Idea for credit payments based on performance

(HunterAssassin5) #1

So yeah, as it turns out, the amount of creds you get at the end of a game is based on how long you were playing, not how well you did, with a little bonus if you’re on the winning team. I hear it’s to try and make farms less useful, but everyone knows about Overtime, right?

Simple idea, but essentially, your payment is based on how well you did, say amount of support XP as a recon, medic or fire sup, game mode as engie or combat as assault or fire sup, and averaged out with other types of xp, so if someone farmed a ton of game mode xp but didnt do any combat or support, their pay will get balanced out, whereas a medic who got a fair amount of kills, lots of heals and rezzes and game mode from standing around the obj, the pay will be higher.

another issue with not paying based on performance is that it might discourage voting for a shuffle even more. an extremely easy fix would be autobalance. a less easy fix would be averaging out the pay based on performance of the rest of the server, say there’s like a 10,000 point score difference between the average player score between one team and another, they creds handed out will be less for the team that spawncamped the entire game, but then there’s the new problem that plagued communism that if people know they can get payment even if they dont do much, say if players on one team just dont do anything and let the enemy team win, they can still get creds since the game sees the score gap and decides the winning team was being dicks and deducts their payment and gives it to the losing team even though they didnt do a whole lot…this i dont know how to fix, maybe just autobalance.

the basic idea is to pay better for balanced games than long/one-sided ones. there are some flaws in here but so far that’s the idea.

(MisterBadmin) #2

The largest problem (other than what you’ve already mentioned) is that this will massively impact newer players. Having the flat fee based on time plays normalizes everything. No really good player can get more money than anyone else, except by playing more.

Also, this system would add incentives to cheating. Going 138/7 with an aimbot would reward the aimbotter, unless you don’t factor in combat xp, which would punish really good (legitimate) assault play.

(BananaSlug) #3

i only dont like that after doing missions the base fee is too small to bother, i would like to see bigger base fee but smaller rewards for missions

(HunterAssassin5) #4

[quote=“MisterBadmin;192343”]The largest problem (other than what you’ve already mentioned) is that this will massively impact newer players. Having the flat fee based on time plays normalizes everything. No really good player can get more money than anyone else, except by playing more.

Also, this system would add incentives to cheating. Going 138/7 with an aimbot would reward the aimbotter, unless you don’t factor in combat xp, which would punish really good (legitimate) assault play.[/quote]

i have nothing to say to the first problem. maybe lock low-lvlers out of servers that arent max lvl 5 or something? that was absolutely stupid

as for the second one, i kinda already suggested a fix or two. if you get a ton of one xp and almost no other xp, it’ll get averaged out with the other stuff(with a little extra depending on what class you got those xp with) and then math’d into the payment. the other one is that if a team’s score average is massively different from another’s at the end of the game, the game will decide team with a higher score were less than not-being-dicks-y and reward them less. probably wont change the amount the losing team gets, though, so they wont laze around for free creds trying to pin dick accusations to the other team.

(Jostabeere) #5

This will make farming EXP much more lucrative. So no, sorry.

(MisterBadmin) #6

The bigger problem I had in my second paragraph is penalizing classes that are pure player-slayers (Fragger, Nader, Rhino, to a lesser degree Phantom and Thunder).

If you remove or reduce the averaging to classes that murder, you add incentives to play those classes, which aren’t really needed.

Also regarding the massive difference:
http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/271722299886168763/9B21CFC49886927A2A94C05E9BDF1AA08D2F4498/
Massive enough? I worked my ass off. That was a half-hour game where I got shit done. Getting penalized (or not rewarded, not sure which angle you’re aiming for) for carrying that hard doesn’t sit right with me.

The underlying problem in complex reward systems for core items or currencies is that they can and will fail in either direction. Simple systems (i.e. constant credits for time played) are a lot harder to exploit, and less likely to fail.

(HunterAssassin5) #7

I admit defeat.

(MisterBadmin) #8

@TheRyderShotgun
Ideas are never a bad thing, it shows you can see something that can be improved on.

Pointing out flaws in systems is kind of my jam, as are walls of text with detailed explanations.

Go get a cookie. You earned it.

(HunterAssassin5) #9

@MisterBadmin finished the last one in the house last night. i guess biscuits and chocolate spread will have to do.

EDIT: they were delicious.

(frostyvampire) #10

Actually you do get more credits for performing well, it’s just not much of a difference.
I always get more credits than my friend even though we both player in the same game for the same time (maybe except the 10 seconds because I need to find a server and then he joins me) and most of the time we are on the same team. Also in ranked (when it was still available) I got more credits. Yes we compared credits, #dealwithit
I like it the way it is already. It doesn’t leave new players behind because they don’t understand the game but better players still get a bit more credits.