Jump to content

PSA: It's not "rewarding losing"


cflems

Recommended Posts

I've seen this in so many threads where people try to dispute the lockouts and win-only rewards in regs. Applying a system where a win counts for 2 points and a loss counts for 1 (i.e. the pre-draconian pvp system) does not incentivize losing. It's far less effective to lose matches than to win them if the weekly is your goal. In fact, it's incentivizing staying in matches and playing them out, because you get nothing for leaving, whereas as long as you stick it out you progress your mission. In order to incentivize losing it would have to be 2 points for a loss, 1 point for a win.

 

Now, I say this because a lot of people, BioChris included, have spouted a lot of half-baked, unfounded psychological nonsense about how not having regs lockout, or providing half mission credit for losses, would motivate people to lose and leave. It doesn't, because it's still worse to lose and/or leave a match. It's just less arduous to get stuck in a low quality match, which happens *frequently* due to poor matchmaking algorithms.

 

Games are supposed to be fun. If your game mode is frequently arduous to participate in, it's gonna bleed players. Not rocket science. Doesn't take a Ph.D. in psychology to know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've seen this in so many threads where people try to dispute the lockouts and win-only rewards in regs. Applying a system where a win counts for 2 points and a loss counts for 1 (i.e. the pre-draconian pvp system) does not incentivize losing. It's far less effective to lose matches than to win them if the weekly is your goal. In fact, it's incentivizing staying in matches and playing them out, because you get nothing for leaving, whereas as long as you stick it out you progress your mission. In order to incentivize losing it would have to be 2 points for a loss, 1 point for a win.

 

Now, I say this because a lot of people, BioChris included, have spouted a lot of half-baked, unfounded psychological nonsense about how not having regs lockout, or providing half mission credit for losses, would motivate people to lose and leave. It doesn't, because it's still worse to lose and/or leave a match. It's just less arduous to get stuck in a low quality match, which happens *frequently* due to poor matchmaking algorithms.

 

Games are supposed to be fun. If your game mode is frequently arduous to participate in, it's gonna bleed players. Not rocket science. Doesn't take a Ph.D. in psychology to know this.

 

Let’s not forget the new merged Lowbie bracket rubbish where premade lvl 70s are matched against players lower than lvl 20.

 

How are we expected to compete or win for that matter? What an F’ing joke. At least if we got something for losing it would make up for the complete waste of our time sticking around to be a punching bag for people who enjoy bashing players with no abilities or utilities to mitigate their attacks.

 

All BioWare, including Chris are doing is driving more people from the game with these dumb decisions being made. Then the total disregard for what they being told and ignoring the non discord player base is astounding.

 

Are Chris and members of BioWare purposely trying to sabotage the game so they can move onto other projects?Because it sure feels that way these days.

Edited by TrixxieTriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All BioWare, including Chris are doing is driving more people from the game with these dumb decisions being made.

if BW released the data (which they don't to my knowledge), it would "prove" you wrong here. it would support the "fact" that more players engaged in PVP during 6.3 than any other time in the 5-6.x era.

 

BW will also tell you that such positive numbers are a result of BW's new policies toward quitter debuffs, wins-only quest rewards, and "innovative" new strategies like Galactic Seasons.

 

I'm waiting for them to then say these changes worked so well that they now feel comfortable allowing players to choose which WZs to queue for. Then we can all run the same two WZs until we stop queuing or the WZs stop popping because everyone has their own pet peeve, and now they're opting out of the same two "common" WZs that pop every time.

Edited by CheesyEZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen this in so many threads where people try to dispute the lockouts and win-only rewards in regs. Applying a system where a win counts for 2 points and a loss counts for 1 (i.e. the pre-draconian pvp system) does not incentivize losing. It's far less effective to lose matches than to win them if the weekly is your goal. .

 

You need a dose of realism. Lets start with an average gamer desktop setup.

 

The average "gamer" has 2-3 monitors and 1-2 computers/consoles. That means the average gamer can play a game and watch a movie at the same time, or even play two games while watching youtube, netflix, whatever.

 

It's extremely reasonable to watch something while doing pve content, especially when you've done it before or the winning result is guaranteed, or if it's just a mindless grind.

 

Pvp content however, should be respected enough to demand most of your attention, because it's not just you on your team, it's 3-7 other players, and 4-8 players on the other side. When my ques pop, I put my other games/videos on pause and put forth some effort, and I expect other people to do the same, because they do not have the right to waste my time, or the time of any of the other players.

