[SUGGESTION] Tie PvP Experience to Point Results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shut

And I don't mind geting 8/8/8 when I'm queueing at 3AM.

---

Might honestly be the best fix available. Get rid of 24/72s bring back 16/48s to go with 8/24s. Theres way too many people with way to little to do in frontlines atm.

::--------::

Also, I'm one of those PVPers that would get sidelined by the hard to track efforts. Tho generally I'm top 3-4 on my team for Ice Damage. Generally focus on holding the 1st or 2nd (assuming my team is first) side areas, to get head starts on small ice (18x70pts, or 1260pts in small ice). Uncap their base and retreat, and NOT take it for my team, keeps us from getting aggrod out of spite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankHunter678

Snip

---

No, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shut

The main idea is to tie points to both team's place and individual efforts, which is certainly a legitimate way of rewarding peoples that participated in the match, based on numbers mostly. Such a system is certainly complex to make but not impossible, there are however few things that need to be reworked:

---

THANK YOU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shut

- rework how healings count: 1st overhealing are currently counted as healing done in match, so nothing hard for a WHM bot to get max reward. 2nd sch shield isn't counted as healing done.

---

I'm trying to move away from the thought that individuals should be rewarded for individual, particular efforts. There are just too many variables. The idea is that you reward the result - points. The more points that your team scores, the more XP you earn. It rewards the result of a group effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shut

- make sure it is not too easy: if even bots and afkers can earn good exp, then this system won't work

---

Exactly. Right now it's way too easy to earn big xp for doing absolutely nothing. When you can earn 500K XP for hitting your space bar for 10 to 15 minutes, the system is objectively broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shut

- hire more GM, make an efficient report system flagging those spotted as botters, reduce timers for kick and gives actual punishements: every cheater banned so far only had a few day ban, and you could see lot of them going back to botting. Remember that case about a BLM that cheated to get top parses and even Yoshi-P took position on this case? well, that guy has been seen cheating on S2 or S3 of feast. But it's not an isolated case: almost no one got actual punishement for disrupting matches in S1. Other seasons, no wintrader got punished at all.

---

I don't think hiring more GM's will be the solution. They would likely be bogged down with silly, frivolous tickets anyways. "Hi. Someone isn't playing the way I want them to play, and it's making us lose." Or, "Hi. Someone is killing me over and over again, and I feel like I'm being harassed."
I do you think you're right about having a more efficient report system. The current system is not intuitive at all, and takes more effort than necessary. Of course, the downside is abuse (kicking players because you don't like them, to harass or troll, and so on). The afk / botting problem is a monster, and not one I really attempted to tackle here. I'm more interested in finding ways to minimize (so-called) minimalists and defeatists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shut

Btw, about people leaving pvp because they will need to move their ass a bit. According to some prophets on similar threads, queues are already dead since 4.01. And I don't mind geting 8/8/8 when I'm queueing at 3AM.

---

I'll address this below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OcieKo

Might honestly be the best fix available. Get rid of 24/72s bring back 16/48s to go with 8/24s. Theres way too many people with way to little to do in frontlines atm.

---

On the one hand, the more people there are in a match, the easier it is to hide. So less people would seem to mean less AFK'ers.
However, on the other hand, less people also means that you will feel AFK'ers and Botters more keenly. If 6 out of 24 players are AFK'ers, you still have 18 players to work with. But if 6 out of 8 people are AFK'ers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OcieKo

Also, I'm one of those PVPers that would get sidelined by the hard to track efforts. Tho generally I'm top 3-4 on my team for Ice Damage. Generally focus on holding the 1st or 2nd (assuming my team is first) side areas, to get head starts on small ice (18x70pts, or 1260pts in small ice). Uncap their base and retreat, and NOT take it for my team, keeps us from getting aggrod out of spite.

---

Exactly. There's a lot you can do in a PvP match that can't be neatly categorized or quantified. If we tried to reward the particular efforts of particular individuals, then we would end up punishing players who are thinking outside of the box.
This is why I think that the best thing to do would be to make it a 1 to 1 ratio. If your team achieves 90% of the possible points, then it earns 90% of the possible XP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dizhonor

On the one hand, the more people there are in a match, the easier it is to hide. So less people would seem to mean less AFK'ers.
However, on the other hand, less people also means that you will feel AFK'ers and Botters more keenly. If 6 out of 24 players are AFK'ers, you still have 18 players to work with. But if 6 out of 8 people are AFK'ers...

