Think this needs to be player profile, it shows your efficency in battle.
Yeah I would like to see what is my average score, but that wouldn’t mean that I’m better or worse player. If I just play Command ships I would have an average of 1500 points… passive buff giving you >20 assist at least per battle lol.
How do you compare matches where the highest score is 1000 to games where the lowest is 1000? Sure, it’ll average out over time, but the imbalance in the scoring is a major factor. If having a high efficiency score was more important than DSR, then siege matches would happen more than rush matches. If you’re talking about percentile ranking, that’s another issue. Unfortunately, that leads the the DSR effect of kills vs gameplay. Adding an “objective” score would help more. Ignore the kills, and count the objectives based on the match type. A captain kill is important, and beacon capture is important, a random stray kill is not.
A captain kill is important, and beacon capture is important, a random stray kill is not.
That random stray kill prevented whoever was killed from flying to the beacon your team was just capturing and prevent the capture. Or maybe it was the covops that would have successfully self-destructed on your captain. All kills matter. Some more than others, but they all remove an enemy from the field for 20 seconds in arcade or entirely in realistic.
I see to much players go for kills and few for objectives, but you get more points for objectives than kills.The bigger score at end gives you more credits and synergy.
I see to much players go for kills and few for objectives, but you get more points for objectives than kills.The bigger score at end gives you more credits and synergy.
Yes and no. Going for objectives is rewarded, but it can be much easier to accumulate kills and assists and stay alive than to go for objectives and die in the mess of nukes, torps and self-destructs. Except for the minimal chance to get experimental loot upon a victory the rewards are basically identical for winning and losing, and since repair costs rise significantly with the tiers you’ve got another good incentive to avoid situations that can get your ship destroyed. On top of that, only a few contracts require you to win, many are about killing.
That’s the core issue with the reward system. Someone grinding synergy, loyalty or credits is often best advised to ignore objectives. And that’s what’s happening. I don’t fault anybody not playing for the win in this game, sadly.
PS: Lol, silly battle I just had to illustrate:
I grabbed the first beacon solo, not sure what the rest of the team did but nothing useful. So I killed one enemy attacking one of ours for a contract of mine and then decided to hang back and let it end. Got lots of credits in less than 3 minutes. Would have gotten much less in a longer battle and/or with a better team. That’s what I mean about backwards reward system.
Devs would find multiple faults with a flat rate reward system but Snib explained roughly why the one we have now is ‘backwards’
Flat rate 100% for win, 75% for loss where total points scales with whatever … (game time, timeout wins, objective wins etc) to me is nicer
It’s not without faults of its’ own but slightly better than the one now where it fails to recognize and reward certain players and over compensate certain others.