Objective Rushing it's kind of an issue

1

I have noticed a side effect with making pve more easy. (well overall at least) I’ve noticed that many more players have been rushing to complete the objective rather being more of a team player. Usually I see gunships doing this as they have enough burst damage and maneuverability surprising I’ve seen interceptors have a lot of success with hunting down fighter and intercepting. The problem is that any pve mission with a kill the thing objective last about 2 minuets if you have a gunship, there is also the side effect of players being rewarded more for completing the objective than focusing on crowd control and getting assist while slowly chipping away at the target which is what usually happened before. The gunship would usually get massive amounts of effectiveness points while the other team members would get much less when they focused more on crowd control which is what frigates usually priorities. I don’t really think the point system matters but it should be rebalanced in case it effects credit and synergy rewards. Regardless you would probably find that on the leaderboards that the top players use a decently fast ship with good firepower the gunship being your best choice but the other classes when modded correctly could do the same. Overall I just feel that it’s unfair when a team member just guns down the objective that he gets all the glory while most of the other players who were a distraction get much less recognition.

 

Now it would be in my interest to do a simple rework on the point system or effectiveness system at least for pve. normally the objective gives a high point value when destroyed this could be lowered as I think it is a bit excessive and then we see if anything changes and that would be the simplest solution in my opion. Or you could rework the entire system or get rid of it entirely I think you could make the objective bonus count equally for each team member but there kills and assist and maybe medals would all add up to determine his final effectiveness rating and then credit and synergy rewards.

 

Leave your opinions below but I think this is more on the small side as I think the glaring problem is that the developers went too far in designing the game to bring in the most buck ill post about that later if I feel  like it.

2

I have noticed a side effect with making pve more easy. (well overall at least) I’ve noticed that many more players have been rushing to complete the objective rather being more of a team player.

As far as I know, that’s a good thing. Whenever I manage to convince other NASA folks to do PvE with me, we typically finish in a bit less than 10 minutes by doing objectives. As opposed to when I manage to win PvE with randoms (quite depressingly rare), which typically finishes in around 20 to 30 due to an odd obsession with killing every enemy ship before doing objectives.

 

there is also the side effect of players being rewarded more for completing the objective than focusing on crowd control and getting assist while slowly chipping away at the target which is what usually happened before.

[. . .]

I don’t really think the point system matters but it should be rebalanced in case it effects credit and synergy rewards.

Well, big points don’t tend to matter that much. Credit rewards are essentially even, and definitely don’t depend on the amount of effectiveness points you get.

 

But if it makes people feel better, yeah, the number of effectiveness points you get from the turrets in Muerto ought to be toned down. Possibly also the number of effectiveness points you get from the transports in Processing Rig and Crimson Haze.

 

Now it would be in my interest to do a simple rework on the point system or effectiveness system at least for pve. normally the objective gives a high point value when destroyed this could be lowered as I think it is a bit excessive and then we see if anything changes and that would be the simplest solution in my opion…

I don’t care too much about effectiveness points in PvE, but hey. So long as it makes people feel better…

 

If opions are more like opinions than onions, then I agree :004j:

Or you could rework the entire system or get rid of it entirely I think you could make the objective bonus count equally for each team member but there kills and assist and maybe medals would all add up to determine his final effectiveness rating and then credit and synergy rewards.

And I have no idea what you mean here. Clarification?

3

bit excessive

 

Yep. In crimson haze stage two, you get FOUR HUNDRED eff points for killing the charger cells(that may not be what its called)!

 

It is excessive, and people who do ship killing should get rewarded more, instead of people like me with their super death styx and 4000 eff consistently 

4

I’m going to run down your points one by one

  1. The reason why some players kill all the ships is because if they are a frig they have too or they will be overwhelmed it’s also the main source of synergy and offers some extra creds. It is bad that it’s faster is because it’s boring when your just getting into the mission and it abruptly ends when the primary objective runs out. I don’t know about you but I mostly win in pve in tier 3 even with random probably because I memorized all the tactics and optimized my ships for pve combat.

