Useless AFK conquest farmers

[Pherdnut]

Looks to me like conquest is heating up fast. Wins-only is the only way to curb abuse. I'm sure even medals will promote bad behavior where people will pop in for the easiest possible medals to acquire. For instance, what does it take to be a "Defender?" Can you just drop a couple drones and park next to a satellite that's not in contention? Any kind of participation-only award for stuff other than GSF is a terrible idea and even medals need to be thought through very carefully.

 

More points for wins doesn't work because they could be farming with multiple machines from F2P accounts. They could put almost no effort into 3-a-computer-lab's-worth of games and get 3-?x points for the time investment once there's enough other farmers out there playing non-games. Or they could get maybe 1 or 2 for actually playing proper games.

 

People will do the dumbest most inane boring !@#$ when they think they're getting ahead of the Joneses in an MMO. Heck, if I were looking to game the system I'd get large groups of imps and pubs and have them play non-games against each other. That would be really surreal for any solos filling in the gaps in those games.

 

GSF is already an excellent alternative source of credits and experience. I think I got halfway from 59 to 60 with a dozen games or so, so there's plenty of incentive already. If they want to get more player retention in GSF they need to focus on the brutal learning/upgrade curve and maybe provide some sort of option for newer players to build up a decent ship without getting mauled by veterans constantly.

 

But participation-only awards for conquests as a means to encourage participation in other parts of the game need to go. And soon before it gets ugly.

 

That said, I'd urge people to not be too quick to jump to conclusions. Sometimes that parked bomber is just a bathroom or talking-to-the-spouse break.

[nyghtrunner]

What I've been thinking is to have the standard participation (aka "duh I wuz heer 2") objective be replaced with a low count medals objective. Select a target amount that's within reason for the average player to achieve per match. (I was thinking somewhere within 7-10 medals?) An unskilled player that's genuinely trying ought to be able to pull off almost half the amount per match. A reasonably skilled but non-ace player ought to be able to get close to the mark in most matches. And an ace will consistently pull off almost 1.5 times the amount per match.

Not disagreeing with the premise, but the medal count thing would have to be looked at pretty closely. Were you thinking somewhere between 7-10 medals total before you get some conquest reward? Or 7-10 medals in a match? 7-10 medals in a match is pretty easy to get if you just show up and "defend" a sat for the entire time in a dom (you'd get I think 4 or 5 just for taking a sat, and defending for 4 minutes), but to note, TDM is a different animal altogether.

 

Not always, but I'm usually at or close to the top of the leaderboards when I fly a Stingfire in a TDM, and even then, I usually top out at 8-12 medals in a TDM, because there are so many of them you simply can't get. No turret kill medals, no defending medals, no capture medals. The nature of the TDM keeps you from being able to get as many medals as in a DOM, because there are I think 10-11 medals that you simply can't get in a TDM.

 

And I will also note that at present, I don't believe the SWTOR engine actually distinguishes between match types beyond setting them up. We don't have different stat sheets for DOM v TDM, for instance. They may save that info somewhere, but at present, nothing is set up to use it, so doing a tiered "get x medals in a DOM" v "get y medals in a TDM" conq objectives may very well not be a quick, and possibly not an easy thing to do.

[Pherdnut]

The other problem with conquest awards for medals is the ease of accidentally introducing new incentives for abuse with new types of medals or a serious overhaul of the current system which, IMO, could use one as it doesn't really recognize a lot of valid, IMO, contribution. For instance, with all of the lock breakers, you can spend a lot of time trying to get missile locks on people and that will keep them too occupied to notice the kill-stealing-whore gunship whose firing arc they flew into trying to LOS you nor that kill-stealing-whore asteroid they butt rammed themselves into.

[Muljo_Stpho]

Not disagreeing with the premise, but the medal count thing would have to be looked at pretty closely.

 

Yeah, no arguments there.

 

Were you thinking somewhere between 7-10 medals total before you get some conquest reward? Or 7-10 medals in a match?

