A scoreboard, wouldn't help at all, because many who cannot even achieve preventing the afk penalty in the firstplace, would recieve absolutely 0 rewards each and every time!
Can people get around the current system in place, and still leech? Sure, but in the short period of time they do become active, they contribute more than many who remain active the whole time and get the penalty!
The system isn't perfect, but it does an excellent job of enforcing participation, less people get around it [which is possible], and yes it can punish some unfortunates, but a good portion of those unfortunates are either leechers/moochers, or don't bother to actually be of great aid really that they are actually needed in mission by the others!
The fact remains that whether they receive zero rewards, or not, they are not being punished for being leeches if they are not. They are being given a visible measure of how they did, and a context for any lack of reward that may ocurr. This is so much superior ethically to the current rubber stamp system. They will have something to look at, and they can try again without enforced and punitive delay.
It should still motivate them to improve, and to participate more aggressively because they will see why they didn't get a reward. They may still actually get 'expertise' for any kills they actually possibly participated in, and that is still something.
Bottom line; The honest players will have an honest yardstick. I can't fault that.
It is only your opinion that a good portion of those affected are any of the things you described. In the spirit of sharing opinions, mine is that any reasonable person will jump at the chance to help, and contribute, and do better. So we should not assume they simply "don't bother". I am confident that they do bother, but could use a yardstick of some kind.
A scoreboard would be pure honesty in terms of who did what, and how much of it they did. I like honesty. It makes me smile.
Whaaa... Please stop whining and learn how to build a decent ship and instead of flying around willy nilly learn the fight and contribute. I have seen and read many posts like yours always crying that such and such is broken or OPed. Nothing is OPed in this game and guy you have zero excuse. So stop crying about someone who has taken the time and effort to build a powerful ship. Better yet quit the game and don't come back.
+1 SSBN655 !!!
Friggin Nerf Herders need to shuffle on back to Mos Eisley.
if it did a such a great job this thread would not be here, and fleets wouldnt be getting mothballed faster than ice-cream stands in antarctica.
if they where getting zero every time that would be irrelivent to them getting practice from being there. not to mention having their place on the scoreboard finally give actually f***ing feedback on their performance that wod empirical and related to other players, rather than their own feelings on the matter from npcs elsewhere in the game.
i find this elitism disgusting.
I am actually in favor removal of AFK penalty if and when there is a scoreboard wherein % of total rewards dili/xp/spec is divided to the players depending on their statistical team contribution. I am always after performance based rewards since I live in a performance based society not a socialist society. That means if one player does 0% total statistical contribution to the team one get 0% rewards, 50% contribution, 50% of rewards, etc. However, any form of AFK penalty removal still doesnt solve the problem of finished combat time. If we assume the same players who got AFK somehow forms a PuG group, most likely FFA or ISA will be completed in 2-10 hours or if not complete at all due to frustration. The only time it will finish faster if somehow someone/some group carried them to faster completion.
However, I am with coldnapalm's sentiments there are more things important than a devs time wasted on recoding AFK Penalty and deciding what kind of replacement they want to make since removal of AFK penalty will just transfer one complaint into another. For example instead of AFK Penalty threads, you would have combat finish time length threads, or 0 rewards complaint threads.
I dont think the current AFK Penalty has to do with Elitism. Currently, AFK penalty affects only the lower end DPS spectrum of the playerbase which put an educated guess roughly put them in the same population size as the upper end of the DPS spectrum. Because population extremities should most of the time be the lowest population size and population graph should be a Bell curve. This is the graph you get from either DPS table from either DPS leagues wherein the upper and lower end of DPS spectrum are the lowest population groups. It is also very illogical to say that majority of the playerbase are lazy to improve/search the internet or ignorant that they need increased performance to warrant qualification of opposition as elitists. Yes, there are complaints but that doesnt mean if those players opposition in a debate or oppose their idea are automatically elitists.
But if you classify performance based rewards are elitists I gladly embrace Elitism. because the opposition to that would be socialists, who dont want to contribute or want to contribute less but gain equal or more rewards than those who actually contributed/performed more than them.
I am sure fleets controlled and Enslaved by "Beautifuls" are exempt from any and all penalties by Craptic default programming, try and look into those if you tire of being penalized. All that is required is you sign in blood and sell your soul IG and irl.
if it did a such a great job this thread would not be here, and fleets wouldnt be getting mothballed faster than ice-cream stands in antarctica.
if they where getting zero every time that would be irrelivent to them getting practice from being there. not to mention having their place on the scoreboard finally give actually f***ing feedback on their performance that wod empirical and related to other players, rather than their own feelings on the matter from npcs elsewhere in the game.
i find this elitism disgusting.
I am actually in favor removal of AFK penalty if and when there is a scoreboard wherein % of total rewards dili/xp/spec is divided to the players depending on their statistical team contribution. I am always after performance based rewards since I live in a performance based society not a socialist society. That means if one player does 0% total statistical contribution to the team one get 0% rewards, 50% contribution, 50% of rewards, etc. However, any form of AFK penalty removal still doesnt solve the problem of finished combat time. If we assume the same players who got AFK somehow forms a PuG group, most likely FFA or ISA will be completed in 2-10 hours or if not complete at all due to frustration. The only time it will finish faster if somehow someone/some group carried them to faster completion.
However, I am with coldnapalm's sentiments there are more things important than a devs time wasted on recoding AFK Penalty and deciding what kind of replacement they want to make since removal of AFK penalty will just transfer one complaint into another. For example instead of AFK Penalty threads, you would have combat finish time length threads, or 0 rewards complaint threads.
I dont think the current AFK Penalty has to do with Elitism. Currently, AFK penalty affects only the lower end DPS spectrum of the playerbase which put an educated guess roughly put them in the same population size as the upper end of the DPS spectrum. Because population extremities should most of the time be the lowest population size and population graph should be a Bell curve. This is the graph you get from either DPS table from either DPS leagues wherein the upper and lower end of DPS spectrum are the lowest population groups. It is also very illogical to say that majority of the playerbase are lazy to improve/search the internet or ignorant that they need increased performance to warrant qualification of opposition as elitists. Yes, there are complaints but that doesnt mean if those players opposition in a debate or oppose their idea are automatically elitists.
But if you classify performance based rewards are elitists I gladly embrace Elitism. because the opposition to that would be socialists, who dont want to contribute or want to contribute less but gain equal or more rewards than those who actually contributed/performed more than them.
The flaw with just such a scoring system, is you will find those again who contribute the most being the only ones rewarded, while those who contribute little - nothing rewarded with nothing!
So, in a sense the afk penalty system is doing just that, in a different way!
Example, player(s) contributes less than 1-2% dps, = 0 reward + penalty
Player(s) contributing more than that = reward + 0 penalty
If we used the statistics system, than it would be feasible for a single player to overule all the others.
If they contributed more than 50% of everything, than there can only be another 50% left, which would either be divided amongst the other 4, or worse case all to the other leaving 0% for the other 3.
Which is kind of how the dps evaluated by our current system, afk's player(s) based on the top performace of a single or more player(s) total performace.
If they perform better, than the others need do so as well, or fall behind and suffer.
But, unlike a system that figures anyone not performing @ 50% need not get anything, the current afk system just figures anyone not meeting the 1-2% team total dps barrier, need not get anything and shouldn't even be there for awhile, so penalty it is!
I really don't think an AFK penalty should be based on overall contribution but on overall activity (combat time). That'll keep things such as power creep in check. Remember, we are trying to weed out AFK players, not segregate rewards according to contribution.
before ANYTHING else, you need to prove that that punishment is wrong. you have yet to do so. All you've provided is your statement that you where participating and being useful, yet you got an AFK ban. I'm sorry(not sorry) but you have no credibility. No one here has to take you at your word. provide proof or go away.
its really simple, is the afk penalty system(not to say the penalty itself) completly avoidable? yes
is the perpose of the penalty to punish players for not knowing the content? no
is the afk system punishing players for not knowing the content? yes
is the afk system punishing players who know the content, but still cant do the dps of other players? yes.
