Feedback: suggestion for improving the VP system

[Fishyshoe]

Good Evening Everyone!

I rarely ever write here but this topic STILL bothers me quite a bit. I've written about it in the past, but none of the replies actually addressed the idea I propose.

TL;DR 
1) It is quite bizarre in my opinion that if two players join to the same server at the same time, to different teams, they get different VP bonuses, based solely on which team they joined. The one joining the currently-leading team can start as a Veteran (for instance) while the other new player is still a recruit. It just makes the winning team even stronger, but in a bit unfair way.

2) Also, in the same scenario, an existing player from the leading team - who participated in the match from the start, and is still a recruit because of whatever reason, now has a teammate who is ranked above him - for doing absolutely nothing. needless to say, unfair.

3) My suggestion: make the bonus VP award for new joiners be the same regardless of to which team one joins, and make it impossible to start with more VP than any existing player currently in the match. (The mechanism I thought of is elaborated later on.

 

Now for the long version.

I just played a game on the AllNoobs server. Please take a look at the screenshot I took. Take a look at last three players of BOTH teams. They all have either 0 or some negligible amount of points. It is quite safe to assume they all joined the server at about the same time. Also, it is quite clear that GDI owns the match, seeing the amount of Vets (and some Elites) they have, compared to Nod.

Now, what is the logic that the new three GDI players receive more than a 100 VP just for joining GDI, and the new Nod players receive less? I know how the current system works, no need to explain it to me. But now what happens is that the leading, stronger team has three new stronger players than the weaker team, just because they joined "the right side". You basically give the already-stronger team stronger reinforcements, and the already-weaker team weaker ones.

Also, while not so apparent in this example - look at player ranked 28 on GDI. He/she is still Recruit. True, his/her score is not so high, but still they might have done something while they were in-game, before the last three players joined, and they still are ranked LOWER than them. In happens in a LOT of other matches too, I've seen it too many times and I'm sure you all have too.

Just imagine, by the way, that for some reason the new 6 players all swapped teams, so now Nod had three new Veteran-ranked players, for doing nothing but joining later onto the match, while other players (like yours truly, ranked 7 with a not-so-negligible amount of points), are still recruits. that's odd enough. And of course it is not a rare phenomenon that a new player joins the match to whatever team, and then swaps to the other team, but still carries his/her original VP bonus.

Do you see why I think this is unfair? Why would I "work hard" from the beginning of the match doing whatever and get e.g. 80 VP, and then some other player joins - no matter to which team - and instantly get more VP's than I earned? Clearly I contributed to the match more than the new player did, even if all I did was AFK-repairing a building from the start (which is an extreme example). 

This is what I wish to fix. and this is how I suggest to do it:

In lieu of awarding VP to new players joining the match a bonus which is based on their current team's performance, it should be awarded based solely on the current match's run-time, and that amount of VP will also never be higher than that of any other existing player in the match, because every existing player would also receive VP based on the match run-time.

Best explained by an example:

Let's say that for every one minute of the match, 5 VP are awarded to ALL PLAYERS PRESENT, regardless of what they actually do, but of course in addition to their personal performance and team bonuses for destroying the harv, a building, armor-breaking, etc.

This means that after 45 minutes, all players present from the start will have at least 225 VP, because of course they get more meanwhile for doing stuff.

Now, at the 45-minute mark, a new player joins the game. That player immediately gets the same 225 VP, based on the match run-time alone, and NOT on the performance of his teammates up to that point. That way, the new player NEVER outranks any other player, from both teams, and it doesn't matter if he joined the leading or losing team.

This is, in my honest opinion, much more fair towards the players who were participating in the match all that time, even if they were just parking an arty in front of a tunnel and shooting at it endlessly without actually hitting anything, but scaring off potential rushes (as being done on Field and FieldX, for example). That is still a more meaningful contribution than just joining to the right team at the right time.

I would of course recommend limiting this "Time-based-VP" to 300 - which is the amount required for becoming Elite. If we stick with the 5 VP / 1 min example - anyone in the game will become Elite after 60 minutes since match beginning, at the latest, and it doesn't matter if he or she has been there from the start or joined after 55 minutes. You would agree that most of the time people hit Elite much before the 60 minute mark. Once a player - any player - has 300 VP or more - he/she is no longer awarded 5 VP every minute. In other words - the remaining 350 VP's to Heroic are solely dependent on the player and the team performance.