 

Both. The exact numbers would have to be considered very carefully of course but the idea I was going for was that the average player could average out to gaining those conquest points once per match (they may go over or under by a few on any particular match, stuff happens) while the top players earn well over that amount (earning the objective plus extra towards the next completion of the objective) and honest efforts from unskilled players take a couple matches to reach that total.

 

You can see with the 50 medals objective, when they use it, that the count rolls over on objective completion. It does not reset at 50 and then nullify the extra from that last match. Your count after that match includes the extra. The same thing would happen here. If the target for the objective is 7 medals and you earned 6 medals in the first match and 8 medals in the second match, you would hit the objective twice on completion of that second match. (Two completions for two matches = average once per match.) If the target is 7 and you can consistently earn 11 medals per match, that's the objective completed plus 4 more added to the count every time... so you'd pretty much alternate between getting credit once for one match and twice for the next match. (Three completions for two matches = average 1.5 times per match.)

 

and even then, I usually top out at 8-12 medals in a TDM

 

I think I've seen people hit 14 medals in deathmatch. That's the kind of player I had in mind in that post for that "ace" high end measure. Although, really... if you see double digit medal counts on any kind of regular basis at all that sounds well above average to me anyway... I'd consider myself an average player and I've actually only ever reached 10 medals in a single match once.

 

Eh... Metrics. They'd look over their secret records and measurements of all player activity and they'd find the real average suggested by the data.

 

problem with conquest awards for medals is the ease of accidentally introducing new incentives for abuse with new types of medals or a serious overhaul of the current system

 

Fair point, there. Anything new comes in / changes... and all the old metrics become meaningless. Say that the average rate to earn medals for all players goes up by 2 or 3 with the changes. Now that carefully chosen conquest target is a bit too generous and awards conquest points to all players faster than intended. Which means that they would need to try and anticipate this situation and tweak the target preemptively to match what they think the effect of the change will be, and then they have to monitor it closely to make sure that everything changed and tweaked balanced each other out.

[nyghtrunner]

Gotcha. Yeah I could certainly get behind something like this, but you'd have to be a little careful with the medal count, and would probably need to reduce the points that the medals achieves give by at least 1/2, and possibly up to 1/4.

 

I think I've seen people hit 14 medals in deathmatch. That's the kind of player I had in mind in that post for that "ace" high end measure. Although, really... if you see double digit medal counts on any kind of regular basis at all that sounds well above average to me anyway... I'd consider myself an average player and I've actually only ever reached 10 medals in a single match once.

This is certainly entirely possible, and I'm not going to say that no skill is involved, because you absolutely have to have skill to pull off the 14 medals in a TDM. However, with that said, at some point, those medal scores are more a function of ship choice than player skill.

 

T1/T2 Scouts, Gunships, and T1/T2 Strikes can't heal. So the Mechanic and Savior medals are inaccessible to them. The scouts and strikes have no AoEs, and so by nature, it's harder to get assists, especially in the case of the battlescout, which is really more of a killer. And then you have things like the Warcarrior/Legion which are kind of geared to get lots of assists (your drones and seekers don't usually kill, but they do damage, and lead to assists), can heal, and can kill. So it's got a natural advantage in the medal system in a TDM.

 

I don't mind, but that's just why I think we'd have to be a little careful with the numbers, because I can imagine few things that would be more boring than an 8v8 of Drone bombers in a TDM trying to farm out medals. It might be amusing for a match or 2, but I can't think it would be fun long term.

Edited February 6, 2015 by nyghtrunner

[Muljo_Stpho]

Gotcha. Yeah I could certainly get behind something like this, but you'd have to be a little careful with the medal count, and would probably need to reduce the points that the medals achieves give by at least 1/2, and possibly up to 1/4.

 

Yeah, I think I've said 250 points for it when I've said something about the idea elsewhere.