 

When the regular pvp daily/weekly missions could be done with losses, you'd have people that were just going through the motions, not paying attention, watching netflix while losing at pvp. Some would go afk, but most are just zombies. The goal for them wasn't winning and getting the missions done effectively, the goal for them was to get their missions done without interrupting their time with their preferred streaming service. It doesn't matter to them if it takes 1 game or 2 to get their daily done. Their attention, their goal, is to binge some crappy CW tv show that stopped being good 10 years ago, if it ever was even good to begin with.

 

Games aren't fun when you're playing with parasites, they suck all the fun out of it. So no, Dr. Cflems, you are incorrect, because you lack the basic understanding of the context of a modern gamer, where humans are surrounded by more information and more forms of entertainment then they can possibly consume in a lifetime. Games, and other forms of entertainment, need to compete for the ATTENTION of players, not simply their participation.

 

Stop rewarding the losers. It costs them nothing to que and lose, not even their time. That's why they see any form of reward as profitable. If they happen to win off of the people who actually give the game attention, even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny little story I forgot to mention.

 

Yesterday, in lowbies, got a Huttball. Decided to not touch the ball to see what would happen.

 

4 minutes.

 

4 minutes of two teams of eight people, and no one touched the ball.

 

People queing for pvp are not there to win. They're there to get their galactic season daily done, and that's kinda sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if BW released the data (which they don't to my knowledge), it would "prove" you wrong here. it would support the "fact" that more players engaged in PVP during 6.3 than any other time in the 5-6.x era.

 

BW will also tell you that such positive numbers are a result of BW's new policies toward quitter debuffs, wins-only quest rewards, and "innovative" new strategies like Galactic Seasons.

 

At least the mind-boggling new strategy of rewarding participation for Galactic Seasons made group chat in a lost match bearable again. :rolleyes: And yeah, it worked in bringing me back to regs (for up to 7 matches per week...)

Edited by Mubrak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People queing for pvp are not there to win. They're there to get their galactic season daily done, and that's kinda sad.

 

This will be my attitude going forward insofar as the "ranked prep" arena popping when I que for an objective warzone. The lockout timer will no longer effect me. I will leave every single arena pop and spend that 15 minutes out in SWTOR land accomplishing something in seasons. Those left behind? They don't give a crap how I feel or what I want to do with my time. Therefor, I now have little care regarding the outcome of their arena. Enjoy your arena backfill, and have fun folks.

 

:D

Edited by Squirlphinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just less arduous to get stuck in a low quality match, which happens *frequently* due to poor matchmaking algorithms.

 

Tell me about it. Since 5.9.2, It's not rare that I experience matches where one team is a mix of Skull-bashing ranked players slumming it in regs, along with players who love to Obj for the sake of Obj'ing, who acted that way well before the requirement to win was implemented, and the other team is primarily people who are there to farm conquest points, or more recently, GS points. Granted, being on the business end of these matches was never fun, but under the old system, I at least had some reason to keep coming back if I got into a few of these debacles in a row.

 

With wins-only missions, if I get on the wrong side of too many of these Roflstomps and I Can't successfully queue-dodge, I just spend the rest of the night doing heroics or GTN hustling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if BW released the data (which they don't to my knowledge), it would "prove" you wrong here. it would support the "fact" that more players engaged in PVP during 6.3 than any other time in the 5-6.x era.

 

BW will also tell you that such positive numbers are a result of BW's new policies toward quitter debuffs, wins-only quest rewards, and "innovative" new strategies like Galactic Seasons.

 

I'm waiting for them to then say these changes worked so well that they now feel comfortable allowing players to choose which WZs to queue for. Then we can all run the same two WZs until we stop queuing or the WZs stop popping because everyone has their own pet peeve, and now they're opting out of the same two "common" WZs that pop every time.

 

The question should be, are players engaging in 6.3 because of GS or because they like all the changes to pvp.

After Chris made his statement on Discord that more people were playing pvp, he was specifically asked what the numbers were before GS and he stopped posting and clammed up.

Why didn’t he want to answer. Why did they ignore all the questions until they had a bandaid fix in the form of GS.

And when I say people are leaving, I mean long term pvpers, not new people filling seats because of GS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question should be, are players engaging in 6.3 because of GS or because they like all the changes to pvp.

After Chris made his statement on Discord that more people were playing pvp, he was specifically asked what the numbers were before GS and he stopped posting and clammed up.

Why didn’t he want to answer. Why did they ignore all the questions until they had a bandaid fix in the form of GS.

