Rewards Rework

[Lone]

Hello all,

 

It's time for the admin team to ask your much-valued opinion, as many of you may have noticed the current reward system is viewed as sub-par by many long-term players and this has spurred the admin team into a careful discussion of our current options.

 

What we are thinking about is a complete rework of the current reward system, and therefore I&A itself. Here's the down low on our current idea, subject to changes and open to criticism and suggestions:

 

1. Remove non-standard vehicles from all default spawns (including FOB's and any other old spawning methods)
2. Add a point-based system for the purchase of non-standard vehicles, points will be awarded for...
   1. Completing AO's, Main, Priority and Side (NOT individual kills)
   2. Transporting Troops
   3. Team-based actions, for example reviving or repairing
3. Add a point-based system for the purchase of other combat aides, artillery strikes for example.
4. Reward points are both individual and squad-based: so you can buy rewards as an individual, or donate your points to your squad so the squad leader can buy larger rewards.
5. Reward squad-based play without penalizing solo play, for example, players complete a mission:
   1. All players on the server get 10 individual points
   2. All players who participated in the mission get 100 individual points
   3. All squads who participated in the mission gets 50 communal points
      1. Squad leader gets +25 points
   4. (These values are wildly speculative and subject to change)
6. Reduce player point gain in non-standard vehicles to encourage their use as a support rather than a *Lets Complete the AO* (This also promotes a fairer distribution of assets amongst players). While players are mounted on certain vehicles, they accumulate points differently:

   1. 1st class : Armoured vehicles, vehicles with cannons : no points with active reward of that kind

   2. 2nd class : Medium vehicles, vehicles with guns : half points
   3. 3rd class : Transport vehicles : full points
7. Limit the number of extreme assets (i.e. the Slammer) to prevent overuse. E.G.

   1. MAX 1 Heavy Tank

   2. MAX 1 Gunship class helicopter

   3. MAX 3 APC Class Vehicles

   4. etc...

 

Here is a WIP list of proposed spawnable's, exact point costs yet to be discussed.

 

 

As said above, we at AW value your opinions and feedback. When it comes to the up and coming next iteration of I&A, this is the place to air your grievances, ideas and comments. 

 

Thank you in advance,

[TheScar]

6 hours ago, Eagle-Eye said:

Regarding side missions: will there be a difference in points gained from different side missions? E.g. the prototype tank can be completed with a single GBU, while the Intel mission requires quite a lot of sneaky work and delicate work.

 

All side missions should give equal points,the reward for a certain side mission tho "could" be adapted by edit

Also,"Prototype Tank" mission is customized to feature a extrem health pool for the tank to support the protoype thougt.

1 GBU is confirmed to NOT do the job (3 Titan´s to immobilize it,2 GBUs to destroy it > my experience) - but that may be scaled by server population what health pool that tank has (assumption).

INTEL on the other hand just requires a plan and some caucious approach.

Some of us here even can succeed this mission with firing max 2 shots.

 

 

3 hours ago, Stanhope said:

 

6 hours ago, Eagle-Eye said:

2.2: How would you be able to register this? Does it make a difference if you're driving a Hunter or a Huron?

It could be registered with eventhandlers. This is a piece of code that starts running if a certain thing happens ingame, for example someone getting in/out a vehicle, someone shooting his gun, ...  It's possible but it's not gonna be easy. 

 

Ever since i played on AHO´ I+A i always appreciated the "no server sided mods/client mods needed"

extended eventhandlers come to the price you need to run CBA and that means all pubs that want to enjoy the full feature need to run CBA in order to.

Therefor,if > then find a way to enable without CBA else a big part of the "easy access to EU1# and 2#" that AHOY holds up for so long will be out of question.

 

 

3 hours ago, Stanhope said:

 

5 hours ago, Jason. said:

I'm quite surprised you've all suggested removing the greyhawks as a default spawn and making them only available with enough points.

You seem to be missing a critical problem, VERY few people would be interested in playing the UAV op if they only have access to a darter and have to wat 30 mins - an hours to get their first greyhawk.

It makes about as much sense as forcing pilots to buy their first helicopter.

(...)