In case it wasn't clear enough - if a player hits 300 VP after 20 minutes in the game - he/she no longer receives 5 VP every minute, but only gets it for his/her performance, and team bonuses of course (destroying a building/harv, armor-breaking bonus, etc). Needless to say that any player joining after 60 minutes will receive only 300 VP, not more. 

I gave the 5VP/1min as an example only, of course you could decide on different numbers. Again - 5VP/1min means 60 minutes before everyone becomes Elite, at the latest. Make it 3 VP per minute, and this number changes to 1 hour and 40 minutes, which is a super-later game, which doesn't happen every so often. To me, personally, 5VP/1min sounds right, but that's just my opinion.

Again, the goal of my suggestion is to eliminate possible unfair advantage of joining players over those who were in the match from the start, just because they joined later to the better-performing team.

 

Sorry for the long post, have a 100 VP bonus in your next match if you read through it all

Awaiting your thoughts,

Tom (A.K.A. Fishyshoe)

[Handepsilon]

I think I brought this up once,  asking why we don't just have new joiner's starting VP simply matches with the average VP of everyone instead of just your own team

[Fishyshoe]

5 hours ago, Handepsilon said:

I think I brought this up once,  asking why we don't just have new joiner's starting VP simply matches with the average VP of everyone instead of just your own team

The problem of this idea (in my opinion) is that you would still have a lot of players having less VP than those who join the match mid-game, because they have a lower VP amount than the average of both teams. This is exactly what I'm trying to prevent. I'll explain:

Think of a match where the average VP is for instance 50, across 50 players - it isn't likely that ALL 50 players have exactly 50 VP. For every single player having more than 50, you have at least another player with less than 50. Compare these two scenarios:

50-player match - all 50 players have 50 VP. Average: 50 VP.

50-player match - in each team 10 players have 80 VP, and the remaining 15 have 30VP. Average: 50 VP.

You would agree the the latter scenario is a lot closer to reality than the former. Now if a new player joins a match in the latter scenario - he/she immediately outranks 60% of the players currently in-game! for what?? just for joining later on, after all the good players have done the hard work for them, while those with 30 VP have played, helped, contributed - just to be outranked by some fresh fish (pun intended ) who just joined later?

This is why your idea, while it sounds nice, isn't going to solve the problem if it were to be implemented (no offense). This is why I'm trying to suggest the joining-VP bonus depend solely on the match-timer, AND having it applied to existing players as well.

It's just plain preposterous(!!!) that a new player joins after the match has been going on for a while and is immediately stronger than a good amount (or even most) of the players already in-game.

[kira]

Though the leading team earned their rank for their teamates,
i think it would be best to give fair starting point to any newly joined player - no matter the team he\her 
joined in.

because the leading team is already strong and giving free vp to newly joined player will make it even stronger.
but, if any recuirted player will get vp automaticly with joining team - it would create a challange that
could prolong the match and give second chance to the team with less points (or buildings what ever)
and thus give better game experince cause nothing absolute, nothing is set - only talent and orginzation plays part.
This would be a one step further in ballancing the game as so many of us were asking for.

"Also, in the same scenario, an existing player from the leading team - who participated in the match from the start, and is still a recruit because of whatever reason, now has a teammate who is ranked above him - for doing absolutely nothing. needless to say, unfair."
well i think that's the player's fault,  you get vp points from reparing and shooting. he suppose to be active to get rank up.
 

[Fishyshoe]

48 minutes ago, kira said:

Though the leading team earned their rank for their teamates,
i think it would be best to give fair starting point to any newly joined player - no matter the team he\her 
joined in.

That I agree. That's one thing I'm saying - you get the same VP bonus regardless of which team you join. In the current system - you either "get lucky" or not.

48 minutes ago, kira said:

because the leading team is already strong and giving free vp to newly joined player will make it even stronger.
but, if any recuirted player will get vp automaticly with joining team - it would create a challange that
could prolong the match and give second chance to the team with less points (or buildings what ever)
and thus give better game experince cause nothing absolute, nothing is set - only talent and orginzation plays part.
This would be a one step further in ballancing the game as so many of us were asking for.

