Patch 1.2 Design Problems, Bioware pay attention

[Ahhmyface]

It's hard to balance this.

 

On one hand, if you provide no incentive for winning, people will just farm.

On the other hand, if all rewards are for winning only, people will leave any match that doesn't look like an easy win.

 

So basically the problem is that people are scrubs.

 

I think bioware has realized that warzone wins aren't going to cut it. I expect some sort of objective-based medal system, with the commendations being used to buy bags.

[Manigma]

It's hard to balance this.

 

On one hand, if you provide no incentive for winning, people will just farm.

On the other hand, if all rewards are for winning only, people will leave any match that doesn't look like an easy win.

 

So basically the problem is that people are scrubs.

 

I think bioware has realized that warzone wins aren't going to cut it. I expect some sort of objective-based medal system, with the commendations being used to buy bags.

Except the current system is much better, why? because players that leave are replaced with often players that continue to contribute to the team. After this patch people will afk and not contribute at all.

[Poisonedpawn]

then give me the " perfect" solution then

 

keep the win dailys and weeklys in, but add in a secondary completion method.

 

Daily 3 wins or 6 completed bgs

 

Weekly 9 wins or 18 completed bgs

 

OR if you want to go another route, Change the daily and weekly to medals. then offer a balanced way for all class types to obtain medals ( heal/dps classes shouldnt get more benefit than a pure dps class). Also give medals for things like, scoring in hutball, planting the bomb in voidstar and capturing a turret in civil war.

 

Then change the dailys to ...

 

Daily obtain 30 medals in bgs

 

Weekly obtain 150 medals in bgs

[Zaodon]

then give me the " perfect" solution then

 

Make the rewards of Warzones based on objectives only, not counter-objective play.

 

- remove the current method of assigning badges entirely

 

- entire team gets points for objective score. i.e. If huttball ends 6-3, winning team gets 6 pts, losing team gets 3 pts. (divide by 100 for Civil War) Assign a minimum of 1 pt for the losing team in 6-0 blowouts.

 

- individual players get points for very specific actions, such as:

--- Huttball: attacking a ball carrier, healing a ball carrier, attacking an enemy who is attacking a ball carrier, protecting a ball carrier with guard, etc.

--- Voidstar: attacking a player who is currently channeling a bomb, healing an ally who is channeling a bomb, healing an ally who is defusing a bomb, attacking a player who is attacking an ally planting a bomb, protecting a bomber with guard, etc.

--- Civil war: attacking a player who is currently channeling a turret, healing an ally who is channeling a turret, healing an ally who is attacking someone trying to capture your turret, protecting a capturer with guard, etc.

 

You'll notice from the examples, you get nothing for attacking someone who is not engaged in some way with an objective, and you get nothing for healing yourself/anyone else who s not engaged in some way with an objective, and you get nothing for protecting anyone else who is not engaged in some way with an objective.

 

At the end, tally up the points and assign rewards just like total badges.

 

With this design, the only way to "Farm points" is to play the objectives. And they are designed to prevent ball hogging or selfish play, because as long as you're involved, in some way, with the actual objective, you get points. And the points are still PvP based (i.e. based on combat). And even if you lose, if you were playing objectives the entire time, you'll rack up lots of points.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Zaodon

[Meltheran]

Make the rewards of Warzones based on objectives only, not counter-objective play.

 

- remove the current method of assigning badges entirely

 

- entire team gets points for objective score. i.e. If huttball ends 6-3, winning team gets 6 pts, losing team gets 3 pts. (divide by 100 for Civil War) Assign a minimum of 1 pt for the losing team in 6-0 blowouts.

 

- individual players get points for very specific actions, such as:

--- Huttball: attacking a ball carrier, healing a ball carrier, attacking an enemy who is attacking a ball carrier, protecting a ball carrier with guard, etc.

