Tubemen Of Riggor (Ps4)

[(PSN)Crimson_Judgment]

Heck, the two teams idea could even be a lot of fun for the devs. Set it up for multiple conflicts running parallel each day. Let the two teams bicker and trash talk on the forums or twitter during the day. Then, at the end of the day, the team goes to a bar or something to talk about how the days conflicts went, and strategize what they want to do for tomorrow.

Sooo warframe reality television lol

[(PSN)Kosis181]

Sooo warframe reality television lol

We already have that. Dev stream and prime time, remember? Still, i think there might be a documentary in here somewhere.

"And here we see the game developer in it's natural habitat..."

[TaylorsContraction]

Welcome to democracy, where the minority doesn't matter unless there is a close to 50-50 split between the majority

Edited June 26, 2015 by TaylorsContraction

[(PSN)Kosis181]

Mechanically, with a proper set up it could probably work.

 

That said, there's still some question as to whether it's wise.  The thought that immediate occurs to me is that this will end up resulting in a certain amount of sour grapes from the losing side, directed at whoever the team planner is.  The losing side will absolutely blame to DE employee who's running the show, and I would expect that a portion of the community would quite bitterly call an event rigged, saying that their captain was as good as the other team's captain.  And I'm not even sure you could reasonably rule that out as a reason for loss.

 

The human element possibly adds a reasoned strategic level - but since the players don't choose their leaders, it also means it's still very much open to protests of it being rigged.  Scapegoating will be a major problem.

 

I'd wager we'd all be happier simply improving the algorithm.  Though, with different player priorities, I doubt we'd ever reach a consensus.

First, sorry for the wall of text.

This sir, is a well reasoned argument. And one I hadn't considered. Still, assuming both sides actually put up all 4 (or however many are allowed) potatoes and all the r5s they are allowed, scapegoating should be minimal. One of the major complaints right now is that Nef gave pure S#&$ for rewards while Alad gave gold.

Consider this scenario: each conflict is set for 12 hours. The event runs for 7 days. With exactly 24 conflicts, the two teams are given exactly enough rewards to cover all 24. With say, two potatoes each, and exactly 24 rewards, they MUST put up the potato's at some point. No one could say that one team or the other deliberately withheld the good rewards. Then it would come down to choices.

If I stick with my guy, I'll get the two potatos. Is it worth flipping for a couple missions to grab the other two? Some people will say no, I've already got two, I can continue to support my guy without feeling left out. Others will feel that difference between the other guys potato and their guys r5s isn't so big anymore. And of course you might get potato vs potato, and make it a no-brainer.

I'm not so wedded to the idea of putting actual people in control as I am the idea of closing up some of the loopholes in the way it was done in ToR. Some randomness is fine, but there should have been some override in place. Nef is video game character, yeah, but we're supposed to pretend he's real. That gets really hard to do he never goes above minimum wage on his offers. A real person would have seen the way alad was catching up and pulled out the reserves. At the very least he should have started pulling out the potatoes at the end when they approached a tie. An actually person would have seen that there were only 2 or so conflicts left, and put out the best stuff to make sure that he was at least matching alads. It kinda worked out that way anyway, but only because of the devs stepping in and removing the randomness for the last round while they were tied. In short, they kludged up a manual override.

Broken emersion aside, the real problem is one of perception. people are perceiving the event as rigged, even when it technically wasn't. Mainly due to flaws in the system. Videogames are all about entertaining, and nothing is less entertaining that feeling like you've been cheated, especially when the event is as repetitive as this one. The fun factor dropped pretty fast once the novelty of the tileset wore off.

Tldr; The problem here was mainly that the system allowed for this kind of disparity. Granted, thats armchair deving, and after the fact to boot. Still, mood is all about perception, and little is more aggravating than the thought of being cheated. It's take a lot of work to balance things out, but the current system made it less about the plots, and more about the reward. Our choice wasn't who do we want to win, but is our choice of weapons worth 4 potatoes and 175 r5 cores?

[(PSN)ElZilcho]

Welcome to democracy, where the minority doesn't matter unless there is a close to 50-50 split between the majority

 

Truth. However, a game is supposed to be fun. The runs for each side could have been scored based on more factors. I guess I can't prove that they weren't, but I've said as much in the OP.