And if you plan on making them super cheap... inb4 UAV op has a swarm of 10+ greyhawks 

Alternatively the first greyhawk should be free (and maybe even the second) and the one after that costs a set amount of money.  

 

... for each new joining UAVop

[Stanhope]

40 minutes ago, TheScar said:

... for each new joining UAVop

Sloppy of me not to state that specifically.

 

43 minutes ago, TheScar said:

Ever since i played on AHO´ I+A i always appreciated the "no server sided mods/client mods needed"

extended eventhandlers come to the price you need to run CBA and that means all pubs that want to enjoy the full feature need to run CBA in order to.

Therefor,if > then find a way to enable without CBA else a big part of the "easy access to EU1# and 2#" that AHOY holds up for so long will be out  of question

The current base protection works with eventhandlers.  So do some other stuff.  CBA might extend them but they work in vanilla.

 

Send from my phone.

 

[TheScar]

2 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

Sloppy of me not to state that specifically.

 

hey,i was just adding in assumption you forgot over eating ice-cream,Mr.Script

 

 

3 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

The current base protection works with eventhandlers.  So do some other stuff.  CBA might extend them but they work in vanilla.

 

i happily believe everything you code-wizard-geeks come up with,still dont add CBA

[Nibbs]

Personally I'd avoid messing with UAV's tools. The Greyhawks are sitting ducks on the ground, when enemy CAS is about, and whilst not as prone to bugs as the darters, of late they can become painful to use in themselves. If the servers been up for a while you start to find GBUs ignoring the lasers they're locked onto, inability to even target the clearly visible lase, severe shaking lasers when lazing from the same greyhawk that's dropping the bombs, ignoring commands and flying off to 000000, Greyhawks 2000m high getting lit up with an unavoidable amount of AA from releasing a GBU, or (on Tanoa in particular) victims of the transport helis crowding around the runway airspace. It feels like they need the respawns to counter the bugs encountered.

Likewise you currently seem to have issues crediting UAV controllers with destruction points, Especially if the few they accrue go towards buying a falcon which is seriously buggy.

 

Spending any points on buying more Greyhawks is going to clutter up the end of the small runway rendering it unusable for anyone buying a Buzzard (currently landing takes the entire airstrip, with you circling around the barriers at the end of the strip)

I feel this would put up a barrier to new players learning the UAV role, which we only just removed by giving them a runway. UAV is a very busy and bug filled role that doesn't need additional hurdles in my opinion.

 

I don't feel the Greyhawks give the UAV any more of an edge than the titan compact launcher gives the AT specialist, or the MK6 gives the FSG gunner

 

 

***Edit***

Missed a bug: the exceptionally long load times when switching between UAVs when the servers been up a while, starts to get to the point where you can't drop a GBU from 2km, and switch to the darter in time to guide it onto a moving vehicle, or counter it's straying/wobbling laze.

[Nibbs]

Forgive me, this is going to read like a bitchin' list, I normally try to put in some suggestions of ways to cure issues, but trying to keep this post shorter...

 

To be honest I've been thinking more about this, and whilst in principle I like the idea, I can't help but feel this is going to screw over the more casual players, who can't devote hours in a single sitting, to be able to actually get some time in a fun vehicle. I'm assuming that server restarts will wipe all points accrued?

 

Also I'm concerned this system would be really open to abuse, things I'm expecting:

Squad invite spam.

Repair specialists constantly crashing vehicles so they can repair them.

Medics encouraging squad-mates to play with explosives so they can keep reviving.

People AFK in the FSG Gunner role, just firing the odd shot at the side / main AOs, in order to prevent being kicked off, and to passively gain points.

Pilots refusing to take off from base until every last seat in their chopper is filled, to maximise points, or getting a squad to constantly get in/out of their chopper if you can't measure distance travelled in the vehicle.

People rage quitting, when they've spent an hour farming the points for a vehicle, where upon the Artillery spawns and instantly wrecks it.

People not playing during off-peak hours when getting AOs completed is a long chore that can take hours. It's already bad enough when night rolls around in-game and there's no admin on for the next 6 hours to change it, you can literally watch the player counts go from 10 to 0 in minutes when night falls.

[GamerbugUK]

To be fair the whole thing seems to have quietened down, as it stands there are probably more important things to focus on.