--- Voidstar: attacking a player who is currently channeling a bomb, healing an ally who is channeling a bomb, healing an ally who is defusing a bomb, attacking a player who is attacking an ally planting a bomb, protecting a bomber with guard, etc.

--- Civil war: attacking a player who is currently channeling a turret, healing an ally who is channeling a turret, healing an ally who is attacking someone trying to capture your turret, protecting a capturer with guard, etc.

 

You'll notice from the examples, you get nothing for attacking someone who is not engaged in some way with an objective, and you get nothing for healing yourself/anyone else who s not engaged in some way with an objective, and you get nothing for protecting anyone else who is not engaged in some way with an objective.

 

At the end, tally up the points and assign rewards just like total badges.

 

With this design, the only way to "Farm points" is to play the objectives. And they are designed to prevent ball hogging or selfish play, because as long as you're involved, in some way, with the actual objective, you get points. And the points are still PvP based (i.e. based on combat). And even if you lose, if you were playing objectives the entire time, you'll rack up lots of points.

 

I would support a system like this. The only thing I might add would be attacking players defending a node or door (within a certain radius) or healing attackers who are attacking a node.

 

This would give people a reason to attack nodes and try to push a force off of them.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Meltheran

[Tren]

I would support a system like this. The only thing I might add would be attacking players defending a node or door (within a certain radius) or healing attackers who are attacking a node.

 

This would give people a reason to attack nodes and try to push a force off of them.

 

I was thinking that same thing. Utilize the radius around the node that currently awards Defender points. If you're fighting in that range, your damage/kills/heals "count." This way those trying to farm "along the road" gain nothing & defenders are encouraged to guard the nodes more closely. Disrupting caps is priority 1, but killing the healers keeping those cappers alive should be worth something. I think bonus medals for capping/preventing X number of caps would be a welcome addition.

[Zaodon]

I would support a system like this. The only thing I might add would be attacking players defending a node or door (within a certain radius) or healing attackers who are attacking a node.

 

This would give people a reason to attack nodes and try to push a force off of them.

 

 

Yes, in my defense, I did write "etc."

 

But that's my point, give the same badges you give today (damage, healing, protection) but restrict WHEN you give them. If its not combat *in relation to an objective*, no badge.

 

Its still worth it to kill someone away from a node, because that's 1 less person on the battlefield for a few secs. i.e. tactical advantage. But you don't get a BADGE for it.

[Evilpingu]

- individual players get points for very specific actions, such as:

--- Huttball: attacking a ball carrier, healing a ball carrier, attacking an enemy who is attacking a ball carrier, protecting a ball carrier with guard, etc.

--- Voidstar: attacking a player who is currently channeling a bomb, healing an ally who is channeling a bomb, healing an ally who is defusing a bomb, attacking a player who is attacking an ally planting a bomb, protecting a bomber with guard, etc.

--- Civil war: attacking a player who is currently channeling a turret, healing an ally who is channeling a turret, healing an ally who is attacking someone trying to capture your turret, protecting a capturer with guard, etc.

 

This is something like where I see the current system going, but where is the line drawn? Would this encourage a different type of cheeseball play (for instance, healing someone who is capping an objective to "get medals" while it might not necessarily be the best use of your healing in that situation).

 

For instance, on my Juggernaut I often protect someone capping an objective by CCing any incoming enemy with backhands, slows, charges, force pushes and force chokes. It's amazing how often I buy a few valuable seconds to CC the enemy just long enough for us t score a cap which turns the tide of battle. How would the game even begin to track that, though? Is that somehow less valuable than standing idly by with guard up on someone capping the objective instead? Should I get a medal for "CCing the enemy in the general area of an objective, while channelling was going on" ?

 

Objective based medals are definitely the way to go, but I'd like to see them mixed in with the current crop of medals too. Perhaps take away some and have 2 of each damage/healing/tank medals, then make the rest objective based with an overall cap of, say, 12.