 

But really, I'd be fine with seeing a much more varied range of scores used on objectives all across the entire conquest system to reflect many different levels of difficulty in accomplishing those objectives. [cue long tangent on another subject] Instead of seeing most things at 500 or 1000 with a few 250s or 2000s on the side, allow things to be valued at multiples of 100 or multiples of 50 or whatever. Let's see some values like 200 or 350 or 700 or... just about anything else. Get creative. Carefully consider level of repeatability (some repeatable objectives are truly no limits, some repeatable objectives are limited by a dailiy/weekly mission, and then there's that cursed "one time only per legacy" nonsense that they pull with other objectives which really ought to be replaced with some sort of daily/weekly mission based repeatable somehow) and other limits (crafting can be done while doing other things and while offline, can be in queue for something while running heroics/dailies). Carefully consider the time it takes to complete something once you start it.

 

I mean, I don't know how different conquest activities would break down as they currently are but it doesn't seem as if they put any thought into the pacing of anything. You would think that would have some target pace in mind, some expectation that any player no matter what type of gameplay they prefer ought to be able to reach the personal conquest goal on each character in a certain number of hours of work. Realistically they couldn't make things totally 100% balanced, but they could probably get in the right ballpark. It could take two and a half hours (give or take half an hour) for an activity (whether it's heroics, flashpoints, operations, warzones, or starfighter) to generate 10k points. (Let's assume that that's all time doing the activity. Maybe a player keeps busy with one thing during all the queue times for another thing so we can ignore queue times.) And suppose that crafting is scaled to pull off generating about 5k points in roughly the same length of time (lower output since it can be happening during other activities and while offline). It doesn't seem like such a balance could be found with objectives mostly valued at 500 or 1000 points though.

[Linuxizer]

I think I've seen people hit 14 medals in deathmatch. That's the kind of player I had in mind in that post for that "ace" high end measure. Although, really... if you see double digit medal counts on any kind of regular basis at all that sounds well above average to me anyway... I'd consider myself an average player and I've actually only ever reached 10 medals in a single match once.

 

You can only get 12 medals in a deathmatch, and that is if you fly a T2 bomber, T3 strike or T3 scout. With all other ships, you can only get 11 if you use hydrospanner. Otherwise the maximum is 10. In domination, you can get over 20.

[Muljo_Stpho]

20+ possible? Really? 14 is the absolute highest I ever see anybody get under any circumstances.

 

edit: Huh, 24 on the list, eh?

http://dulfy.net/2013/12/09/swtor-galactic-starfighter-medals-list/

Of course... the crazy ace fliers getting anywhere near that many medals are most likely out on patrol / out in a hunting party rather than sticking close enough to a satellite to get more than 1-2 of the defense medals. So... realistically, you're trying for the 7 capture/turret objectives OR you're trying for the 6 defense objectives, not both. And for all of the defense medals you need for it to be a long drawn out match or else the game ends before the last few are even possible to pick up. You also need a close and hectic match where satellites change hands often to build up more than 1-2 of the capture medals / more than 1-2 of the turret kill medals anyway if that is what you're going for.

 

Something does seem off with me being certain that I've seen someone get up to 14 in deathmatch though. Take out the capture/defense stuff on that list and that leaves 11 possible options.

 

Anyway... If they could revamp the medals in some way, I wonder if they could come up with something that somehow evens out the opportunities for medals between the two modes... Replace all of the offense / defense stuff that only applies to Domination with something that awards medals for certain amounts of objective points... And then go through and apply balanced objective point values to captures, time defending, turret kills, turret kill assists, player kills, player kill assists, maybe a penalty for deaths, and anything else that can be measured and given some sort of value... Balance them all out so that good offense and good defense are equally valid tactics to earn points in Domination... Balance them differently for each mode so that skilled players can pull off about the same amount of objective points in either mode... Would we have a good baseline there for "participation" conquest points to be built around medals and have it not matter so much which type of match you get into?

Edited February 10, 2015 by Muljo_Stpho

[Danalon]

20+ possible? Really? 14 is the absolute highest I ever see anybody get under any circumstances.

 

edit: Huh, 24 on the list, eh?

http://dulfy.net/2013/12/09/swtor-galactic-starfighter-medals-list/

[...]

Something does seem off with me being certain that I've seen someone get up to 14 in deathmatch though. Take out the capture/defense stuff on that list and that leaves 11 possible options.

