Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Dregs conquest rewards scaling


LashLash
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just pointing out how the incentives to participate are skewed due to the rewards system. 

With the new proposed rewards system, it will still have the 20% increment reward system as proposed: 

Just a summary of that: In dregs, they will keep the 20% reward percentile increments in the design review proposal, but they will award tokens you can cash in a vendor, instead of the current setup.

Having hard percentile thresholds creates disincentives to play hard and improve your micro position. If I'm at 30th percentile, there is very little incentive to play, since I'm comfortable in the 30th percentile and unlikely to drop down. But also it's too much effort to go for the 20th percentile. I don't care if I got up one place or not.

This is aside from the fact that percentiles can be shifted by creating a guild on an alternate account to bump up the number of guilds above the 100 point threshold, thus making it easier to hit slightly higher thresholds. This incentivisation to not play on your own account to raise your micro position, but to increase the number of participants artificially, creates a poor dynamic.

When the individual rewards system comes along, I hope that the campaign rewards system no longer follows the 20% increment system. It should just be top 1-100 rewards. Given the token system ACE has proposed, you can at a micro level tune the rewards for all the top 100 guilds. No more percentiles, just raw leaderboard position. Give a single consolation prize if you didn't hit the top 100 on the leaderboard, but did get 100 points at least.

I'm aware that this Dregs had only 84 participants above the 100 point threshold. You can have the top 100 places can only get rewards if you get about 100 points, but you can also remove that arbitrary requirement as well. Something that scales better is simply to award the top 100 guilds with points. Ignore that 100 point arbitrary threshold.

Let top 1,2,3 have their special rewards, something like this:

Top 1: 4000 conquest tokens

Top 2: 2000 conquest tokens

Top 3: 1000 conquest tokens

Top 4 to top 100: Conquest tokens = 800*(1-(N-4)/100)^S rounded up to the nearest token

Where N is leaderboard position. S is a factor to make the scaling factor for rewards superlinear. But you could have any non-linear relationship. I suggest a non-linear relationship so that scaling works better based on participation and size. Of course all the numbers can be tuned, but it's arbitrary since we don't know the conversion rate of token to rewards. You can use the conquest point distribution from the current dregs to see that the conquest point positions tend to increase much greater than linear. I would try to fit a curve to something like that as a baseline, and then tune to give incentives to balance the rewards you give to large or dominant guilds versus small.

It should be pretty easy to communicate the rewards table, you will have to redo how the rewards page is done though. I suggest that you can keep the rewards icons for the different percentile tiers, but at the micro level, you can communicate that each increase in leaderboard position has more rewards. You can utilize different icons to show the different 20% increment tiers, but conquest rewards should change for each position.

Assume S = 2 in the above formula.

The formula is then Conquest tokens = 800*(1-(N-4)/100)^2

Conquest place Conquest token reward (S=2)
1 4000
2 2000
3 1000
4 800
5 784
6 768
7 753
8 737
9 722
10 707
11 692
12 677
13 662
14 648
15 634
16 620
17 606
18 592
19 578
20 564
21 551
22 538
23 525
24 512
25 499
26 487
27 474
28 462
29 450
30 438
31 426
32 415
33 403
34 392
35 381
36 370
37 359
38 348
39 338
40 328
41 318
42 308
43 298
44 288
45 278
46 269
47 260
48 251
49 242
50 233
51 225
52 216
53 208
54 200
55 192
56 184
57 177
58 169
59 162
60 155
61 148
62 141
63 134
64 128
65 122
66 116
67 110
68 104
69 98
70 92
71 87
72 82
73 77
74 72
75 67
76 63
77 58
78 54
79 50
80 46
81 42
82 39
83 35
84 32
85 29
86 26
87 23
88 20
89 18
90 16
91 14
92 12
93 10
94 8
95 6
96 5
97 4
98 3
99 2
100 1

This is just an example.

 

Edited by LashLash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tokens and linear scaling are definitely a better system than what we have currently. I'd personally prefer if rewards were cosmetic in nature, so teams that do well don't get to snowball further into positions of power for the next campaign, but most guilds are pretty close to maxxed crafting now so it doesn't make as much of a difference - just messed up previous dregs hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cerberias said:

Tokens and linear scaling are definitely a better system than what we have currently. I'd personally prefer if rewards were cosmetic in nature, so teams that do well don't get to snowball further into positions of power for the next campaign, but most guilds are pretty close to maxxed crafting now so it doesn't make as much of a difference - just messed up previous dregs hard.

well idealy the token be used to buy cosmetic but the player can choose what they want instead of being selected, problem is they have more problems to deal with atm so they have less time to make a bunch of col cosmetics for these vendors atm

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2021 at 2:15 PM, Cerberias said:

Tokens and linear scaling are definitely a better system than what we have currently. I'd personally prefer if rewards were cosmetic in nature, so teams that do well don't get to snowball further into positions of power for the next campaign, but most guilds are pretty close to maxxed crafting now so it doesn't make as much of a difference - just messed up previous dregs hard.

