Frontlines: Leechers and Feeders

[MisterNublet]

The current system of rewarding exp, series, and tomes at the end of a match because one clicked 'commence' on the duty pop without taking their performance into consideration is being abused by players who refuse to participate.

These players often try to mask the fact they're not participating by constantly throwing themselves at enemy players, because it makes it more difficult to spot them vs someone standing in one spot on the map the entire match.

Once the game ends, it doesn't matter that the scoreboard shows them having thrown the match because they have already received their rewards, and are off to do it again with a new group of people in a new match.

Even when you do end up noticing one of these players, pointing them out is quickly met with hostility, and other alliance members trying to defend them. "It's just Frontlines" and "I'm only here for the exp" constantly being used as if to excuse their behavior.

It has been way past due to fix the broken system that allows such lethargic and poor behavior. Relying on players to send nearly a full-party worth of player reports after every match isn't a functional system.



This picture was from 5 matches. A vast majority of these players had multiple 100s (not sprouts).

[ElHeggunte]

I hate them too, but how do you propose they fix it? Adjusting the rewards just screws players who join for things like tomes but still try their best. Making it easier for you to report them (though it’s important to note that they technically aren’t doing anything wrong—there’s no rule against being a feeder) sounds like something that would be ripe for abuse instead of being used for the purpose you propose.

[LilimoLimomo]

What is it about the stats you listed that seems suspicious? To me it overall looks like what I would expect to see from a random batch of players with differing skill levels.

[MisterNublet]

I hate them too, but how do you propose they fix it? Adjusting the rewards just screws players who join for things like tomes but still try their best.

Rewards based on performance. Square Enix needs to get rid of the kid gloves and stop pussyfooting around by taking a stance on what kind of performance/standard of play a player should present when queuing into a PvP match. Take the median or average (which ever is more lenient) damage dealt and K/A-D ratio and make that the baseline and go from there. Easy to see that some of the players that go 0 kills 10 deaths and damage equal to their gapcloser (to die quicker) should receive zero duty rewards.

Making it easier for you to report them (though it’s important to note that they technically aren’t doing anything wrong—there’s no rule against being a feeder) sounds like something that would be ripe for abuse instead of being used for the purpose you propose.

Win-Trading. It doesn't have to be a ranked system or Crystalline Conflicts for feeding to be considered an action meant to manipulate win-rate. Even if that was the case, Frontlines still records overall performance and weekly performance, so players who get themselves killed for the purpose of ending the game faster is still in violation while negatively affecting other players win-rate which is reportable. You can also argue lethargic game play by not performing their role as a participating as a team player.

[MisterNublet]

What is it about the stats you listed that seems suspicious? To me it overall looks like what I would expect to see from a random batch of players with differing skill levels.

Large number of deaths, very little assists, and damage dealt equaling to using gap closers on a group of enemies to die faster.

Play enough games and you can tell the difference between someone whose trying but playing at a lower skill level to those who are purposely giving up the game.

[ElHeggunte]

Rewards based on performance. Square Enix needs to get rid of the kid gloves and stop pussyfooting around by taking a stance on what kind of performance/standard of play a player should present when queuing into a PvP match. Take the median or average (which ever is more lenient) damage dealt and K/A ratio and make that the baseline and go from there. Easy to see that some of the players that go 0 kills 10 deaths and damage equal to their gapcloser (to die quicker) should receive zero duty rewards.

Rewards based on “performance” sounds like something that will cause its own problems. Like if you thought meta chasers and ignoring objectives was bad now, tying rewards to performance sounds it would make selfish gameplay absolutely insufferable.

Win-Trading. It doesn't have to be a ranked system or Crystalline Conflicts for feeding to be considered an action meant to manipulate win-rate. Even if that was the case, Frontlines still records overall performance and weekly performance, so players who get themselves killed for the purpose of ending the game faster is still in violation while negatively affecting other players win-rate which is reportable. You can also argue lethargic gameplay by not performing their role as a participating player.

Being a sandbag doesn’t mean they are engaging in win-trading and I don’t think just looking at the chart is enough to prove that either. Sandbagging is against the spirit of the game, but not the rules so far as I’m aware, because you have no way of knowing why someone might be performing like a blind limbless man who had never touched a computer before (while being stung by a swarm of bees) unless they actively tell you. And even then I don’t think “I just want my exp” is a reportable statement.

Taken as proposed I think this would just encourage witch hunting and other abuse by people who think their teammates didn’t meant some arbitrary standard.

[Mawlzy]

Given basically everyone has 21 jobs to level at least by 10 levels, this problem (which I agree has gotten worse) is going to persist for a long time. As discussed elsewhere, performance-based rewards are tricky, simply because of the intrinsic typical K/D/A variations between jobs. It's also a heavier lift for SQEX to introduce something like that, and potentially is yet another hurdle to new players getting involved.

A matchmaking algorithm strikes me as easier to implement and will mean that people who try at PvP will not have to contend with people who are doing little more than sightseeing while riding a horse.

[LilimoLimomo]

It's very difficult to balance rewards for PvP, because the purpose of the rewards is to encourage people to play who would otherwise not play.

On one hand, I think many PvP players would probably be better off if PvP didn't give rewards that had any use outside of PvP (ie - glam can only displayed in PvP areas, etc). That would filter out everyone who isn't genuinely interested in doing PvP, meaning that matches would be filled with people who actually want to do the thing they signed up for.

