Jump to content


Alternative to Fame Points


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

Xensation #1 Posted 15 December 2014 - 02:38 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Clan Commander
  • 15736 battles
  • 7,712
  • Member since:
    06-08-2012

I would like to propose an alternative rating system for upcoming clan campaigns. The FPs for clans instead of Victory Points are great, but there's still lots of room for improvement.

 

 

Why FPs are bad:

 

- FPs promote sealclubbing weaker clans which leads to

1) top clans avoiding each other (see KAZNA and FAME in Africa)

2) low chances of comebacks on top of the rankings

3) discouraged weaker clans

 

- FPs result in unexpected bans (e.g. playing with your "prey" when the battle is already won is considered rigging and results in bans)

 

 

Changes that would improve campaigns significantly:

 

- Instead of rewarding points based on the XP, simply credit a base value for battles. This would reduce the workload for WG and solve the issue with unexpected bans, because the FPs could not be padded by prolonging the battles anymore. There is merely a minor advantage that XP has over a static base value: Fighting better clans leads to closer matches and therefore more XP, which means fighting better opponents is slightly more rewarding with the current system. However, this barely makes a difference, because the XP gain's deviation from the average is very small across all CWs anyway, and the second part of the proposal does the same thing, just a lot better.

 

- To the base value of FP gained per battle, add multipliers that replicate some necessary characteristics of XP (e.g. victory multiplier, number of players on each team), bonuses for campaign objectives and, most importantly, one clan's ranking in relation to the other clan's ranking in the campaign. Fighting a clan that is 10 ranks higher should give significantly more FPs than fighting a clan that is 10 ranks lower. This should result in some healthy competition between the good clans rather than avoiding each other and sealclubbing in Africa.

 

 

A rating system like this would make the campaigns more fun for good and especially top clans and allow weaker clans to catch up, because they wouldn't get clubbed by way too strong clans or, if they managed to beat them, gain a lot from it.

 

 

Opinions?

 


Edited by Xensation, 15 December 2014 - 02:41 AM.


PsychoMike #2 Posted 15 December 2014 - 03:22 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 19527 battles
  • 353
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

The mini-campaign had a good idea of how to force the best clans to fight each other, Asgard.

We could simply have something similar for future campaigns.

 

Using only FP for the rankings doesn't work, because you can't control if opponents show up to fight or give technicals.

Too much luck is involved in how much your neighbours want to fight or stay away.



maroar #3 Posted 15 December 2014 - 10:01 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29713 battles
  • 2,470
  • [G__G] G__G
  • Member since:
    10-02-2012

View PostXensation, on 15 December 2014 - 02:38 AM, said:

- To the base value of FP gained per battle, add multipliers that replicate some necessary characteristics of XP (e.g. victory multiplier, number of players on each team), bonuses for campaign objectives and, most importantly, one clan's ranking in relation to the other clan's ranking in the campaign. Fighting a clan that is 10 ranks higher should give significantly more FPs than fighting a clan that is 10 ranks lower. This should result in some healthy competition between the good clans rather than avoiding each other and sealclubbing in Africa.

 

 

I see what you want to do, but this will result in them fighting eachother and others overtaking them because they "leak" famepoints for their clan by getting losses against eachother. So then the not top clan will get close and overtake, making them get targetted by the top clans.

Right now you got top clans just fighting anything they can it seems, changing to what you propose would lead to them attacking eachoter and consequently the "not yet top clans".

Meaning that some people that want the tank will leave their current clan and join a total bob clan with a core team, so they will have one good team and then some random bobs who lose so that they stay low on the rankings as a clan but that one team in the clan farming famepoints by attacking everything and even sometimes attacking top clans.

Seems to me like it can be abused quitte hard.



DosMetros #4 Posted 15 December 2014 - 01:09 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 24068 battles
  • 223
  • Member since:
    12-01-2010

View Postmaroar, on 15 December 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

 

I see what you want to do, but this will result in them fighting eachother and others overtaking them because they "leak" famepoints for their clan by getting losses against eachother. So then the not top clan will get close and overtake, making them get targetted by the top clans.

Right now you got top clans just fighting anything they can it seems, changing to what you propose would lead to them attacking eachoter and consequently the "not yet top clans".

Meaning that some people that want the tank will leave their current clan and join a total bob clan with a core team, so they will have one good team and then some random bobs who lose so that they stay low on the rankings as a clan but that one team in the clan farming famepoints by attacking everything and even sometimes attacking top clans.

Seems to me like it can be abused quitte hard.

 

So you're saying the team with unicums would still get the tank? :)

Edited by DosMetros, 15 December 2014 - 01:19 PM.


maroar #5 Posted 15 December 2014 - 02:21 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29713 battles
  • 2,470
  • [G__G] G__G
  • Member since:
    10-02-2012

View PostDosMetros, on 15 December 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

 

So you're saying the team with unicums would still get the tank? :)

 

I was saying that staying in their own clans filled with unicums they might not get the tank (as easily).

