If they do a score system, they first have to implement the damage-support-prevention-healing system, so that buffer/debuffer/tanking/healing are rewarded just as damage.
It's time to make the standard 4 numbers:
1) damage - this is the damage you do to the enemy with your abilities
2) support/assist - this shall be the bonus damage that has been done to the enemy because of your abilities
3) healing - this is the points you heal from your group with your abilities
4) prevention - this shall be the points in damage your group doesn't suffer because of your abilities
We look at this simple scenario:
An escort in your group fires a 500 damage phaser bolt on a Borg Cube.
The science ship has currently debuffed the Cube with "Sensor Scan". The 500 bolt does an extra 100 damage. The player of the science ship gets displayed a 100 on his screen, for his support damage.
The cruiser has currently debuffed the Cube with "Attackpattern Beta". The 500 bolt does another 50 damage extra. The cruiser captain gets displayed a 50 on his screen.
The escort player has to option to display 600, 500+100+50 or just 500
Everybody is happy seeing his numbers of contribution on the screen. Damage counts just as much as damage support/assist and the Sci and Eng should see their numbers.
Now the Borg Cube fires 1000 damage plasma bolt to your group member escort.
The science ship has currently debuffed the Cube with "Target Subsystem Weapons", so the 1000 damage bolt is now only a 800 damage bolt. The player of the science ship gets displayed a 200 on his screen, he now knows, he just has prevented 200 damage, which just counts just as much as doing 200 damage, or healing 200 damage.
The cruiser ship has currently buffed the escort with "Extend Shields", so the 800 damage bolt becomes now a 500 damage bolt. The player of the cruiser gets displayed a 300 on his screen.
The escort is now hit by the 500 bolt. But it has "Emergency Power to Shields" active. So the escort gets for itself displayed a 200 and a 300 for actual shield damage it suffers.
The science ship quickly beams over a "Science Team" and restores the shields to full, getting a 300
In summary, because of the 1000 damage bolt, the sci player gets 500, the cruiser gets 300 and the escort gets 200. All the damage is accounted for and once again everybody is happy seeing his numbers of contribution on the screen.
This whole system can even be used to calculate Fleet Actions.
END OF FILE
Some more obscure examples and how they are handled by the system:
"Jam Sensors" - A Borg sphere is jammed and can not fire for 10 sec. Technically it still continues to fire on it's target 'in the background'. So every second it generates a 'virtual' shot of 500 damage against it's target. But instead of doing damage, it puffs away into a 500 damage prevention for the sci player who jammed the sensors.
Armor-Resists - The hull of a cruiser is laying bare, getting hit by a 1000 plasma beam. Thankfully it has 40% plasma resist. Generating 400 for the cruisers tanking abilitiy with every hit.
Misses - Similar to "Jam Sensors", if a borg cube misses a 5000 torpedo shot against an escort, because it was so fast, it still 'virtually' hits for 0 damage and 5000 is generated for the escort for its evasive prevention contribution.
Hold - On the other hand if a Sci disables the Engines or holds a probe with a tractor beam. The 200 damage shot against the probe by the escort still misses 'in the background' for the escort, but it turns from a normal miss, into a hit and generates 200/assist for the sci ship instead. (This requires the tracking of which hits are hits against the normal speed borg, and what hits are (misses) hits because of the slowed Borg)
You see this 4 number system can be applied to every existing ability.
If the problem are ships that simply don't do anything then surely it's not hard to just detect if a ship isn't doing anything, or scale the reward based on the percentage of the game that the ship spends doing nothing (excluding respawn timer).
For example, the game could check in 15 second increments, and a ship is considered to be active if it fired a weapon, used an ability, was shot, or was stuck in the respawn timer during that period. The total number of increments in which the ship is active is then used to determine what percentage of time the ship was active. The total percentages are then combined and used to split a reward pool and roll for extra rewards.
Honestly, I think a vote to kick is enough, especially if new players trying to join an STF get put into in-progress games. So many times I've started an STF and there have only been 4 players the whole run, which doesn't always go so well in Hive.
However, if they are going to implement some sort of scaling, it should not be based on other players. Just like in a private challenge where it totals up your Damage and Healing, they should use a system like that. Personal ability = your own reward. Find the average damage for that STF and make that 1x. Find the average healing amount for that STF and make that 1x. For example, if the average is 100k damage and 50k healing (just easy numbers), if you do 125k damage, you get 1.25x. If you heal 20k, you get 0.4x. Average that out and you get 0.825x rewards. Set a base amount, like 100marks, 5neurals for elite. 0.825x would mean ~83marks and 4 neurals. If you do a lot of damage -or- a lot of healing -or- a good balance of both, you can get more than 100/5. If you don't contribute damage -or- healing, you get less(none if you afk). Possibly add one for received damage. Some people would say "but then the guy who keeps flying in and exploding will get more rewards". Not really. When you add in respawn time, ~50k damage to die over a minute or two is very small compared to a tank taking that much damage every 10-20 seconds.