But that's obviously double-edged, because it's going to result in significantly longer queue times because (I would hazard) the majority of players aren't truly interested in PvP. And that has a domino effect, as many players who are truly interested in PvP are likely not so invested in it that they'll tolerate queue times beyond a certain threshold. In that way, players who don't actually want to PvP are valuable to the PvP experience.

So what about tying rewards to performance? Well, that's going to be impressively difficult to do in a holistic way. There are plenty of ways to positively contribute to your team's success that don't have to do with KDA and damage output. Decoy tactics, for example. If you can give a significant number of your enemies the run-around that prevents them from getting to where their services would be better put to use, then you're helping your team even if you didn't do a single point of damage to them. Any sort of metric that can't quantify complex events like that will needlessly homogenize play and restrict player strategy.

And honestly, I don't see CBU3 trying to judge the quality of anyone's play anytime soon. Their philosophy has generally been one of not telling players how to play and just letting them play how they want, with the lone exception of explicit harassment/griefing; I can't imagine that they would go against this policy in PvP, where competition is even more difficult than PvE since you're up against live players.

So personally, I think the only lever they have access to that they're willing to pull is adjusting the reward structure, such that the rewards are inviting to players who like PvP but are meaningless to those who don't.

[MisterNublet]

Rewards based on “performance” sounds like something that will cause its own problems. Like if you thought meta chasers and ignoring objectives was bad now, tying rewards to performance sounds it would make selfish gameplay absolutely insufferable.

Now sure how performance based rewards would cause selfish gameplay, especially if you use player assists as one of the measurements. Besides, isn't like the most vocal complaint players have due to teams of Dark Knights and Astrologian working together? By themselves those jobs don't amount to much, its when they work together as a team they are able to kill groups of players. The way NA plays Frontlines is already very team oriented due to the "death ball", selfish players wouldn't get very far under the performance based measurements.

And Meta Chasers/Death Ball meta don't ignore the objectives either. An alliance that knows how to roll tends to secure most of the objectives because they're capable of pushing the enemy teams back.

Being a sandbag doesn’t mean they are engaging in win-trading and I don’t think just looking at the chart is enough to prove that either. Sandbagging is against the spirit of the game, but not the rules so far as I’m aware, because you have no way of knowing why someone might be performing like a blind limbless man who had never touched a computer before (while being stung by a swarm of bees) unless they actively tell you. And even then I don’t think “I just want my exp” is a reportable statement.

Taken as proposed I think this would just encourage witch hunting and other abuse by people who think their teammates didn’t meant some arbitrary standard.

Yoshi-P already stated that lethargic gameplay is reportable which I would consider sandbagging as lethargic gameplay. But if someone was sandbagging, I would expect them to barely have any deaths since they'd be avoiding combat. Getting nearly double digits in deaths is hardly sandbagging, that is actively seeking out enemy teams to get themselves killed.

Until SE puts out a statement what they think is the baseline for performance in Frontlines is, I'll continue to report players who I believe are throwing the game under the win-trading and lethargic gameplay violation such as the last three players in the picture (warrior, sage, and dark knight) who went 0 kills 10 deaths and <100k damage, and leave it for the GMs to decide.

[MisterNublet]

It's very difficult to balance rewards for PvP, because the purpose of the rewards is to encourage people to play who would otherwise not play.

On one hand, I think many PvP players would probably be better off if PvP didn't give rewards that had any use outside of PvP (ie - glam can only displayed in PvP areas, etc). That would filter out everyone who isn't genuinely interested in doing PvP, meaning that matches would be filled with people who actually want to do the thing they signed up for.

But that's obviously double-edged, because it's going to result in significantly longer queue times because (I would hazard) the majority of players aren't truly interested in PvP. And that has a domino effect, as many players who are truly interested in PvP are likely not so invested in it that they'll tolerate queue times beyond a certain threshold. In that way, players who don't actually want to PvP are valuable to the PvP experience.

So what about tying rewards to performance? Well, that's going to be impressively difficult to do in a holistic way. There are plenty of ways to positively contribute to your team's success that don't have to do with KDA and damage output. Decoy tactics, for example. If you can give a significant number of your enemies the run-around that prevents them from getting to where their services would be better put to use, then you're helping your team even if you didn't do a single point of damage to them. Any sort of metric that can't quantify complex events like that will needlessly homogenize play and restrict player strategy.

And honestly, I don't see CBU3 trying to judge the quality of anyone's play anytime soon. Their philosophy has generally been one of not telling players how to play and just letting them play how they want, with the lone exception of explicit harassment/griefing; I can't imagine that they would go against this policy in PvP, where competition is even more difficult than PvE since you're up against live players.

So personally, I think the only lever they have access to that they're willing to pull is adjusting the reward structure, such that the rewards are inviting to players who like PvP but are meaningless to those who don't.

The only other method I can think of for adjusting the reward system is by only allowing the 1st place team to be awarded the daily challenges bonus, while still allowing the 2nd and 3rd place teams to receive the regular duty rewards. Most of the leechers only queue up for the daily challenge rewards, and if it was tougher to receive the bonus because they purposely act as a constant hindrance to the success of their team, they are likely to stop queuing for the mode altogether.

The crummy part is, players that are actively trying will end up having to play possibly more than a few games to receive the daily challenge bonus from getting 1st place which would cause some frustration.