Does the AFK system punish players who know what they're doing and can do the DPS of other players but want to leech on purpose? No!
That alone is reason enough to ditch the system entirely and start over from scratch. A damage threshold couldn't possibly be set high enough to actually require a decently capable player to participate even half the time. If an AFK penalty system is necessary, it must measure active time to be effective.
I've said before, there needs to be a vote-to-kick system in place. When the system recognises someone who is AFK, say after 30-60 seconds of null activity (it should also recognise no change in input in case someone puts a little speed on and autofires without directional change), a vote system appears next to their name so people can kick a leech out. It's becoming increasingly common to find someone like this especially where there is a 'safe-zone' where a player can't be attacked, so perhaps, especially in Adv versions, enemy should spawn near a spawn site to start giving injuries out.
So how about a combination of those two suggestions? After 60 seconds of combat with no movement/firing/healing, vote to kick for being inactive?
Is that going to work with load screen times, kemocite and other lag. What do we need to compensate for with this idea?
Also, is a vote a distraction in a high paced game? Maybe the total participation time % is better? maybe instead of a vote, just nerf , or eliminate the reward. Leave any expertise earned in combat though. ?
Thanks for jumping in
Qapla
The trouble is an input limited system is easy to get around. A little speed and hold down the turn button. You would need something more complex so it looks for damage, healing and movment. And such a system is a LOT of dev time to do it in a way that won't accidently get players who get disoriented while being hard to get around with simple inputs. There really isn't an easy way to deal with this. And like I said, the issue isn't big enough for me to consider it worth a lot of dev time.
So how about the scoreboard idea? Scale rewards by the % if you like (I'd say round up to 1%, so 1 Fleet mark, and 3 dilithium maybe) and then people would learn to participate, but also see how they were actually doing, so they could see why the low reward.
if it did a such a great job this thread would not be here, and fleets wouldnt be getting mothballed faster than ice-cream stands in antarctica.
if they where getting zero every time that would be irrelivent to them getting practice from being there. not to mention having their place on the scoreboard finally give actually f***ing feedback on their performance that wod empirical and related to other players, rather than their own feelings on the matter from npcs elsewhere in the game.
i find this elitism disgusting.
I am actually in favor removal of AFK penalty if and when there is a scoreboard wherein % of total rewards dili/xp/spec is divided to the players depending on their statistical team contribution. I am always after performance based rewards since I live in a performance based society not a socialist society. That means if one player does 0% total statistical contribution to the team one get 0% rewards, 50% contribution, 50% of rewards, etc. However, any form of AFK penalty removal still doesnt solve the problem of finished combat time. If we assume the same players who got AFK somehow forms a PuG group, most likely FFA or ISA will be completed in 2-10 hours or if not complete at all due to frustration. The only time it will finish faster if somehow someone/some group carried them to faster completion.
However, I am with coldnapalm's sentiments there are more things important than a devs time wasted on recoding AFK Penalty and deciding what kind of replacement they want to make since removal of AFK penalty will just transfer one complaint into another. For example instead of AFK Penalty threads, you would have combat finish time length threads, or 0 rewards complaint threads.
I dont think the current AFK Penalty has to do with Elitism. Currently, AFK penalty affects only the lower end DPS spectrum of the playerbase which put an educated guess roughly put them in the same population size as the upper end of the DPS spectrum. Because population extremities should most of the time be the lowest population size and population graph should be a Bell curve. This is the graph you get from either DPS table from either DPS leagues wherein the upper and lower end of DPS spectrum are the lowest population groups. It is also very illogical to say that majority of the playerbase are lazy to improve/search the internet or ignorant that they need increased performance to warrant qualification of opposition as elitists. Yes, there are complaints but that doesnt mean if those players opposition in a debate or oppose their idea are automatically elitists.
But if you classify performance based rewards are elitists I gladly embrace Elitism. because the opposition to that would be socialists, who dont want to contribute or want to contribute less but gain equal or more rewards than those who actually contributed/performed more than them.
Thank you for your observations on this. I looks like we agree on a possible solution, although not how successful it might be. I see your concerns about new complaint threads as being valid.
It may not be so bad though, since new players would first learn about % based rewards in queues gated at level '5+', and would see how much improvement they need just at normal difficulty, because of the scoreboard. If you make the choice in design to grant 100% of a standard reward (plus bonuses after that, as applicable) to the highest performer in a group, then scale the other players against that and always round up to the next whole % point, then it isn't strictly a 0% reward. It also isn't enough for a leech to see much profit.
Lets say the highest score for an example was representing 100k dps. If the reward per player was 75 Fleet marks and 1440 dith then highest score gets a full reward (plus bonuses) the next highest gets 75% if they only did 75k dps by comparison, which nets 57 Marks, and 1080 dith. Someone doing 0.5k dps is (rounded up) at 1% or 1 mark, and 15 dith, which is better than being punished, but so small an amount that leeches will avoid it, and honest players will want to improve.
Not to be dismissive of a reasonably fair concern, but there will always be threads demanding bigger rewards in my opinion. Attaching performance to reward in a clearly visible manner disarms most of the possible complaints, especially if you round up, allow them to keep whatever expertise they acquire from activity, and don't punish them.
I suppose you could layer access to higher challenge queues by requiring a minimum 'static' score or rating on the first one, to 'qualify' for the next one. It would all be performance based, and honestly representing output, whether someone was using a bot, got disconnected, was just plain lousy, or actually for real AFK. A Leech would always be locked out of higher difficulties in such a case. Or they would have to apply themselves, and maybe be genuinely useful.
Slow combat completion may actually result less often if players are given clear scoreboard evidence that they are not ready for Advanced or Elite queues. You could even assign a descriptive label to performance percentages, like "Cadet, Normal, Advanced, Elite", to show a player how their scores are stacking up. Use that with layered access and you have people who are seeing how they measure up, and understanding more clearly why they either aren't able to, or shouldn't take more advanced content yet.
Instead of going to a thread to defend an inaccurate AFK penalty issued out of proper context, you might rather end up explaining why a very easily understood, and fair system of scores and percentage based rewards was implemented, and how it protects honest players. Also how it helps them see how they compare in very basic terms, which the current system really doesn't do. After that show them the link to your parsing program. I'm serious, not being snide. With percentages as your ally, and no AFK penalty muddying the waters, it becomes a real opportunity to discuss improvement, without all the bitterness involved with false-positive AFKs.
So for clarification, I think a scoreboard would discourage a lot of players from taking on the higher difficulty content until they had the numbers to justify it. Especially if they had a ranking telling them where they should be playing at. So combat times might even improve. I admit this is only a supposition.
Again, not trying to be a jerk to anyone, I can say that fighting with people was not why I came on here, nor did I come on here to arrange amnesty for leeches. All I came here for was to argue for a more honest method that did not falsely punish players, as the current system (as stated by many besides me) is capable of.
I very much believe that if we went with a score board and percentage based rewards it would be easier to get new people started properly, without abuse, and with a clear idea that better performance will be rewarded in kind. I believe it would discourage people playing above their current ability, and possibly make Advanced queues less heavily weighted towards the inexperienced, maybe even speeding combat completion.
Lastly, on accusations of elitism, I would only like to say that people may read 'elitism' into comments made if such comments are condescending, rude, or seem to be otherwise taking a unnecessarily superior and/or insulting tone, and really when you get down to it, I think we all come off as 'elitist' when we get all righteous and indignant. It's probably human nature.
