225 replies to this topic

[Teralitha]

JPsi, on 01 December 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

You are incorrect on both thoste points. I've already pointed that out, but you may have missed it.

Repair/Rearm does not cancel Win. It at most cancels a loss. A win only reward, even one as small as 20K doesn't really allow for suiciders. 2 reasons for that. A) How often does a team with a suicider win? B ) It can be easily coded so that the suicider gains 0 gold for winning. Iff its more work to suicide farm than it is to play, people will play.

The 20k difference is account for in the 0.5% salvage reward increase. Win or lose, the suicider makes money and keeps all of it by not R&R. And yes, it can be easily coded so that a suicider gains 0 gold win or lose by using my system.

Salvage also forces that same issue I've brought up multiple times already. Why win early when you miss out on more salvage? It promotes that scenario of deliberately prolonging games instead of winning. Its also an unclear measure of performance. Salvage is more dependant on the enemy teams ability to make those nice shots difficult, than it is on your ability to make them.

Youre talking about a base cap without fighting. What you describe here is a flaw with base capping mode, and this is already happening in the game. Why win early(base cap) when you miss out on salvage? The game is designed for 2 teams to do battle. You are SUPPOSED to fight. Salvage reward is (one of) your incentives to fight. Base capping is a whole different issue.... If your telling me that you dont like base capping, you need to mention it in a topic about base capping. I myself do not like base capping. But for now, we have to deal with it since its part of the game. Plus this has little to do with the issue here, concerning griefers.

No, I didn't fail to account or miss over your statements. I've read them very carefully, I just disagree and think you need to work on it. The idea at heart is great, it just needs a lot of adjustment.

One possible variable that could be added to my model is "damage taken" Others have suggested this before, and it could account for "tanking" that you mentioned before. This is probably the closest thing you can come up with to account for that player that causes a win by splitting up the enemy force but is unable to score kills and assists. Also this rewards those players on the losing team who did their best to sponge damage so the winning team could not get much salvage. I believe that covers all your issues.


Kills/Assists - 2000
Spotting - 2000
Damage Done x10
Damage Taken x10
Salvage 2.5% <--- only the winning team gets this, and maybe it should be more.. possibly 3%
Base cap 5000
Cap Assist 2500
Team KIll -15000

Are you satisfied now?

I will update this to the OP

Edited by Teralitha, 01 December 2012 - 09:11 PM.

[JPsi]

The 20k difference is account for in the 0.5% salvage reward increase. Win or lose, the suicider makes money and keeps all of it by not R&R. And yes, it can be easily coded so that a suicider gains 0 gold win or lose by using my system.

The salvage reward increase just provides further incentive to the scenario I've already painted that should be avoided. People extending combat.

Youre talking about a base cap without fighting. What you describe here is a flaw with base capping mode, and this is already happening in the game. Why win early(base cap) when you miss out on salvage? The game is designed for 2 teams to do battle. You are SUPPOSED to fight. Salvage reward is (one of) your incentives to fight. Base capping is a whole different issue.... If your telling me that you dont like base capping, you need to mention it in a topic about base capping. I myself do not like base capping. But for now, we have to deal with it since its part of the game. Plus this has little to do with the issue here, concerning griefers.

As to why win early in this current gamestate and winning out on salvage? An early win right now misses out on salvage, but I get a normally greater bonus for winning, the choice to delay the win is a risk. There is little risk without having that win bonus. I wholeheartedly dissagree, Mechwarrior battles didn't happen for the sake of mechwarrior battles. They happened because there was some reason for them. An objective to be capped happens to be the case in this gamemode, however there are a variety of other scenarios possible (attacking a convoy/radar station for example). The simple reason killing all players happens to be a win is that, iff all the enemies are dead, there is nothing preventing the cap. You are supposed to fight iff fighting is necessary. There is enough hope currently for a Solaris/arena type gamemode to be implemented. I don't want to see all possible gamemodes turned into that just because it hasn't made it in.