[Ryko]

Nibbs these are great points. I think if we tweak the point values appropriately we will mitigate these issues; for example if you get -some- group points but not a huge amount it should reduce invite spam. Perhaps players don't get any points unless they visit an AO instead of passively getting some.

 

I have to believe that players want to play the game, not necessarily game the system, but if we did start to see situations where people weren't doing their job properly, but rather making poor decisions to gain more points, that would seem to be justification for a kick.

[Nibbs]

Just a thought to add into the mix, maybe just generically divide the points gain by the number of players on the server, and make a main AO worth 10 times as much as a side and award the completion points to everyone. Would mean when the servers full, and we should be cranking through main AOs the rate of vehicle gains per player should be similar to when the server's quiet and people switch to doing the side missions. It would mean we're trusting battle-eye / admins to kick inactive players though who are passively gaining.

Essentially by dividing the amount of points, we're assuming everyone online put in equal amounts of work towards getting the AOs done. Teamwork rewarded by the fact people playing as effective teams generally will get the AO completed faster than average. Crude, but less loopholes to have the admins watching out for. (You guys need to be able to play when you're online too, not just watch for people gaming the system.)

Also means no matter how you put in an hours worth of effort into the game, you get fairly rewarded

[Ryko]

Quote

Essentially by dividing the amount of points, we're assuming everyone online put in equal amounts of work towards getting the AOs done.

 

This will be the first thing people complain about, that they are getting awarded the same points for completing an AO while someone is just playing dressup at base.

[fir_nev]

5 hours ago, Nibbs said:

Essentially by dividing the amount of points, we're assuming everyone online put in equal amounts of work towards getting the AOs done.

 

Assumption is dangerous here. I have read pilots complaining that players are taking too long selecting their gears and weapons in chat.

 

57 minutes ago, Ryko said:

 

This will be the first thing people complain about, that they are getting awarded the same points for completing an AO while someone is just playing dressup at base.

 

^ What @Ryko said.

[Tolerance]

I know this topic been gone unnoticed for a while, but after reading most of the topic (not completely just yet).. 

something came to mind.

 

Together with a topic of, TheScar about "DIPS!!" on a sidemission reward, I am likeing the whole point system / claim reward idea.

Although, yes this might needed to be looked after for balancing a lot, if still in the works, I think 1 major part on behaive of the squad system is easy to fix

 

Perhaps, rework who is in what squad, for specific role's, like UAV op, currently within game often creates his own squad, to make it easy to identify who it is, would be my guess.

How ever, its intel from flying over AO's, are by doing this, becoming useless as intel on map is Squad Based.

I dont know if that is game default, or is to do with the "U" menu.

Also, some squads end up being 1 man armies, which for reasons of MultiPlayer and trying to Promote TEAMWORK! is... well, counter productive.

 

As I understood, the ingame Squad interface, the "U" Menu, can be disabled.

With little rework for the lobby side of things, what roles are with what squad etc etc, and disable the ingame squad menu...

People might be 'forced' a bit more, to work together, in squads as intended

 

No more single man armies, but also, no more squads that have no medic, or 1 squad having 20 medics (yes, less then that, but you get my point I hope)

 

If the rewards system and points crediting can be done, and tweaked to a point it feels fair to all parties, I think teamplay can benefit a lot from it.

 

Also, maybe rework the default gear setup, to have a ARCO scope, instead of crappy cant see anything, and have personal points be for the arsenal/load out, while larger assets are always Squad based?

So squad leaders need to be carefull on what, and who can use it, to spend the points on

 

I hope this project/idea is a thing being considered/worked on, as personally, I like it.

it needs to be considered carefully, to not exclude random connecting players feel like useless, or overpower the regulars, but I think it can be done with a little rework on default setup.

And make the points accumilate/required for 'purchase' of gear/resources, be around 30 min gameplay for gear, 60 min for small armed vehicel, 90/120 min for larger equiment..

 

[fir_nev]

11 minutes ago, Tolerance said:

People might be 'forced' a bit more, to work together, in squads as intended

 

But who will lead them? The current setup, anybody who chooses Squad Leader will assume the role once he joins a squad. If the SL is ineffective, it might drive randoms away.

