Idea: More fair distribution of crystals

[Mokpama_rapra 5]

The idea: The winning team gets 2/3, the losing team gets 1/3 of the accumulated crystal fund, REGARDLESSLY of the DM/CTF battle result.

 

I have witnessed many battles in which players of the losing team start to quit at mid-game after they sense they will win nothing. This leads to enlarging the stack of players of the winning team. The ratio of the winner:loser player count changes drastically twice even thrice in favor of the winners. Ratio of 10:3, 10:4 count of players are very common. Additionally there is a very slim chance for a player to join a doomed battle on the side of the losers. Worse, very often all the losers quit mid-battle and the winning team must wait for either the time to expire, or make dud rounds for the flag in order to end the game. In either case the fun of the game is already spoiled - both for the winners and the losers. :?

 

If the losing team starts to get 1/3 of the accumulated crystals fund regardlessly of the battle result, then I think we will see a drastic drop of abandoned battles, the losers will stop to quit so frequently as they will have their crystal share as a prize for being sparring partners for the superior team, and as a compensation for their most probably ruined kill:death ratio.

I'm sure the game-play will definitely benefit from a more fair crystal fund distribution and make this brilliant game even better.

 

One final thought – the current and the proposed method of distribution of the crystal bounty can coexist. Just add an implementation of the new proposed method algorithm, a checkbox named “Fair bounty” or “Winner takes it all” or whatsoever in order to differentiate the algorithm of recalculation, and an icon at the battle creation window and let the players decide what they wish.

[Goldeneagle 9]

+1

[JHFJKDHFJDHFJD 46]

+1

[husto 474]

you're right

[skitee 555]

personally i dislike it. I think it's fine at the moment and we don't need unneccessary changes. If you really want it fairer, play in smaller maps (i find those get more "fair" distribution)

 

The main reason i said no is because an official distribution (1/3, 2/3) could cause imbalance in some matches with lower and higher differences in the teams. If you want it fairer, change your idea, because an exact distribution like that could cause total imbalance (eg top player on losing team gets more fund than top player on winning team etc).

[JHFJKDHFJDHFJD 46]

personally i dislike it. I think it's fine at the moment and we don't need unneccessary changes. If you really want it fairer, play in smaller maps (i find those get more "fair" distribution)

 

The main reason i said no is because an official distribution (1/3, 2/3) could cause imbalance in some matches with lower and higher differences in the teams. If you want it fairer, change your idea, because an exact distribution like that could cause total imbalance (eg top player on losing team gets more fund than top player on winning team etc).

2/3 for the winning team

1/3 for the losers

Simple.

[skitee 555]

So two-thirds for winning team....

 

RED - 12 FLAGS (FUND- 300)

1. A- 200 points- 50 fund

2: B- 190 points- 40 fund

3: C-175 points- 35 fund

4: D-150 points- 25 fund

5-10: about 10 fund each

 

BLUE: 9 FLAGS

1. E- 200 points: 75 fund

2. F- 75 points: 25 fund.

 

Everyone else left.

 

notice a problem??

 

see why the idea needs to be adjusted a bit?

[enas 4]

So two-thirds for winning team....

 

RED - 12 FLAGS (FUND- 300)

1. A- 200 points- 50 fund

2: B- 190 points- 40 fund

3: C-175 points- 35 fund

4: D-150 points- 25 fund

5-10: about 10 fund each

 

BLUE: 9 FLAGS

1. E- 200 points: 75 fund

2. F- 75 points: 25 fund.

 

Everyone else left.

 

notice a problem??

 

see why the idea needs to be adjusted a bit?

 

OK you are right

how about this:

 

BLUE: 9 FLAGS

1. E- 200 points: 30 fund

2. F- 75 points: 20 fund.

3-10: about 10 fund each

 

Is this fair enough for you? or better distribution: 3/4 to winners 1/4 to losers. And I am asking you, what if the difference between them was only one flag?

 

my opinion is, in long battles (team or death-match) when the award is big like 400 crystal as your example, everyone should get something. what's the point to play 4 hours, your team comes 2nd, you 3rd and get NOTHING?!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil:

[Mokpama_rapra 5]

So two-thirds for winning team....

 

RED - 12 FLAGS (FUND- 300)

1. A- 200 points- 50 fund

2: B- 190 points- 40 fund

3: C-175 points- 35 fund

4: D-150 points- 25 fund

5-10: about 10 fund each

 

BLUE: 9 FLAGS

1. E- 200 points: 75 fund

2. F- 75 points: 25 fund.

 

Everyone else left.

 

notice a problem??

 

see why the idea needs to be adjusted a bit?

 

I see absolutely no problem at your scenario, the masochism of the 2 players left against 10 players should be rewarded with 1/3, even if this means the loser on place #1 will get more than winner on the #1 place. Just think how many times the loser will be killed and the consequences for his kill:death ratio. For these two players the game at that time is not pleasure, but pure masochism for some crystals. Their stay at the battle till the end, on the other hand, saves the game and its completion for all participants.

However you overlook something, if losers are granted 1/3 of the crystals, then most of them will not quit and the share for #1 loser will be less.

 

P.S. Giving it a second thought, your scenario is unlikely to happen ever. Late joiners will be attracted on the loser side for "easy crystals". So the game will most likely to end with no vacant player positions on either side.

[Tommy60 406]

No, I think that the winning team should get more crystals if they get more flags or kills, it's only fair....

[skitee 555]

So two-thirds for winning team....

 

RED - 12 FLAGS (FUND- 300)

1. A- 200 points- 50 fund

2: B- 190 points- 40 fund

3: C-175 points- 35 fund

4: D-150 points- 25 fund

5-10: about 10 fund each

 

BLUE: 9 FLAGS

1. E- 200 points: 75 fund

2. F- 75 points: 25 fund.

 

Everyone else left.

 

notice a problem??

 

see why the idea needs to be adjusted a bit?

 

I see absolutely no problem at your scenario, the masochism of the 2 players left against 10 players should be rewarded with 1/3, even if this means the loser on place #1 will get more than winner on the #1 place. Just think how many times the loser will be killed and the consequences for his kill:death ratio. For these two players the game at that time is not pleasure, but pure masochism for some crystals. Their stay at the battle till the end, on the other hand, saves the game and its completion for all participants.

However you overlook something, if losers are granted 1/3 of the crystals, then most of them will not quit and the share for #1 loser will be less.

 

P.S. Giving it a second thought, your scenario is unlikely to happen ever. Late joiners will be attracted on the loser side for "easy crystals". So the game will most likely to end with no vacant player positions on either side.

 

I didn't say it was likely to happen, but it undoubtedly would happen sometime, and then I would say that it was unfair. bad idea, in my opinion.

[cablaz 32]

just give the losers 1-20 crystals each! way simpler

[MechaWarrior 0]

Instead of doing something about the crystals... why not the quitters?

Idea: When a person quits after the first 2 mins of the game or time he/she joined, said player loses 100 EXP and 10 crystals.

[r_pwn0 1]

Instead of doing something about the crystals... why not the quitters?

Idea: When a person quits after the first 2 mins of the game or time he/she joined, said player loses 100 EXP and 10 crystals.

 

 

hahhaha no. that would be unfair if you got grey screen and had to restart

[I_KRUT2017 0]

This idea is terrible, because it would so damn easy to exploit if implemented.

[Goldeneagle 9]

Instead of doing something about the crystals... why not the quitters?

Idea: When a person quits after the first 2 mins of the game or time he/she joined, said player loses 100 EXP and 10 crystals.

stinks

[MechaWarrior 0]

meh ok then it was just a suggestion, no need to rage.