For my part I extend a blanket apology for any unwarranted rudeness to any reader/poster here. Doesn't mean I agree with you, but I didn't come here to make enemies, so I am going to try to regroup, and put my best manners forward. Maybe we can all tone it back a little while we debate?
if it did a such a great job this thread would not be here, and fleets wouldnt be getting mothballed faster than ice-cream stands in antarctica.
if they where getting zero every time that would be irrelivent to them getting practice from being there. not to mention having their place on the scoreboard finally give actually f***ing feedback on their performance that wod empirical and related to other players, rather than their own feelings on the matter from npcs elsewhere in the game.
i find this elitism disgusting.
I am actually in favor removal of AFK penalty if and when there is a scoreboard wherein % of total rewards dili/xp/spec is divided to the players depending on their statistical team contribution. I am always after performance based rewards since I live in a performance based society not a socialist society. That means if one player does 0% total statistical contribution to the team one get 0% rewards, 50% contribution, 50% of rewards, etc. However, any form of AFK penalty removal still doesnt solve the problem of finished combat time. If we assume the same players who got AFK somehow forms a PuG group, most likely FFA or ISA will be completed in 2-10 hours or if not complete at all due to frustration. The only time it will finish faster if somehow someone/some group carried them to faster completion.
However, I am with coldnapalm's sentiments there are more things important than a devs time wasted on recoding AFK Penalty and deciding what kind of replacement they want to make since removal of AFK penalty will just transfer one complaint into another. For example instead of AFK Penalty threads, you would have combat finish time length threads, or 0 rewards complaint threads.
I dont think the current AFK Penalty has to do with Elitism. Currently, AFK penalty affects only the lower end DPS spectrum of the playerbase which put an educated guess roughly put them in the same population size as the upper end of the DPS spectrum. Because population extremities should most of the time be the lowest population size and population graph should be a Bell curve. This is the graph you get from either DPS table from either DPS leagues wherein the upper and lower end of DPS spectrum are the lowest population groups. It is also very illogical to say that majority of the playerbase are lazy to improve/search the internet or ignorant that they need increased performance to warrant qualification of opposition as elitists. Yes, there are complaints but that doesnt mean if those players opposition in a debate or oppose their idea are automatically elitists.
But if you classify performance based rewards are elitists I gladly embrace Elitism. because the opposition to that would be socialists, who dont want to contribute or want to contribute less but gain equal or more rewards than those who actually contributed/performed more than them.
The flaw with just such a scoring system, is you will find those again who contribute the most being the only ones rewarded, while those who contribute little - nothing rewarded with nothing!
So, in a sense the afk penalty system is doing just that, in a different way!
Example, player(s) contributes less than 1-2% dps, = 0 reward + penalty
Player(s) contributing more than that = reward + 0 penalty
If we used the statistics system, than it would be feasible for a single player to overule all the others.
If they contributed more than 50% of everything, than there can only be another 50% left, which would either be divided amongst the other 4, or worse case all to the other leaving 0% for the other 3.
Which is kind of how the dps evaluated by our current system, afk's player(s) based on the top performace of a single or more player(s) total performace.
If they perform better, than the others need do so as well, or fall behind and suffer.
But, unlike a system that figures anyone not performing @ 50% need not get anything, the current afk system just figures anyone not meeting the 1-2% team total dps barrier, need not get anything and shouldn't even be there for awhile, so penalty it is!
Ok, consider a scoring system that says player A did the most, so player A gets 100% of a per person potential reward (lets call it 1000 dith) The next player does half of what the first did, 50%, so gets 500 dith, the next player 'C' does one half of one percent. Lets be a tiny bit kind, and round up in this case, but that nets the 'C' player 1% or 10 dith, which is a lot better than being punished, but not worth a lot otherwise.
The players can see the scoreboard. Player 'C' at 1% (courtesy) can see why he only got 1% and was lucky to get it. Players A, and B can see they got proportionally appropriate rewards without one taking from the other. If A or B are friends with the 'C' player, they now have some very basic numbers to look at to start helping their friend to improve.
If there was a comparative score, and a static rating score, the static rating could be used to gate a player's entrance into advanced queues, only allowing it if the static rating was met. Meanwhile normal queues would remain available for working out better PVE performance, improving the end game for everyone.
I really don't think an AFK penalty should be based on overall contribution but on overall activity (combat time). That'll keep things such as power creep in check. Remember, we are trying to weed out AFK players, not segregate rewards according to contribution.
I can see the attraction of time over dps contribution, but I have to point out that dps contribution is already being monitored by the game, checked by comparative % and used in the AFK system. If we put that scoring into a score board and scaled the reward instead of punishing people, I think it would be an easy fix, and a whole lot more fair and honest. Leeches would get 1%, others would have something to shoot for. Nobody would get an undeserved AFK penalty.
I am actually in favor removal of AFK penalty if and when there is a scoreboard wherein % of total rewards dili/xp/spec is divided to the players depending on their statistical team contribution. I am always after performance based rewards since I live in a performance based society not a socialist society.
There is a problem with this approach. This was done in the past, but as a result, anyone who flew a support craft, and thus did not deal out all the DPSes, got completely screwed out of their reward. Believe it or not, these ships are actually things which still exist. As a result, the system was scrapped. You can still see vestiges of this in older, non-relevant events like SB24 or even in CE (where the bonus reward received is irrelevant, and the scoring system is...well, a bit weird, at best).
It should also be noted that when taken to the extremes of your system, will actually create an openly hostile atmosphere all around. High-performance players stop being people who help everyone get paid faster and instead simply cause everyone to get paid less by hogging the kills for themselves. The high performance player, similarly, resents the presence of those other people at all: He doesn't need them, and they're stealing his rewards. So now everyone is unhappy. This is the system which is used to divvy up the XP in a red alert: Do you not tend to see the presence of others in your red alert as an unwelcome intrusion no matter where you stand on the spectrum? Still, I suppose that, by the definition of a compromise, at least it works: It's a solution everyone is unhappy with.
Ok, something weird happened there. Not my comment exactly.
My statement is not to divvy up, that was paxdawn.
My statement is to say that player A (the best by less than 1% difference) gets 100% of a per person potential reward that is not divided between players. The next player B, and every other player, C, D, E, is scaled against the first, but the first loses nothing, nor is the remaining reward diminished by the first player's success. Each is potentially even eligible for the full potential, per person reward because I am suggesting that the % is rounded up. So 99.1% becomes 100%.
Basically if the reward was 100 marks, and 1000 dith, the top player gets 100% of their potential reward. The other four of five players can still each get 100% of the potential reward by just scoring 99.1% or better. In other words, the top player can get it done faster, more often, by helping others learn how to be better team mates, and by helping them also get higher rewards.
However, I fly Sci a lot, so I get your other concern. I would also think that it could be easy to count healing, or repairing, or other outputs of energy in units per second, and weight the score accordingly. Dps is just a measurement of changing value, so is healing, or other effects. Give points for the amount of value changed by whatever means. I am sure the mechanics for tracking this are already in game, at least for the Devs to use. I think they are part of the current AFK system also, but I am not the guy to confirm that.
Maybe there is something wrong with me, but I don't mind sharing the game with other customers. They are supposed to be here also. Red Alerts, whatever. Some of the high performance players have already made it clear they resent at least some of the other potential participants, because of low output. I have seen kemocite flying around with no effort on anyone's part to try to do anything but score all possible kills as quickly as possible. Certainly nobody slowed down to type any advice in the chat bar, for any stragglers.
So again, don't divvy up, but scale reward for each player, measured alongside a top player, drawing from a potential/per player reward. Also see if the devs just fake the part of the system that records healing, or if they can track it well enough to add it to a score. Sci and Eng ships do deserve consideration.
My statement is to say that player A (the best by less than 1% difference) gets 100% of a per person potential reward that is not divided between players. The next player B, and every other player, C, D, E, is scaled against the first, but the first loses nothing, nor is the remaining reward diminished by the first player's success. Each may even qualify for the full potential, per person reward because I am suggesting that the % is rounded up. So 99.1% becomes 100%.