Scaling things based on all players is not the best way to go. Being a good player will reward you for your ability. We don't want things like Starbase 24 where you WANT everyone else to be bad, so you can get better rewards yourself. STF missions are supposed to be about cooperation, not competition.
If the system is simply to penalize AFKers, the curve could be very easy indeed. Lowest I've seen active participants hit is ~1200 DPS. Make the get-nothing cutoff 400 DPS, and full rewards 900 DPS. Even a sci with max aux can hit those numbers. AFK problem solved.
So... let me get this straight... Cryptic wants to implement scaling rewards based on participation... and participation in STFs always translates into... yep, more dakka dakka. So if you haz no dakka, you getz no rewardz. Why am I not surprised? Escorts Online it is.
Be kind and read the replies next time, before you make <random rant>
Be kind and read the replies next time, before you make <random rant>
I do read the replies. And that's basically what it's going to come down to. Look at how this game has evolved. Everything comes down to more damage. You know it as well as I do. What makes you think it's ever going to change?
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
In the latest STOKed Radio interview (link),
Rather than vote to kick or scaling rewards, would it be feasible to create a vote to end match feature? If players could leave a match without penalty (say an agreement of three or more), there would be a major detriment for AFKers. After a few times where players bail, that AFKing player is going to have a significant reason to actually participate in the match. Take a fleet mark action for instance. If someone is AFKing the team reports him and warps out/beams up. There is no penalty, so it's possible to leave the match and retry it with a full team actually willing to play the game.
My opinions on the solutions so far presented:
- Scaling Rewards = Do Not Want
- Vote to Kick = Do Not Want
- Vote to Leave = Do Want
I'm not going to join the DPS arguments, because I honestly don't care about those. I just know that every experience I've ever had with scaling rewards has led to rage, frustration, and a complete loss of "fun" in the endeavour.
I don't want the Vote to Kick because I know it will be abused.
Vote to Leave seems like the best idea to me. Largely because I'm usually the guy that'll take the hour penalty just to leave the pain behind.
Makings things based on DPS solves nothing. If somebody puts all their power into healing and shields, their DPS suffers badly, especially if in a beam boat. Often when weapon power is at the lowest possible setting, it's not even hitting at 300 per beam. DPS requirements will just punish players who prefer to play support and tank roles.
I haven't read all 4 pages, but in my experience Cryptics understanding of "participation" means DPS.
So as a non Excort fetishist, i am going to to as much STFs as i can, before that new and "exiting" feature goes live.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
If they do a score system, they first have to implement the damage-support-prevention-
Here's the problem: Prevention is impossible to assess. How do you assess THIS case:
Sci ship TBRs incoming Nanite Spheres, saving optional. Damage done: Minimal. This guy is the Optional Hero. He gets shafted on rewards, because he didn't cause all that much damage, and there is no way the system could reliably assess what WOULD have happened if he hadn't been there.
Conversely, your system frequently rewards anti-contribution. TacEscort attacks cube and blows up generators on wrong side. Optional goes to ****. Team slogs to a painfully slow win anyway...but I'm pretty sure this guy doesn't deserve a reward merely because he did a lot of "damage".
Ultimately, this idea was done before: Back in ages past, whether you got a Purple in your reward bag depended on your ranked contribution (Read: Damage). No one liked this and it was shouted down. Now they want to bring it BACK?
The way I see it, most of y'all aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Introducing scaling rewards now is probably a framework for more STF content, something we pretty desperately need. Bring it on, I don't go afk
In the latest STOKed Radio interview (link), dStahl was asked about a future vote to kick system in STFs. In response, he said that such a feature may be seen in the future, but they are currently planning to try scaling rewards based on player participation based on completing mission objectives. Both of these options have me concerned.
I'm way too lazy to go back and double check, but I don't believe he said the rewards would be based on completing mission objectives.
What I understood about the system is that many factors, including things like healing, would be monitored and used to determine rewards. That, if they were able to implement such a system, a scoreboard would be included to show you how you fared in each of the metrics used.
__________________________________
STO Forum member since before February 2010. STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
Comments
It's time to make the standard 4 numbers:
1) damage - this is the damage you do to the enemy with your abilities
2) support/assist - this shall be the bonus damage that has been done to the enemy because of your abilities
3) healing - this is the points you heal from your group with your abilities
4) prevention - this shall be the points in damage your group doesn't suffer because of your abilities
We look at this simple scenario:
An escort in your group fires a 500 damage phaser bolt on a Borg Cube.
Everybody is happy seeing his numbers of contribution on the screen. Damage counts just as much as damage support/assist and the Sci and Eng should see their numbers.
Now the Borg Cube fires 1000 damage plasma bolt to your group member escort.
In summary, because of the 1000 damage bolt, the sci player gets 500, the cruiser gets 300 and the escort gets 200. All the damage is accounted for and once again everybody is happy seeing his numbers of contribution on the screen.
This whole system can even be used to calculate Fleet Actions.
END OF FILE
Some more obscure examples and how they are handled by the system:
"Jam Sensors" - A Borg sphere is jammed and can not fire for 10 sec. Technically it still continues to fire on it's target 'in the background'. So every second it generates a 'virtual' shot of 500 damage against it's target. But instead of doing damage, it puffs away into a 500 damage prevention for the sci player who jammed the sensors.
