Increase rewards for losing team

[Kabooa]

So are you saying we should give super bowl trophies to the losing teams in the NFL? because people who win don't deserve to be rewarded?

If the winners get machine guns and are told "You're allowed to shoot your enemies in the knee caps since you won this tournament", yes. That's an issue. The perception of the team being better and thus being more desirable to be on is not a mechanical aspect of Football though it may affects a team's performance. That Cup isn't a +9 to Field Goals or something.

But, you know, that's fine. Take it out of context.

[Alhanelem]

If the winners get machine guns and are told "You're allowed to shoot your enemies in the knee caps since you won this tournament", yes. That's an issue. The perception of the team being better and thus being more desirable to be on is not a mechanical aspect of Football though it may affects a team's performance. That Cup isn't a +9 to Field Goals or something.

But, you know, that's fine. Take it out of context.

You argued that there is no reason for wiinners to get more than losers. That's the kind of (I hate to say this) "carebear" attitude that sucks the fun out of the game. Also back on the football analogy, better teams get paid more money and thus do have something of an advantage in terms of signing better players to their teams. So yes, being on the winning team in the NFL DOES have an advantage (just not as arbitrary as your sarcastic 'cup of field goals +9" quip)

As I wrote in an edit to my previous post, if you have a problem with people having better gear than you, then play lv30 or lv40 cap battles until you earn the gear yourself, since PvP gear isn't needed for that and thus everyone has the same machine guns and the same ability to use them.

I am hardly the most hardcore or most pro PvPer around, but I was still able to earn my gear. I don't have some super ridiculous win rate either. skill matters more than gear and as I mentioned above, if you really have a problem you can play capped battles where the playing field is more level in terms of gear (but in the event you keep losing i'm sure you'll find something other than skill to blame it on)

[Xayide]

As I wrote in an edit to my previous post, if you have a problem with people having better gear than you, then play lv30 or lv40 cap battles until you earn the gear yourself, since PvP gear isn't needed for that and thus everyone has the same machine guns and the same ability to use them.

Because all of the classes have access to equal power levels/ratios/skills at lvl 30/40 right? No, and that is why any serious PvP game knows they can only balance for MAX LEVEL.

Also, telling players to learn to pvp with limited skills/gear in no way helps them to learn to PvP at higher levels and skill brackets. Very bad logic.

[realistic1]

"The losing side doesn't need incentive to keep playing."

Warhammer.
Aion.
Basically any two-side PvP game or system ever.

There is literally no argument against losers getting 10%, 25%, 50%, or even 100% of the rewards winners get other than "I won so I want to be geared better and win more."

If PvP is about the spirit of competition, any attitude, system, or argument that supports a system that at its core stacks the chance of winning in any scenario to one team or another, the spirit of competition is dead. In a community that's already prone to being toxic, this kind of mentality only furthers that.
Everyone wins, everyone loses. There's literally zero reason to reward one over the other when you need both to have a game, when the rewards translate into actual power.

I read this over and over trying to figure out if you were the soccer mom type that I referenced in another thread or someone trying to make a point on pvp being broken so before I respond, let me ask a question.

Is your point that winning and losing doesn't matter in competition and everyone should get the same rewards for just showing up or that pvp is so broken in this game that it does not make sense to reward the winner more than the loser?

[Xayide]

Is your point that winning and losing doesn't matter in competition and everyone should get the same rewards for just showing up or that pvp is so broken in this game that it does not make sense to reward the winner more than the loser?

She is saying that you lose balance when one side is more favored than the other, and you have a system that further imbalances that through bad reward scaling.

The fact is, if you really want to say this is a skill based system then remove all gear and stats. The only thing that matters is how well one plays. The only other option is to gear everyone equally, so that gear no longer plays a factor in deciding the victor. Make the rewards in a such a manner that they do not grant you further power over those you have beaten, as that creates an unlevel playing field and removes skill from the equation.

[realistic1]

She is saying

Thank you but if I wanted assumptions, I would have used my own. I would like to know the poster's intent (via the poster) before I respond.

[Xayide]

Thank you but if I wanted assumptions, I would have used my own. I would like to know the poster's intent (via the poster) before I respond.

Your lack of reading comprehension does not equate to what I've said being an 'assumption' but thank you for trying. I simply reworded her post in the first part and added my own critique of the problem in the second half. Was it that hard for you to understand the flow of my post? I made a pretty clear distinction between the first and second parts and their intent/origins. If you want to be a pompous buffoon, that's on you but if you want actual intellectual debate please drop the snarky jackassery.

[Alhanelem]

Because all of the classes have access to equal power levels/ratios/skills at lvl 30/40 right? No, and that is why any serious PvP game knows they can only balance for MAX LEVEL.

Actually I'd argue the balance is better at the lower tiers, at least at the moment.

[realistic1]

Your lack of reading comprehension does not equate to what I've said being an 'assumption' but thank you for trying.

I asked for the poster's intent of a specific post and you felt the need to jump in and give me your opinion of what the poster said. My post was made specifically addressing the author of the quote asking for their intent, not to you asking for your interpretation of another person's intent. Perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong suit since you felt the need to answer a question directly posed to another?

Was it that hard for you to understand the flow of my post?

No, but it seems it was hard for you to understand mine?

If you want to be a pompous buffoon, that's on you but if you want actual intellectual debate please drop the snarky jackassery./

I want nothing from you, I asked for another poster's intent on a reply in this thread. I am curious, does the definition of jackassery include someone that feels the need to answer for someone else when the other person is asked a direct question?

[Kabooa]

Xayide more or less hit the nail on the head with her interpretation.

PvP "Stats" serve no purpose other than skewing someone's chance at victory. By putting these kind of stats into a progression system, especially one that depends upon winning, you do nothing but rob newer (not less skilled, but 'younger') players from being able to participate fully and equally.

From a design standpoint, they serve no purpose other than putting the carrot on the stick for a PvP audience instead of a PvE. It separates the playerbase instead of encouraging them to play in both areas, as some people simply do not have the time to doggedly pursue both arenas.

The appeal of PvP is the fact that you're playing against someone who is as wiley and unpredictable as you are. Adding in a reward for anything other than vanity taints that system, because individual ability begins to matter less. Competition thrives by giving everyone the same mechanical means and watching what they do with it.