 

Instead of just counting runs, it could give more points to teams who take less damage (since that is already tracked to provide the end game scorecard), or who let objectives take less damage (tally up all the HP damage the console takes and ignore regeneration), how quickly the mission is completed, or how many players are there.

 

A player that solos the mission, doesn't let the objective take any damage, and takes very little themself would get a higher score than four noobs who almost let the console die and take forever to get to extraction. They both get the same battlepay for their 3 runs, but one contributes more to the overall score. That's just an example and other factors could be used.

 

 

Mechanically, with a proper set up it could probably work.

 

That said, there's still some question as to whether it's wise.  The thought that immediate occurs to me is that this will end up resulting in a certain amount of sour grapes from the losing side, directed at whoever the team planner is.  The losing side will absolutely blame to DE employee who's running the show, and I would expect that a portion of the community would quite bitterly call an event rigged, saying that their captain was as good as the other team's captain.  And I'm not even sure you could reasonably rule that out as a reason for loss.

 

The human element possibly adds a reasoned strategic level - but since the players don't choose their leaders, it also means it's still very much open to protests of it being rigged.  Scapegoating will be a major problem.

 

I'd wager we'd all be happier simply improving the algorithm.  Though, with different player priorities, I doubt we'd ever reach a consensus.

 

Yeah, that is a potential problem. I'd argue that people are going to see it as rigged either way but that most people would agree that it's easier to rig a system and deny it's rigged because computer (Honestly, I've already come up with a couple ways to rig events that would be effectively impossible to notice) than it is to cheat live and not be confronted about it. I guess you're right that we don't need DE employees in the line of fire, as it were, but hopefully most people would know it is just a game. My goal is to make the game more fun and add that sense of competition.

 

I would say a better algorithm would have a base reward and a potential bonus. The further behind one side gets, the more their base reward increases. The more consecutive losses one side has, the greater or more likely their potential bonus. It just didn't make sense for Nef to lose three in a row and then reduce his reward, even if he was still in the lead. Once tied, it could weigh who was losing before the tie and possibly other factors to determine which side would try to offer more, or maybe just stay with the loyalty system. The reason I like the idea of humans doing this is because we can do all this stuff naturally and it's much harder to create a formula for competitive drive combined with budgeting. Obviously, it's going to take a lot of conditionals.

 

I also want to stick with the budget thing so that a heavy decision one way doesn't give the other side unlimited resources and hopefully provides a surplus from which to reward loyalty.

Edited June 26, 2015 by (PS4)ElZilcho

[osuman]

In addition to what you said, I suggest making everyone's vote have a low value at the beginning, which increases the more you do run (capped at some value)

This way casuals can have their rewards while dedicated players can actually contribute to what they feel is right.

Op if you like this idea, add it to your post so De can see.

[(PSN)ElZilcho]

In addition to what you said, I suggest making everyone's vote have a low value at the beginning, which increases the more you do run (capped at some value)

This way casuals can have their rewards while dedicated players can actually contribute to what they feel is right.

Op if you like this idea, add it to your post so De can see.

 

That's pretty good. I'm going to think on it for a while though and see if I come up with any additional things before I add it.

[(PSN)Gaelic-_-Flame]

In addition to what you said, I suggest making everyone's vote have a low value at the beginning, which increases the more you do run (capped at some value)

This way casuals can have their rewards while dedicated players can actually contribute to what they feel is right.

Op if you like this idea, add it to your post so De can see.

Your idea inspired me with another idea. What if we got our vote multiplier increase each time we support the same side in a conflict. Increase is not per run, but per conflict. So for example you start at 1 vote per run, after completing a conflict siding with Nef, your multiplier increases by 0.5, so you have a 1.5 votes per run for the next conflict, if you support the same side. After the next conflict you get 2 votes. But as soon as you go for Alad your multiplier resets and your runs count as 1 again.

 

Similar thing could be made for rewards, so each time you complete a run for Nef, your reward multiplier increases by 0.25. If you run for the other side, your multiplier resets to 1. So let's assume Nef offers 50,000 credits, 20U cores and 50,000 in the first three conflicts. If you run all three conflicts for him, you'll get 20x1.25=25 cores on the second run, and 50,000x1.5=75,000 on the third run. Furthermore, if Alad then offers a Catalyst or other greater reward, you'll think twice before ruining your multiplier for Nef, making a choice a little bit more tough, and encourage loyal supporters to stay by their side. This would make staying at one side much more profitable than always switching sides for better reward. I guess multiplier wouldn't work for potatoes, since they are pretty OP in the first place, or maybe it should work, since you have to run 4 times before you get 2xpotato, I'm not sure about this.

