, said:

One could look to a disaster like World of warships where qp matches regularly end with 3/4 of the match population still on the map.

Generally objectives should exist to avoid some twirp hiding at the end of the match and wasting everyone's time.

If you want to end a match by standing around, sure, go ahead. No reason you should be highly rewarded for it.

I liked the world of tanks approach. If someone tries.to cap, push them out of the circle and then team kill them. You had to push them out first otherwise it was blue on first shot, kicked on second.

I vote assault over skirmish just to avoid that 1 guy in a shadowcat dragging the match out for 10 minutes

Edited by crazytimes, 18 September 2020 - 07:06 PM.

[Nightbird]

The only purpose of cap objectives in QP is to allow you to end the match without looking for that one player that refuses to fight and hides around the map. That is literally the only case when a mode is better than Skirmish.

[TriggerHappyPacifist]

I agree. If that is the game mode you should be rewarded.

I like this game mode. The blood pressure goes up when Betty says, "Friendly base is being captured."

[martian]

Shmoken, on 19 September 2020 - 10:42 PM, said:

I agree. If that is the game mode you should be rewarded.

I like this game mode. The blood pressure goes up when Betty says, "Friendly base is being captured."

The mode has two victory conditions and both are equally valid:

• Capture the enemy base (or)
  
• Destroy all Enemy 'Mechs

As it is now, there is no reason why to give the Capture some special reward. Wiping out the enemy team while ignoring the enemy base is absolutely okay behaviour.

[Der Geisterbaer]

martian said:

The mode has two victory conditions and both are equally valid:

• Capture the enemy base (or)
  
• Destroy all Enemy 'Mechs

So either of them should net a player / his group more or less the same gains ... otherwise the one that doesn't becomes an invalid a.k.a. "bad" choice

martian said:

As it is now, there is no reason why to give the Capture some special reward.

Indeed. there's no "special" reward needed ... just one that is somewhat on par with the alternative choice, which quite frankly is not the case.

martian said:

Wiping out the enemy team while ignoring the enemy base is absolutely okay behaviour.

And so should winning by focusing on the contested / enemy base(s) be ... and not just with the singular "match lost" / "match won" payment but in overall gains.

[martian]

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 01:27 AM, said:

So either of them should net a player / his group more or less the same gains ... otherwise the one that doesn't becomes an invalid a.k.a. "bad" choice

"invalid a.k.a. "bad" choice" only on some player's mind - the rules make no difference between them.

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 01:27 AM, said:

Indeed. there's no "special" reward needed ... just one that is somewhat on par with the alternative choice, which quite frankly is not the case.

It is a player's choice to pursue either the one or the another condition. When the mission starts, everybody is free to decide what to do. The rules give everybody complete freedom.

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 01:27 AM, said:

And so should winning by focusing on the contested / enemy base(s) be ... and not just with the singular "match lost" / "match won" payment but in overall gains.

It is a well-known fact that the capture pays less. If somebody decides to pursue this less-advantageous option, he should not complain that he gets less C-Bills and less PSR gains. He has known it right from the start.

[Der Geisterbaer]

martian said:

It is a well-known fact that the capture pays less.

And all people are doing is criticizing that "well-known fact" and are asking for a change there
They (rightfully) think that both should be an equal opportunity choice with equal benefits.

All you're doing now is stubbornly repeating the "well-known" status quo as if that was a truly desirable thing from a game design perspective ~shrug~

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 20 September 2020 - 01:52 AM.

[martian]

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 01:51 AM, said:

And all people are doing is criticizing that "well-known fact" and are asking for a change there

They can criticize whatever they wish. Instead posting on this abandoned forum, they should contact Russ Bullock on Twitter directly.

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 01:51 AM, said:

They (rightfully) think that both should be an equal opportunity choice with equal benefits.

The difference in payments between "Victory on Kills" and "Victory on Cap" has been here since 2013 or so. Everybody knows that.

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 01:51 AM, said:

All you're doing now is stubbornly repeating the "well-known" status quo as if that was a truly desirable thing from a game design perspective ~shrug~

In this case I am merely stating obvious and quoting the rules.

Plus, it seems to me that PGI considers the "well-known" status quo to be a truly desirable thing from a game design perspective, since it has kept it for years without any change.

[Beorning]

What about conquest...