And when I say people are leaving, I mean long term pvpers, not new people filling seats because of GS.

 

That PvP as GS objectives was introduced as a thing is proof positive that the game mode was ailing. There's no need to incentivize play in game modes that see healthy participation. Same reason they added the 300 augment mats as an endeavor to get people into NiM and Team Ranked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need a dose of realism. Lets start with an average gamer desktop setup.

 

The average "gamer" has 2-3 monitors and 1-2 computers/consoles. That means the average gamer can play a game and watch a movie at the same time, or even play two games while watching youtube, netflix, whatever.

 

It's extremely reasonable to watch something while doing pve content, especially when you've done it before or the winning result is guaranteed, or if it's just a mindless grind.

 

Pvp content however, should be respected enough to demand most of your attention, because it's not just you on your team, it's 3-7 other players, and 4-8 players on the other side. When my ques pop, I put my other games/videos on pause and put forth some effort, and I expect other people to do the same, because they do not have the right to waste my time, or the time of any of the other players.

 

I’m sorry, but how exactly does the current system change any of that? The same gamers who were checking out are now just outright leaving when the match isn’t going their way, lockout be damned. You’re just wrong

 

Also, something occurred to me. Why are people whining about incentivizing losers under the old system? Everyone benefitted from it. You can’t win every single match, but at least with a loss you got progress. Didn’t matter whether you lost in a good, competitive game or a total blowout where people dragged their feet. But now, losses just mean a waste of time for everyone involved, including the try-hards. Granting progress on the weekly and daily with losses will only bring in more people. And GS proves that by just counting matches played instead of just wins. GSF counts matches played, and no one has said anything about that game mode dying. So, I say bring back the system of counting matches played instead of just wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sorry, but how exactly does the current system change any of that? The same gamers who were checking out are now just outright leaving when the match isn’t going their way, lockout be damned. You’re just wrong

 

Also, something occurred to me. Why are people whining about incentivizing losers under the old system? Everyone benefitted from it. You can’t win every single match, but at least with a loss you got progress. Didn’t matter whether you lost in a good, competitive game or a total blowout where people dragged their feet. But now, losses just mean a waste of time for everyone involved, including the try-hards. Granting progress on the weekly and daily with losses will only bring in more people. And GS proves that by just counting matches played instead of just wins. GSF counts matches played, and no one has said anything about that game mode dying. So, I say bring back the system of counting matches played instead of just wins.

 

The win only requirement was to try and stop people death matching at the expense of trying to win. But it’s had ZERO affect on that behaviour. Add the lockout out and it’s actually encouraged more people to death match.

 

The whole thing is an F’ing failure and BioWare refuse to tweak the system at all to improve it because that would be admitting they were wrong.

Edited by TrixxieTriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The win only requirement was to try and stop people death matching at the expense of trying to win. But it’s had ZERO affect on that behaviour. Add the lockout out and it’s actually encouraged more people to death match.

 

The whole thing is an F’ing failure and BioWare refuse to tweak the system at all to improve it because that would be admitting they were wrong.

 

fully agree, I've seen more DM in objectives than in arena's...lol

 

As for the comment on huttball. The last few HB matches I've played, people were too busy DM'ing to go for the ball, not that no one was interested. And those that did go for the ball, were cut down straight away. It seems the more 'experience' players are using HB to DM, and waiting till the last minute to grab the ball, because when time runs out the person holding the ball wins for the team.

 

In the occasions where I did manage to get the ball away from mid, and get close to goal, the damn thing exploded, because there was no one else around to throw it too, who's ever dumb idea that was needs a good ********

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fully agree, I've seen more DM in objectives than in arena's...lol

 

As for the comment on huttball. The last few HB matches I've played, people were too busy DM'ing to go for the ball, not that no one was interested. And those that did go for the ball, were cut down straight away. It seems the more 'experience' players are using HB to DM, and waiting till the last minute to grab the ball, because when time runs out the person holding the ball wins for the team.

 

In the occasions where I did manage to get the ball away from mid, and get close to goal, the damn thing exploded, because there was no one else around to throw it too, who's ever dumb idea that was needs a good ********

 

Part of the problem with current HB is Bioware have Nerfed player speeds if they carry the ball.

 

So even if you get the ball you can’t go anywhere with it, “unless” you’re an operative, which seems to be the only class not affected by this change. Ie Mara predation and Inquisitor speed run are both Nerfed if you have the ball. It’s like having sprint turned off if get the ball and no buffs work.