[(PSN)ElZilcho]

Your idea inspired me with another idea. What if we got our vote multiplier increase each time we support the same side in a conflict. Increase is not per run, but per conflict. So for example you start at 1 vote per run, after completing a conflict siding with Nef, your multiplier increases by 0.5, so you have a 1.5 votes per run for the next conflict, if you support the same side. After the next conflict you get 2 votes. But as soon as you go for Alad your multiplier resets and your runs count as 1 again.

 

Similar thing could be made for rewards, so each time you complete a run for Nef, your reward multiplier increases by 0.25. If you run for the other side, your multiplier resets to 1. So let's assume Nef offers 50,000 credits, 20U cores and 50,000 in the first three conflicts. If you run all three conflicts for him, you'll get 20x1.25=25 cores on the second run, and 50,000x1.5=75,000 on the third run. Furthermore, if Alad then offers a Catalyst or other greater reward, you'll think twice before ruining your multiplier for Nef, making a choice a little bit more tough, and encourage loyal supporters to stay by their side. This would make staying at one side much more profitable than always switching sides for better reward. I guess multiplier wouldn't work for potatoes, since they are pretty OP in the first place, or maybe it should work, since you have to run 4 times before you get 2xpotato, I'm not sure about this.

 

Another good idea! Obviously, the multiplier weighting would need to be fine tuned, but that would definitely reward loyalty to one side while making flip-floppers have to win back virtual trust.

 

Edit: Thought about it while getting lunch. Instead of an amount multiplier, what do you think of a tier multiplier? 5 (just to pick a number) consecutive missions for one side would get you Uncommon cores instead of credits, Rare cores instead of uncommon, or Catalysts instead of Rare cores. Switching sides resets your multiplier back to zero.

Edited June 26, 2015 by (PS4)ElZilcho

[(PSN)Gaelic-_-Flame]

Edit: Thought about it while getting lunch. Instead of an amount multiplier, what do you think of a tier multiplier? 5 (just to pick a number) consecutive missions for one side would get you Uncommon cores instead of credits, Rare cores instead of uncommon, or Catalysts instead of Rare cores. Switching sides resets your multiplier back to zero.

I thought about tier multiplier as well, but I think it just completely counters the whole point of losing side offering better rewards, trying to sway those in doubt. If you get a next tier anyways after a certain amount of conflicts, then why even go for better reward in the current one? The quantity of reward on the other hand is going to affect your rewards in a more subtle way, so it rewards loyalty in a long run, but some players might still go for that awesome reward the other side offers. Some might even stick to that other side after that, just to keep the multiplier going, until the first side offers something really good.

 

Of course it's just an idea and it might or might not work if the reward distribution system would change.

 

And even with this idea it would still be ridiculously unfair to be on Nefs side in this event, looking at it from this point it might be good to change tier after all... I don't know, really.

Edited June 26, 2015 by (PS4)Gaelic-_-Flame

[(PSN)ElZilcho]

I thought about tier multiplier as well, but I think it just completely counters the whole point of losing side offering better rewards, trying to sway those in doubt. If you get a next tier anyways after a certain amount of conflicts, then why even go for better reward in the current one? The quantity of reward on the other hand is going to affect your rewards in a more subtle way, so it rewards loyalty in a long run, but some players might still go for that awesome reward the other side offers. Some might even stick to that other side after that, just to keep the multiplier going, until the first side offers something really good.

 

Of course it's just an idea and it might or might not work if the reward distribution system would change.

 

And even with this idea it would still be ridiculously unfair to be on Nefs side in this event, looking at it from this point it might be good to change tier after all... I don't know, really.

 

Would take some testing. I think the correct multiplier would be one that makes it more profitable to try to get rewards out of each side, but still ultimately rewards loyal players. It's going to depend on how long each conflict lasts, how many there are, and the overall event length. We can't really pick a number right here.

 

 

Both ideas, along with Osuman's, added to OP in appropriate section.