[Der Geisterbaer]

martian said:

They can criticize whatever they wish. Instead posting on this abandoned forum, they should contact Russ Bullock on Twitter directly.

Chances are that not even that will make any difference.

martian said:

The difference in payments between "Victory on Kills" and "Victory on Cap" has been here since 2013 or so. Everybody knows that.

And it has regularly been criticized ever since.

martian said:

In this case I am merely stating obvious and quoting the rules.

Congrats on wasting your time with stating the obvious then.

martian said:

Plus, it seems to me that PGI considers the "well-known" status quo to be a truly desirable thing from a game design perspective, since it has kept it for years without any change.

You're committing the non-sequitur fallacy there. ~shrug~

[martian]

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 02:25 AM, said:

Chances are that not even that will make any difference.

Maybe. But I think that it is better to contact him through Twitter (that he uses) than post on this forum (that he practically never uses).

How many complainers have actually tried to reach him and tell him their complaints?

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 02:25 AM, said:

And it has regularly been criticized ever since.

Yeah. With zero success, I might add.

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 02:25 AM, said:

Congrats on wasting your time with stating the obvious then.

Anything for the enlightenment of the others.

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 02:25 AM, said:

You're committing the non-sequitur fallacy there. ~shrug~

Really? Obviously PGI is okay with it, since they have had years to change it, if they have found it undesirable.

[Der Geisterbaer]

martian said:

Really?

Really ... it is a non-sequitur and will remain such right up until PGI explicitly states that their fundamental game design goal was and still is to have game modes where the alternative win conditions have no real incentives and the only real desirable course of action is still the "team death match" win condition.

martian said:

Obviously PGI is okay with it, since they have had years to change it, if they have found it undesirable.

Still a non-sequitur.

[Mal Bolge]

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 01:51 AM, said:

They (rightfully) think that both should be an equal opportunity choice with equal benefits.

If all of the enemy team is standing still, and you manage to kill all of them with backshots, doing minimum damage. Your reward would be pretty much the same.

However if the enemy puts up a fight and is hard to kill, it is deemed a tougher enemy to defeat, and the rewards go up to reflect that. So an enemy who ignores that their base is capped, is deemed a weak opponent, thus you get a lower reward for defeating it.

And regardless of how you win. If you as a single player just stand around doing basically nothing, your reward will reflect that.

[martian]

Der Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 03:42 AM, said:

Really ... it is a non-sequitur and will remain such right up until PGI explicitly states that their fundamental game design goal was and still is to have game modes where the alternative win conditions have no real incentives and the only real desirable course of action is still the "team death match" win condition.

Still a non-sequitur.

"Explicitly states"? LOL

I would say that the very existence of this game mode as it has existed for many years - and various rewards for all actions in it - has proven absolutely sufficently, what PGI's game design goal is regarding this game mode.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Mal Nilsum said:

If all of the enemy team is standing still, and you manage to kill all of them with backshots, doing minimum damage. Your reward would be pretty much the same.

Nope, even with that theoretical "minimum damage" the payouts and PSR changes due to kill / kill most damage / etc. are greater than a strict "win by capture".

edit:
Btw. Having to argue with edge case scenarios like in your hypothetical with minimum damage for total destruction is a good indicator that you failed to address the general balancing question between two win conditions that are presented as being "equal" there.

Mal Nilsum said:

And regardless of how you win. If you as a single player just stand around doing basically nothing, your reward will reflect that.

What you're describing there is just the result of the status quo where two or more distinct win conditions exist but only one - the one that is "team death match" - actually has the real incentives in terms of gains for both currency and PSR.

As things are PGI actually hasn't delivered a set of different game modes but instead just one with varying degrees of annoying side conditions. They pretty much wasted their development time there.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 20 September 2020 - 04:26 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

martian said:

"Explicitly states"?

With regards to your non-sequitur fallacy: Yes, they'd pretty much have to explicitly state something like that. Otherwise the conclusion you are drawing remains not logically linked to your premise

martian said:

LOL

Laugh as much as you want.

martian said:

I would say that the very existence of this game mode as it has existed for many years - and various rewards for all actions in it - has proven absolutely sufficently, what PGI's game design goal is regarding this game mode.

And by saying that you'd still commit the aforementioned non-sequitur fallacy.