  2. In my corp we have a person with a 200,000 effectiveness rating in pve and all he does is gun down the objective in a gunship no offense to him. That’s the main problem is that the leaderboards are now just people who are pretty much lone wolfs were before if they went on their own they died. As you can tell it discourages teamwork as everybody just wants the points, and I also believe effectiveness is use for pilot ranking.

  3. I meant to spell opinions correctly sadly this keyboard is too crap

  4. I meant to say that every member of the squad will get maybe 2,000 effectiveness rating just for participation and then the final score will be determined by adding in point values for all the kills and assist(so a player with 40 kills will always get more points then someone with less kills and ditto for assists). Rather than the game giving objective based points for the kill and a certain percentage for an assist. I am still thinking a way to prevent kill and assist farming though.

 

Hopefully I cleared up some issues but feel free to pester me some more

5

I’m going to run down your points one by one

  1. The reason why some players kill all the ships is because if they are a frig they have too or they will be overwhelmed it’s also the main source of synergy and offers some extra creds. It is bad that it’s faster is because it’s boring when your just getting into the mission and it abruptly ends when the primary objective runs out. I don’t know about you but I mostly win in pve in tier 3 even with random probably because I memorized all the tactics and optimized my ships for pve combat.

  2. In my corp we have a person with a 200,000 effectiveness rating in pve and all he does is gun down the objective in a gunship no offense to him. That’s the main problem is that the leaderboards are now just people who are pretty much lone wolfs were before if they went on their own they died. As you can tell it discourages teamwork as everybody just wants the points, and I also believe effectiveness is use for pilot ranking.

  3. I meant to spell opinions correctly sadly this keyboard is too crap

  4. I meant to say that every member of the squad will get maybe 2,000 effectiveness rating just for participation and then the final score will be determined by adding in point values for all the kills and assist(so a player with 40 kills will always get more points then someone with less kills and ditto for assists). Rather than the game giving objective based points for the kill and a certain percentage for an assist. I am still thinking a way to prevent kill and assist farming though.

Hopefully I cleared up some issues but feel free to pester me some more

rushing objectives in pve is the best choice,you win fast and you get credits/synergy faster.

I don’ see why you’r complaining about it.

I dont care about points in pve i want to get the mission done faster because it’s better than than farming 200 bots for half an hour

6
  1. The reason why some players kill all the ships is because if they are a frig they have too or they will be overwhelmed it’s also the main source of synergy and offers some extra creds.

Actually, PvE hands out more credits than PvP, but less synergy. Unless, of course, you play PvE more than you do PvP, in which case it’s the main source of all your income, not just synergy.

 

It is bad that it’s faster is because it’s boring when your just getting into the mission and it abruptly ends when the primary objective runs out. I don’t know about you but I mostly win in pve in tier 3 even with random probably because I memorized all the tactics and optimized my ships for pve combat.

Ah. You and I have different ideas of “boring”, unfortunately. I find repetitive tasks boring, and would rather get them over with when I need credits. Doing missions quickly adds a bit more of a challenge, as well, which helps.

On the other hand, I can understand that fighting a horde of enemies might be fun. I mean, raiding dungeons in (insert MMO here) is basically the same premise. I’m afraid I have no idea how developers might balance the needs of people who find PvE boring versus people who find it fun.

Also, T3 is fine and dandy, but T5 PvE is a whole 'nother can of worms. Especially with randoms.

 

  1. In my corp we have a person with a 200,000 effectiveness rating in pve and all he does is gun down the objective in a gunship no offense to him. That’s the main problem is that the leaderboards are now just people who are pretty much lone wolfs were before if they went on their own they died.

If someone in your corp has 200k PvE effectiveness, more power to them. Unless, of course, you want that spot in the leaderboard, which is understandable. But changing the rules of the leaderboard to get the spot is… Unsportsmanlike, to say the least.

 

As you can tell it discourages teamwork as everybody just wants the points, and I also believe effectiveness is use for pilot ranking.

