[SUGGESTION] Tie PvP Experience to Point Results

[Dizhonor]

Here's a caveat: My frontline experience may differ from yours. Even so, I suspect that the problems that I outline below are universal. And in any case, here's some problems that I've encountered, and some rough solutions. I say rough because I don't expect them to be perfect. If you have a better idea, I'm happy to edit this post and add it.

As it stands, the effort to reward ratio in Frontline is pretty high. With the absolute minimal effort (jumping, tapping a directional key periodically, et cetera), you can earn fair amount of XP. As far as I know, you can't earn this kind of XP (again, pressing a space bar to jump or tapping a directional key periodically) from doing anything else in the game. Most of the XP you gain in FFXIV requires some level of active participation.

This fact promotes AFK'ing, Botting, Minimalism, and Defeatism. And these things are not endemic to FFXIV. Most games with large scale PvP is faced with these problems. This very often means that the team stuck with the most AFK'ers, Botters or Minimalists will lose, because AFK'ers, Botters, and Minimalists end up creating Defeatists, and because (in any case) the other team will have more bodies to DPS, heal, crowd control, and so on.

My TL;DR solution? Tie rewards to the final points (not to 1st, 2nd or 3rd place). I suspect this would decrease the number of minimalists and defeatists. AFK'er's and Botters require a post in itself. My reasoning is below.

Solutions:

1. 1. Kick the offending players: But this requires people to select "yes." In my experience, you're going to have "don't tell me how to play" trolls who are going to click "no" because they think you are being a playstyle-nazi, or you won't get sufficient votes because too many of the people who can vote are the offending players you are trying to vote-kick (if half of your team are AFK'ers and bots, then you're out of luck).
   
2. 2. Tie rewards to "place": While having tiered rewards makes sense (1st place should have greater rewards than 2nd, and 2nd greater than 3rd), it doesn't resolve the problem when the 2nd and 3rd place rewards are still substantial. To deter AFK'ers (etc), you would need to make the effort to reward ratio so low as to render it completely undesirable. However, in doing so, this would just breed more Defeatists.
   
3. 3. Tie rewards to individual-effort: There's many ways to win a match. Sometimes the 'effort' that contributes to a win isn't measurable. For example, by harassing the enemy by constantly being a presence around their base, making them divert people to make sure you aren't going to capture it. So if rewards were tied to individual-efforts, then many of the non-tangible/non-measurable efforts would go unrewarded. It would also punish individuals for thinking creatively rather than being rewarded for mindlessly following a zerg.
   
4. 4. Tie rewards to final points: The only result that matters is the final points. And points are acquired through killing the enemy, shattering crystals, and so on. Because current rewards are tied to place, points are only valuable insofar as they secure place, and in any case arbitrary. For example, in one match 2nd place may be acquired by 1500 points. But in another match, it may be acquired by 500 points. So if 2nd place is worth (say) 500K experience, then you can acquire 500K experience with 1500 or 500 points. So the current system promotes defeatism; after all, why continue fighting f you can get 2nd place with 500 points? Therefore, by tying place to points, you make acquiring points relevant even if you're on the "losing" side, because you get more exp by finishing with more points. This would discourage defeatism for many. It might discourage minimalism for some. It might do nothing at all about AFK'ers or bots.

I don't know what would be the most appropriate ratio of points to experience. Maybe the best ratio should be 1 to 1 such that for 100% points (e.g. 1600 out of 1600) you earn 100% experience (e.g. 600K), 90% points for 90% experience, and so on and so forth.


My rough definitions of AFK'ers / Botters / Defeatists / Minimalist

AFK'ers: An AFK'er is someone who tends to leech rewards (XP,marks) by doing the absolute minimal effort to avoid the AFK time-out feature; e.g. by jumping, tapping a directional key periodically, et cetera.

Minimalists: A Minimalist is someone who will do the minimal amount of effort to avoid the perception of being an AFK'er so as to avoid detection and being vote-kicked; e.g. by blindly following the group, suicidal charges into enemy zergs, et cetera.

Defeatists: A Defeatist is someone who, upon seeing that their team cannot "win" the match (obtain 1st place), will simply give up and avoid combat by sitting in the base (and so on).