 

The list is missing Savior Medal for 4k damage repaired. That makes the maximum of possible medals 12 for TDM and 25 for DOM.

 

If you haven't seen anyone with more than 14 medals you probably haven't been in a drawn out DOM match yet.

[Linuxizer]

There's been a rash of people from one guild on Shadowlands imperial side just spawning into matches and doing exactly nothing except self-destructing to avoid vote kick. I suspect this is to farm conquest points or credits. Anyone seeing this on other servers?

 

Bump! This is still happening. Hopefully Eric is reading this...

[Karaiblis]

The problem with that solution is that if it takes twice as many matches to get the conquest points, you now have to deal with conquest afk'ers in twice as many matches as you did before, making your problem twice as big. They will probably not just go do something else, because being able to farm points with almost no participation while they do other things out of game is still a net gain for them. You are aiming yourself at an asteroid here.

[Muljo_Stpho]

The idea is to make actual participation (measured through medals or whatever else seems appropriate) seem like a better decision by rewarding valid efforts with more points. The idea is not to make all GSF conquest efforts take twice as long. Those who play exceptionally well would receive far more points than anyone who joins just to take up space. They could actually be earning points faster than they can currently. Those who put in even a decent amount of effort will not be earning half the points either. Chances are that they'll more or less match the current pace. Only the AFK nonsense would suffer a significantly reduced earnings rate.

 

Is every detail entirely perfect as it's been laid out in various posts so far? Probably not. There is some tricky balancing to consider. But if one guild has a dozen serious GSF aces flying their best in a couple dozen matches a day while another guild has a dozen GSF AFK jokers wasting everybody's time in a couple dozen matches a day, the idea is that the serious players will have earned far more points in that amount of time than the jokers did. The serious players would have contributed far more towards their guild's ranking than the absentee players did.

 

Hopefully, the absentee players should see this and realize that it would be much more efficient and much better for their guild if they actually put in some effort to earn more points.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Muljo_Stpho

[JDRocksU]

To be honest, I don't care about conquest, credits, or any of that. I just want a good match.

 

And the bad actors from this one guild are not simply bad pilots - 0s across the board, except deaths, which are almost all self destructs. Even the worst pilots will at least attempt to shoot. Bad pilots are fine, but the depths of wasted life that this kind of behavior suggests is really annoying and somewhat disturbing.

 

They are still out there Xi. Sucks for the imps on Shadowlands right now because all of the leechers have frustrated and thus, chased away, the guys that are looking for a good battles. There is no way to compete against a decent pub team with two or three jack-holes suiciding themselves and giving points away regardless of how many aces you have. So says JD Sniper...

[AgentRobP]

The "Contributing" system definitely needs some tweaks. Some flaws were pointed out immediately after it was introduced, and time has proven those predictions correct. They weren't really a problem until the leechers started, possibly because of Conquest.

 

The system is designed to allow players to kick noncontributing players, but it can be exploited by deliberately hurting your own team.

 

To fix it, actions that hurt your team should not reset your contributing status. So self destructing and respawning should not reset your status.

 

My best guess as to why dying resets your status is to keep rookies from being marked as noncontributing and potentially kicked. I like the sentiment, but this implementation is too easily exploited.

 

Instead, increase the breadth of actions that count as contributing:

• Firing at a target (if causes the RNG to kick in to determine hit/evade, count it as contributing even if the shot misses; the player's sot could have hit, so they are trying)
  
• Firing a lock-on missile, regardless of result
  
• Forcing a target to use a missile break cool down even if the missile wasn't fired (they used a defensive maneuver, which results in less defenses, which means you helped)
  
• Preventing capture of a neutral satellite
  
• Repairing and/or reloading other ships (not your own, and actual repairs or reloads must occur)
  

 

Maybe increase the timer before being marked as noncontributing. Also, don't count time waiting for the respawn countdown against players in the hangar.

 

With these changes, botters will not be encouraged to hurt their team. They will either have to figure out some way to actually help their team (at least healing your team isn't a net negative) or get kicked out of many more matches.