Gonna be honest here, PvE doesn’t take a lot of teamwork. Just pewpewpew and you’ll get through it, no sweat. If you talk to most of the folks who go for objectives, I’ll bet most of them will tell you they do it to get through the mission quicker, not for the points. Heck, even if killing the shield chargers didn’t give points in Fort Muerto, I’d still do it as quickly as possible.

Effectiveness is used for pilot ranking, yes, but PvE isn’t.

 

  1. I meant to spell opinions correctly sadly this keyboard is too crap

I meant it as a joke, but considering you just spelled it correctly, I don’t think you can blame your keyboard >.>;;

 

  1. I meant to say that every member of the squad will get maybe 2,000 effectiveness rating just for participation

What is this, efficiency communism? A (mediocrely implemented, I’ll give you that) merit-based point system awarding points for participation is silly.

 

and then the final score will be determined by adding in point values for all the kills and assist(so a player with 40 kills will always get more points then someone with less kills and ditto for assists). Rather than the game giving objective based points for the kill and a certain percentage for an assist. I am still thinking a way to prevent kill and assist farming though.

We used to have a system where efficiency points were calculated based on kills and assists, not factoring in damage dealt at all. Of course, back then, efficiency wasn’t used for anything but showing off your e-peen. Still is, actually. Anyways, that made kill stealing a pain in the arse. Especially in PvP, ugh.

 

You are right about the kill and assist farming thing, though. Guard with damage reduction aura farming kills with a squad would just rack up points, otherwise.

 

 

 

I was kind of supportive of a change in the efficiency score system from the first post, but if you’re only in it for a leaderboard spot, that’s just ridiculous. Not that I don’t support a change in the efficiency score system any more, but definitely not the kind where you get “2,000 effectiveness rating just for participation”.

7

Removed by Author 

8

Cloak in lrf to transfer the agro to the engineer but for some reason the bots don’t make it to the engineer…

9

/Moved to suggestion.

10

Cloak in lrf to transfer the agro to the engineer but for some reason the bots don’t make it to the engineer…

Once they have you locked, even if you activate a radar camo, the ones who had you locked will keep attacking you. That was made to prevent LRF exploits in PvE.

 

It will work with the next waves, so you just have to kill the ones who locked you, and then you will be free.

11

I am not sure, but afaik u get not more money/synergy by individual high points in PvE, it depends on the wholes teams points.

12

Once they have you locked, even if you activate a radar camo, the ones who had you locked will keep attacking you. That was made to prevent LRF exploits in PvE.

 

It will work with the next waves, so you just have to kill the ones who locked you, and then you will be free.

Also, if they spawn right next to you, they’ll still see you.

13

Let me come clear I don’t just want a new system for my spot on a leaderboard I just felt that the current system than ranks you on the leaderboards is unfair. It really just encourages people too rush through pve which is bad because of game balance (currently). If pve normally takes 30 minuets but can take 10 minuets, while giving you the same payout then we have a problem. I do have a personal preference for longer pve matches as too me they build up more adrenaline and put more pressure on you too do good, but I can understand if people want shorter matches. The problem is that if the payouts depend mostly on completing the mission then everybody would just want too speed run pve . So if you though pve was not really good on teamwork well just wait. So that’s the real reason that there can be a slight tweak or a complete change to either conform to the changed play style or go back too the old one because right now it’s a bit outdated.

 

Communism is when everybody get’s exactly the same payment no matter what they do my system helps too stop that buy also factoring in individual performance and this should be used too calculate synergy and credit gains because as you mentioned before it doesn’t at the moment. Now I would like to add that there will also be penalty’s for players who do nothing, as well as diminishing returns on every kill or assist past 100 im being hypothetical I don’t really mean it has to be 100. In fact the effectiveness grant doesn’t really have too be 2,000 it could 50 for all I care just throwing out ideas nothing I say is set in stone.

 

Now ill answer anything else you mentioned

I know pvp is for synergy people want to max their gain from pve as well

tier 5 is mostly just a brutally hard mission where you need to be lucky with your squad after waiting 4 minuets at least from what I heard

my keyboard is crap it doesn’t register maybe 2% of all the letters I type

pve effectiveness should be factored into your pilot rating

 

In reality it is my fault that it sounds like I just want a leader board spot because I was emphasizing it way more than I should because I learned that effectiveness doesn’t even subtly effect your rewards. I really feel that the leader board is pointless if it just rewards speed running rather than teamwork since again effectiveness doesn’t matter just how fast you finish the mission. It really should be a accurate tool to measure how well people perform in a squad rather than how fast they blitzed through a object that gives 500 points to whoever killed it.