That's precisely the point, and the way things work now, it simply isn't the case. As mentioned already - right now the already-stronger team gets better/stronger new players (VP-wise) than the losing team. This makes the match even more unbalanced, in my opinion.

48 minutes ago, kira said:

"Also, in the same scenario, an existing player from the leading team - who participated in the match from the start, and is still a recruit because of whatever reason, now has a teammate who is ranked above him - for doing absolutely nothing. needless to say, unfair."
well i think that's the player's fault,  you get vp points from reparing and shooting. he suppose to be active to get rank up.

Here I both agree and disagree. Of course the player should be active in any way necessary by shooting, repairing, whatever. No question about that. But what I was trying to say is this: Imagine you have a team of 25 players, 10 of them are in tanks, bombarding the enemy base and get a ton of VPs, while the remaining 15 players either defend the base, the silo, sniping or repairing the tanks. In many cases (if not most) - these 15 players will rank up slower or even much slower than those in the tanks, depending what they do (I'm sure there's no need to give examples to this point), but you would agree that they ARE doing something useful, even if it's not very VP-productive. They still do more than someone who "sits outside the server" doing absolutely nothing.

Now when a new player joins the team, in the current state of things, he/she gets his/her VP bonus based on the ENTIRE team's performance, and because you have 10 players holding a lot more VP than the remaining 15, the new player immediately outranks the latter players. For what? for contributing nothing, and joining the game after some time. The other 15 players still did something, small as it might be, and even "something" is better than nothing.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Fishyshoe

[kira]

so you take arty or mrls, spam static something until the vet rank, and get back to defend

[Fishyshoe]

28 minutes ago, kira said:

so you take arty or mrls, spam static something until the vet rank, and get back to defend

Pardon me, that's not a solution. Maybe for some people, but not for everyone. And, it still doesn't solve what I'm complaining about.

Not always can you grab an arty or mrls (due to vehicle limit, for instance...if you are in a 25-player team, and the vehicle limit is 11 or so...). Also, some just prefer doing other stuff. That still doesn't make it right for them to be outranked by someone joining to the match after some significant period of time, having done absolutely nothing. Even parking an arty/mrls in the base and spamming the tunnels with fire to prevent rushes - is significant contribution.

Let me ask you this:

Would you feel it's fair if you and I played a match from the start, you would do whatever you do best to get points and rank up while I just stood idle in one of the buildings (let's ignore the fact that AFK players will eventually get kicked) - and then, all of a sudden, I and only I will get a bonus VP, based on YOUR and the other teammates performance - for doing nothing, and outrank you? Is this fair to you? Because that's basically what happens right now, but instead of an idle AFK player in-game, you get a not-in-game player get that exact bonus just because he/she joined late.

Pardon me again for being a bit harsh (it's not personal against anyone, I'm just frustrated) - but I think this current setting is plain stupid and unfair.

 

And while I do enjoy debating this point with you (even if we disagree at times), It would be nice if the devs (not just Handepsilon) would say something. 
 

[euan-missile]

Fishy, 

Your posts are great, I think you've done a good job highlighting one of the issues that does plague overall balancing in Ren X. The VP System. 
But I do need you to know that it is inherently going to be one-sided and it's important to remember that. That's apart of the design here.

I am trying very hard to visualise your solution in practice; where we now have new players coming in at an average VP rate based from the clock as opposed to how it is now. Let's walk through it while using your screenshot as the base example here.

The solution in practice would boost the 3 recruits on GDI to say Veteran (clock permitting) but then, what would happen to those on Nod? Would they be boosted to Elite by that same time frame because of the additional VP from the clock?  - no, because they've just joined too and have 0 points. So your solution effectively always pushes the "back-end" of players up the VP ladder, keeping it in motion, and all the other players can still progress on top of that.

The only concern for this, is that it might undermine the inherent design of the VP system.  -- 

If a team has done bad enough that there is already a significant difference between VP compared to the other team; giving them back VP will not save them at that point. 

That's my concern.  -- Look at your screenshot again, what would happen if those GDI were also Veteran like Nod? Would it fix the reason that lead the whole team there? No, it would just fix the damage that it has already caused. Which means it would cause far more stalemates and prolonged games than it would games where the team that should of got steamrolled, made a long, arduous comeback.

