Regarding Points Gained/Lost in 4v4 Feast (Light Party): The Exploit & How To Fix It

[Bartleby]

While I like there being some sort of incentive or "trophy" (doesn't have to be an actual trophy but something to show off) for the top teams, I wouldn't mind them changing the nature of the reward. For example, I think it'd be really cool if SE took the top 4 teams on each Datacenter and streamed a tournament where maybe the winning team got something special (and the other 3 teams could get a participation award as well). Of course they'd need to implement some sort of team registration system... but the point is the reward would be more just getting the opportunity to play on an official SE stream which might have 100+ viewers instead of some virtual item that someone else will be willing and able to cheat to obtain.

[Blubbers]

All of these suggestions are fantastic. I really like the palace of the dead, restricted queue time, and tournament suggestions.

I think that a teams strength should be determined by its highest member, not the average, and they should reward points on your personal rating vs. the other teams highest guy.

Ex: 1000, 0, 0, 0 vs. 500, 0, 0, 0

Left side team has a strength of 1000 vs 500 for the right hand side

If the 0 guys on the left hand side win, they gain a good amount, because they beat a team higher rank than them. Ditto with the 0 guys on the right.

The 1000 guy will get +5 points if he wins, and the 500 guy will get a decent amount of points.

This will help people rotate in new members if someone has to drop for a season and it discourages people from using alts to boost their own score. It also encourages even teams because you're better off if your team mates are the exact same rank as you if you're the high guy.

[Bartleby]

I think that a teams strength should be determined by its highest member, not the average, and they should reward points on your personal rating vs. the other teams highest guy.

That's an interesting suggestion that I hadn't considered. I think it might even be better than my own original suggestion in some regards since with mine you could still prevent other teams from getting many points for farming you by keeping your team average low. Although I think I might have already identified a possible exploit; couldn't people theoretically organize it such that they "use" a high ranking character to boost other characters on the opposite team? e.g. instead of needing an opponent of 4 high ranking players (and thus a high ranking team average) to get big gains, you only need one person who has a high ranking. You could theoretically then level up a team and split that team up and level up against each of the 4 members one at a time.

So like, rank up a team to 1000/1000/1000/1000. Then you could split your 4 1000's into 4 teams (with 1 1000 ranking and the rest random unranked) and go through all 4 of them to 'power level' a team up.

But I suppose that would still be better than our current system since another team could step in and steal/intercept their points a lot better than in the current system.

[Blubbers]

You could theoretically then level up a team and split that team up and level up against each of the 4 members one at a time.

Definitely, that's the main disadvantage of it - after you get someone high it's easy to boost others... You could always say the lower guys get points based on their team strength, which is determined by the highest guy. This solves the issue of it being exploitable at a cost of not really being able to viably replace a team member in your group as they'll never catch up, but I feel like that's probably less of an issue. You could also give the lower team members just marginally more points, like +10% of what the top guy gets. If it's small enough it might not be worth the time to exploit the system to boost these guys. If you fix the queue time window it also helps the win trading boosting issue.

Also one thing I forgot to mention is you could also make it so if you click withdraw from a queue, you lose something like 5 points. This would discourage people from purposefully avoiding others in queue and worst case if someone on your group misses the queue it's only 5 points so whatever. It would be another step towards discouraging win trading.

[Bartleby]

Also one thing I forgot to mention is you could also make it so if you click withdraw from a queue, you lose something like 5 points. This would discourage people from purposefully avoiding others in queue and worst case if someone on your group misses the queue it's only 5 points so whatever. It would be another step towards discouraging win trading.

That might not be a bad idea either.

[Chevronone]

They're too busy thinking up new quick chats to care.

[Aviars]

Once I saw how low activity was in light party after the pre-season I pretty much knew LP was going to be a joke. It was either abuse the system by swapping teammates all the time or actively win trading, which often went unpunished.

Solo works in preventing win trading in that with as active as it is, it's harder to get on opposing teams in order to abuse it. With LP this was never possible because it was pretty much always dead.

That isn't to say solo doesn't have it's problems. I know of a couple people that got other people to play on their accounts in order to get themselves in a safe spot. again unpunished but we all know SE doesn't have the drive to ban actually cheating than banning people who trash talk.

[Dimitrii]

That isn't to say solo doesn't have it's problems. I know of a couple people that got other people to play on their accounts in order to get themselves in a safe spot. again unpunished but we all know SE doesn't have the drive to ban actually cheating than banning people who trash talk.

wow that's pretty pathetic. Though to be fair I'm not sure how SE would police that anyway. Have a team actively monitoring IP addresses in the feast maybe lol? Even I think that's probably too much effort to put in for such a small aspect of the game.

[KusoWat]

wow that's pretty pathetic. Though to be fair I'm not sure how SE would police that anyway. Have a team actively monitoring IP addresses in the feast maybe lol? Even I think that's probably too much effort to put in for such a small aspect of the game.

You could just check the IP discrepancies and consistencies between the 2 accusers. If you say "player y is on player x's" account, then SE could see if there was a log in session from player y's IP on player x's account.

Not perfect, but it is easy.

[Chevronone]

Don't forget about people on alt accounts throwing matches to prevent their mains from getting pushed out.