Even the speed buffs in the game have limited use now and if you had the ball and pass it, you’ve still got the negative speed buff on you (even if you die). So no one wants to pick up the ball or have it passed to them.

 

Bioware have made Huttball DMing worse with these changes, especially in lowbies. They have absolutely ruined dynamic Hutt ball and made it even more operative friendly. If you don’t have operatives on your team and the other team does, it’s most likely a loss even if both teams try and play properly.

Edited by TrixxieTriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That PvP as GS objectives was introduced as a thing is proof positive that the game mode was ailing. There's no need to incentivize play in game modes that see healthy participation. Same reason they added the 300 augment mats as an endeavor to get people into NiM and Team Ranked.

 

Which has also not been successful in making team ranked work.

 

The mat farmers join the queue, then solo queue guys see and form random pugs to farm the mat farmers, mat farmers leave the queue, real TR teams see random solo puggers in TR and join queue for matches, queue dies quickly when random puggers realise they can’t win again proper formed TR teams.

 

The issue is lack of population for TR to work with a solo queue. You can put all the rewards you want for TR, but it won’t fix lack of players spread across 2 formats of ranked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sorry, but how exactly does the current system change any of that? The same gamers who were checking out are now just outright leaving when the match isn’t going their way, lockout be damned. You’re just wrong

 

Also, something occurred to me. Why are people whining about incentivizing losers under the old system? Everyone benefitted from it. You can’t win every single match, but at least with a loss you got progress. Didn’t matter whether you lost in a good, competitive game or a total blowout where people dragged their feet. But now, losses just mean a waste of time for everyone involved, including the try-hards. Granting progress on the weekly and daily with losses will only bring in more people. And GS proves that by just counting matches played instead of just wins. GSF counts matches played, and no one has said anything about that game mode dying. So, I say bring back the system of counting matches played instead of just wins.

 

Before the more recent conquest changes, which made conquest "for everyone" GSF was dead. It wasn't the participation rewards that somewhat revived GSF, it was the easy conquest, especially for alts on classes that you didn't like to play, simply because you rely on your ships abilities, and not your character's abilities.

 

The current daily and weekly "win" system for regs is not perfect. It certainly slowed the ques, before Galactic Seasons, but something needed to change. People here were very quick to forget how bad the games had degenerated to, in terms of lopsidedness and competitive spirit.

 

Individual and team effort should be rewarded, even for people who lose the match, but in doing so you'd inadvertently reward the people who put in no effort. I'd love for Bioware to come up with a more competent system for tracking effort, but it's probably never going to happen. I'm happy with the "serial losers" never getting their daily and weeklies done, because I know someone who loves pvp is going to get those missions done most of the time anyway, organically, and without the need for participation awards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the more recent conquest changes, which made conquest "for everyone" GSF was dead. It wasn't the participation rewards that somewhat revived GSF, it was the easy conquest,

 

Totally agree with this

 

, especially for alts on classes that you didn't like to play, simply because you rely on your ships abilities, and not your character's abilities.

 

 

But not this, it's like saying in pvp it all depends on your gear. Having a good ship in gsf, is like having good gear in pvp, it will help, but a good pvp, or gsf person can run rings around a better equipped person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play regs. Games are vastly superior since the change.

 

I see the same people in these threads as the "delete X class because I refuse to learn how to play" and "delete X map because I refuse to learn how to play" threads. Games are objectively better in my experience across NA and EU, people try and the players who do leave are well, they're probably leaving to start forum threads about why it's not fair they're bad.

 

There are tools available to get better, to understand maps and classes. I doubt you've read / watched them, but yeah, must be the map / class fault.

 

TLDR: L2P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play regs. Games are vastly superior since the change.

 

I see the same people in these threads as the "delete X class because I refuse to learn how to play" and "delete X map because I refuse to learn how to play" threads. Games are objectively better in my experience across NA and EU, people try and the players who do leave are well, they're probably leaving to start forum threads about why it's not fair they're bad.

 

There are tools available to get better, to understand maps and classes. I doubt you've read / watched them, but yeah, must be the map / class fault.

 

TLDR: L2P.

 

I stopped playing pvp for a long time, and even now, only do it for GS, but it hasn't really changed much for me, so either it got really, really bad, or I've been unlucky, or you've played a lot more matches than me, and have a better pool of resourses to draw your conclusion from. So, I'm not arguing your point, but just saying, I've seen some really 'epic fails' when it comes to pvp matches :) It's not always a L2P issue, sometimes it's bad luck your stuck with a bad team (whether poor players, afk'ers, or DM'ers), it can happen :/

 

I agree it's shouldn't be delete this, or that, etc. I do think PvP does need some improvements, and some real pvp'ers here have forwarded some good ideas :)

Edited by DarkTergon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play regs. Games are vastly superior since the change.