Basically if the reward was 100 marks, and 1000 dith, the top player gets 100% of their potential reward. The other four of five players can still each get 100% of the potential reward by just scoring 99.1% or better. In other words, the top player can get it done faster, more often, by helping others learn how to be better team mates, and by helping them also get higher rewards.
Lets say the highest score for an example was representing 100k dps. If the reward per player was 100 Fleet marks and 1000 dith then highest score gets a full reward (plus bonuses) the next highest gets 75% if they only did 75k dps by comparison, which nets 75 Marks, and 750 dith. Someone doing 0.5k dps is (rounded up) at 1% or 1 mark, and 10 dith, which is better than being punished, but so small an amount that leeches will avoid it, and honest players will want to improve.
However, I fly Sci a lot, so I get your other concern. I would also think that it could be easy to count healing, or repairing, or other outputs of energy in units per second, and weight the score accordingly. Dps is just a measurement of changing value, so is healing, or other effects. Give points for the amount of value changed by whatever means. I am sure the mechanics for tracking this are already in game, at least for the Devs to use. I think they are part of the current AFK system also, but I am not the guy to confirm that.
So again, don't divvy up, but scale reward for each player, measured alongside a top player, drawing from a potential/per player reward. Also see if the devs ... can track it well enough to add it to a score. Sci and Eng ships do deserve consideration.
Besides all the above, I also believe that any power creep will reveal itself in the score boards. People worried about power creep should be encouraged by that, since it will therefore become obvious to everyone in a measurable way.
I really don't think an AFK penalty should be based on overall contribution but on overall activity (combat time). That'll keep things such as power creep in check. Remember, we are trying to weed out AFK players, not segregate rewards according to contribution.
I can see the attraction of time over dps contribution, but I have to point out that dps contribution is already being monitored by the game, checked by comparative % and used in the AFK system. If we put that scoring into a score board and scaled the reward instead of punishing people, I think it would be an easy fix, and a whole lot more fair and honest. Leeches would get 1%, others would have something to shoot for. Nobody would get an undeserved AFK penalty.
Did I win you over?
Qapla
Nope not yet.
We're talking about a game where people already hate on the DPS crowd. I think a scoreboard would rile up that side of the community more. It'll also be a case where those who really don't need the extra resources will be getting it. It'll also make fleet runs where we help lower fleet members finish STFs and get the rewards to help them progress faster obsolete because we'd be getting the rewards instead.
There are also a number of STFs where damage doesn't count. You've got the free the Borg phase in Borg Disconnected, the portal closing stage in Gateway To Gre'Thor, parts of Undine Assault, etc.
IMO combat time (in the way our parsers validate runs) will be the least inciteful and would make the most sense in catching AFK players. You will need to actively shoot, heal or draw aggro to keep combat time up. I don't think it will be that easy to write a bot for combat time either given how things on a map can change and how that can affect your time in combat.
I really don't think an AFK penalty should be based on overall contribution but on overall activity (combat time). That'll keep things such as power creep in check. Remember, we are trying to weed out AFK players, not segregate rewards according to contribution.
I can see the attraction of time over dps contribution, but I have to point out that dps contribution is already being monitored by the game, checked by comparative % and used in the AFK system. If we put that scoring into a score board and scaled the reward instead of punishing people, I think it would be an easy fix, and a whole lot more fair and honest. Leeches would get 1%, others would have something to shoot for. Nobody would get an undeserved AFK penalty.
Did I win you over?
Qapla
Nope not yet.
We're talking about a game where people already hate on the DPS crowd. I think a scoreboard would rile up that side of the community more. It'll also be a case where those who really don't need the extra resources will be getting it. It'll also make fleet runs where we help lower fleet members finish STFs and get the rewards to help them progress faster obsolete because we'd be getting the rewards instead.
There are also a number of STFs where damage doesn't count. You've got the free the Borg phase in Borg Disconnected, the portal closing stage in Gateway To Gre'Thor, parts of Undine Assault, etc.
IMO combat time (in the way our parsers validate runs) will be the least inciteful and would make the most sense in catching AFK players. You will need to actively shoot, heal or draw aggro to keep combat time up. I don't think it will be that easy to write a bot for combat time either given how things on a map can change and how that can affect your time in combat.
OK. So did you see the post prior to this one where I went into more detail? I also mentioned non dps effects, and the ability to see power creep. if you didn't please check it out.
If you did, then lets say your on the right track, and ask; How you make sure a bot doesn't do 'good enough' to void this method? How do you decide rewards and bonuses?
OK. So did you see the post prior to this one where I went into more detail? I also mentioned non dps effects, and the ability to see power creep. if you didn't please check it out.
If you did, then lets say your on the right track, and ask; How you make sure a bot doesn't do 'good enough' to void this method? How do you decide rewards and bonuses?
Qapla.
Yeah I just saw it after I made my post (was probably typing my post when you posted yours). I don't think it is easy to get combat time right because even top-end players will miss it from time to time. Obviously, we won't set it as high as SCM which is set at 90% combat time. A lower threshold at maybe around 75-80% might work out well enough.
Why don't I think it'll be easy to bot? Because combat time will also depend on your team. If you go out too slow, you will be left behind by a better team (=not enough combat time). If you set it too fast, you will fall ahead of a below average team and you'll die or worse, fail the queue for the team. I don't think a bot will be smart enough to adapt to the team.
Now if we do get a leaderboard as a solution, I wouldn't scale down rewards, rather than scale them up. Meaning the lowest contributor gets 100% and people above him gets bonus rewards (like Crystalline Catastrophe). Of course there has to be a threshold where someone will be deemed AFK and won't get anything.
The current system may not be perfect, but again it enforces dps participation, and not a very high participation.
1-2%, is laughably low, so low in fact that even a shuttle/tier1 vessel can most often deal the needed dps.
The only issue outside of DCing, is people not actively engaging enough, plain and simple!
I mean even a single BA on a ship, could possibly prevent an afk penalty, so long as you remain active enough engaging enemies to dmg them.
I personally do not know anyone, who has been handed an afk penalty when actively engaging the enemies, even when they at best only get 3k - 8k dps in some cases!
Until something can better be added, I for one say keep it how it is, and those who are penalized outside of a DC/not knowing, need stop leeching/whining and start learning/engaging.
OK. So did you see the post prior to this one where I went into more detail? I also mentioned non dps effects, and the ability to see power creep. if you didn't please check it out.
If you did, then lets say your on the right track, and ask; How you make sure a bot doesn't do 'good enough' to void this method? How do you decide rewards and bonuses?
Qapla.
Yeah I just saw it after I made my post (was probably typing my post when you posted yours). I don't think it is easy to get combat time right because even top-end players will miss it from time to time. Obviously, we won't set it as high as SCM which is set at 90% combat time. A lower threshold at maybe around 75-80% might work out well enough.
Why don't I think it'll be easy to bot? Because combat time will also depend on your team. If you go out too slow, you will be left behind by a better team (=not enough combat time). If you set it too fast, you will fall ahead of a below average team and you'll die or worse, fail the queue for the team. I don't think a bot will be smart enough to adapt to the team.
Now if we do get a leaderboard as a solution, I wouldn't scale down rewards, rather than scale them up. Meaning the lowest contributor gets 100% and people above him gets bonus rewards (like Crystalline Catastrophe). Of course there has to be a threshold where someone will be deemed AFK and won't get anything.
I have some things going through my head on all of this.
First, it boggles me that anyone smooth enough to make a bot run a mission, couldn't make that bot effective enough to look at least average. The bot's maker has to understand the game well enough to make the bot work, so why not make the bot effective with that same knowledge? It can't be much different than what the game does to allow enemies to use better AI. So give your bot a solid process for being reliable, and then it probably will outshine fresh off the bus noobs and pose a risk to a time based system. I am not confident that a bot can't still farm a time, or even a result based system, I mean, why can't the bot just be programmed to follow another player into action, and so keep pace with the team, using cruiser commands to help 'team mates' or Sci powers to look more active, and maybe actually be helpful? At least, that is what it seems like to me.
