You are incentivized to lose

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[AmPM]

I play whichever games have slots, pretty much with any teammate I can stand listening to on vent.

Unlike you Scyn, I don't only play with the same 2-3 people on my team vs some nubs.

[Latios418]

I can foresee this topic taking a turn for the worse really fast.

[Scyn]

Naw.. you yell at everyone to do your bidding, but they carry you through the game anyhow.

[Latios418]

My foresight is 20/20.

[AmPM]

Only when they can't fulfill their end of the bargain, you know, to show more resistance than a wet paper towel.

But anyway Scyn, when are you going to play a game with someone not in your little group? Maybe you could pair up with some of the newer players.

I do love the level of competence displayed in making a system that makes it so that no matter how well you do, the player doing worse will get more than you do. Its fantastic.

Forget vet companies, make grief companies. You don't need to win, you just need to kill more vet and PP worth of units than you lose.

[Scyn]

Meh. You're so not worth the effort.

[AmPM]

Don't blame me that the system actually rewards losing more than winning in the short and long term.

[Latios418]

I'm glad gamesguy and I aren't the only people who realize there's something seriously fucked up with this system.

[Akranadas]

We are constantly reviewing our systems, and they are always subject to change.

Closing this because its not helpful

[salan]

I am sorry but i need to make a post on this, after the lock ftw.

Gamesguy has a very valid point in his initial posts, its arguing that happens after that is not useful or helpful.

He is logically correct that winning your matches means you are hindered when the majority of the population of the current war are not the same rank as you.

What this system actually does is forces the higher level people (those who out play everyone else in number of games and/or win %) to find people their level to play against, or suffer the consequences of diminishing returns.

of course this example

No.

Player A has played 30 games, won most of them (80% we'll say to make his rank accurate), and is Rank 5. He has little vet and less PPs then Player B, because of lack of other rank 4+s on he has had to play low-ranked players. We'll say he has two vet 3 units, two vet two units, and three vet one units because imo that's fairly realistic for a normal player. We'll also say he has 230 pp, as that's fairly realistic for this relatively lower rank.

Player B has played 30 games, lost all of them (even when he would win a game, he would forfeit it near the end to keep rank 1), and is thusly rank 1. Most of his units are well-vetted, and he has 300 pp. Player B uses his extreme vet company to win many games in a row if he wants next tier doctrine abilities.

The difference isn't major with only 30 games, but as you higher and higher they become further and further apart in both vet and PP.

is not true, a 30 game person even losing would be inherently rank 3, 10 xp per game IF THEY ARE PLAYING THEIR OWN LEVEL, if they were playing against higher ranked players then they would probably actually gain level 4 out of those 30 games as their first 2 ranks would likely have bonus xp and pp.


I do agree there needs to be SOME incentive to winning, we originally were going to put in a 2vet xp bonus for all winning units as a means to drive players to risk for the win.  2xp is not much, but it would help over multiple games where units normally wouldn't gain much xp.