Please remove the EXP from PVP!

[Gravton]

To be honest I wouldn't mind bots hitting ice. That's something at least. When I look at a problem I 1) try to think of a way to eliminate it. If not then 2) what can I do to minimize/use it. Ppl are going to bot so long as there are rewards, so it can't be stopped. We can minimize the impact with the medal system, rewards based on participation. Make the threshold low enough for low skilled to get rewards but bots get next to nothing. At least if bots are whacking ice they get the dps and ice medals but 2 medals won't reward much. The bots also "help" the team rather than only taking points away with deaths.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

Man, that statement was so wrong I didn't even feel like sighing when I saw it. I was just like, ". . .Okay, Yoshida."

I seriously want to say "Duh" to that response. I mean, honestly, is he daft? Even if we're talking pre-Stormblood, they added the Garo gear and removed GC restrictions. Of course more people were going to try PvP, especially since the game underwent a long drought waiting on Stormblood's release. The "fact" now is PvP went from slowly recovering on a shaky foundation to crumpling all over again. GG Yoshida.

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

Exactly. 2 steps forward, 1 massive freefall back.

Jokes aside, it's a pretty bad time to be a PvP veteran in this game.

[Geryth]

That's what Star Wars did. They had a medal system in place that would award activity in pvp. 1k damage gave dps medal 1, 2k for medal 2, etc. Tanks had damage taken and healers had healing done. I liked the system cause it weeded out bots and gave rewards based on points from medals. I.e. Participation.

I can't speak to Start Wars but every game I've played where they tried to quantify some kind of "MVP" system by identifying who performs the best absolutely fails. There are just way too ways to make game winning decisions that no algorithm can quantify. Someone can be bad at dealing damage or healing but maybe they give great calls to the alliance that allow them to win by being where they should be or avoiding pincers. Maybe I forego damaging ice to zone out enemy players wanting to get a few taps on it. Maybe a solo player ninja's an enemies base just long enough to pull 20 or 30 extra points for the team (I've never employed the ninja base strategy but I've absolutely been on the giving and receiving end of games that were within the point range of base-points earned that someone ninja'd - meaning the base ninja made a game winning decision).

Just too many ways you can help the team win that can't be quantified. The big problem with an "MVP" mechanic means that everyone is just going to go for those MVP points. Why zone enemies away from an ice if I lose MVP points? Why ninja a base if I lose MVP points? If MVP gets extra stuff, people will try to be MVP and make sub-optimal decisions to get it.

[Gravton]

"Who performs the best." Isn't apart of the equation. In an MVP setting that's true, but medals just track your progress in a match. There is still a reward cap per match and once you receive enough medals you are insured the max reward (I think it was six for SWtor). They just need to provide enough medals (I could easily get 15 medals per match for different things). The things you mentioned would still get you medals. Capping bases, pulling players (dps on players). Siting around giving orders can be done while actually helping with objectives.

And it would still be better than it is currently. The things you mentioned requires a player to go above and beyond. If it results in a win, then you get the same rewards as players the didn't contribute or botted. If you lose, you are rewarded with less than the bot on the winning team. Individual rewards should be based on individual performance. With a bonus to the winning team.

[saucyshortcake]

If performance mattered, you'd have teams of nothing but bards and machinists playing firing lines because they both take an IQ of 23 to play and perform better than any other job with far less effort. I'd prefer to still be able to play jobs I want to level.

[Synestra]

If performance mattered, you'd have teams of nothing but bards and machinists playing firing lines because they both take an IQ of 23 to play and perform better than any other job with far less effort.

I must agree that when it comes to FL at least both BRD and MCH are really strong in there, some could say they are stupidly effective compared to other jobs and i would have to agree with that. But then again BRD was as good as it is now back in ARR because it had same mobility, other jobs don't really have many tools to counter kiting like they did in ARR(CD's, stuns etc)so that is probably biggest difference between ARR and SB BRD. Yes MNK, NiN and DRG have gap-closers but its kinda funny that BRD can counter those by repelling shot and MCH can use that aoe stun and go yolo with bolt afterwards.

I still like NiN most even if its harder to perform well without good team unlike BRD and MCH that that can perform well even if you don't get team support.

[Gravton]

If performance mattered, you'd have teams of nothing but bards and machinists playing firing lines because they both take an IQ of 23 to play and perform better than any other job with far less effort. I'd prefer to still be able to play jobs I want to level.

Medals would track participation not performance. There would still be caps on rewards like now. Medals would just ensure you weren't a bot on auto-follow.

[Guesswhat]

...We can minimize the impact with the medal system, rewards based on participation. Make the threshold low enough for low skilled to get rewards but bots get next to nothing. At least if bots are whacking ice they get the dps and ice medals but 2 medals won't reward much. The bots also "help" the team rather than only taking points away with deaths.

This seems like the no-brain solution, at least in frontline, and I've suggested it multiple times. The only reason I see they haven't done this already is either:
A) It's too complicated/hard, and/or not worth the implementation cost.
OR
B) they think it would be too hard for the ones that suck the most to get any rewards, thus lowering interest in PvP.

Or a combination of both.
If B is the case then, too bad for them. I don't see how a few low skilled people would care anyway. If a few of them got really frustaded about it the worst thing that would happen is that they would unsubscribe. But I hardly doubt these kind of players play the game because of PvP.

If we could figure out how much DPS the highest DPS bots do, then the lowest DPS for achieving score could be that + 1. DPS should only count when it matters (don't count dead time, when nothing happens, or walking from one place to another). Even if the bots managed to get within that threshold, a scalable reward system could still identify bot activity and perma-ban them.

But SE has most likely thought about this. My conclusion is that they don't find it worth the implementation time vs cost.

[Gallus]

We need XP in PVP -- at least unranked -- so that we have an alternative to POTD!

Exactly this. Allow for a 4v4 unranked mode that gives exp (based on victory/loss). Then have a ranked mode with proper rewards (yes, proper, no super big prize for the top 100 and garbage tokens for the rest of the players).

About queues and people that only play pvp because of the exp. I'll take longer queues if it means getting matched with more commited players instead of the halatali gear healer that makes a team lose 30 seconds into the game. The amount of times that a team completely roflstomps another let me tell you is disgusting (especially in low elos), you aren't helping the queues or the pvp in general either if there's this very often unbalance between the level of commitment in both teams. Shit happens, yes, but you can't have it happen every game because at some point, the serious players that would've really stayed and compete will ultimately say screw this.