I'm still opposed to an AFK penalty, but a zero effect =zero reward result I am fine with. That is because all you can tell for sure is there was zero contribution, but you have to guess the reason why, and the reason may not be malice on the part of the player, so I don't think a punishment is right. Zero for Zero is honest, so I would say zero = zero reward. but zero is just plain zero, and that should make sense to anyone, I think we can all agree.
What about a compromise on the reward scaling. > 0 to 25% is a 25% reward frpm the potential, 25.1 to 50% is 50%, and so on. No bonuses if you don't get at least 75% as scaled against the top player. Top player gets double bonuses. Players at 50% or less get no bonus.
So player 'A' carries a noob, a slacker, a bot, and a looter, but scores highest. 'A' makes sure they win, and also that they win well enough to get bonuses.
----
The slacker has a build his dps sister made for him, so he pew pews to 75.1% cause the build was made knowing 'brother' was a slacker. It's a good build, but he just hits a space bar mostly.
----
The looter goes in all 'Kill! Kill! Kill! oooh! Shiney! and does pretty good, but keeps getting lost picking up critters, which isn't ideal. Then again someone needs to probably click on those mk XII items so we can all do 'Need or Greed' on them. The looter does 55%.
----
The bot is good. It has a decent build, is set to react to cooldowns and incoming damage like an in game ai, and performs at 30%.
----
The noob had a rainbow ship that is T2 maybe, and can read and see this console makes his disruptors better (his phasers wish they were disruptors) and he has a console that boosts mnes, but has no mines. He gets 24% of the top players numbers.
----
The payout!
----
Player 'A' gets 100% and double bonuses and passed on a lot of loot, not needing an inventory full of mostly junk, and being basically decent.
----
The slacker's sister, and 'A' manage together to let the slacker get 100% plus bonuses, but not doubled. The slacker randomly got some loot.
----
The looter hit greed on everything and still got 75% plus bonus, on top of a lot of the drops the noob might have used to improve.
----
The 'bot', a soulless little monster but hardly 'Nomad' steams reliably ahead 'earning' a 50% in spite of the hideously dishonorable method used, and I suppose a contribution IS a contribution, still they receive no bonus.
----
The noob fervently, and earnestly pew pews the rainbow warrior to a sadly passive result, but still isn't treated like scum, they just get the lowest reward above zero, or 25%, no bonuses.
----
If the noob had gotten 0.5%, I would rather not see them AFK'd. I would like them to get some kind of minimal reward if the team wins even if it is only 1%, because frankly, I believe a bot can do better than a noob. The bot's master has to know something about the game to cheat it. A noob can know almost nothing about the game and still end up in the earliest queues (ironically probably the best place to wind up with a bot, and someone who knows the game, and wants a quick payout.)
The Noob! Sorry, I guess I get misty remembering when I got my family to play this. We have all been noobs. My sister came over from WOW, but didn't get this game at first, and I had very smart, computer savvy people deleting gear in the mail accidentally (mini-map mail icon) because they didn't know it wouldn't go to inventory. Then there was teaching them about the magical world of Doffs. It was actually a lot of fun, but Aw mah gahd! the things that happen
I think there will be resistance to allowing a player to receive even 25% of their potential reward if they are closer to 1% comparative output, and that is why I am willing to accept the lower reward of 1% minimum for not doing 0% . It is still better than assigning a wrong punishment. So I believe in my earlier version ...
But I like the example I gave above well enough, it favors the top player, motivates the lesser players by comparison and doesn't punish the innocent ... even though a bot and a slacker both got bigger rewards than my precious noobs
What do you think?
Qapla
P.S.
Some "What if?" distracting questions.
What if ...
... Player 'A' is really Racer 'X'?
... Power Creep is a super-villain in Champions?
... We measured dps (derps per second) instead of damage?
The current system may not be perfect, but again it enforces dps participation, and not a very high participation.
1-2%, is laughably low, so low in fact that even a shuttle/tier1 vessel can most often deal the needed dps.
The only issue outside of DCing, is people not actively engaging enough, plain and simple!
I mean even a single BA on a ship, could possibly prevent an afk penalty, so long as you remain active enough engaging enemies to dmg them.
I personally do not know anyone, who has been handed an afk penalty when actively engaging the enemies, even when they at best only get 3k - 8k dps in some cases!
Until something can better be added, I for one say keep it how it is, and those who are penalized outside of a DC/not knowing, need stop leeching/whining and start learning/engaging.
"Until something better can be added,"
That is what I am hoping to see happen. I'm hoping that we can get that to occur.
Can you offer ideas on how to help make an improvement over what we have now?
If not, for whatever reason, then without malice, I ask you why you would want to try to discourage us from trying to seek that improvement? I doubt that what we are trying to do could hurt you, since your manner clearly indicates you are confident in your ability.
Also, I do see people engaging and learning. I think an AFK penalty slows down both by barring participation, and by failing to provide an honest context for doing so. Encouraging play, and providing context for failures will in the long run be better for everyone. I think you would have to agree.
The people approaching your level of ability would have had to come through the leader boards, and reduced rewards on the way to where you are now, and would be strengthened by the experience. They would make better, more reliable team mates, because they got graded, and not expelled. They got an 'F'. They can see it, but they are still in school, and there are still teachers who can help them.
Plus, we need the fresh blood, and committed regulars in the community, or it will fade and die much sooner than we would like. Anything that helps that happen should be up for consideration and possible refinement. Is that so bad?
I guess I can't understand why (no malice) you seem to be against seeking the "something better" that you mention in your post. I would think that you would want us to go ahead and seek an improvement. What am I misunderstanding?
(no malice) Not saying you don't have a right to participation, or your opinions, but if you don't want to help us come up with something better, but aren't against something better, why are you posting here? (not an attack, just a question)
I ended up thinking about the ignore option for chat, etc. I can't remember ever running into an example of it, but can people you have on 'ignore' end up in a queue with you? If not, you could just opt to ignore them yourself, and never see them in your team again. If they can (which is what I expect to be true) then you are still having to deal with someone you have chosen to ignore, but by chance.
Going further, if someone really didn't want to queue with a 'certain someone else' ever again, is it a good idea to allow them to tag the player they wish to avoid? Consider the following examples.
If for example, if player 'A' notices player 'B' isn't doing enough to satisfy the expectations of player 'A', then player 'A' can tag player 'B' so as to be avoided in future queues. The trade off is that player 'A' doesn't get to keep player 'B' from queuing at all. All it means is that whichever of the two of them joined a queue first, would therefore be 'first in line' and would get to play first. The other would be first for the next instance of the queued event to come up. They would not have to mix, and simple initiative would determine which got to play first.
No. Players should not be allowed to negatively affect other players' game like that. Regardless of who was "first in line," player A should only ever have the option of refusing to play himself if B is present, not to stop B from playing. Thus, if A doesn't want to play with B and they would be put in a team together, then B plays and A waits for the next one. Every time.
The only situation in which any kind of "initiative" could be considered is if A and B both have each other blocked.
I ended up thinking about the ignore option for chat, etc. I can't remember ever running into an example of it, but can people you have on 'ignore' end up in a queue with you? If not, you could just opt to ignore them yourself, and never see them in your team again. If they can (which is what I expect to be true) then you are still having to deal with someone you have chosen to ignore, but by chance.
Going further, if someone really didn't want to queue with a 'certain someone else' ever again, is it a good idea to allow them to tag the player they wish to avoid? Consider the following examples.