14

Let me come clear I don’t just want a new system for my spot on a leaderboard I just felt that the current system than ranks you on the leaderboards is unfair. It really just encourages people too rush through pve which is bad because of game balance (currently). If pve normally takes 30 minuets but can take 10 minuets, while giving you the same payout then we have a problem. I do have a personal preference for longer pve matches as too me they build up more adrenaline and put more pressure on you too do good, but I can understand if people want shorter matches. The problem is that if the payouts depend mostly on completing the mission then everybody would just want too speed run pve . So if you though pve was not really good on teamwork well just wait. So that’s the real reason that there can be a slight tweak or a complete change to either conform to the changed play style or go back too the old one because right now it’s a bit outdated.

 

Communism is when everybody get’s exactly the same payment no matter what they do my system helps too stop that buy also factoring in individual performance and this should be used too calculate synergy and credit gains because as you mentioned before it doesn’t at the moment. Now I would like to add that there will also be penalty’s for players who do nothing, as well as diminishing returns on every kill or assist past 100 im being hypothetical I don’t really mean it has to be 100. In fact the effectiveness grant doesn’t really have too be 2,000 it could 50 for all I care just throwing out ideas nothing I say is set in stone.

 

Now ill answer anything else you mentioned

I know pvp is for synergy people want to max their gain from pve as well

tier 5 is mostly just a brutally hard mission where you need to be lucky with your squad after waiting 4 minuets at least from what I heard

my keyboard is crap it doesn’t register maybe 2% of all the letters I type

pve effectiveness should be factored into your pilot rating

 

In reality it is my fault that it sounds like I just want a leader board spot because I was emphasizing it way more than I should because I learned that effectiveness doesn’t even subtly effect your rewards. I really feel that the leader board is pointless if it just rewards speed running rather than teamwork since again effectiveness doesn’t matter just how fast you finish the mission. It really should be a accurate tool to measure how well people perform in a squad rather than how fast they blitzed through a object that gives 500 points to whoever killed it.

Your suggestion, in short: Reduce efficiency scores from objectives, increase efficiency scores from killing (decrease point incentives to do PvE in 10 minutes instead of 30, increase point incentives to take 30 minutes to do something that could take 10).

 

Possible effects from your suggestion:

  1. People slow down in PvE, start focusing on killing bots more than completing objectives. This makes PvE immensely unenjoyable for me. This is literally the only reason I do objectives by myself – since everybody else is too busy killing bots to finish the mission in anything less than 30 minutes. 

 

  1. People don’t slow down in PvE. Essentially, everything is the same, but you score higher on the leaderboards by bringing everybody else down.

 

 

 

Also, through your last few posts, it seems like you want the rewards from PvE to be based on the amount of time you spend completing it. This is complete bollocks.

 

I happen to have several hours a day to waste playing Star Conflict, but I am aware that there are people who don’t. Which means you shouldn’t encourage folks to spend half a bloody hour doing something that gives less credits and synergy than you would get finishing the two or three PvP matches you would have had in the same amount of time. When you take that long, there’s no extra rewards, no extra excitement – but there are marginally lost rewards, more time spent bored. Not, of course, that I support PvE being enforced to take less than 30 minutes. Then a lot of folks who want to be casual and take their time can’t play any more. But don’t get any ideas on punishing people for playing quickly.