Exactly. There's a lot you can do in a PvP match that can't be neatly categorized or quantified. If we tried to reward the particular efforts of particular individuals, then we would end up punishing players who are thinking outside of the box.
This is why I think that the best thing to do would be to make it a 1 to 1 ratio. If your team achieves 90% of the possible points, then it earns 90% of the possible XP.

---

True its felt both ways, but 1v15 is still better than 1v24. But it just compounds with the problem that there is generally far too little to do during a match. Often all 72 of those people are in 1-3 spots. 1-3 spots split by 24 people changes the impact far more. I mean you get Fields of Glory 8s and the all at once version happens, your either splitting into pairs or losing at that point. Theres ups and downs to both, but the frontlines themselves really arent designed well for that many people.

Currently xp is what 500-900k? What if they lowered the bottom, raised the absolute top, then used points to move across the line with say an extra bonus for place and make 100% pts xp around 100 short of winning.

So say 300k base, 0 pts, all teams start here. 3rd place no bonus, 2nd place +100k, first place +200k. Making the starting line 300k/400k/500k max. Then give another 600k for points up to 1500. Makes it roughly 900k/1M/1.1M for one of the 3 way nailbiters. But on the other hand 2nd/3rd with 1000 pts would be around 700-800k as opposed to the possible now 500k for losing by 1-10 pts. Equates to around 400xp per point. And to balance out to current xp a team would only need around 30-40% of near total points for 3rd, and around 50-70% for 2nd.

Obviously lvl scaling still applies but at 68/69 youd be roughly in this ballpark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dizhonor

Actually, I do. And it wasn't from a Google search. Sorry.

---

I'm going to give this one more shot and then I'm done with you.

Here's a peer reviewed source that briefly explains how the use of anecdotes can be fallacious (it's also a generally good reference for fallacies, even if not as thorough as you may find in some texts):
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AnecdotalEvidence

Quote:

---

Anecdotal Evidence

This is fallacious generalizing on the basis of a some story that provides an inadequate sample. If you discount evidence arrived at by systematic search or by testing in favor of a few firsthand stories, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of overemphasizing anecdotal evidence.

Example:

Yeah, I've read the health warnings on those cigarette packs and I know about all that health research, but my brother smokes, and he says he's never been sick a day in his life, so I know smoking can't really hurt you.

---

You'll note that they don't say anecdotes are inherently problematic (nor does your own link really and the gist of it is the same as mine) and the fallacy revolves around overvaluing anecdotes to disregard more systematic evidence, yet that isn't the case we have here. I am simply offering up my own statistics to show that it's improbable along with a more qualitative evaluation of the game design to explain why we shouldn't expect perfectly even outcomes to begin with. Even science starts with a simple observation, what might be reasonably called an anecdote. Then through collecting more information and analyzing that information, the rigor of the hypothesis used to explain the observation is increased. What I'm being met with here isn't better sampling and data analysis that conflicts with my own, but merely a couple of people insisting ad nauseum I must be wrong because they personally find it unbelievable and have no understanding of how the game design fails to ensure a truly even and random distribution of players across the three GCs, which is a necessary precondition for equal win rates under the current design of the battleground to be the expected outcome. If someone had some rather thorough analysis of the win rates of the GCs on Aether that showed they really do all win an equal number of times, at least within one SD or so, I'd be much more inclined to believe that is the case. However, the best data available to me right now is my own win record, so I'm going to stick with that.

I'll further add that the resource you linked is not the worst one out there, but I personally avoid it, as it tends to oversimplify things to such an extent that it obfuscates the issue. As I said before, when dealing with inductive reasoning fallacies are content based, not form based, and as such whether or not something is even fallacious must be considered with regards to the context. Again, I see little reason to think you have even the slightest idea what you're talking about. I'd also like to highlight the difference between the example both of our sources give and your own example that you gave while trying (and failing) to highlight the difference between a fallacious use of an anecdote and a hasty generalization (you actually gave two examples of a hasty generalization because you obviously don't understand the fallacy you're accusing me of or the difference between that and a hasty generalization). I'd tell you to go ask the junior college you took your intro logic course at for a refund, but I'm of the opinion that some people simply aren't teachable in any meaningful sense.

I'll just end this crap for good because this catfight isn't going anywhere.

Choose any of the link below. Choose aether as datacenter. To be sure too remove most of bots from this sample, sort by winrates over match won and match played.
Then sort by peolple with a good amount of match to have a better sample (+50 match played). This isn't completely flawless, but that is the most accurate way, and that isn't based on 1 experience only.


http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...onthly/201706/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...onthly/201705/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...onthly/201704/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...onthly/201703/

Now let me tell you something as someone that has pvp'd since 3.0, if the repartition of good players was favoring one GC above another, you would see a huge part¨of this board filled with people from this GC only.

The only thing I can see here is a good repartition of all GC on board. Freelancer has been working as intended most of the time.

If you look at weekly:

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...weekly/201728/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...weekly/201727/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...weekly/201726/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...weekly/201725/

You can indeed see a bit more of mael than other GCs. BUT, if that GC was overwhelming, you would see lot more of them on the board. Also, that is only the case for the last 3 weeks, and cannot compare to the situation of equal repartition of GCs that have been happening during month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shut

I'll just end this crap for good because this catfight isn't going anywhere.

Choose any of the link below. Choose aether as datacenter. To be sure too remove most of bots from this sample, sort by winrates over match won and match played.
Then sort by peolple with a good amount of match to have a better sample (+50 match played). This isn't completely flawless, but that is the most accurate way, and that isn't based on 1 experience only.


http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...onthly/201706/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...onthly/201705/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...onthly/201704/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...onthly/201703/

Now let me tell you something as someone that has pvp'd since 3.0, if the repartition of good players was favoring one GC above another, you would see a huge part¨of this board filled with people from this GC only.

The only thing I can see here is a good repartition of all GC on board. Freelancer has been working as intended most of the time.

If you look at weekly:

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...weekly/201728/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...weekly/201727/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...weekly/201726/

http://fr.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...weekly/201725/

You can indeed see a bit more of mael than other GCs. BUT, if that GC was overwhelming, you would see lot more of them on the board. Also, that is only the case for the last 3 weeks, and cannot compare to the situation of equal repartition of GCs that have been happening during month.

COnclusion: freelancer is working as intended

---

This data is not appropriate for answering the question of whether or not one FC wins significantly more often than another, as the highest win rates probably come from premades, which are evenly distributed as Freelancer is forced on them. This data cannot tell us how many matches were in a premade or not nor which matches were the victories and losses. It doesn't tell us if they used Freelancer or not. It doesn't tell us which GC's teams won, only the GC that player represents. It doesn't tell us the most important thing of all either: GC-wide win rates. Despite all that, Maelstrom is still significantly ahead of the other two for all but one of those links (and they're a close second in that one), so even if I were to accept that the data is appropriate for answering the question, it would merely support my claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

We're dealing with inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. By definition, inductive reasoning is invalid, but that doesn't make it worthless. For instance, science is based entirely on inductive reasoning, while math, aside from statistics, is based on deductive reasoning. .

---

Science isn't entirely inductive. it's only inductive as far as the hypothesis or theoretical conclusions (or predictions) are concerned. the actual science is nearly always deductive. because generally what scienteists actually do is aim to prove a theory or hypothesis to be wrong instead of prove it to be right. by going against inductive reasoning scientists avoid conformation bias.

more on topic though. I think tying exp to actual points might help a lot in pvp.. along with some system that filters effort. if players have spent most of the match afk they should get nothing even if you finish second with 1599 points..

Or we can just demolish the silly notion of GCs and everyone is randomly distributed into 3 teams. Problem solved.

I mean...GCs are there for decoration only...unless in the future SE decides to setup some sort of competition between the GCs in every aspect of the game (crafting, PvP, raid clears, dungeon clears, chocobo race, etc).

From my humble Frontline experience, I have witnessed Mael and Adder taking turn to dominate the week, but Flames is mostly the underdog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

Despite all that, Maelstrom is still significantly ahead of the other two for all but one of those links (and they're a close second in that one), so even if I were to accept that the data is appropriate for answering the question, it would merely support my claim.

---

Indeed, I don't see equal repartition either, that was a poor choice of words, I more likely see randomness.
june: 31 flames 32 adders 30 mael 7 NA

may: 43 flames 25 adders 21 mael 11 NA

april: 39 flames 26 adders 17 mael 18 NA

march: 23 flames 26 adders 29 mael 22 NA

For weekly ranks, mael have significative higher winrates (+50%) the last 2 weeks. Before that, it's random.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

This data is not appropriate for answering the question of whether or not one FC wins significantly more often than another, as the highest win rates probably come from premades, which are evenly distributed as Freelancer is forced on them. This data cannot tell us how many matches were in a premade or not nor which matches were the victories and losses. It doesn't tell us if they used Freelancer or not. It doesn't tell us which GC's teams won, only the GC that player represents. It doesn't tell us the most important thing of all either: GC-wide win rates.

---

If you start considering that most of them are premades, then yes indeed, but in that case, you must start considering how much premades have an influence in the outcome of a match. I have done s a lot of premades before and moreover after stormblood to tell you that a +50% winrate of a premade isn't due to a specific GC, you can felt that the difference before and after they added freelancer for premade was huge. They are the one deciding of the outcome of a match in most cases.

If most of them aren't, well, it's just random results

[EDIT]: However, I'm actually starting to think that, if IMO 1 GC isn't gathering most active/best players since lot of them are most of the time freelance/premades, it is much more possible tho than one is gathering more botters than the others. Bots don't need freelancer. Also, new pvp gave more reasons for people to bot without even considering the mode they're in, their only goal is exp after all.

But my main concern is mostly about going back to the main topic of this thread, because if we're discussing about a method that can gave players a incentive for winning, even if they are qing freelancer or not, what is the point of cuting this discussion?
And also, my shitpost earlier still stand, not happy with match outcome? queue in premade!

Everyone should get equal experience in a seventy-two player battleground. Your personal contribution is nearly non-existent, no reason to be punished so harshly. PvP experience was fine before, now it's bad, and this thread wants to make it worse.

Just please stop. And square enix? Stop listening to these people.

No, why bother competing if "everyone wins"?

Can you imagine how bad ex primals would be if you got loot at the end even if you don't know or don't clear the fight? Would that be acceptable at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThirdChild_ZKI

Can you imagine how bad ex primals would be if you got loot at the end even if you don't know or don't clear the fight?

---

A more correct analogy would be:
"Can you imagine how bad EX primals would be if you got loot at the end of the fight even if someone else beat the fight faster than you?"

PvP does not have a fixed performance requirement to "beat the fight", it's variable and entirely dependent on the enemy players - Fight bots? Cakewalk. Fight a premade of veterans in voice? GG. That's what competition is - Your absolute performance does not matter, only how your performance compares to that of your enemy. You can be the second worst player on the planet and still be a winner if you compete against the first worst. At the same time, you can be the second best player on the planet and still be a loser if pitted against the first best.

Hence why matchmaking is a thing in PvP games. And in lieu of matchmaking that ensures that the likelihood of winning for all teams is around equal, the way to go about it would be to rate players and teams based on their performance and then hand out rewards depending on the likelihood of winning - The higher the likelihood of winning, the lower the reward for doing so and vice versa. The same principle can also be applied to the point idea of this thread by using not the binary win/lose, but the reward per point ratio. That would be fair, but hella unpopular among the PvP veterans, as they could get less rewards for winning than a less experienced team for putting up a valiant fight against the odds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zojha

.

---

That's all good, but the idea here, I think, is to not encourage minimalism/defeatism as OP defined. If you take that approach I bet you would agree that said mindset would not be tolerated in raids if they always got (next-to) full reward.
The way it is now, going in with this mindset does not punish you at all (or barely if 2nd or 3rd).

I'd say a threshold of minimum performance combined with overall team-score is a good baseline for discussing rewards when it comes to frontline. A bigger question is if the implementation of such a system would be worth SE's development time. Still, I think the idea is worth some consideration at least.