I'd thought of suggesting a damage taken bonus, only that really does promote griefing and would defy the whole point of this economic change suggestion.

That is why for the moment, my suggestion to your model is this : Add a 20K only win bonus. With proviso of being instantly removed on any detectable griefing.

Edited by JPsi, 01 December 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[Core2029]

Teralitha, on 30 November 2012 - 01:59 AM, said:

The point sir, is they should be improving the game and reward experience FIRST, then look at punishing ppl after. I believe there wouldnt be such a huge problem if the system was better. Heaven knows there have been a gazillion suggestions on these forums for improving it.

What they should have said was... We are sorry about this, we working to improve our new player and rewards system and trial mechs so all these players will not feel the need to exploit to avoid the poor experience our system created.

I disagree. They should flat out ban anyone that exploits and do so without mercy. I've been alive long enough to know that once a cheater/exploiter, always a cheater/exploiter. Whether that's in life or in a poorly implemented game. If you're disrespectful enough to ruin the fun for 7 other players every match to make a tiny bit of profit you should be shown the sidewalk, face-first.

[Teralitha]

JPsi, on 01 December 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

The salvage reward increase just provides further incentive to the scenario I've already painted that should be avoided. People extending combat.

Explain in detail just HOW a higher salvage reward extends combat please. Your statement otherwise makes zero sense. Combat is only extended by players not engaging, and you only get salvage, by engaging. I think you are confused

As to why win early in this current gamestate and winning out on salvage? An early win right now misses out on salvage, but I get a normally greater bonus for winning, the choice to delay the win is a risk. There is little risk without having that win bonus. I wholeheartedly dissagree, Mechwarrior battles didn't happen for the sake of mechwarrior battles. They happened because there was some reason for them. An objective to be capped happens to be the case in this gamemode, however there are a variety of other scenarios possible (attacking a convoy/radar station for example). The simple reason killing all players happens to be a win is that, iff all the enemies are dead, there is nothing preventing the cap. You are supposed to fight iff fighting is necessary. There is enough hope currently for a Solaris/arena type gamemode to be implemented. I don't want to see all possible gamemodes turned into that just because it hasn't made it in.

Uh... ok, Im starting to think you are on crack again. This a mechwarrior PVP game. Not a single player campaign mode.

I'd thought of suggesting a damage taken bonus, only that really does promote griefing and would defy the whole point of this economic change suggestion.

EXPLAIN HOW IT PROMOTES GRIEFING

That is why for the moment, my suggestion to your model is this : Add a 20K only win bonus. With proviso of being instantly removed on any detectable griefing.

No. It is not necessary to make the programmers add griefer detection just to prevent them from getting 20K. Zero win reward. Easy, simple, effective.

You really are an annoying person you know that right, Im am willing to bet my founders Atlas that someone somewhere has said as much before.

Edited by Teralitha, 01 December 2012 - 09:54 PM.

[JPsi]

Teralitha, on 01 December 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

You really are an annoying person you know that right, Im am willing to bet my founders Atlas that someone somewhere has said as much before.

Yet you consistently accuse me of trolling you. I consider it annoying how blindly you believe in your proposal, to the point where you berate every person that disagrees with you. Or accuse people of just failing to read. Any of your many pointless and quite frankly arrogant forms of defense. All because you are so unwilling to even recognise any faults in a suggestion you made. I've tried reasoning with you, I'm over it and out, cya round.

Edited by JPsi, 01 December 2012 - 09:58 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

Oh. It's one of "these" threads.

Aside from the cookie-cutter Vlad-the-Salvage-king responses to all this junk, why would any Mechwarrior game in the history of ever reward players for taking damage?

This isn't a fantasy RPG. You don't award tanks with experience points for holding aggro. An Atlas that sits around soaking up fire is a stupid, dead Atlas.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Jason Parker, on 30 November 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

*reopens case*
Remove hitting LMB and override button from bot/macro.
Replace it with move forward.

Running ahead into the enmy works just as well as suiciding. Takes at most 2 minutes more than the suicide version. As long as there is any way to make money without actively doing something of use that will be exploited.