Botters: Frankly there seems to be some division over what counts as 'botting.' It is sometimes regarded as just another word for multi-boxing (i.e. playing multiple accounts on different machines simultaneously). It is also regarded as third party software that automates certain abilities and features of the game. Many people think that it involves the latter because the 'bots' don't respond to anyone, or the behavior of the characters seem alien (i.e. non human; automated). I suspect in many cases the 'bot' is actually a person that has been paid to level an account, and very likely doesn't speak your language. Or if the botter does speak your language, they don't care to respond (because they're getting paid to level the character, for whatever reason, but not to talk to you).

[Dizhonor]

It would also reward your effort in those close neck-in-neck games where all that separates you from the winning team is a few points.

[Nixxe]

So you want a further nerf to XP for people who get placed on terrible teams...

[Sacerdos]

If you're always on a terrible team, then you're the problem.

Like those people in MOBAs that complain that they would be whatever rank if it weren't for feeders on their team.

[Jetstream_Fox]

If you're always on a terrible team, then you're the problem.

Like those people in MOBAs that complain that they would be whatever rank if it weren't for feeders on their team.

How are you the problem if you get placed on a team that doesn't attempt to play? So if you're the only one playing out of the 7 others in your party, how are you at fault for the 7 others standing back at the spawn? You can force them to play? You can post up the crystal locations and tell your team where to meet, but if they again chose to stand back at the base, how are you the problem?

And the only way to prevent queing into a team like that is if they made PvP require full parties in order to que. And the likelihood of that happening is beyond abysmal.

[Nixxe]

If you're always on a terrible team, then you're the problem.

Like those people in MOBAs that complain that they would be whatever rank if it weren't for feeders on their team.

1. That's absurd in content where there are 71 other people. Nothing you do will ever outweigh what they do. The opportunities for individual contributions to swing the tide of battle are virtually nil, especially when the people on your team won't even let themselves be directed to objectives or other intelligent uses of their time.

2. I was losing nearly every match playing as Freelancer and part of the Adders until I switched to Maelstrom, which Freelancer never put me on. Now I win about 40% of the time. Unless you're suggesting that switching to Maelstrom took me from zero to hero in an instant, that alone should give you serious concerns about your hypothesis.

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

Nixxe, I've said several times that the GC you're on does NOT matter. It's not the reason you're winning or losing more.

Maybe you've learned a thing or two? Maybe pure RNG luck is putting you with other skilled players? Freelancer is literally a deck shuffle. In the past, I won more games as an Adder, but that was entirely because there were a lot of good players I got to know on the Adders. And when we all switched to Flames, guess what we continued to do? And when Freelancer was added and we just teamed up with each other anyways, guess what we continued to do?

Your GC affiliation matters as much in PvP now as it does in PvE.

[Nixxe]

Nixxe, I've said several times that the GC you're on does NOT matter. It's not the reason you're winning or losing more.

Maybe you've learned a thing or two? Maybe pure RNG luck is putting you with other skilled players? Freelancer is literally a deck shuffle. In the past, I won more games as an Adder, but that was entirely because there were a lot of good players I got to know on the Adders. And when we all switched to Flames, guess what we continued to do? And when Freelancer was added and we just teamed up with each other anyways, guess what we continued to do?

Your GC affiliation matters as much in PvP now as it does in PvE.

And I already explained to you why you're wrong. The only situation in which GC affiliation does not matter is one in which all persons are required to use Freelancer at all times, provided the game distributes all participants in a truly random fashion. In any other situation, GC affiliations can come into play.

[Dizhonor]

So you want a further nerf to XP for people who get placed on terrible teams...

It's pretty easy to respond with a snarky response. It's much more difficult to imagine solutions.

That being said, your response had very little to do with the problem. The problem is how to motivate (incentivize) the defeatist / minimalist crowd. If people still have a reason (beyond 1st, 2nd and 3rd place) to play, then they're more likely to play. If getting more points means getting more experience, then that's an incentive.

[Dizhonor]

And I already explained to you why you're wrong. The only situation in which GC affiliation does not matter is one in which all persons are required to use Freelancer at all times, provided the game distributes all participants in a truly random fashion. In any other situation, GC affiliations can come into play.

Your "argument" is purely anecdotal https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal. Here are some examples:

Premise: A black dog just bit me.
Premise: The only dog that has ever bitten me was black.
Conclusion: Therefore, all black dogs must be biters.

The conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premise.

Premise: I was losing nearly all the time as an Adder
Premise: I win more often as a Maelstrom
Conclusion: It must be the case that Maelstrom wins more than Adder

Again, the conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premise.