Winning/Victory in PS2 with statistics

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Kilmoran

Remember that ther are different levels of mission in the game from different levels of officer. This sounds like it may already be covered without a hard coded system to mitigate it.

Agreed.

What I'm suggesting is aimed at getting the empire to agree on its main overall goal after something awesome has been achieved. The new mission system *should* lend itself well to this. And remember, we won't have the CR5's able to say "let's all head to Cyssor now to complete the continent lock", which was one thing that used to unify the empire's purpose. So an option to focus the empire on one clear, over-arching goal on a continent for a period time, and allow the ranks to pick up sub-objectives to help achieve that goal would seem to fit well into the new non-lattice world.

We had a good little discussion round this type of idea here:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=39580

[Bazilx]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Not sure if you're joking or not? Support classes "support" the effort. The fight towards ultimate victory.

How do you not understand what he meant? The OP wrote that awards would be given for k/d ratios etc, he was asking how the support players get rewarded, they are often forgotten when in a game like this they are more crucial than ever.

Obviously both groups will get the victory, but the people who kill-whore and run around shooting will apparently get awards the supportive players do not.

He was making the point that in a game like this it's very hard to quantify how much you've helped the war effort since it's deeper and more tactical than just CoD "Kill them more than they kill us".

[Knocky]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Not sure if you're joking or not? Support classes "support" the effort. The fight towards ultimate victory.

Of course I am serious.

I am tired of the only measuring stick in these games being how many people you can kill.

God forbid your K/D be anything less then 2 for 1 because they you are considered a useless noob.

The last thing SOE did for Planetside was to stick in a SEP and an assist counter to let the support people know that they are the last people that anyone thinks about.

[Bazilx]

Double bitch slap!

*High fives Knocky*

[Knocky]

Originally Posted by Bazilx

Double bitch slap!

*High fives Knocky*

lol


I do however I high hopes now that the Support folks are being clearly outlined....if you count Infiltrators then Support makes up half the classes.

[Kilmoran]

Originally Posted by Knocky

Of course I am serious.

I am tired of the only measuring stick in these games being how many people you can kill.

God forbid your K/D be anything less then 2 for 1 because they you are considered a useless noob.

The last thing SOE did for Planetside was to stick in a SEP and an assist counter to let the support people know that they are the last people that anyone thinks about.

Definitely with you here. The problem stims from how to quantify support however. Mostly, this has to do with the systems of the game.

Take cloakers for instance. How do you quantify anything they do? You could have some sort of enemy SOI counter that counts how long you are in enemy territory... but that is easily abusable. You could have some sort of proximity point equivilant based on being near enemies, harder to fake, and generally means you are doing dangerous stuff. Sabotage and stealth kills get harder depending on how the system handles things. If back attacks/ambushes/knife kills work different than straight fire fights, that can be counted, and if sabotage is sort of like the virus stuff or like gen draining and that is actually a sub system, then it can also work.

Medics are somewhat easier. You can easily have a "how much HP has been healed" or "how many revives" counter. What is harder to equivilate is soemthing beyond a triage where you have masses to heal versus a real combat medic who is always moving with a squad.

Engineers... pretty much liek Medics really except for repairs and maybe enhancements. They probably should also get points for people using their turrets and such if such things exist.

Support roles, and how they will "win" statistically is all based on how they structure their systems to begin with. The reason why SEP was pretty much all we got later (in a limited fashion) is because... the system wasn't really designed with support in mind. Supprot was to recieve "partial credit" for being part of a squad or platoon that did all the "real work" unfortuantely.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Knocky

lol


I do however I high hopes now that the Support folks are being clearly outlined....if you count Infiltrators then Support makes up half the classes.

Before you two rub each other to completion, he didn't quote anyone so I thought his comment was related to the posts above it. So, yes, support classes would be supporting the effort towards a win condition. Seemed pretty clear.

[Arius]

Maybe SOE could look into a way of tracking how much time a player has put into fighting on a continent. If his empire "wins", players that have meant enough for the war get special bonusses like skins.

Looks have always been important for an MMO. If these skins are badass, people will fight for them.

[ThGlump]

Why are all obsessed by some game ending, and final leaderboard so they have to find something to rate everyones effort?
Made your own goal/victory condition. If you arent capable to do that, let your squad/outfit/empire leader do it for you. Why it has to be something hardcoded ingame? If there is something like that then usually all other aspects of the game are ignored just for the goal.
If there will be any goal that would reset game, i will be very pissed.

[Kilmoran]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Before you two rub each other to completion, he didn't quote anyone so I thought his comment was related to the posts above it. So, yes, support classes would be supporting the effort towards a win condition. Seemed pretty clear.