If for example, if player 'A' notices player 'B' isn't doing enough to satisfy the expectations of player 'A', then player 'A' can tag player 'B' so as to be avoided in future queues. The trade off is that player 'A' doesn't get to keep player 'B' from queuing at all. All it means is that whichever of the two of them joined a queue first, would therefore be 'first in line' and would get to play first. The other would be first for the next instance of the queued event to come up. They would not have to mix, and simple initiative would determine which got to play first.
No. Players should not be allowed to negatively affect other players' game like that. Regardless of who was "first in line," player A should only ever have the option of refusing to play himself if B is present, not to stop B from playing. Thus, if A doesn't want to play with B and they would be put in a team together, then B plays and A waits for the next one. Every time.
The only situation in which any kind of "initiative" could be considered is if A and B both have each other blocked.
OK, so this wasn't ever my first preference, but addressing the post in case it comes back around later, I figure the correct thing would be for whoever didn't want to play with the other, ie had been the first to 'block', should have to wait, unless they both had blocked each other. My main point in giving this option as a possibility was to "keep the kids from fighting". Making them take turns is good, but yes, I would weight it in favor of the more inclusive player given the choice.
" Players should not be allowed to negatively affect other players' game like that."
Your statement is good, and ethical but things are seldom so cut and dried as this.
This is what I think the current state of AFK penalties amounts to. People on the low end of the scale are negatively affected by being excluded. The reason they are excluded is because there is a mechanism that blocks them. The ever increasing difference in scale will keep increasing this possible result. The players raising the top of the scale seem to want to mostly blame the ones who are being negatively affected at the bottom, and insist it is their own fault. They mostly seem to be in favor of letting those at the bottom be adversely affected, since it enhances the quality of life in pve performance for that part of the community.
I insist that the penalty is 'negatively affecting' the game of many on the low end of the scale, while actually failing to do anything else. Bots still run, leeches still leech, looters still loot. People who get a DC, or are just plain not able to do much damage get treated wrongly.
I am trying to find a better idea. I would be glad to have you share any you might have, and thanks.
I insist that the penalty is 'negatively affecting' the game of many on the low end of the scale, while actually failing to do anything else. Bots still run, leeches still leech, looters still loot. People who get a DC, or are just plain not able to do much damage get treated wrongly.
I am trying to find a better idea. I would be glad to have you share any you might have, and thanks.
The AFK penalty system is taking a very hard AI problem (human behavior analysis) and reducing it to a simple arithmetic. And it doesn't even use the preferred arithmetic (the amount of time you spent actually playing the game vs sitting around doing nothing). That it fails is not unexpected in the slightest.
It is my opinion that no algorithm Cryptic or any other videogame company is capable of coming up with will actually outsmart a human being anytime soon. Dedicated leeches will find ways around anything they put up, short of human GMing. But using active time would at least avoid the false positives.
Comments
The fact remains that whether they receive zero rewards, or not, they are not being punished for being leeches if they are not. They are being given a visible measure of how they did, and a context for any lack of reward that may ocurr. This is so much superior ethically to the current rubber stamp system. They will have something to look at, and they can try again without enforced and punitive delay.
It should still motivate them to improve, and to participate more aggressively because they will see why they didn't get a reward. They may still actually get 'expertise' for any kills they actually possibly participated in, and that is still something.
Bottom line; The honest players will have an honest yardstick. I can't fault that.
It is only your opinion that a good portion of those affected are any of the things you described. In the spirit of sharing opinions, mine is that any reasonable person will jump at the chance to help, and contribute, and do better. So we should not assume they simply "don't bother". I am confident that they do bother, but could use a yardstick of some kind.
A scoreboard would be pure honesty in terms of who did what, and how much of it they did. I like honesty. It makes me smile.
Ok, back to you
Qapla
+1 SSBN655 !!!
Friggin Nerf Herders need to shuffle on back to Mos Eisley.
I am actually in favor removal of AFK penalty if and when there is a scoreboard wherein % of total rewards dili/xp/spec is divided to the players depending on their statistical team contribution. I am always after performance based rewards since I live in a performance based society not a socialist society. That means if one player does 0% total statistical contribution to the team one get 0% rewards, 50% contribution, 50% of rewards, etc. However, any form of AFK penalty removal still doesnt solve the problem of finished combat time. If we assume the same players who got AFK somehow forms a PuG group, most likely FFA or ISA will be completed in 2-10 hours or if not complete at all due to frustration. The only time it will finish faster if somehow someone/some group carried them to faster completion.
However, I am with coldnapalm's sentiments there are more things important than a devs time wasted on recoding AFK Penalty and deciding what kind of replacement they want to make since removal of AFK penalty will just transfer one complaint into another. For example instead of AFK Penalty threads, you would have combat finish time length threads, or 0 rewards complaint threads.
I dont think the current AFK Penalty has to do with Elitism. Currently, AFK penalty affects only the lower end DPS spectrum of the playerbase which put an educated guess roughly put them in the same population size as the upper end of the DPS spectrum. Because population extremities should most of the time be the lowest population size and population graph should be a Bell curve. This is the graph you get from either DPS table from either DPS leagues wherein the upper and lower end of DPS spectrum are the lowest population groups. It is also very illogical to say that majority of the playerbase are lazy to improve/search the internet or ignorant that they need increased performance to warrant qualification of opposition as elitists. Yes, there are complaints but that doesnt mean if those players opposition in a debate or oppose their idea are automatically elitists.
But if you classify performance based rewards are elitists I gladly embrace Elitism. because the opposition to that would be socialists, who dont want to contribute or want to contribute less but gain equal or more rewards than those who actually contributed/performed more than them.
The flaw with just such a scoring system, is you will find those again who contribute the most being the only ones rewarded, while those who contribute little - nothing rewarded with nothing!
So, in a sense the afk penalty system is doing just that, in a different way!
Example, player(s) contributes less than 1-2% dps, = 0 reward + penalty
Player(s) contributing more than that = reward + 0 penalty
If we used the statistics system, than it would be feasible for a single player to overule all the others.
If they contributed more than 50% of everything, than there can only be another 50% left, which would either be divided amongst the other 4, or worse case all to the other leaving 0% for the other 3.
Which is kind of how the dps evaluated by our current system, afk's player(s) based on the top performace of a single or more player(s) total performace.
If they perform better, than the others need do so as well, or fall behind and suffer.
But, unlike a system that figures anyone not performing @ 50% need not get anything, the current afk system just figures anyone not meeting the 1-2% team total dps barrier, need not get anything and shouldn't even be there for awhile, so penalty it is!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
So how about the scoreboard idea? Scale rewards by the % if you like (I'd say round up to 1%, so 1 Fleet mark, and 3 dilithium maybe) and then people would learn to participate, but also see how they were actually doing, so they could see why the low reward.
Is that sounding like a possible answer?
Qapla
Thank you for your observations on this. I looks like we agree on a possible solution, although not how successful it might be. I see your concerns about new complaint threads as being valid.
It may not be so bad though, since new players would first learn about % based rewards in queues gated at level '5+', and would see how much improvement they need just at normal difficulty, because of the scoreboard. If you make the choice in design to grant 100% of a standard reward (plus bonuses after that, as applicable) to the highest performer in a group, then scale the other players against that and always round up to the next whole % point, then it isn't strictly a 0% reward. It also isn't enough for a leech to see much profit.
Lets say the highest score for an example was representing 100k dps. If the reward per player was 75 Fleet marks and 1440 dith then highest score gets a full reward (plus bonuses) the next highest gets 75% if they only did 75k dps by comparison, which nets 57 Marks, and 1080 dith. Someone doing 0.5k dps is (rounded up) at 1% or 1 mark, and 15 dith, which is better than being punished, but so small an amount that leeches will avoid it, and honest players will want to improve.
Not to be dismissive of a reasonably fair concern, but there will always be threads demanding bigger rewards in my opinion. Attaching performance to reward in a clearly visible manner disarms most of the possible complaints, especially if you round up, allow them to keep whatever expertise they acquire from activity, and don't punish them.