[Zaodon]

This is something like where I see the current system going, but where is the line drawn? Would this encourage a different type of cheeseball play (for instance, healing someone who is capping an objective to "get medals" while it might not necessarily be the best use of your healing in that situation).

 

For instance, on my Juggernaut I often protect someone capping an objective by CCing any incoming enemy with backhands, slows, charges, force pushes and force chokes. It's amazing how often I buy a few valuable seconds to CC the enemy just long enough for us t score a cap which turns the tide of battle. How would the game even begin to track that, though? Is that somehow less valuable than standing idly by with guard up on someone capping the objective instead? Should I get a medal for "CCing the enemy in the general area of an objective, while channelling was going on" ?

 

Objective based medals are definitely the way to go, but I'd like to see them mixed in with the current crop of medals too. Perhaps take away some and have 2 of each damage/healing/tank medals, then make the rest objective based with an overall cap of, say, 12.

 

- You dont get healing medals if someone is at full health. i.e. it only counts if you actually heal damage.

- if you attack someone attacking your node (cc them, etc.) or attacking your defenders, or attacking your attackers, you get pts.

[goxwerd]

considering that in every other game where there is a penalty for leaving and gear is not tied to dailies does not have any of the problems as bad as the OP says i think its safe to say OP is chicken littling it up

[LanceUpercutt]

this is really good for my server as we have a lot of battlemasters

[Evilpingu]

- You dont get healing medals if someone is at full health. i.e. it only counts if you actually heal damage.

- if you attack someone attacking your node (cc them, etc.) or attacking your defenders, or attacking your attackers, you get pts.

 

I like your ideas, I think some like the above are a little too situational to be practical (eg: CCing someone who just hit your capper is already too slow, need to CC incoming way off the node a lot of the time, etc) but I'm just splitting hairs when it comes down to it

 

The game has objective-based Warzones and the measure of doing "well" and being rewarded should, obviously and logically, be centered around those objectives. The fact that you currently do not get a medal for capping the Huttball, planting a bomb or taking a turret is mind-boggling to me...

Edited February 16, 2012 by Evilpingu

[Rilman]

WZ's need a vote kick option for the AFK problem as well

[Zaodon]

I like your ideas, I think some like the above are a little too situational to be practical (eg: CCing someone who just hit your capper is already too slow, need to CC incoming way off the node a lot of the time, etc) but I'm just splitting hairs when it comes down to it

 

The game has objective-based Warzones and the measure of doing "well" and being rewarded should, obviously and logically, be centered around those objectives. The fact that you currently do not get a medal for capping the Huttball, planting a bomb or taking a turret is mind-boggling to me...

 

There is an issue around giving a medal for scoring/planting/capping, which is "ball hogging" (aka greed). You don't want people on the same side to compete with each other for pts. You want to give pts *in relation* to those things, as I described. Now, if you ARE the ball carrier/bomber/capper, then you can argue you're losing points by being the person doing that action instead of PvPing. So, you should get something for being the one to do the action. Just as long as its balanced so that assisting the ball carrier/etc is as valuable as BEING the ball carrier/etc.

[Meltheran]

Yes, in my defense, I did write "etc."

 

But that's my point, give the same badges you give today (damage, healing, protection) but restrict WHEN you give them. If its not combat *in relation to an objective*, no badge.

 

Its still worth it to kill someone away from a node, because that's 1 less person on the battlefield for a few secs. i.e. tactical advantage. But you don't get a BADGE for it.

 

I like it. Even if all you want to do is farm badges, getting badges should help support your team.

[Evilpingu]

There is an issue around giving a medal for scoring/planting/capping, which is "ball hogging" (aka greed). You don't want people on the same side to compete with each other for pts. You want to give pts *in relation* to those things, as I described. Now, if you ARE the ball carrier/bomber/capper, then you can argue you're losing points by being the person doing that action instead of PvPing. So, you should get something for being the one to do the action. Just as long as its balanced so that assisting the ball carrier/etc is as valuable as BEING the ball carrier/etc.