 

But the truth is fishy, I don't entirely know. And I don't think any developers can know too. It's a very complicated formula that has many moving parts and some of the critical parts are inherently flawed and changing them may invalidate or void the whole system entirely. There's so many factors and variables that we cannot account for accurately, the biggest one being the teams themselves and the players within them. - SO, maybe what I've said here is wrong and your proposal may lead to a healthier gameplay experience, or maybe nothing can change the inherent one-sided nature of the VP system, but one thing is for certain;

Your thoughts and comments on it should well be noted. Because the proposals here and in other places, may well be the prerequisite start to what may be an entire overhaul of the system in the future. Where perhaps VP is replaced by an entirely new mechanic, but that's not for me, nor for this post. 

Cheers. 
 

 

[Tytonium]

Do anything to cap the amount of vp a person spamming arty/mrls can get when attacking buildings. It's just too much vp compared to how little skill is needed to do such things.

[Fishyshoe]

Well Euan,

First, thank you for taking your time to write such elaborate answer.

Second - just a little remark - you got GDI and Nod swapped in your explanation - Nod was the weaker side here (newcomers were recruits), GDI was stronger (newcomers were veterans). You accidentally swapped the two, but that's not the matter 

It seems you have understood my idea to the core. Judging by the concern you voiced, I would say that perhaps you and I look at the current situation in a different way.

6 hours ago, euan-missile said:

If a team has done bad enough that there is already a significant difference between VP compared to the other team; giving them back VP will not save them at that point. 

You see, you are looking at the big picture - which is great, of course - while I look at a slightly closer resolution.

I'm not trying to save the losing team. If they lose, it's probably their own fault, and probably no new player joining mid-game would save them (of course anything can happen but you get me). 
I just don't think here should be a discrimination between joining players, gaining different VP bonuses just because "they won the team lottery"  and joined the side which has a higher average VP. If they join at the same time - they should get the same bonus, regardless of team and current scores. And, under no circumstance should an existing player, who has been in the match for a longer period than any new joining player - be outranked by the latter. This isn't about saving the team which is losing or anything like that - this is about being fair towards the players who are already participating in the match.

Now, let me get one thing clear here - I am certainly NOT against the VP system, at all! Quite the contrary, in fact. I think it is a very interesting concept introduced to RenX, which adds some "spice" and extra value to the game, and if you perform well in a match - you should be rewarded. I cannot imagine how RenX would look like if this feature were to be disabled (though this is how old Ren was).

By the way, there is another solution to the problem - which I like a lot less but it would still resolve the issue: Simply disable the VP bonus for joining players. No matter when you join - after 1 minute, 10 minutes or 30 - you start with 0 VP, period. If you do that, you also don't need all the 5VP-per-minute-to-all-players thing, rather, you leave things as they are today. This way - no player will be promoted just for being present in the game; joining players will never outrank existing players, and it wouldn't matter to which team they join. Problem solved.

But now you are going to say "but at that point, recruits are simply way too weak to deal with all the Elites and Heroics in game!", and you would be absolutely right, which is why I DON'T like this solution, at all. But if you think about it, the solution I originally proposed is exactly the same, except that your starting point is changed e.g. every minute, pushing existing players up with it, so that no joining player starts with 0VP, but with a minimal amount which is necessarily not higher than anyone else's.

 

Maybe you and I are looking at the same issue from different perspectives, still I think it is for the devs to consider all angles and decide what to do.

Cheers.

[roweboat]

13 hours ago, Tytonium said:

Do anything to cap the amount of vp a person spamming arty/mrls can get when attacking buildings. It's just too much vp compared to how little skill is needed to do such things.

That isn't a bad idea either. Like in some RPGs, when the same enemy is fought again and again, you get less and less experience until it's 0.

 

That would discourage boring repetitive attacks like sitting in an arty all day until heroic and encourage varied attacks.

[Fishyshoe]

2 hours ago, roweboat said:

That isn't a bad idea either. Like in some RPGs, when the same enemy is fought again and again, you get less and less experience until it's 0.

 

That would discourage boring repetitive attacks like sitting in an arty all day until heroic and encourage varied attacks.

Whether this is a good idea or not is a different matter. I'm not even sure what is my opinion about it.

But even if it is implemented, that still doesn't resolve the issue I brought up regarding joining players.