 

11 minutes ago, Tolerance said:

No more single man armies, but also, no more squads that have no medic

 

I am guilty of that but with my current role of AT Support, I work better alone cutting the enemy down for friendly forces to advance.

 

12 minutes ago, Tolerance said:

I hope this project/idea is a thing being considered/worked on, as personally, I like it.

it needs to be considered carefully, to not exclude random connecting players feel like useless, or overpower the regulars, but I think it can be done with a little rework on default setup.

And make the points accumilate/required for 'purchase' of gear/resources, be around 30 min gameplay for gear, 60 min for small armed vehicel, 90/120 min for larger equiment..

 

I like Ur idea. I really do. The stumbling block right now is EU 1, 2 and 4 are for public and forcing these on them might drive them away. The regulars can adapt to such virtual economy but I am pretty sure the feedback in forums would be unfavourable. We also need to think about those who are playing within a limited amount of time. Can they loot gears/weapons from enemy forces and downed friendlies?

 

Randoms or new players (joining AW servers for the first time) would be questioning why their gear selection is limited without any explanation when joining the server; Unless we rename our servers to 'Escape from Altis/Tanoa' where the players start with nothing.

[Chutnut]

26 minutes ago, Tolerance said:

Also, maybe rework the default gear setup, to have a ARCO scope, instead of crappy cant see anything, and have personal points be for the arsenal/load out, while larger assets are always Squad based?

 

Not really buying you here, I might want to play AT but how am I gonna afford a titan AT after the server just restarted, I can't play my role until I sufficiant credits.

[GamerbugUK]

3 hours ago, Tolerance said:

Also, some squads end up being 1 man armies, which for reasons of MultiPlayer and trying to Promote TEAMWORK! is... well, counter productive.

 

As I understood, the ingame Squad interface, the "U" Menu, can be disabled.

With little rework for the lobby side of things, what roles are with what squad etc etc, and disable the ingame squad menu...

People might be 'forced' a bit more, to work together, in squads as intended

 

No more single man armies, but also, no more squads that have no medic, or 1 squad having 20 medics (yes, less then that, but you get my point I hope)

 

But some of the one man armies on the server are more productive than the squads.

 

Anytime I have joined a squad it takes about 20 mins of bullsh*t coming up with our plan of attack to get us even out of the base; I get bored and go kill stuff. Alternately its a disorganised rabble, and I get bored as they die around me and I go off and kill stuff. Also a lot of folks dont have or use mics, which makes chain of command very long winded.

 

Also not everyone has time to squad up, they might only be on for an hour.

 

On public servers forcing squad cohesion is ultimately impossible; it goes against the ethos of the open server.

[TheScar]

[fir_nev]

I think we should stop discussing about reward points system because it is never-ending. What we should do is to start discussing what assets to remove/add when new assets get released by the DLCs starting next month.

 

1. Will FOB Guardian / FOB Martian (and AOs) be given the new F/A-181 Black Wasp II, To-201 Shikra or A-149 Gryphon to replace current friendly Buzzard (AA) (and antagonist Neophrone (CAS))?
2. Will UAV Operator be given the chance to use UCAV Sentinel? Maybe sacrificing one Greyhawk slot? (Remember: they already missed out on MQ-12 Falcon Drone and KH-3A Fenghuang Drone on servers currently)
3. Admin team must discuss about 'Malden', if this is made available for coop map, to be introduced into EU4

Like @TheScar said, there are bigger issues to make the missions more enjoyable and immersive for players (veterans and rookies). What is more important is that I&A3xx must be able to attract more players and stay ahead of other servers (just saying).

 

It is 2300hrs here and I am 30mins past my bedtime.

[Jason.]

7 hours ago, fir_nev said:

1. Will FOB Guardian / FOB Martian (and AOs) be given the new F/A-181 Black Wasp II, To-201 Shikra or A-149 Gryphon to replace current friendly Buzzard (AA) (and antagonist Neophrone (CAS))?
2. Will UAV Operator be given the chance to use UCAV Sentinel? Maybe sacrificing one Greyhawk slot? (Remember: they already missed out on MQ-12 Falcon Drone and KH-3A Fenghuang Drone on servers currently)

 

But with the reward points system wouldn't it be totally up to the players which asset they use? So we wouldn't rely so much on default spawns anyway, maybe there will still be greyhawks. 