 

True, you and I are in complete agreement there. My previous argument was that how does the game determine what is MORE useful to the team, would rewards for assisting objectives as you describe, give focus to fulfilling those whenever a brief window of opportunity arose (eg: Oh wow there's a guy planting the bomb with 10% health, let's all heal him up!" /rest of team dies and planters gets interrupted anyway.

 

I think the easiest Warzone to implement this system in would be Huttball, as the scorer could get 1 medal per goal, carriers get 1 medal per...50 yards travelled (for instance), healers get a medal for every 10k healing on the carrier, tanks get ... well you get the idea.

 

In Voidstar and Alderaan, it's a much more complex scenario for objective-based rewards with more focus on warfare and less "active time" spent actually doing the objectives. I'm not sure how they could track a lot of the stuff that ACTUALLY turns the tide of battle in those Warzones, but really anything to make people try to do the objective would be a start.

[Poisonedpawn]

WZ's need a vote kick option for the AFK problem as well

 

Yes please. That way me and my battlemaster friends can kick out all the noob trash who just hit 50 5 minutes ago from our games until we get other battlemasters in with us so we can dominate even more.

 

Thanks for the good idea That way we wont have to leave failed games...We can just kick out anyone trying to catch up!

[LanceUpercutt]

Yes please. That way me and my battlemaster friends can kick out all the noob trash who just hit 50 5 minutes ago from our games until we get other battlemasters in with us so we can dominate even more.

 

Thanks for the good idea That way we wont have to leave failed games...We can just kick out anyone trying to catch up!

 

we prefer kicking people before it ends

[JaxinRiens]

both scenarios are solved by this.

Unranked Warzones Lvl 50

don't count towards daily (daily becomes win 2 ranked warzones)

Bonus commendations

No Deserter Penalty

more even valor/xp gain between winning and losing.

Play to have fun.

No premades all solo queue at 50

Random Warzone

Slower Gear Grind but less stressful

 

Practice Warzone

NO GAINS

On Demand warzone Access.

Requires 16 Person Group Queuing at once (same guild not required)

ALL WARZONES OPEN TO SAME FACTION

No Level brackets.

 

 

RANKED Warzones Lvl50

Count towards Daily/weekly wins.

No bonus Coms/Valor for medals earned.

Higher Valor Gained on Winning.

Objective Team Gains.

KICK Afk options

8 Man Premades

Warzone Selection

Ladder Positions and Titles.

Faster Gear Grind but more stressfull.

Win/Loss/Desertion Level tracked

Coward Tag given to deserters with more than 50percent Desertion Rating lowering their valor gain until they recover.

 

 

A player doing only unranked warzones would require3 days to get centurion, 3 weeks for champion and 9 weeks for battlemaster gear.

 

A player doing ranked warzones gets 1 day for centurion, 1 week for champion, 5 weeks for battlemaster.

 

Reason for difference: Risk vs Reward, you only get credit for wins in ranked warzones meaning there is greater risk of no reward. With unranked you are guaranteed steady progression. The Hardcore are pleased with ranked matches. The Casuals with steady progression and "fun" matches.

 

Possible issue: Friends can no longer queue together at level 50 except in ranked warzones, this could seem unfair.

Arguement: It is the only way to make it fair to the single queuer, if you want to play with friends you need to fight other premade groups.

Solution:

 

NEW WARZONE

Skirmish.

Skirmish is a 4 on 4 group on group warzone centered around killing the enemy. The first team to reach 40 kills wins the skirmish.

This is an unranked warzone available only to 4 man premades.

Same Faction Enabled.

[Poisonedpawn]

we prefer kicking people before it ends

 

and the vote kicks would likely enable the 15 min debuff too. Ohhh the hilarity that would ensue from that.