Edit: or even better: replace with move backwards and run out of bounds.

So again: Don't do it step by step as the bots evolve. Just finally fix the system as a whole. Emphasizing the reward structure on performance is not only needed to fight exploiting the base rewards structure but also to further encourage teamplay and organization especially in PUGs.

takes sandwhiches out of case and wonders how they got there... ahem aheam ehahehahm

good point and i'm really happy to see someone thinking things through, especially on mybehalf. so the solution is still needed.

afker's just need the outof bounds disqualification if no movement is made for a minute, that's taken care of them.

suiciders... you could still implement the overheat disqualification but those who run amok, hard to disguish them from noob players in general. in seriousness though, that's a hard one to fix. you see people who do this want zero effort. you can work and get xp waaaaayyy faster than farming. these guys screw it just for 100xp. now if you have a good match you can get 500xp and i'm sure you can get that faster than having 5 matches... or do you?. so we have to discourage the behaviour at EVERY level. cause their kind will wiggle their way through into ANY exploit.

remember the motivation for the exploiters and even the race cappers is they'd prefer the rewards for doing those matches which they can do about 2 or 3 times next to the full 15 min fight. factor the battle lengths and you can see how it's attractive to race and put no effort into many matches in the same timespan as a few good fights. so yes the boundries and reward system is the focus.

oh well case remains open.

damn flies over my lunch!

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 01 December 2012 - 10:17 PM.

[Teralitha]

JPsi, on 01 December 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

Yet you consistently accuse me of trolling you. I consider it annoying how blindly you believe in your proposal, to the point where you berate every person that disagrees with you. Or accuse people of just failing to read. Any of your many pointless and quite frankly arrogant forms of defense. All because you are so unwilling to even recognise any faults in a suggestion you made. I've tried reasoning with you, I'm over it and out, cya round.

oh no... you did help the discussion a bit, but I am sorry some of your viewpoints were silly or confused. Yes... you were wrong, on some things. Accept it, and move on.

Its not arrogance, its confidence. I am confident in my ideas. And lets face it, you thinking that all of your detractions had merit is arrogant, because they didnt. Some did though... Ill give you that.

I dont think there is anything else you can help with here. Its time to move the new rewards model into open beta. (chuckle) Know that when/if PGI implements this new rewards model, that you helped to make it what it is.

Edited by Teralitha, 01 December 2012 - 10:24 PM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Core2029, on 01 December 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

I disagree. They should flat out ban anyone that exploits and do so without mercy. I've been alive long enough to know that once a cheater/exploiter, always a cheater/exploiter. Whether that's in life or in a poorly implemented game. If you're disrespectful enough to ruin the fun for 7 other players every match to make a tiny bit of profit you should be shown the sidewalk, face-first.

Enforcing this type of attitude would be like aiming a torpedo at your own ship. Luckily, they aren't that stupid.(At least I want to believe so. They did post that stupid Dev update so who knows anymore?) You should fix the problem you created in the first place, not the people taking advantage of its existence. Also, if you want to do the math, they aren't just ruining the game for 7 people, they're improving it for 9 others. 9 is higher than 7.

Nice to see this thread is still going. It still idiots coming and going but hopefully Piranha gets the point and fixes the economy... eventually...

Edited by Bluten, 01 December 2012 - 10:37 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

Teralitha, on 01 December 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

oh no... you did help the discussion a bit, but I am sorry some of your viewpoints were silly or confused. Yes... you were wrong, on some things. Accept it, and move on.

Its not arrogance, its confidence. I am confident in my ideas. And lets face it, you thinking that all of your detractions had merit is arrogant, because they didnt. Some did though... Ill give you that.

I dont think there is anything else you can help with here. Its time to move the new rewards model into open beta. (chuckle) Know that when/if PGI implements this new rewards model, that you helped to make it what it is.

Overconfidence seems to be a trend with you.

Your rewards model doesn't promote anything but typical FPS-style play. MWO's primary selling point is that it's not a typical FPS.