A mix of cosmetic and gameplay is fine. I think some catchup items benefit the smaller guys more than the big guys. The big guys get diminishing returns, the small guys get big boosts from the rewards.

I think the last Dregs rewards big things were the majors, exploration discs and super necro parts. Top 3 got the special badges. Those rewards split a few ways for the smaller guilds are still much stronger than how they split up for the larger guilds. Winning with a large guild with pure numbers continues to be less beneficial compared to running a small guild and getting lower rewards, but split less ways.

If the conquest tokens are made explicit, it becomes more important to see guild performance versus size, and how important it is to not just be about quantity, but quality too, and with benefits for the smaller groups as a soft anti-zerg measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This scoreboard crap is lame af. Who really cares about these shoddy rewards? The ultimate reward for playing the game should be fun and glory.....not snowballing rewards for winners to become uncle bob witch each new campaign.

This scoreboard is probably the main reason most buyers quit the game  Its not fun. Its not glorious. Its not rewarding. Its work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jubileet said:

This scoreboard crap is lame af. Who really cares about these shoddy rewards? The ultimate reward for playing the game should be fun and glory.....not snowballing rewards for winners to become uncle bob witch each new campaign.

This scoreboard is probably the main reason most buyers quit the game  Its not fun. Its not glorious. Its not rewarding. Its work.

You can quite easily ignore the scoreboard, many people do. It does create incentives to compete with each other though. More incentives and ways to play is a good thing. Leaderboards and rankings in many games act as an incentive to many. To others, they can just play the game and extract enjoyment without worrying about their leaderboard or rank position. The conquest leaderboard is trying to represent guild/alliance position. Individual rewards will also rely on an implicit leaderboard, something to compete against others, even your allies, to place higher individually. To do more than others. 

People will who care about the objectives can go do the objectives. A lot of people want to harvest and craft, which means they aren't doing objectives, and that is their style of play. People who don't can do other things, or can fight those people on those objectives as well, since they are a moth to a flame, and people can hunt moths. Something that doesn't register at all on the conquest scoreboard is hotzones, which is a flame for the farmers and the PvPers. Some people play for KDA or just being a glorious PvPer, or having a solid group PvP reputation, like @norad and his gang did last Dregs. 

You want to appeal to many types of players. But it has been shown in other games that if you have leaderboards and rankings, a good 90% of players start using that as a way to direct their play, and it has more retention as people want to compete further.

You want to play the game for fun and glory, how do you want that actualised? I know that there are players who have fun and glory in the game just fine, without worrying about bigger objectives. What would make that better for you personally? Some kind of recognition beyond the community knowing you in-game and having a reputation? Because that already kinda happens, but there could be more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LashLash said:

You want to play the game for fun and glory,

Just saying crowfall's best trait is its combat, small, medium, or large.

But its buried beneath mountains of work and bs.

And people couldnt enjoy the combat without doing tons of work bc the gear stats disparity is far too great and wholly replaces skill/talent if ungeared.

And they wont scrap the overloaded work system bc the old rivalry guilds might leave the game. But everyone else left the game. Its like back to beta numbers in there.

We just want the fun and way less work.

On these forums i among others have offered many ways to achieve this.

People take the scoreboard too seriously and theyve sucked the fun out and thats why over 90% of people who bought cf dont play and are just waiting for the real launch of it. But the real launch requires real changes to the slog core design.

For example: planetside 2 has a 3 faction war simulator. But people just play to push the warfront border forward to try to conquer the entire zone. They have fun doing this, it involves always easy to find small, medium, and large scale combat because you just go to any captures along the warfront border frontlines and you can 24/7 find fighting and its fun. And anyone even on day one can jump into the action....any time with no lock windows or hours of grind work to enjoy the fun.

CF can do this with shadows, no scoreboard just a fun glory filled conquest campaign that ends when one faction conquers and then we procedurally generate the next campaign. and keep dregs exactly the same with scoreboards and whatever. And i would bet tons of players would come back for shadows if they did. It would be inexpensive too. Anyway thats just one suggestion of many.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...