 

Opinion.

 

I see the same people in these threads as the "delete X class because I refuse to learn how to play"

 

Strawman.

 

and "delete X map because I refuse to learn how to play"

 

One thread by one player and you're pitching a fit over it? ...kay...

 

It's not even necessary for you to comment because you know as well as I do that nothing will change. The developers ignore the common players like myself, players with great suggestions like Trixxie, or even the elite players like Beyrahl that offer great compromises to the complaints on these forums. There was a stunningly amusing and sadly plausible explanation as to the reason things remain the way they are, and it has nothing to do with the health of the game.

 

What I am asking is, why are you so afraid that something will change? It won't.

 

If you simply don't like reading the complaints...there is a simple solution to that.

 

There are tools available to get better, to understand maps and classes. I doubt you've read / watched them, but yeah, must be the map / class fault.

 

TLDR: L2P.

 

Dismissive comportment. Some things never change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individual and team effort should be rewarded, even for people who lose the match, but in doing so you'd inadvertently reward the people who put in no effort. I'd love for Bioware to come up with a more competent system for tracking effort, but it's probably never going to happen. I'm happy with the "serial losers" never getting their daily and weeklies done, because I know someone who loves pvp is going to get those missions done most of the time anyway, organically, and without the need for participation awards.

 

I’ve suggested multiple ways Bioware could reward effort even for people who lose. But I think it’s all in the too hard basket for them or they lack the money and resources to do it.

 

I made a thread that specifically outlines changes Bioware could make to address a multitude of issues, including dealing with AFK losers. https://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=992476

Who even knows if anyone on the dev team has read it. Communication is so slack that we’ll never know.

 

The question is do they have the money or the inclination to fix pvp or is the game so far gone now that they are going to let it die completely. The bandaid treatment they keep giving pvp isn’t working and is just making things worse. It might fix one key thing, but it often negatively affects the rest of pvp to bandaid one specific point.

 

The whole system needs a rebuild or at least major surgery and not more bandaids. Anything less and they may as well not bother. And sadly, I think that’s the conclusion they’ve come to. I have a really bad feeling that the games 10th anniversary will be nothing more than an shutter date announcement.

Edited by TrixxieTriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But not this, it's like saying in pvp it all depends on your gear. Having a good ship in gsf, is like having good gear in pvp, it will help, but a good pvp, or gsf person can run rings around a better equipped person.

 

If someone hates playing powertech, and has a powertech alt, they have the choice to completly avoid playing powertech and instead play GSF on that toon, for conquest. Same thing goes for if they somewhat like the class, but don't feel like they're good at it or are just too rusty to get back into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve suggested multiple ways Bioware could reward effort even for people who lose. But I think it’s all in the too hard basket for them or they lack the money and resources to do it.

 

I made a thread that specifically outlines changes Bioware could make to address a multitude of issues, including dealing with AFK losers. https://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=992476

Who even knows if anyone on the dev team has read it. Communication is so slack that we’ll never know.

 

The question is do they have the money or the inclination to fix pvp or is the game so far gone now that they are going to let it die completely. The bandaid treatment they keep giving pvp isn’t working and is just making things worse. It might fix one key thing, but it often negatively affects the rest of pvp to bandaid one specific point.

 

The whole system needs a rebuild or at least major surgery and not more bandaids. Anything less and they may as well not bother. And sadly, I think that’s the conclusion they’ve come to. I have a really bad feeling that the games 10th anniversary will be nothing more than an shutter date announcement.

 

I'll agree with most of what your saying, but you seem to be stuck on the third stage of grief, which is the anger and bargaining stage.

 

I'm on the acceptance stage. or at least I was, until Galactic Seasons flooded pvp with disinterested players. The fix for that isn't giving those people even more "expected returns for static time investment".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone hates playing powertech, and has a powertech alt, they have the choice to completly avoid playing powertech and instead play GSF on that toon, for conquest. Same thing goes for if they somewhat like the class, but don't feel like they're good at it or are just too rusty to get back into it.

 

did you forget to make an actual point, or did it get deleted....:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fix for that isn't giving those people even more "expected returns for static time investment".

 

No, the fix is to have solo options that are just as easy and rewarding as gsf/pvp , something that they like to do, that way, they'd pick the option they prefer, instead of one that gave most, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...