Yes. You can lose money with R/R. This is a feature. It wouldn't be Mechwarrior without it.

No. Taking damage and wasting valuable armor is not something we should be rewarding. There's no such thing as a tank in Mechwarrior. Having a decoy intentionally take enemy fire should never be anything more than Plan C.

What's the point in beefing Salvage rewards when the 0.5% of the game population who bother to utilize the feature already make major bank with it?

Removing participation rewards crushes the ability of new players to work towards their first Mech. New players are bad. They will deal <50 damage for their first 20 games, every single time. Many of them will take a very long time to get noticeably better.

I could go on.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 01 December 2012 - 10:35 PM.

[Xenophontis]

I don't know, I'm rather enjoying fighting all these insta-overheat trial Awesome's in my Quad A/C 2 Cataphract. Pretty much the only thing it's good at killing anyways

But yeah I agree. Nice thread.

[Particle Man]

Vlad Ward, on 01 December 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

An Atlas that sits around soaking up fire is a stupid, dead Atlas.

or he's taking the fire that could be aimed at the more fragile mechs, using his many tons of ammo for what they're used for while the rest of the team works as a team and kills whatever is shooting the atlas and not them.

[Teralitha]

Vlad Ward, on 01 December 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Overconfidence seems to be a trend with you.
Thank you

Your rewards model doesn't promote anything but typical FPS-style play. MWO's primary selling point is that it's not a typical FPS.
The rewards model you speak of, is in fact, the rewards model in use now, with very slight difference. You are in effect, calling MWO a typical FPS.

Yes. You can lose money with R/R. This is a feature. It wouldn't be Mechwarrior without it.
I agree, but sadly this feature is part of a major exploit and needs to be removed. We can live without it. We CANT live with exploiters and griefers. See?

No. Taking damage and wasting valuable armor is not something we should be rewarding. There's no such thing as a tank in Mechwarrior. Having a decoy intentionally take enemy fire should never be anything more than Plan C.
I dont think we need it either, I was just trying to get JPsi to shut the hell up, but that still didnt shut them up... so I may as well just take it out.

What's the point in beefing Salvage rewards when the 0.5% of the game population who bother to utilize the feature already make major bank with it?
The .5% is only to compensate for the small win/loss disparity after they are removed. Salvage is split evenly amongst the team now, so it really doesnt matter does it?

Removing participation rewards crushes the ability of new players to work towards their first Mech. New players are bad. They will deal <50 damage for their first 20 games, every single time. Many of them will take a very long time to get noticeably better.
You would be correct, "IF" only the win reward was removed. But since RR is removed also there is no effect on new players ability to grind toward anything.

I could go on.
If you have more detractions, do go on.

Edited by Teralitha, 01 December 2012 - 11:02 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

Particle Man, on 01 December 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

or he's taking the fire that could be aimed at the more fragile mechs, using his many tons of ammo for what they're used for while the rest of the team works as a team and kills whatever is shooting the atlas and not them.

We must be playing different games. I'm pretty sure the general idea in MWO is to minimize incoming damage and maximize outgoing damage. 100 points of forward armor doesn't mean much when single mechs can hit 50-damage salvos to the same location.

Teralitha, on 01 December 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

Your basically bashing the current system.

The current system relies on Salvage bonus (read: High performance) for extreme rewards, and gives a crutch for newer players in the form of participation rewards.

You make way too many assumptions about how people work. If there's one thing they teach you in software development 101, it's that there is always someone out there smarter than you. You will never get rid of farmers and afkers and macro bots. The best you can do is to make the game work for the people who want to play it.

And, no. If a new player is only earning 0-2,000 c-bills/match in your system because they suck, they will have to grind for months before they get their own Mech. That is awful, and makes the current grind (where you can at least be carried by your team) look trivial in comparison.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 01 December 2012 - 11:09 PM.

[Teralitha]

Vlad Ward, on 01 December 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

The current system relies on Salvage bonus (read: High performance) for extreme rewards, and gives a crutch for newer players in the form of participation rewards.