 

Meanwhile, I've been thinking of yet another possible solution. If the VP-per-minute thing is too complicated to code or something (I'm not expert in this field...), you could consider do this:

When players join a match - the amount of VP they get is equal to the player with the least amount of VP, regardless of team. I'm sure that's a lot less problematic - just have the server/game find who is the player currently in match with the lowest VP - and give that same amount to the joining player.

Pro(?): No time-based VP mechanism required, it stays the same as it is today.

Con(?): It makes the VP-bonus dependent on the least fruitful player (VP-wise) in a given match. Namely, if there is just ONE player who simply isn't ranking up in a reasonable pace for a long time, he/she "screws" everyone who joins.

Also, a possible abuse in the system would be people quitting and rejoining the server to get free VP boost, assuming they are ranked last VP-wise. AFAIK, using the time-based VP system would prevent such abuse.

 

(Man, I feel creative today...)

[NodSaibot]

3 hours ago, Fishyshoe said:

Whether this is a good idea or not is a different matter. I'm not even sure what is my opinion about it.

But even if it is implemented, that still doesn't resolve the issue I brought up regarding joining players.

 

Meanwhile, I've been thinking of yet another possible solution. If the VP-per-minute thing is too complicated to code or something (I'm not expert in this field...), you could consider do this:

When players join a match - the amount of VP they get is equal to the player with the least amount of VP, regardless of team. I'm sure that's a lot less problematic - just have the server/game find who is the player currently in match with the lowest VP - and give that same amount to the joining player.

Pro(?): No time-based VP mechanism required, it stays the same as it is today.

Con(?): It makes the VP-bonus dependent on the least fruitful player (VP-wise) in a given match. Namely, if there is just ONE player who simply isn't ranking up in a reasonable pace for a long time, he/she "screws" everyone who joins.

Also, a possible abuse in the system would be people quitting and rejoining the server to get free VP boost, assuming they are ranked last VP-wise. AFAIK, using the time-based VP system would prevent such abuse.

 

(Man, I feel creative today...)

Nothing you wrote here is really difficult to program unless it contains algorithms or something like that. I agree with most of what was said, I think players should gain VP for doing nothing, if they are at the bottom. Teams should move together more with VP. I also think whoring buildings for VP is far too fast and ruins a lot of game balance in PUBLIC games. Many teams do not understand the fact that letting the enemy pound your base for 20 minutes while organizing an infantry rush is a terrible idea, and will end with quick elite/heroic tankers hungry to kill their buildings. Snowballing is definitely intended, to some degree, but I think it is out of hand.

[Fishyshoe]

14 minutes ago, Sarie said:

Nothing you wrote here is really difficult to program unless it contains algorithms or something like that. I agree with most of what was said, I think players should gain VP for doing nothing, if they are at the bottom. Teams should move together more with VP. I also think whoring buildings for VP is far too fast and ruins a lot of game balance in PUBLIC games. Many teams do not understand the fact that letting the enemy pound your base for 20 minutes while organizing an infantry rush is a terrible idea, and will end with quick elite/heroic tankers hungry to kill their buildings. Snowballing is definitely intended, to some degree, but I think it is out of hand.

I'm sorry, you DO think players should gain VP for doing nothing, at the current situation? or did I misunderstand you?

And anyway - what about the idea I proposed in my OP? is there any remote chance you and the other devs will consider it?

[NodSaibot]

9 minutes ago, Fishyshoe said:

I'm sorry, you DO think players should gain VP for doing nothing, at the current situation? or did I misunderstand you?

And anyway - what about the idea I proposed in my OP? is there any remote chance you and the other devs will consider it?

I think people such as defenders should not be punished for defending. It is probably the role with the least VP awarded, yet it could be considered one of the more important roles. I am willing to experiment some changes on my server, I can't speak for anyone else.

[Fishyshoe]

1 hour ago, Sarie said:

I think people such as defenders should not be punished for defending. It is probably the role with the least VP awarded, yet it could be considered one of the more important roles. I am willing to experiment some changes on my server, I can't speak for anyone else.

Well, I do agree with you on that one. For one, I think that repairing buildings should be 2 VP and not just 1 as it is today, even though you could argue that attacking a building is more difficult than repairing it from the safety within. But the general idea is good, IMO.

As for experimenting...I strongly encourage that