| Author |
[SUGGESTION] Grouping changes. |
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
|  Posted: 2011-05-02 13:46
Okay, so F chat turned from a discussion about support ships to a discussion about why nobody uses them. Interdictors are the main, shining example.
Nobody uses them because you don't gain any prestige from flying them.
Grouping was designed to counteract this, but nowadays I don't see many people actually using groups, and a fair few people saying "I don't WANT to use groups."
Why is this? You get 10% more prestige, surely everyone would want to be grouped with as many people as possible.
Let's look at the current system.
When you're grouped, your essentially pool your prestige gains, add 10%, and then divide it up evenly amongst everyone.
So let's say we have ten players in a group (I don't recall if that's actually possible, but it makes the maths easier). Everyone earns (say) 100 prestige.
All of that prestige is pooled together, so we have a total of 1,000 prestige. Then you get 10% extra, which makes 1,100 prestige.
This is then divided out evenly, and everyone gets 110 prestige. Good, no? Everyone's happy. I believe technically the system works slightly differently to that, but the effects are identical.
However, this relies on everyone pulling their weight. If one player in the group earns 1,000 prestige and everyone else does nothing, everyone gets a flat 110 prestige, which for the player doing the actual earning is pretty pathetic and for everyone else is free prestige.
While this is intended to give a share to ships like interdictors, players often do the maths of comparing how much prestige they earn on their own versus the potential lost prestige in the form of other players dying, using non-earning ships, or being generally useless, and come to the conclusion that it's not worth the risk.
For example, a player teaming up with an interdictor will need the dictor to be potent enough to get them twice as many kills in order to break even. Adding more players to the group doesn't necessarily offset this, since having more group members won't increase the number of targets in the area to gain prestige from damaging.
Thus, overall I believe that nobody groups up because they don't trust other players to be worth the hefty cut in prestige gain granted by their own actions.
Instead, I propose an alternative system.
First off, everyone gains full prestige from actions they themselves perform, be they grouped or not. This means that players won't have to worry about other players being slackers. However, on the other hand they don't gain an extra 10% of that prestige just for being in a group.
Next, every time someone gains prestige, the game divides 10% of that gain amongst the other group members as a reward for (presumably) assisting.
So, if player A is in a group of ten and kills someone for 100 prestige, they would gain 100 prestige. Their teammates would gain ten percent of 100 prestige divided up amongst them, so they would get (100*0.1)/9 = 1.11... prestige each. Similarly, if you die or lose prestige, you suffer the full loss and everyone else suffers 10% of that loss, divided up.
This doesn't sound like much, but remember that everyone else will be gaining prestige, too. If ten players earn 100 prestige, they will get 100 prestige plus 1.11... prestige from the other nine members, which adds up to 110 prestige in total.
Same result as in with the current system. But what if someone doesn't pull their weight? Let's use the previous example and have one person earning 1,000 prestige while everyone else slacks off and does nothing.
The person earning 1,000 prestige earns, well, 1,000 prestige. They're probably wondering why they're in a group, but they're not losing anything either. Meanwhile, everyone else gains ten percent of that prestige, divided by nine people, which makes 100/9 = 11.11 prestige, which is significantly less than what they got before. This means that people don't have to worry about other people being useless or sponges because they have a lot less to lose, and the spongers have a lot less to gain. Similarly, a griefer who groups up to die and share the pain will suffer the full loss and their group members will lose only a fraction of that.
In addition, in order to reward certain ships when in groups, it might be possible to add a multiplier to their prestige gain. For example, an interdictor or scout may gain double the bonus prestige since it's intended to be used to support allied ships.
---
Now, I have a second grouping-related suggestion that goes hand-in-hand to an extent with the above:
Automatic grouping.
When you're in a fleet you have no need to group, because you're already grouped with your fleet. You will share in their victory and their loss. You will work with your fleetmates, because when they gain prestige you will gain prestige. You will defend your fleetmates, because when they fall you will feel their loss.
Should they prove to be complete lemons, you can kick them out of your fleet or go fleetless.
This gives fleets a little bit more meaning, also.
---
Thoughts?
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
*Obsidian Shadow*
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 03, 2010
Posts: 316
| Posted: 2011-05-02 13:55
excellent idea i like the idea about fleet grouping maybe this will lead to fleets becoming more respected due to fail players being removed for causing a loss to everyone should this occur.
Thumbs up from me
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2011-05-02 13:57
Sounds perfect to me. Especially the bit with bonuses to non-combat support ships. They gain nothing from their efforts, despite them being necessary.
How many times have you fought a battle, wishing someone had brought a dictor?
How many times have you bombed, or missile spamed, wishing you had an ECM frigate to help?
How many times have you wanted someone to fly engy, to repair or rebuild planets?
How many times have you wanted a transport to carry vast amounts of infantry?
And yet every time, all you see is a fleet of combat ships. Every time, you have to hope someone very reluctantly gives up their station for one of these ships. And most of the time they don't. Because its not worth it.
I can fly a Hive, and if I play it right, in five hours I can gain enough prestige to hit Vice Admiral. If I fly an interdictor, I'm more likely than not to lose prestige. People don't group, because that halves their prestige gain. Halves. Flat out. Nobody wants that.
Full prestige gain with small gains and losses? Perfect. Perfect for people who fly those rare, but very useful roles that otherwise go unfufilled because everyone knows you're helping out your faction, for that day, and you gain nothing. Nothing.
This kind of change is perfect.
-Ent
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-05-02 14:03
Auto grouping isn't a good idea even when it's with fleet members, some people prefer not to group at all just because they don't want to share negative stats. I myself don't group for that very reason, I don't SD, ever, and I don't want to be getting SD points because I'm grouped with someone who does. I don't mind losing PRES itself if someone I'm grouped with dies, but I'd much prefer my actual STATS were a reflection of my own playstyle and not influenced by someone else's. Same with resources lost, I don't want to be having mine reflecting someone who dies in a brick or trashcan when I never fly anything larger than a Cruiser.
