Frontlines: There should not be ANY rewards for 2nd or 3rd place

[Mistress_Irika]

These problems aren't new. They existed when I first ventured into pvp over 7 years ago. However, it wasn't as bad as it is now. People were playing for experience points back then. Only, everyone who cared about winning the lazy way chose to pile in and join the team that was dominating. Grief matches existed. Only they were were usually between 2 premades from opposing sides which was extremely rare. I would see casuals win matches from that simply for staying out of sight. We had no incentives then, and yet people tried. You have the battlepass now, and the quality of games continues to be in a decline. A simple revert will not do at this point. Snatching away all rewards for losing isn't going to either. You'll quickly be forced to rely on discord to start your games if you go that route.

Folks have said this already, but without changing anything the amount of xp you earned each game from playing frontlines needs to be performance based. Objectives collected, kills by objected whether offensively or defensively, damage done, etc. In my opinion, weekly challenges should appear for pvp for additional xp. I mean, we already have them. They just need to be updated. In short, we should be offering more xp in order to get a sizable chunk to focus on acquiring a win and/or their individual best performance, because as of right now the message seems to be that you don't need to learn anything about pvp to get your experience points.

[TofuLove]

Hi all again! Thanks for your messages and I am glad this thread topic resonated with this many of you.

I admit my initial suggestion (the thread title) is on the extreme side, but we had a good conversations about it, and I believe we have kind of reached some thoughts regarding how improvements could be addressed. I haven't replied to a number of messages as I think some arguements and counter-arguements have already been stated, so did not want to clutter the thread.

One thing I want to re-iterate to a number of you that replied in regards to rewarding 2nd place, but not rewarding 3rd.

It is incredibly easy to aim for the 2nd place. You do it by avoiding 1st and fighting 3rd, until the game ends. Getting 2nd is not an achievement, and shouldn't be rewarded any more than 3rd.. Otherwise you encourage people farming 2nd place to make sure they get their rewards - this isn't any better than throwing the game.

The issue is NA / EU mentality, which is for too great a part "just here for the xp".

I agree that we can't change people and whilst similar problems might not exist on other continents, the game shouldn't be rewarding behaviour that undermines the competitive nature of the pvp.

[Valence]

I'm all for increasing the differences in reward depending on the team placement at the end of games, but I find the idea to base it on any other metric completely baffling. Kills, assists, objectives, all will introduce unhinged metas and diseases to the mode, and I think FL is crippled enough as it is.

[Sunhwapark]

...I find the idea to base it on any other metric completely baffling. Kills, assists, objectives, all will introduce unhinged metas and diseases to the mode...

It would definitely push people at a minimum to greed & feed, and I feel I already do enough of that whenever I touch drk.

[Zakuyia]

Damn op....you gotta be elitist guess you type want pvp to die on arrival XD

[TofuLove]

Damn op....you gotta be elitist guess you type want pvp to die on arrival XD

On the contrary!
I would like pvp to flourish and frontlines to be a fun mode with good rewards, good gameplay, and is fun for both beginners and vets. This thread has so far been illuminating that it's not just me that thinks the reward structure is off and doesn't encourage for these good games to happen. I think I have far moved on from my initial take if you follow this thread.

[AllenThyl]

I agree that we can't change people and whilst similar problems might not exist on other continents, the game shouldn't be rewarding behaviour that undermines the competitive nature of the pvp.

That's where we disagree. I do think that with proper moderation and sanctioning of "not here to win"-behavior, that at least the participating player base can be changed. Reporting people for afking / feeding, as well as kicking them out of every game, will indeed lead to a different experience.

[Mawlzy]

That's where we disagree. I do think that with proper moderation and sanctioning of "not here to win"-behavior, that at least the participating player base can be changed. Reporting people for afking / feeding, as well as kicking them out of every game, will indeed lead to a different experience.

I think the thread was in General Discussion a few months ago in which a very aggrieved FLer complained they'd picked up a 10-day ban. They explained their preferred playstyle was to ride to a node on Onsal/Seal and wait for it to pop. It appears they were reported for this (either because of their K/D/A or because they were spotted not moving).

I guess different GMs likely take different views on this, but that does provide hope that reporting lethargic play does have an impact.

[TofuLove]

That's where we disagree. I do think that with proper moderation and sanctioning of "not here to win"-behavior, that at least the participating player base can be changed. Reporting people for afking / feeding, as well as kicking them out of every game, will indeed lead to a different experience.

Hmmm... I think in theory - yes, that would be a possible solution. It's only really apparent if someone is afk/feeding after the match and is impossible to track if someone is quietly quitting during the game.
Additionally, this would require a change of behaviour from the community where they would actually kick players out. At the moment if I initiate a vote kick for someone who is encouraging others to feed (shouting "lets give win to X team, it's joever") - I had instances where people just say "it's just pvp, let them have exp, it doesn't matter". Appreciate my experience is anecdotal, and I don't actually know how common that is, but it's just what I experienced.

On top of it all I feel bad for poor GMs who would have to work overtime to deal with 100s of reports

I suppose it's a question of active vs passive encouragement
Active encouragement: kicking people out/banning feeders/griefers etc;
Passive encouragement: nerfing rewards for a loss/nerfing rewards for poor performance/increasing rewards for good performance.

[edit]
It would be good for SE to run their internal tests (ha), and find out what combination of active/passive encouragement would be enough to increase participation. I am sure they have report numbers at hand.

[AmiableApkallu]

Something that someone pointed out in chat the other day:

"I'm only here for the EXP; who cares how I play?"

would never fly in any PvE content. Like, you don't have to play perfectly in PvE, but socially, there is an expectation that you have some minimal, baseline knowledge of your role and job, and some minimal willingness to try to perform mechanics correctly.

I think it says something about the current rewards from the Frontlines roulette that there are people who suddenly think that being a warm body in the instance is plenty enough a "contribution."