But I doubt we would still have a respawning jet, and if we did it I think the buzzard would be best since it is (probably) the worst jet, so players will have to spend points to get a better jet.

Same points apply to the UAV assets.

Anyways, I'm hoping with this new system we'll get access to all the new assets from the DLC, even if they're even a slightly nerfed form.

[fir_nev]

On 4/14/2017 at 6:22 AM, Jason. said:

 

But with the reward points system wouldn't it be totally up to the players which asset they use? So we wouldn't rely so much on default spawns anyway, maybe there will still be greyhawks. 

But I doubt we would still have a respawning jet, and if we did it I think the buzzard would be best since it is (probably) the worst jet, so players will have to spend points to get a better jet.

Same points apply to the UAV assets.

Anyways, I'm hoping with this new system we'll get access to all the new assets from the DLC, even if they're even a slightly nerfed form.

 

That is true. I am also afraid if rookies accidentally spend their points on assets from a DLC that they do not own. We need to have a pop-up screen to forewarn them before spending and no refund is given.

 

Since people will have differing opinions on the in-game cost of the assets. I present to U guys my initial thoughts.

 

Wheeled (Light) NATO

Quadbike - Avg real life price (US$9927) - In-game cost (95)

Hunter - (US$220,000) - Unarmed (200) | HMG (220) | GMG (240)

Prowler - (??) - Unarmed (180?) | HMG (200?)

HEMTT - (US$450,000) - Troop, Medical, Fuel & Repair (250?) | Ammo (270?)

 

Infantry Fighting Vehicle (NATO)

Marshall - (US$3,166,000) - (350)

 

Drone (NATO)

Darter - (??) - (20)

Stomper - (??) - (180)

Greyhawk - (??) - (280)

 

Aquatic

Assault boat - (??) - (105)

RHIB - (??) - (120)

SDV - (??) - (100)

Speedboat - (??) - (150)

 

Armour (NATO)

Slammer - (US$8,920,000) - (500)

 

Edit: Tried to come up with a formula but screw it

Edited April 16, 2017 by fir_nev
Content

[Jason.]

8 hours ago, fir_nev said:

That is true. I am also afraid if rookies accidentally spend their points on assets from a DLC that they do not own. We need to have a pop-up screen to forewarn them before spending and no refund is given.

 

Since people will have differing opinions on the in-game cost of the assets. I present to U guys my initial thoughts.

 

I think it should be quite simple to add a little "(Jets DLC)" tag to the relevant jets etc, and if someone who doesn't have the DLC still buys it, well, I think that's their problem, and my jet  

 

For your pricing: HMG >> GMG

 

Since you've done the pricing it's given me an idea.

 

Shouldn't basic vehicles be either super cheap, or just respawn at base (like they do now)? 

By basic I mean quadbikes, unarmed hunters, boats, (and ghosthawks?) etc. 

I think this is especially important for boats since they're hardly used anyway, so making people pay for them hardly seems necessary.

[fir_nev]

2 hours ago, Jason. said:

I think it should be quite simple to add a little "(Jets DLC)" tag to the relevant jets etc, and if someone who doesn't have the DLC still buys it, well, I think that's their problem, and my jet

So, chances of our purchased vehicles stolen is a possibility? Buying of assets not having such DLC, we will never know the stupidity level of some players.

 

2 hours ago, Jason. said:

For your pricing: HMG >> GMG

It was 2300hrs. I ain't changing that. Not even after two edits the morning after.

 

2 hours ago, Jason. said:

Shouldn't basic vehicles be either super cheap, or just respawn at base (like they do now)? 

By basic I mean quadbikes, unarmed hunters, boats, (and ghosthawks?) etc. 

I think this is especially important for boats since they're hardly used anyway, so making people pay for them hardly seems necessary.

@Lone showed a screenshot of the Excel spreadsheet. I just follow accordingly. BUT, think about it, I might need prowlers at FOBs Martian or Guardian if AO is to the north. If you guys cannot guarantee that no GTA will happen to my purchased vehicles, I might have to ditch the idea and drive northwards from base.

