[SUGGESTION] Tie PvP Experience to Point Results

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

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?

[Zojha]

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.

[Guesswhat]

.

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.