15

being rewarded based on your time and effort makes sense it just means that no matter how long you play the payout should always be in the ball park. It’s not punishing speed runners it’s getting rid of the reward which is faster progression for playing faster. Right now it does seem that rewarding for kills will encourage farming which is why there will be diminishing returns on credit and synergy value per kill/assist(this is more punishing farmers than speed runners anyway). Also if people if screwing over other people in pve for there own sake isn’t that a problem that a more small team squad based tactic is rewarding people for being lone wolfs and blitzing his mates. So you think longer match times is hurting casual players I think it helps because it allows them to play at a slower pace rather than getting through as fast as possible. If the match times are shorter it will make them more appealing to a casual player but I think pacing matter much more. Since the new system would reward more fairly based on length this means that if a casual player wanted to go a bit faster that would be neither rewarded nor punished. That brings me into time you would probably agree that casual players would play a lot of mobile games, and how long do they play those because it probably is either a binge or a short 2-5 minuet session. I think you just like being rewarded for going fast as it is better for you and more convenient but that’s not what pve is about it’s a better mode for longer match times while pvp is better for shorter match times.  

16

being rewarded based on your time and effort makes sense it just means that no matter how long you play the payout should always be in the ball park.

Factor in the daily double, and that means that you’re punishing people for finishing quicker and encouraging people to afk in one of the many spots where bots can’t hurt you.

 

It’s not punishing speed runners it’s getting rid of the reward which is faster progression for playing faster.

I don’t think you quite understand what “punishment” means.

 

Right now it does seem that rewarding for kills will encourage farming which is why there will be diminishing returns on credit and synergy value per kill/assist(this is more punishing farmers than speed runners anyway).

You had not mentioned such a thing earlier. In fact, I have no idea what your suggestion is as of yet, everything’s scattered into different walls of text.

 

Also if people if screwing over other people in pve for there own sake isn’t that a problem that a more small team squad based tactic is rewarding people for being lone wolfs and blitzing his mates.

Doing objectives is not quite the same as screwing over other people. That would be taking a cruise engine double drone pooping tackler, leaving the other three teammates to fend for themselves while getting free points as the drones aim at objectives for you.

 

So you think longer match times is hurting casual players I think it helps because it allows them to play at a slower pace rather than getting through as fast as possible.

I never said “casual”. I said that there are people who don’t have several hours a day to play this game. If someone only has half an hour a day, how do you think they’d like to spend it: Two or three PvP matches, or slightly less than one PvE match? Or invasion, but that’s different, since you alone define the time spent.

 

 

If the match times are shorter it will make them more appealing to a casual player but I think pacing matter much more.

I have no idea what you mean here. I’m also fairly certain that’s a non sequitur.

 

Since the new system would reward more fairly based on length this means that if a casual player wanted to go a bit faster that would be neither rewarded nor punished.

They would be punished. They’d have fewer credits than they would have if they had taken longer.

 

That brings me into time you would probably agree that casual players would play a lot of mobile games, and how long do they play those because it probably is either a binge or a short 2-5 minuet session.

Yes, which means that one match taking 30 minutes would probably not fit into their schedules. Or their definition of “enjoyment”.

 

I think you just like being rewarded for going fast as it is better for you and more convenient

Again, this is a non sequitur. I’m not sure how “Casual players typically play for 5-15 minutes at a time” leads to “I think you like going fast for the rewards.”

 

And yes, I do like getting my rewards faster. Simply because PvE is boring for me, and I only do it to get my purple loot and extra credits.

 

but that’s not what pve is about it’s a better mode for longer match times while pvp is better for shorter match times.

… Okay? You say this, but here I am, thinking that PvE would be better if it only took 10 minutes.

 

 

 

Overall, you seem intent on making PvE take as long as long as possible. That is a rather bad goal – as I have said before, there are a lot of people who simply don’t have that sort of time.

17

There had been another system long ago that rewarded fighting more and it caused many players not to play objectives at all.

18

Perhaps u can make another game mode lieke “Defenders of the Galaxy” where there are bots coming endlessly and u have to hold outr as long as possible. If people actually want to play this, let them.

19

Perhaps u can make another game mode lieke “Defenders of the Galaxy” where there are bots coming endlessly and u have to hold outr as long as possible. If people actually want to play this, let them.

 

4 Styxs with all stations and everything would be overpowered in that.

20

4 Styxs with all stations and everything would be overpowered in that.

That is, until the bot frigball comes in. Or a horde of laser fighters.