Armor-Resists - The hull of a cruiser is laying bare, getting hit by a 1000 plasma beam. Thankfully it has 40% plasma resist. Generating 400 for the cruisers tanking abilitiy with every hit.
Misses - Similar to "Jam Sensors", if a borg cube misses a 5000 torpedo shot against an escort, because it was so fast, it still 'virtually' hits for 0 damage and 5000 is generated for the escort for its evasive prevention contribution.
Hold - On the other hand if a Sci disables the Engines or holds a probe with a tractor beam. The 200 damage shot against the probe by the escort still misses 'in the background' for the escort, but it turns from a normal miss, into a hit and generates 200/assist for the sci ship instead. (This requires the tracking of which hits are hits against the normal speed borg, and what hits are (misses) hits because of the slowed Borg)
You see this 4 number system can be applied to every existing ability.
For example, the game could check in 15 second increments, and a ship is considered to be active if it fired a weapon, used an ability, was shot, or was stuck in the respawn timer during that period. The total number of increments in which the ship is active is then used to determine what percentage of time the ship was active. The total percentages are then combined and used to split a reward pool and roll for extra rewards.
Game Balance - Ship Size and Wingmates
However, if they are going to implement some sort of scaling, it should not be based on other players. Just like in a private challenge where it totals up your Damage and Healing, they should use a system like that. Personal ability = your own reward. Find the average damage for that STF and make that 1x. Find the average healing amount for that STF and make that 1x. For example, if the average is 100k damage and 50k healing (just easy numbers), if you do 125k damage, you get 1.25x. If you heal 20k, you get 0.4x. Average that out and you get 0.825x rewards. Set a base amount, like 100marks, 5neurals for elite. 0.825x would mean ~83marks and 4 neurals. If you do a lot of damage -or- a lot of healing -or- a good balance of both, you can get more than 100/5. If you don't contribute damage -or- healing, you get less(none if you afk). Possibly add one for received damage. Some people would say "but then the guy who keeps flying in and exploding will get more rewards". Not really. When you add in respawn time, ~50k damage to die over a minute or two is very small compared to a tank taking that much damage every 10-20 seconds.
Scaling things based on all players is not the best way to go. Being a good player will reward you for your ability. We don't want things like Starbase 24 where you WANT everyone else to be bad, so you can get better rewards yourself. STF missions are supposed to be about cooperation, not competition.
Love how everyone ignores the facts and goes straight to "the sky is falling"
All I hear is, "I want my rewards as long as I show up"
I think the reward based system would force some players to actually put in some effort, and add a much needed challenge.
When it's a quote from DStahl, you need to look at his track record, not what he's typing onscreen.
Be kind and read the replies next time, before you make <random rant>
WEll... if this was a PHP script, it would return TRUE;
I do read the replies. And that's basically what it's going to come down to. Look at how this game has evolved. Everything comes down to more damage. You know it as well as I do. What makes you think it's ever going to change?
full of win. best idea yet.
- Scaling Rewards = Do Not Want
- Vote to Kick = Do Not Want
- Vote to Leave = Do Want
I'm not going to join the DPS arguments, because I honestly don't care about those. I just know that every experience I've ever had with scaling rewards has led to rage, frustration, and a complete loss of "fun" in the endeavour.
I don't want the Vote to Kick because I know it will be abused.
Vote to Leave seems like the best idea to me. Largely because I'm usually the guy that'll take the hour penalty just to leave the pain behind.
So as a non Excort fetishist, i am going to to as much STFs as i can, before that new and "exiting" feature goes live.
Sci ship TBRs incoming Nanite Spheres, saving optional. Damage done: Minimal. This guy is the Optional Hero. He gets shafted on rewards, because he didn't cause all that much damage, and there is no way the system could reliably assess what WOULD have happened if he hadn't been there.
Conversely, your system frequently rewards anti-contribution. TacEscort attacks cube and blows up generators on wrong side. Optional goes to ****. Team slogs to a painfully slow win anyway...but I'm pretty sure this guy doesn't deserve a reward merely because he did a lot of "damage".
Ultimately, this idea was done before: Back in ages past, whether you got a Purple in your reward bag depended on your ranked contribution (Read: Damage). No one liked this and it was shouted down. Now they want to bring it BACK?
- if you didn't land at least one hit on the Snowman Overlord, you got no reward at all
- once you crossed that no reward/reward threshold, your reward was based on damage done
you already have afk people "macro" in Defera. It wouldn't be hard to macro in space. Randomly fly and shoot and dies.
and get reward.
Please review my campaign and I'll return the favor.
I'm way too lazy to go back and double check, but I don't believe he said the rewards would be based on completing mission objectives.
What I understood about the system is that many factors, including things like healing, would be monitored and used to determine rewards. That, if they were able to implement such a system, a scoreboard would be included to show you how you fared in each of the metrics used.
STO Forum member since before February 2010.
STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman