REQUEST: Please change PVP duty incentive

[Dizhonor]

Your definition of 'abusing' would appear to overlap with most people's opinions of 'playing' - If people were playing for nothing but the glory and honour of battle, would that somehow make the game more 'pure' and elevate it in some way?

If you think /afk'ing through a match is playing, then I don't think you and I could hope to have a rational conversation about this...

[RyuujinZERO]

If you think /afk'ing through a match is playing, then I don't think you and I could hope to have a rational conversation about this...

I obviously don't have any more figures than you do, but my own anecdotal experience is that I've seen 3 afk'rs in the last half a dozen games, and we kicked those and they were swiftly replaced. This isn't some epidemic consuming frontlines, and my GC has been regularly losing the vast majority of it's matches since long before Stormblood and the buffs to XP rewards so this isn't a case of promoting poor performance.

[Dizhonor]

I obviously don't have any more figures than you do, but my own anecdotal experience is that I've seen 3 afk'rs in the last half a dozen games, and we kicked those and they were swiftly replaced. This isn't some epidemic consuming frontlines, and my GC has been regularly losing the vast majority of it's matches since long before Stormblood and the buffs to XP rewards so this isn't a case of promoting poor performance.

Let's try and find some common ground. Can we agree with the following:

1. most people are doing Frontline for experience right now
2. You get the same experience whether you win or lose

[RyuujinZERO]

Let's try and find some common ground. Can we agree with the following:

1. most people are doing Frontline for experience right now
2. You get the same experience whether you win or lose

Correct.

[Plus several more characters]

[Dizhonor]

Correct.

Thank you. Can we agree with the further points?

1. most people are doing Frontline for experience right now
2. You get the same experience whether you win or lose
3. "winning" and "losing" is motivated by the rewards
4. the point to PVP matches is to win
5. but (2) you get the same reward whether you win or lose
6. so (2) renders (3.) invalid
7. therefore (2.) renders (4.) invalid

[KisaiTenshi]

Thank you. Can we agree with the further points?

1. most people are doing Frontline for experience right now
2. You get the same experience whether you win or lose
3. "winning" and "losing" is motivated by the rewards
4. the point to PVP matches is to win
5. but (2) you get the same reward whether you win or lose
6. so (2) renders (3.) invalid
7. therefore (2.) renders (4.) invalid

It probably should be scaled to participation. If you have nothing but zeros you should get zero.

[Dizhonor]

It probably should be scaled to participation. If you have nothing but zeros you should get zero.

That's much more than what I'm suggesting. But maybe your suggestion is better? I think it would invite very nuanced debates about what sort of participation matters, and how much it matters.. For example, in matches which require breaking crystals / ice, should damage to crystals / ice count for more points than damage to players? You could argue that killing players prevents them from damaging crystals / ice, and therefore counts as much as your own damage to crystals / ice.

[RyuujinZERO]

Thank you. Can we agree with the further points?

1. most people are doing Frontline for experience right now
2. You get the same experience whether you win or lose
3. "winning" and "losing" is motivated by the rewards
4. the point to PVP matches is to win
5. but (2) you get the same reward whether you win or lose
6. so (2) renders (3.) invalid
7. therefore (2.) renders (4.) invalid

This rather pessimistically assumes that people only give the minimum effort needed to achieve a reward. The reward might be their main motivator to step through the door, but once inside this model presumes they will not participate any further. The very low rate of AFK'rs suggests this is not actually true and that human behavior is far more complex "than pull lever, receive food.".

1 and 2 presently are the main draw for players coming to PvP. Indeed these rewards are so great they are attracting players who would otherwise shun PvP because they hate hurting/being hurt by other human beings (In this context, denying or being denied some tangible reward), but thanks to 5 - it doesn't matter who wins; they are actually willing to participate because the match is 'friendly' in nature. Change up those rules and those players are going to walk out.

Now, the hardcore PvP crowd will probably laud that outcome; no more 'newbies' and 'carebears' clogging up their arena, but as a whole this seems like it'd hurt far more people than would stand to benefit from it, or be punished by it.

[Dizhonor]

This rather pessimistically assumes that people only give the minimum effort needed to achieve a reward. The reward might be their main motivator to step through the door, but once inside this model presumes they will not participate any further. 1 and 2 presently are the main draw for players coming to PvP. Now, the hardcore PvP crowd will probably laud that outcome..

There is no incentive for learning, and abiding, the mechanics of the matches. There should be consequences for ignoring mechanics. There are no consequences if get the same reward for ignoring or abiding by the mechanic. So the mechanic is pointless. Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

Also, you reveal your own motivations here by saying that "1 and 2 are the main draw for players coming to pvp." Methinks you protest too much.

p.s. this isn't a "hardcore" vs "casual" discussion. This is about scaling rewards to result. A common practice in any competitive game.