I think what they are gettign at is... the "With Statistics" part of the thread title, not the "Win/Victory" aspect so much. How would a Medic be part of the statistical side of the "Win/Victory" in PS2, ect.

[oosik]

Kilmoran,

for support classes, part of the satisfaction would be as a member of an outfit that was a winner. Given separate divisions for outfits, smaller outfits or specialized outfits could be deemed "winners" as well as the larger ones. I don't know if the stat system in game could or will support things like "most heals" for medics, or "most repairs" for engineers. If it did, that would be something to add to the overall winners.

I am a support type (combat engie) myself. But I still would get a kick and satisfaction out of seeing my Empire or outfit "win" a week or month. And station cash or other incentives (so, for example, a campaign badge or ribbon or whatever) would be nice.

Originally Posted by Kilmoran

Definitely with you here. The problem stims from how to quantify support however. Mostly, this has to do with the systems of the game.< snip>

[Kilmoran]

Originally Posted by oosik

Kilmoran,

for support classes, part of the satisfaction would be as a member of an outfit that was a winner. Given separate divisions for outfits, smaller outfits or specialized outfits could be deemed "winners" as well as the larger ones. I don't know if the stat system in game could or will support things like "most heals" for medics, or "most repairs" for engineers. If it did, that would be something to add to the overall winners.

I am a support type (combat engie) myself. But I still would get a kick and satisfaction out of seeing my Empire or outfit "win" a week or month. And station cash or other incentives (so, for example, a campaign badge or ribbon or whatever) would be nice.

I've always been a full support cloaker for the most part. Most of my kills were done with a knife or the suppressor. Assisting my Outfit was what i did and took pride in. I don't care if there is a "win/victory/awesomeness meter" for anyone. However, I didn't see the harm and speculating how it could possibly be achieved. At the very least it was food for thought for a fledgling game designer.

[Malorn]

I'd prefer people played for results, not stats.

[oosik]

Malorn,

I'd prefer people played for results too. But the reality of the situation is that stats can help provide the population that will provide us our game as well for a longer period of time.

As a math teacher I always wanted students to be taking my math classes because they were interested in the subject. But the reality was that the vast majority were there to get their ticket punched and any learning they did was actually incidental to that.

But also being a math-oriented person and in addition to my desire to have people play for results, I like fiddling with the stats and checking them out.

Originally Posted by Malorn

I'd prefer people played for results, not stats.

[Malorn]

The reality of people is that they are motivated by the things which the game and social influence tell them is important.

Statistics are just numbers of stuff that happened. By itself it is not particularly interesting. When statistics become interesting is when it is used to motivate by elevating certain statistics over others. It isn't the stats that are relevant; it's which stats the game elevates to the status of "important" that matters.

But not all stats are equal. Each stat promoted will affect gameplay because that's what the game is telling them is important. If the game promoted nothing but healing and reviews - no kills, nothing else, you'd see some pretty strange behavior no doubt of people working to improve those healing numbers. Likewise, when the game promotes a lot of killwhore stats - that is exactly what you're going to get.

If you want a game focused on results-based play, then there are some stats that reflect results-based play. To name a few...

• Facility captures
• Territory captures
• Facility Resecures/Defenses
• Territory Resecures/Defenses
• Resources gained
• Critical resources gained (stuff your empire direly needed)
• Resources denied (stuff the enemy direly needed)

These are all statistical measurements of various aspects of results-based play. If you want efficiency, then divide that by time-played. Players with high numbers of these stats are, without a doubt, contributing significantly to the advancement of their empire and leaving their mark on the persistent world.

If these things are featured prominently in the game then these will be what the players in general will strive to improve and the large measuring stick by which people compare themselves.

If you want a more personal measurement of productivity or how much you as an individual are contributing, there is but one calibrated answer:

Score / Min

Score/Min is also a results-based stat. Score/Min does not care how you got the score, whether it was by a kill streak of head shots or healing/reviving/repairing teammates, or a base capture. Score/Min does not care how many times you died (though you weren't likely earning points while dead). Score/Min is the great equalizing stat of Planetside 2. Score/Min promotes all walks of life in the game, not certain walks.

By promoting things like kill streaks, K:D, and other garbage stats all you are doing is discouraging teamwork and results-based play. Those stats work fine in a game without a persistent world or games revolving around deathmatch. Those aren't PlanetSide, though I understand the developers' desire to cater to the "modern FPS", but I do hope they grow a pair on this subject and do what's right for the game instead of carbon copying Modern Warfare and promoting all the terrible playhabits prominent in that game.

Promote results-based stats and you will see more results-based play.