Considering phase 3 matchmaking where new players will be vs new players, no one will be getting 'carried'

You make way too many assumptions about how people work. If there's one thing they teach you in software development 101, it's that there is always someone out there smarter than you. You will never get rid of farmers and afkers and macro bots. The best you can do is to make the game work for the people who want to play it.

I never assume anything. But if my model were actually in play now, how would an AFK player, who is forced to disconnect after a certain amount of inactivity, get anything? or would a macro user get anything? A macro depends upons a fixed targeting feature where all abilities are used on a target. This game doesnt have that. A macro cannot take control of a free roaming reticle. A macro farmer cannot exist here under those conditions. Is it possible for some genius hacker to create a program that plays the game for them? I dont know.... maybe, but if there are, they will be rare. What I do know, is that my model will 100% stop suicide exploitation, and macro afkers, and punish/deter teamkilling and friendlyfire, and that is a good thing. People arguing against this confuse me.

And, no. If a new player is only earning 0-2,000 c-bills/match in your system because they suck, they will have to grind for months before they get their own Mech. That is awful, and makes the current grind (where you can at least be carried by your team) look trivial in comparison.

That is quite the exaggeration there sir. If a new player gets 0 cbils, it means they did nothing. If they got 2000 it means they either... spotted an enemy, or fired on 1 enemy and did at least 1 point of damage. (sorry that would actually be 2010 cbills) If a player is contributing so little they dont deserve to get anything. But in actuality, a new player will still make plenty of cbills. And if they arent, thats what buying MC and premium time is for, to skip the grind.

Edited by Teralitha, 01 December 2012 - 11:43 PM.

[Raidyr]

The logic of shutting off features of the game to stop the minority who are "exploiting" to grind cbills is the same terrible logic companies like EA and Ubisoft call on when they implement their terrible DRM features.

Instead of hurting the people actually playing the game, how about we look at the source of the problem: Why is suicide grinding/scripting/botting so profitable and, more importantly, why are players turning to that route instead of having fun shooting robots over the internet

Protip it's because the new player experience in this game is awful.

[Vlad Ward]

Man, this boldquote thing is a bit of a pain to read.

Look. It would not be overly difficult for someone who cared enough to design a program that would automatically run your mech towards the enemy and spam alpha strikes at them with an aimbot.

This sort of behavior is straight up impossible to differentiate from a new/bad player on PGI's end.

Changing the entire reward system to attempt to combat what is essentially "The Internet" is about as useful as tearing down the mast on your ship to build buckets to hold more fish. There will always be more fish, but what's a ship without a mast?

[Raidyr]

People were just running at enemies/cap zones and firing weapons until dying to make money, it's just that as time has passed human beings have put their ingenuity to work in order to automate an otherwise tedious task.

The question then is not "How can we stop people doing this", it is "Why are people doing this"

[Ricama]

Make a category for team damage (total damage done and taken by your entire team), have it only give money as long as you are connected to the game and make it the majority of the funds you get for a game. You can still bug out of a hopeless situation with little loss of funds but anyone who leaves early to play another match misses out. This will also encourage fighting vs capping and while I'm indifferent to the difference, a lot of people feel strongly that fighting should be greatly encouraged.

[Teralitha]

Raidyr, on 01 December 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

The logic of shutting off features of the game to stop the minority who are "exploiting" to grind cbills is the same terrible logic companies like EA and Ubisoft call on when they implement their terrible DRM features. Assumptions galore!!!!

Instead of hurting the people actually playing the gameUh... no one gets hurt by these changes., how about we look at the source of the problem: Why is suicide grinding/scripting/botting so profitable and, more importantly, why are players turning to that route instead of having fun shooting robots over the internet. Hm I guess you didnt read the topic or you would already know the answer. I suggest... reading, and... not writing uninformed posts.

Protip it's because the new player experience in this game is awful. Protip - Read the whole topic before commenting on it.

Edited by Teralitha, 02 December 2012 - 12:29 AM.