I suppose you could layer access to higher challenge queues by requiring a minimum 'static' score or rating on the first one, to 'qualify' for the next one. It would all be performance based, and honestly representing output, whether someone was using a bot, got disconnected, was just plain lousy, or actually for real AFK. A Leech would always be locked out of higher difficulties in such a case. Or they would have to apply themselves, and maybe be genuinely useful.
Slow combat completion may actually result less often if players are given clear scoreboard evidence that they are not ready for Advanced or Elite queues. You could even assign a descriptive label to performance percentages, like "Cadet, Normal, Advanced, Elite", to show a player how their scores are stacking up. Use that with layered access and you have people who are seeing how they measure up, and understanding more clearly why they either aren't able to, or shouldn't take more advanced content yet.
Instead of going to a thread to defend an inaccurate AFK penalty issued out of proper context, you might rather end up explaining why a very easily understood, and fair system of scores and percentage based rewards was implemented, and how it protects honest players. Also how it helps them see how they compare in very basic terms, which the current system really doesn't do. After that show them the link to your parsing program. I'm serious, not being snide. With percentages as your ally, and no AFK penalty muddying the waters, it becomes a real opportunity to discuss improvement, without all the bitterness involved with false-positive AFKs.
So for clarification, I think a scoreboard would discourage a lot of players from taking on the higher difficulty content until they had the numbers to justify it. Especially if they had a ranking telling them where they should be playing at. So combat times might even improve. I admit this is only a supposition.
Again, not trying to be a jerk to anyone, I can say that fighting with people was not why I came on here, nor did I come on here to arrange amnesty for leeches. All I came here for was to argue for a more honest method that did not falsely punish players, as the current system (as stated by many besides me) is capable of.
I very much believe that if we went with a score board and percentage based rewards it would be easier to get new people started properly, without abuse, and with a clear idea that better performance will be rewarded in kind. I believe it would discourage people playing above their current ability, and possibly make Advanced queues less heavily weighted towards the inexperienced, maybe even speeding combat completion.
Lastly, on accusations of elitism, I would only like to say that people may read 'elitism' into comments made if such comments are condescending, rude, or seem to be otherwise taking a unnecessarily superior and/or insulting tone, and really when you get down to it, I think we all come off as 'elitist' when we get all righteous and indignant. It's probably human nature.
For my part I extend a blanket apology for any unwarranted rudeness to any reader/poster here. Doesn't mean I agree with you, but I didn't come here to make enemies, so I am going to try to regroup, and put my best manners forward. Maybe we can all tone it back a little while we debate?
Thanks.
Qapla
Ok, consider a scoring system that says player A did the most, so player A gets 100% of a per person potential reward (lets call it 1000 dith) The next player does half of what the first did, 50%, so gets 500 dith, the next player 'C' does one half of one percent. Lets be a tiny bit kind, and round up in this case, but that nets the 'C' player 1% or 10 dith, which is a lot better than being punished, but not worth a lot otherwise.
The players can see the scoreboard. Player 'C' at 1% (courtesy) can see why he only got 1% and was lucky to get it. Players A, and B can see they got proportionally appropriate rewards without one taking from the other. If A or B are friends with the 'C' player, they now have some very basic numbers to look at to start helping their friend to improve.
If there was a comparative score, and a static rating score, the static rating could be used to gate a player's entrance into advanced queues, only allowing it if the static rating was met. Meanwhile normal queues would remain available for working out better PVE performance, improving the end game for everyone.
What do you think?
Qapla
I can see the attraction of time over dps contribution, but I have to point out that dps contribution is already being monitored by the game, checked by comparative % and used in the AFK system. If we put that scoring into a score board and scaled the reward instead of punishing people, I think it would be an easy fix, and a whole lot more fair and honest. Leeches would get 1%, others would have something to shoot for. Nobody would get an undeserved AFK penalty.
Did I win you over?
Qapla
Ok, something weird happened there. Not my comment exactly.
My statement is not to divvy up, that was paxdawn.
My statement is to say that player A (the best by less than 1% difference) gets 100% of a per person potential reward that is not divided between players. The next player B, and every other player, C, D, E, is scaled against the first, but the first loses nothing, nor is the remaining reward diminished by the first player's success. Each is potentially even eligible for the full potential, per person reward because I am suggesting that the % is rounded up. So 99.1% becomes 100%.
Basically if the reward was 100 marks, and 1000 dith, the top player gets 100% of their potential reward. The other four of five players can still each get 100% of the potential reward by just scoring 99.1% or better. In other words, the top player can get it done faster, more often, by helping others learn how to be better team mates, and by helping them also get higher rewards.
However, I fly Sci a lot, so I get your other concern. I would also think that it could be easy to count healing, or repairing, or other outputs of energy in units per second, and weight the score accordingly. Dps is just a measurement of changing value, so is healing, or other effects. Give points for the amount of value changed by whatever means. I am sure the mechanics for tracking this are already in game, at least for the Devs to use. I think they are part of the current AFK system also, but I am not the guy to confirm that.
Maybe there is something wrong with me, but I don't mind sharing the game with other customers. They are supposed to be here also. Red Alerts, whatever. Some of the high performance players have already made it clear they resent at least some of the other potential participants, because of low output. I have seen kemocite flying around with no effort on anyone's part to try to do anything but score all possible kills as quickly as possible. Certainly nobody slowed down to type any advice in the chat bar, for any stragglers.
So again, don't divvy up, but scale reward for each player, measured alongside a top player, drawing from a potential/per player reward. Also see if the devs just fake the part of the system that records healing, or if they can track it well enough to add it to a score. Sci and Eng ships do deserve consideration.
Qapla
Besides all the above, I also believe that any power creep will reveal itself in the score boards. People worried about power creep should be encouraged by that, since it will therefore become obvious to everyone in a measurable way.
So responses to this?
Qapla.
Nope not yet.
We're talking about a game where people already hate on the DPS crowd. I think a scoreboard would rile up that side of the community more. It'll also be a case where those who really don't need the extra resources will be getting it. It'll also make fleet runs where we help lower fleet members finish STFs and get the rewards to help them progress faster obsolete because we'd be getting the rewards instead.
There are also a number of STFs where damage doesn't count. You've got the free the Borg phase in Borg Disconnected, the portal closing stage in Gateway To Gre'Thor, parts of Undine Assault, etc.
IMO combat time (in the way our parsers validate runs) will be the least inciteful and would make the most sense in catching AFK players. You will need to actively shoot, heal or draw aggro to keep combat time up. I don't think it will be that easy to write a bot for combat time either given how things on a map can change and how that can affect your time in combat.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
OK. So did you see the post prior to this one where I went into more detail? I also mentioned non dps effects, and the ability to see power creep. if you didn't please check it out.
If you did, then lets say your on the right track, and ask; How you make sure a bot doesn't do 'good enough' to void this method? How do you decide rewards and bonuses?
Qapla.
Yeah I just saw it after I made my post (was probably typing my post when you posted yours). I don't think it is easy to get combat time right because even top-end players will miss it from time to time. Obviously, we won't set it as high as SCM which is set at 90% combat time. A lower threshold at maybe around 75-80% might work out well enough.
Why don't I think it'll be easy to bot? Because combat time will also depend on your team. If you go out too slow, you will be left behind by a better team (=not enough combat time). If you set it too fast, you will fall ahead of a below average team and you'll die or worse, fail the queue for the team. I don't think a bot will be smart enough to adapt to the team.
Now if we do get a leaderboard as a solution, I wouldn't scale down rewards, rather than scale them up. Meaning the lowest contributor gets 100% and people above him gets bonus rewards (like Crystalline Catastrophe). Of course there has to be a threshold where someone will be deemed AFK and won't get anything.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
1-2%, is laughably low, so low in fact that even a shuttle/tier1 vessel can most often deal the needed dps.