[CaptainDil]

I agree with OP. people don't even try to win as it is. This will not help

[Celebrus]

I hate to say it, but I think Bioware actually intended for people to farm badges. They probably see it as a win even for the losing team, since most losing teams walk away with at least a couple of badges unless they're really getting stomped. But for more competitive players who consider not focusing on objectives to be bad play and bad sportsmanship, farming medals leaves us with a dissatisfied feeling.

 

This. If their stance on the Ilum changes didn't show you that they truly don't care about PvP in this game, I don't know what will.

 

I mean for crap's sake. The Ilum changes occured because people who were trading nodes for daily credit were not "using Ilum as intended". So the change that they implement, rather than allowing people to exchange nodes for credit, allows people to TRADE KILLS for BOTH daily credit and VALOR. So the exploitive trading wasn't granting enough benefits to the people that took part in it, and now it is.

 

They created and encouraged a practice in Ilum that has broken the Valor system and illegitimized every single Battlemaster in the game (I really don't care who claims that they are legitimate Battlemaster, the only person I would believe it from is myself). They've allowed the exploitation of their own PvP system, and are apparently keen on catering and serving benefits and advantages to the people that take advantage of whatever vulnerabilities are left in their system. Do you really think they care about Warzones or PvP in general?

Edited February 16, 2012 by Celebrus

[Zandon]

I'm with you.

 

Nothing like sipping coffee in the morning, reading drudge report and continually pressing the space bar while I watch the criers suffer the consequences of their actions.

 

Read other posts by you and Zaoden concerning this. Why are you even playing? You guys add nothing to the community, you pick your matches, then come here and tell everyone else how bad they are and you shouldn't have to pvp with them cause they are so bad. Personally, I'm sick of carrying people like you guys that WZ hop looking for an easy win.

 

Sorry to tell you, but neither of you come accross as good pvp'ers, and that you come here and say you intend to afk if your team is doing poorly tells me that you don't want competitive pvp, you want the easy button.

 

Both of you go play hello kitty cause I'm sure you'll have no problem beating the 3 to 5 year old girls that play it and finally you'll have your easy button.

[Daraco]

People will still try to win. It's only logical that the progression track will be faster with wins than just farming kills death match style.

 

This should always be the way things are wins = faster progression. But you can still toss losers a bone. Instead of making it only just 3 wins, add another option like compete in 12 complete warzones advancement is still 1 to 4 making wins worth 4 times as much as just joining a warzone and still lets those who are constantly losing still make some sort of progression.

 

Another option would be difference of rewards the one where you just join 12 times gives you less reward than winning 3 strait out. Simple as 2 bags for wins or 1 bag for joining(I think this would be a bit much but I'm just using it as an example) But if you go this route you have to allow people to keep going if they really want the win rewards and not cut them off at the lower end rewards, and not allow them to turn both in make it One or the other not both.

[BeefMonkey]

I find it funny that the people that leave say the "system works." Of course they see it this way, because they don't see the effect that leavers have on the warzone. Momentum is everything in a warzone. If we are down 2 people, that's a HUGE handicap for a side to overcome. By leaving, you are basically dooming any chance for success in that game. This impacts the gameplay experience of others and, thankfully, Bioware is finally doing something about it.

 

What if everyone had the same mentality? As soon as a team scores in huttball... game over? 8 people leave? And 8 lucky,unsuspecting people in the queue inherit your game. This mentality is similar to those people who refuse to wait in traffic and try to cut in line right at the last point. Somehow, as if they are simply too important to wait their turn...

 

Leavers.... Look, I am sorry that you were raised in a world that told you that "no one loses" and "everyone is special." I'm sorry that you feel the need to threaten to throw a "temper tantrum" by AFK'ing in the corner because you didn't get your way....

I'm sorry you feel that you are entitled to never "waste" time in a losing effort, or that you'll never know the thrill of a "come from behind" victory.

 

If you can't handle the responsibility of clicking the "Queue Solo" button for warzones, then perhaps you should play a single player game. Something where you can always win, where you don't have to play with any "bad's" as you call them.