[Jim]

On 14/04/2017 at 0:57 AM, fir_nev said:

HEMTT - (US$450,000) - Troop, Medical, Fuel & Repair (250?) | Ammo (270?)

 

 

There's a second hand fuel HEMTT for sale in Hawaii for $1500

 

http://www.govplanet.com/Trucks+-+HEMTT?sm=1

[fir_nev]

1 hour ago, Jim said:

 

There's a second hand fuel HEMTT for sale in Hawaii for $1500

 

http://www.govplanet.com/Trucks+-+HEMTT?sm=1

 

I took from here:

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/FHTV.html

 

Thinking of decreasing the cost for Troops and Medical variants further.

[Ryko]

I've been working on some code for a rewards system, and the following aspects are in place:

 

1) there's a "reward zone" where reward vehicles spawn after they're purchased. It looks onto a runway so you can easily taxi out and fly off, or drive out, etc.

2) reward vehicles are locked to your group, so players in other groups cannot enter them. I may further restrict this to the group leader, or person who actually purchased the vehicle, with the option that the purchaser can unlock the vehicle to other group members or to all other players.

3) air vehicles are still locked to pilot slots, and you won't be able to buy a vehicle you're not entitled to pilot.

4) you have five minutes to collect your reward vehicle, after which it will be despawned.

5) you can't buy a reward vehicle if a vehicle is already in the reward zone; the reward zone is periodically "cleared" of vehicles that are parked there, to prevent griefing.

 

Currently I'm not sure if there's a way to detect whether a player is entitled to pilot a DLC vehicle or not, but the easy interim solution will be to simply mark vehicles that are DLC-required as such in the buy menu.

 

Reward "pricing" is currently in flux. Essentially I'd want a group of players to be able to buy light vehicles after a small number of successful missions, and larger vehicles after a couple more.  I wouldn't want the grind to be so slow that it takes dozens of missions to be able to afford a hunter, nor would I want it to be so fast that they can afford a Slammer after two missions.  I do want to encourage players to work as a group so players can "donate" their reward points to their group, so the group leader can buy larger reward vehicles.

 

- R

[fir_nev]

47 minutes ago, Ryko said:

1) there's a "reward zone" where reward vehicles spawn after they're purchased. It looks onto a runway so you can easily taxi out and fly off, or drive out, etc.

An extra spot for players to 'teleport' or choose on their spawn screen so that it will not cluster with the current base setup.

 

47 minutes ago, Ryko said:

2) reward vehicles are locked to your group, so players in other groups cannot enter them. I may further restrict this to the group leader, or person who actually purchased the vehicle, with the option that the purchaser can unlock the vehicle to other group members or to all other players.

That is a relief that potential GTA will not be possible. I can still imagine people crowding in the reward zone to try board the vehicle.

 

48 minutes ago, Ryko said:

3) air vehicles are still locked to pilot slots, and you won't be able to buy a vehicle you're not entitled to pilot.

Fair enough.

 

48 minutes ago, Ryko said:

4) you have five minutes to collect your reward vehicle, after which it will be despawned.

Suggest U put a DISCLAIMER that players must agree to. 'Click to agree' button to be added so that their arguments here will be invalid.

 

48 minutes ago, Ryko said:

5) you can't buy a reward vehicle if a vehicle is already in the reward zone; the reward zone is periodically "cleared" of vehicles that are parked there, to prevent griefing.

Fair enough. I was thinking of the unlimited spawning by trolls before I go to sleep everytime.

 

48 minutes ago, Ryko said:

Currently I'm not sure if there's a way to detect whether a player is entitled to pilot a DLC vehicle or not, but the easy interim solution will be to simply mark vehicles that are DLC-required as such in the buy menu.

That method should work and I also suggest putting it as part of DISCLAIMER before their purchase. Eliminates any potential loading time (and need) to screen through a player's DLC list.

 

I salute U for putting Ur time and effort into this, @Ryko.

[radek]

2cents

a certain low level plain hunter spawn would be nice to keep, instead of total dependence on airlifts, especially early game.

maybe a limit on group size, to stop invite parties (or a cap on total group reward)

vic-lock could have some timeout (in minutes), also regarding despawn of not claimed purchases

what is the current status of the point gaining system (any changes from the OP)?