The only issue outside of DCing, is people not actively engaging enough, plain and simple!
I mean even a single BA on a ship, could possibly prevent an afk penalty, so long as you remain active enough engaging enemies to dmg them.
I personally do not know anyone, who has been handed an afk penalty when actively engaging the enemies, even when they at best only get 3k - 8k dps in some cases!
Until something can better be added, I for one say keep it how it is, and those who are penalized outside of a DC/not knowing, need stop leeching/whining and start learning/engaging.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
I have some things going through my head on all of this.
First, it boggles me that anyone smooth enough to make a bot run a mission, couldn't make that bot effective enough to look at least average. The bot's maker has to understand the game well enough to make the bot work, so why not make the bot effective with that same knowledge? It can't be much different than what the game does to allow enemies to use better AI. So give your bot a solid process for being reliable, and then it probably will outshine fresh off the bus noobs and pose a risk to a time based system. I am not confident that a bot can't still farm a time, or even a result based system, I mean, why can't the bot just be programmed to follow another player into action, and so keep pace with the team, using cruiser commands to help 'team mates' or Sci powers to look more active, and maybe actually be helpful? At least, that is what it seems like to me.
I'm still opposed to an AFK penalty, but a zero effect =zero reward result I am fine with. That is because all you can tell for sure is there was zero contribution, but you have to guess the reason why, and the reason may not be malice on the part of the player, so I don't think a punishment is right. Zero for Zero is honest, so I would say zero = zero reward. but zero is just plain zero, and that should make sense to anyone, I think we can all agree.
What about a compromise on the reward scaling. > 0 to 25% is a 25% reward frpm the potential, 25.1 to 50% is 50%, and so on. No bonuses if you don't get at least 75% as scaled against the top player. Top player gets double bonuses. Players at 50% or less get no bonus.
So player 'A' carries a noob, a slacker, a bot, and a looter, but scores highest. 'A' makes sure they win, and also that they win well enough to get bonuses.
----
The slacker has a build his dps sister made for him, so he pew pews to 75.1% cause the build was made knowing 'brother' was a slacker. It's a good build, but he just hits a space bar mostly.
----
The looter goes in all 'Kill! Kill! Kill! oooh! Shiney! and does pretty good, but keeps getting lost picking up critters, which isn't ideal. Then again someone needs to probably click on those mk XII items so we can all do 'Need or Greed' on them. The looter does 55%.
----
The bot is good. It has a decent build, is set to react to cooldowns and incoming damage like an in game ai, and performs at 30%.
----
The noob had a rainbow ship that is T2 maybe, and can read and see this console makes his disruptors better (his phasers wish they were disruptors) and he has a console that boosts mnes, but has no mines. He gets 24% of the top players numbers.
----
The payout!
----
Player 'A' gets 100% and double bonuses and passed on a lot of loot, not needing an inventory full of mostly junk, and being basically decent.
----
The slacker's sister, and 'A' manage together to let the slacker get 100% plus bonuses, but not doubled. The slacker randomly got some loot.
----
The looter hit greed on everything and still got 75% plus bonus, on top of a lot of the drops the noob might have used to improve.
----
The 'bot', a soulless little monster but hardly 'Nomad' steams reliably ahead 'earning' a 50% in spite of the hideously dishonorable method used, and I suppose a contribution IS a contribution, still they receive no bonus.
----
The noob fervently, and earnestly pew pews the rainbow warrior to a sadly passive result, but still isn't treated like scum, they just get the lowest reward above zero, or 25%, no bonuses.
----
If the noob had gotten 0.5%, I would rather not see them AFK'd. I would like them to get some kind of minimal reward if the team wins even if it is only 1%, because frankly, I believe a bot can do better than a noob. The bot's master has to know something about the game to cheat it. A noob can know almost nothing about the game and still end up in the earliest queues (ironically probably the best place to wind up with a bot, and someone who knows the game, and wants a quick payout.)
The Noob!
I think there will be resistance to allowing a player to receive even 25% of their potential reward if they are closer to 1% comparative output, and that is why I am willing to accept the lower reward of 1% minimum for not doing 0% . It is still better than assigning a wrong punishment. So I believe in my earlier version ...
But I like the example I gave above well enough, it favors the top player, motivates the lesser players by comparison and doesn't punish the innocent ... even though a bot and a slacker both got bigger rewards than my precious noobs
What do you think?
Qapla
P.S.
Some "What if?" distracting questions.
What if ...
... Player 'A' is really Racer 'X'?
... Power Creep is a super-villain in Champions?
... We measured dps (derps per second) instead of damage?
Sorry, it has been sooooo serious around here
"Until something better can be added,"
That is what I am hoping to see happen. I'm hoping that we can get that to occur.
If not, for whatever reason, then without malice, I ask you why you would want to try to discourage us from trying to seek that improvement? I doubt that what we are trying to do could hurt you, since your manner clearly indicates you are confident in your ability.
Also, I do see people engaging and learning. I think an AFK penalty slows down both by barring participation, and by failing to provide an honest context for doing so. Encouraging play, and providing context for failures will in the long run be better for everyone. I think you would have to agree.
The people approaching your level of ability would have had to come through the leader boards, and reduced rewards on the way to where you are now, and would be strengthened by the experience. They would make better, more reliable team mates, because they got graded, and not expelled. They got an 'F'. They can see it, but they are still in school, and there are still teachers who can help them.
Plus, we need the fresh blood, and committed regulars in the community, or it will fade and die much sooner than we would like. Anything that helps that happen should be up for consideration and possible refinement. Is that so bad?
I guess I can't understand why (no malice) you seem to be against seeking the "something better" that you mention in your post. I would think that you would want us to go ahead and seek an improvement. What am I misunderstanding?
(no malice) Not saying you don't have a right to participation, or your opinions, but if you don't want to help us come up with something better, but aren't against something better, why are you posting here? (not an attack, just a question)
Shuttles are awesome
Thanks.
Qapla
The only situation in which any kind of "initiative" could be considered is if A and B both have each other blocked.
OK, so this wasn't ever my first preference, but addressing the post in case it comes back around later, I figure the correct thing would be for whoever didn't want to play with the other, ie had been the first to 'block', should have to wait, unless they both had blocked each other. My main point in giving this option as a possibility was to "keep the kids from fighting". Making them take turns is good, but yes, I would weight it in favor of the more inclusive player given the choice.
" Players should not be allowed to negatively affect other players' game like that."
Your statement is good, and ethical
This is what I think the current state of AFK penalties amounts to. People on the low end of the scale are negatively affected by being excluded. The reason they are excluded is because there is a mechanism that blocks them. The ever increasing difference in scale will keep increasing this possible result. The players raising the top of the scale seem to want to mostly blame the ones who are being negatively affected at the bottom, and insist it is their own fault. They mostly seem to be in favor of letting those at the bottom be adversely affected, since it enhances the quality of life in pve performance for that part of the community.
I insist that the penalty is 'negatively affecting' the game of many on the low end of the scale, while actually failing to do anything else. Bots still run, leeches still leech, looters still loot. People who get a DC, or are just plain not able to do much damage get treated wrongly.
I am trying to find a better idea. I would be glad to have you share any you might have, and thanks.
Qapla
The AFK penalty system is taking a very hard AI problem (human behavior analysis) and reducing it to a simple arithmetic. And it doesn't even use the preferred arithmetic (the amount of time you spent actually playing the game vs sitting around doing nothing). That it fails is not unexpected in the slightest.
It is my opinion that no algorithm Cryptic or any other videogame company is capable of coming up with will actually outsmart a human being anytime soon. Dedicated leeches will find ways around anything they put up, short of human GMing. But using active time would at least avoid the false positives.
Since they do track your output, it seems reasonable that this could be part of an improved system.
Qapla