Grouping gives people like me 0 incentive to do it, even with these proposed changes since it still shares stats as well as prestige. If it simply shared raw pres from actions that people in the group did then it'd be fine, like giving negative prestige when someone dies but not sharing the actual death/SD/planet collision/res lost stat.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
*Obsidian Shadow*
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 03, 2010
Posts: 316
| Posted: 2011-05-02 14:39
perhaps it could be added and subtracted in the form of Bonus prestige
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-05-02 14:49
Something like that would be ideal, yes.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-05-02 15:19
I dont group because it mucks up my profile with .22002820 ship captures, or whatever else. I want my stats to show what "I" have done.
[ This Message was edited by: Defiance*XO* on 2011-05-02 15:26 ]
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2011-05-02 17:47
One reason grouping isn't used is because the player feels pressure to pull their weight, and many casual gamers don't like that they feel responsible for another person's gain/loss.
_________________
|
doda *EP5 no longer exception...*
Grand Admiral
Joined: December 11, 2005
Posts: 1012
From: happy land
| Posted: 2011-05-02 19:14
The primary reason i see the lack of use for support theres not enough of a strategical incentive.
Part of the reason why people might not use interdictors a lot is it kills combat. No one likes being trapped in a zone where they cant escape when dying. Side that is outnumbered decides to leave, and now your stuck with people mad at the dictor for ruining it.
Supply ships tend to be abandoned because depot planets are so much more effective. Jump out and boom your ready to go again.
Ecm/Eccm is rarely used because big ships are so hard to hide with cover when in typical combat ranges. Planet def is also a joke so hiding bombers isnt really necessary either.
Trannys are not so common because of the current planet capping system. Get loads of big ships and orbit a planet. If your bringing stations, carrying inf with trannys wont add much benefit either.
[ This Message was edited by: doda *EP5 no longer exception...* on 2011-05-02 19:16 ]
_________________
Please resize your Admin - signature
VCA since June 5th 06
|
jamesbob
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 22, 2009
Posts: 410
| Posted: 2011-05-02 19:36
i like the idea.
(do i honestly need to say anything else)
_________________
|
SpaceGK
Marshal
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: July 26, 2009
Posts: 323
From: Ontario, Canada
| Posted: 2011-05-02 19:59
I like the new proposed system better then the current system.
Every time someone invites me to a group I accept (unless I'm going on a suiside mission). The only reason that I don't invite people to my group is because when I die i don't want them to loose prestige. I don't personally care if I loose a couple dreads or stations, or if the person I'm grouped with does, and therefore loose a fair amount of prestige, but I think the new player still the rank of Commander will when he gets demoted 5 times all the way back to Midshipman after just a 640 prestige loss.
With the fleet grouping, would that mean that every time I logged in to the game I would automatically be grouped with all online RSM in the same server? I think that it is a good idea, but I don't know if I really want to be auto-grouped every time I log in to the MV.
What if we could choose how much of our prestige gain/loss we wanted to share with other players. Possibly set how much as a persentage of our +/- prestige we want to go to each grouped member individually? To keep players from finding a Midshipman, grouping with them, and giving them (almost) all of their prestige they're earning, and therefore sending them to 1RA in just one night, the persentage of earned prestige could be given a maximum value based on rank.
[ This Message was edited by: SpaceGK on 2011-05-02 20:00 ]
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2011-05-02 21:30
I agree with the idea of Bonus Prestige - don't give out ships damaged points if you didn't damage a ship; instead, give a player Bonus prestige, because their helping was a bonus to the person helped, so they get extra prestige to recognize that cooperation.
That would limit the random overly precise decimal prestige values, make the various stats properly reflect a player's skill, and still reward teamwork.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-05-02 22:41
Question:
What is bonus prestige for anyway? They're sorta worthless now.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
-Shadowalker-™
Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: September 23, 2007
Posts: 709
From: Shadows
| Posted: 2011-05-02 22:58
i thought bonus press is the same as regular press it just cant be deducted from(right now anyways)
_________________
|
Gerlach
Marshal
Joined: May 07, 2010
Posts: 78
| Posted: 2011-05-03 03:52
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-02 14:03, Talien wrote:
Auto grouping isn't a good idea even when it's with fleet members, some people prefer not to group at all just because they don't want to share negative stats. I myself don't group for that very reason, I don't SD, ever, and I don't want to be getting SD points because I'm grouped with someone who does. I don't mind losing PRES itself if someone I'm grouped with dies, but I'd much prefer my actual STATS were a reflection of my own playstyle and not influenced by someone else's. Same with resources lost, I don't want to be having mine reflecting someone who dies in a brick or trashcan when I never fly anything larger than a Cruiser.
Grouping gives people like me 0 incentive to do it, even with these proposed changes since it still shares stats as well as prestige. If it simply shared raw pres from actions that people in the group did then it'd be fine, like giving negative prestige when someone dies but not sharing the actual death/SD/planet collision/res lost stat.
|
|
This is pretty much the philosophy I follow. I'm for prestige share, but not stat share.
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-02 14:39, *Obsidian Shadow* wrote:
perhaps it could be added and subtracted in the form of Bonus prestige
|
|
This sounds good enough. As far as I know, bonus prestige is not gained in any other way than winning scenarios anyway.
[ This Message was edited by: Gerlach on 2011-05-03 03:54 ]
_________________
ICC in a nutshell
UGTO in a nutshell
\"I'M HEAVY METAL \\m/>_<\\m/ !!\"
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