So to be sure to get the tank, a group of 15/20 unicums can just join a bobclan, or create a clan and just get bobs in there that can fight battles as well.

So that team of unica in that clan just win their battle every night and the bobs can lose battles for them making the clan overall getting a low ranking, meaning they (the unicums) could then farm famepoints on any other clan and get higher bonusses than they would being in a big clan where they can also get the risk of losing battles and gain less famepoints, also they could attack such a top clan with their unica team (from the bobclan) and get a very large sum of famepoints then.



Xensation #6 Posted 15 December 2014 - 02:40 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Clan Commander
  • 15736 battles
  • 7,712
  • Member since:
    06-08-2012

- Nobody said anything about losing FPs for defeats

- Your argumentation is based on the same fallacy as "with skillbased MM everyone gets the same stats"



maroar #7 Posted 15 December 2014 - 02:49 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29713 battles
  • 2,470
  • [G__G] G__G
  • Member since:
    10-02-2012

View PostXensation, on 15 December 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

- Nobody said anything about losing FPs for defeats

- Your argumentation is based on the same fallacy as "with skillbased MM everyone gets the same stats"

 

I am saying relative to fighting another clan that is not as good, they will lose famepoints if they fight other good clans, as they will also lose against them

KABINE10_EL_POLLO_LOCO #8 Posted 15 December 2014 - 03:18 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 47623 battles
  • 740
  • [-LYNX] -LYNX
  • Member since:
    11-13-2011
xensation is my n ew best interwebz friend

Fynnegun #9 Posted 15 December 2014 - 05:23 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12841 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

I've forwarded the suggestion, it is indeed interesting and could potentially decrease the amount of rigged battle for example.

Thanks!

Decept1on.



nkouhoe #10 Posted 15 December 2014 - 06:12 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24930 battles
  • 418
  • Member since:
    01-12-2012

Oh noes, he listened to Xen.

 

On a serious note good to see that the WG staff is reading some of the posts. Cant remember that this happened regarding other campaigns, allthough some of the stuff which was discussed back then, was used. But probably cause of common sense. 

 

In general the Fps = Vps idea was bad, at least the way it was done. Personally I would go back to have Vps and Fps seperate cause its kinda dumb If Clans can just avoid fighting you and while doing this also prevent you of getting VPs. It didnt seem to be a big deal this campaign cause everyone normally wants battles for getting the tank but its still too random. For example Fame in Spain 1st stage.



Xensation #11 Posted 15 December 2014 - 06:56 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Clan Commander
  • 15736 battles
  • 7,712
  • Member since:
    06-08-2012

View Postnkouhoe, on 15 December 2014 - 05:12 PM, said:

Oh noes, he listened to Xen.

 

On a serious note good to see that the WG staff is reading some of the posts. Cant remember that this happened regarding other campaigns, allthough some of the stuff which was discussed back then, was used. But probably cause of common sense. 

 

In general the Fps = Vps idea was bad, at least the way it was done. Personally I would go back to have Vps and Fps seperate cause its kinda dumb If Clans can just avoid fighting you and while doing this also prevent you of getting VPs. It didnt seem to be a big deal this campaign cause everyone normally wants battles for getting the tank but its still too random. For example Fame in Spain 1st stage.

 

I agree, it's far from perfect, but IMO better than the VP nonsense we had before.

maroar #12 Posted 15 December 2014 - 11:17 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29713 battles
  • 2,470
  • [G__G] G__G
  • Member since:
    10-02-2012

View Postnkouhoe, on 15 December 2014 - 06:12 PM, said:

In general the Fps = Vps idea was bad, at least the way it was done. Personally I would go back to have Vps and Fps seperate cause its kinda dumb If Clans can just avoid fighting you and while doing this also prevent you of getting VPs. It didnt seem to be a big deal this campaign cause everyone normally wants battles for getting the tank but its still too random. For example Fame in Spain 1st stage.

 

View PostVenitus, on 26 November 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

 

:teethhappy:

jjgjosh123 #13 Posted 23 December 2014 - 10:25 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7687 battles
  • 484
  • [TAC] TAC
  • Member since:
    02-25-2012

 

- To the base value of FP gained per battle, add multipliers that replicate some necessary characteristics of XP (e.g. victory multiplier, number of players on each team), bonuses for campaign objectives and, most importantly, one clan's ranking in relation to the other clan's ranking in the campaign. Fighting a clan that is 10 ranks higher should give significantly more FPs than fighting a clan that is 10 ranks lower. This should result in some healthy competition between the good clans rather than avoiding each other and sealclubbing in Africa.

 

 

 

Love the idea.



wetlioN #14 Posted 23 December 2014 - 11:26 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 28537 battles
  • 776
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    02-10-2011





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users