 

At the same time, normal players should almost never see the noncontributing message. Even rookies that can't actually score many hits will count as playing even if their shots against skilled players keep missing.

 

For conquest, it would be nice if similar rules were applied, something along the lines of: if the player is in half the match (so someone who joins late and doesn't necessarily have a chance to contribute) and doesn't ever hit one of the "contributing" criteria at any point, they should not receive any credit (credits, XP, or Conquest points).

 

Matches that end because there aren't enough players are exempt. (They are rare enough so there's no reason to penalize anybody. The goal is to prevent incentive for leechers, not to punish legitimate players. A leecher more than likely isn't going to rely in these matches happening because they are too rare to be lucrative.)

 

If these rules are applied, then leeches can be kicked and even if they are not, they have no real incentive to try and leech. The number of matches they could exploit would just be too low.

 

Thoughts?

 

(Hopefully the new team community member will see this?)

[Imgawna]

my idea for fixing this problem is requiring at least 1 medal to get credit for flying in a match. but you would have to add a new medal for beginners, say doing 1000 damage in the match. call it a participant medal. maybe 500 damage. i really should not be on the players to police the matches to get rid of these guys.

[Costello]

Had a guy suicide 20 times in one match today. Think he took one look at the horribly mis-matched teams and figured it would be quickest.

 

GSF hasn't seen much in the way of content for a long time so I can understand why people figure just get the daily done and get out.

[Mintas]

Had a guy suicide 20 times in one match today. Think he took one look at the horribly mis-matched teams and figured it would be quickest.

 

GSF hasn't seen much in the way of content for a long time so I can understand why people figure just get the daily done and get out.

 

At least in this situation I could understand it, not agree, but understand. Shadowlands is dealing with several members of a certain "candy" guild that do nothing but bot their way to conquest points. It has actually made GSF so intolerable on impside that I personally will not que without a premade.

 

I don't mind inexperienced pilots but this group takes the cake. The worst part is there has been zero communication/action taken by Bioware to resolve this issue.

[Imgawna]

this issue needs attention NOW!

[Roostah]

Are the admins purposely letting GSF die on the Shadowlands?

[Fractalsponge]

I've been gone for a few weeks, but this BS still happening is really depressing.

[RickDagles]

Xi'ao - it's brutal and it makes me not want to play shadowlands anymore. Your group was the only reason for me to sign on there. This ******** has killed the server. Perhaps it's time we (all GSF players) formed our own non-sub community (reddit?) and played on ebon hawk or bastion or harbinger or something. I realize you guys love Pvp ground and it's not easily feasible but damn...these bio ware idiots don't deserve our money and I'm starting to think the only reason I have a sub is to keep in touch with other mindful players. Edited April 11, 2015 by RickDagles

[ThomasPellaeon]

Going to be honest, they are a lot the reason I stopped Playing GSF for a while. I just recently came back (Kilrathi-Oren) Conquest farmers have no punishment for GSF like they would for PvP Hence I now and try and queue only with Pre mades.

[ThrakhathSpawn]

What protocol is there, that the guild isn't mentioned?

 

I just did a who search on the players, and noticed they all belong to the same guild.

 

There should be a feature that if you hit a certain amount of votekicks, locks you out until you contact the admin. PVP requires a medal to get rewards I believe? (I dropped pvp with 270 degree activation). Some form of system where either defender points, or damage dealt is required to earn any XP/Credits would make a lot of bots ineffective.

 

What sort of report system is there for this in existence currently? Driving players away from games cannot be good for Bioware.

Sincerly,

Angels'nine

Edited April 15, 2015 by ThrakhathSpawn

[ThrakhathSpawn]

I do not think conquest is the primary motivation for these accounts, but rather the XP/Credits. Once a toon hits 60, they roll a new one. A person in the guild probably wrote the bot program, and shared it with the guild, and the guild uses it to auto-level farm. By requiring participation to get Xp, you help make it harder for them, as they'd have to play enough in each match to get a medal before getting rewards. This prevents overnight afk bot running, but not a "tended" bot. Edited April 15, 2015 by ThrakhathSpawn

[Imgawna]

bump... bots suck