6 replies to this topic

[eli]

​Summary

As the usefulness of each behaviour varies in real-time and for each player, attempting to set fixed rewards for these behaviours that incentivise the proper behaviour at the proper time is fundamentally impossible. Instead reward the achievement of a win condition, incentivising players to determine the optimal composition of behaviours for each situation.


Body

Rewarding Behaviour

When designing an incentive system, one should normally envisage the desired behaviourd and design incentives that reward that behaviour as directly as possible.

In MWO, there are multiple game modes, each of which has a win condition. PGI have identified individual behaviours that contribute to the player's team achieving a win condition and introduced rewards for these behaviours. Their ongoing problem is the balancing of these rewards against each other, such that players undertake a mix of behaviours that comprise a cooperative effort to achieve a win condition.

I propose an alternative approach. If we want players to work towards achieiving a win condition for their team, why not directly reward the achievement of a win condition? Players will be free to make their own determinations about which behaviours are useful - determinations that can be adapted in real-time. In a situation where a kill is more useful to achieving a win condition, players will be more likely to kill. In a situation where a capture is more useful to achieving a win condition, players will be more likely to capture. Players can even adapt to the roles their team-mates are taking in deciding what behaviours will be most useful.

Individual Versus Group Rewards

Having read the previous section, you will note that I am proposing a group reward rather than an individual reward. Some people may find this problematic, but it is essential. Group rewards encourage cooperation, while individual rewards discourage cooperation. If the desired behaviour is that players work together as a team to achieve a win condition and the achievement of that win condition is to be rewarded directly, individual rewards would likely encourage direct contributions (like capping) while discouraging indirect contributions (like scouting). For everybody to cooperate without PGI micromanaging the reward structure, a group reward is necessary. Better players (in the sense that they contribute more to their team achieving a win condition) will still win more frequently, leading to a greater reward for these players over time.

Free Riders

'Free riders' pose a threat to the integrity of any system built around a group reward structure. This is normally dealt with through punishment, and certainly the existing reward structure provides a means of identifying and punishing non-participation. Perhaps players would have to do at least one 'useful' task to receive a share of the group reward? The group reward could be split equally among participating players, such that a team operating at a disadvantage has a higher potential reward to assuage their higher risk of loss.

[Holem]

Wasn't that similar to the old system that caused a lot of players to just sit there AFK? If we are talking about winning only conditions then it is rather unfair for pub players that has no control of their teammates. This particular system will create a worse situation and that is a game full of veterans that "knows the system" and excludes new players. We might as well reintroduce the old trial mech system while we are at it.

Although I'm not a fan of the new system, it doesn't favor pre-mades as much as it did before. Personally, I prefer pre-made lances but having such skewed w/l ratio when I am in one versus when I'm not makes casual gaming painful.

Another thing is how can you specify doing at least one "useful" thing. Since that is rather difficult to do, I'm assuming then that this is a request to just increase earnings back to previous states.

[blinkin]

i think once again world of tanks has it right with 2x experience for winning team. keep the current system in tact then double the cbill and xp payout for all players on winning team. afk players get almost nothing, players who have gotten kills or dealt damage are encouraged to win and double their awards.

players on the losing team are still rewarded if they tried hard and were effective, but going out and just picking off easy targets while your team dies does not get you nearly as much as winning.

on a side note: in assault players who push the cap bar should be awarded related to the amount they cap, and probably the same for conquest.

Edited by blinkin, 26 December 2012 - 01:26 AM.

[Klunk]

Well put, OP. A flat reward system will encourage players to explore the very interesting cooperative aspects of the game. Seeing the numbers on damage and kills and assists is always fun, but it's not constructive to be rewarded for those things.

[blinkin]

Klunk, on 26 December 2012 - 02:12 AM, said:

Well put, OP. A flat reward system will encourage players to explore the very interesting cooperative aspects of the game. Seeing the numbers on damage and kills and assists is always fun, but it's not constructive to be rewarded for those things.

the problem is players being punished just for having a whole team who wanders into and then gets bottled up inside the cave on frozen.

it's about not being punished too harshly for having a team that is carefully crafted out of pure militarized fail.
--lrm mechs that ONLY have lrm
--players that don't know how to aim lasers
--mechs with 4 PPC and 10 heatsinks
--lrm confetti that is repeatedly fired at mechs that are within kicking range
--and a partridge in a pear tree

[Thuraash]

I like that system, Blinkin. Maintains the incentive to play for the team win, while simultaneously rewarding good gameplay. A 4x multiplier might work better, though, just to ensure that even a victory by the skin of one's teeth is better than a defeat.

Edited by Thuraash, 26 December 2012 - 02:39 AM.

[Klunk]

blinkin, on 26 December 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

the problem is players being punished just for having a whole team who wanders into and then gets bottled up inside the cave on frozen.

it's about not being punished too harshly for having a team that is carefully crafted out of pure militarized fail.
--lrm mechs that ONLY have lrm
--players that don't know how to aim lasers
--mechs with 4 PPC and 10 heatsinks
--lrm confetti that is repeatedly fired at mechs that are within kicking range
--and a partridge in a pear tree

I definitely agree with you that all of these things can be frustrating! But ineffective strategies and builds aren't influenced by the rewards system. People who are new will make the mistakes that are made by people who are new.

The issue that eli is examining is related to the type of behavior that the reward system encourages, which is really aimed at people who have played enough to understand the system. There are some really cool mechanics in the game that rely on team coordination; things like TAG-ing or spotting for a teammate and resource capping in Conquest mode. This is an exciting part of the game for me, but when I choose to play the role that deals out less damage I receive a lesser reward than my teammates. So I am being encouraged to not choose that role.