Merit changes NOT based on average times
By
Alvan,
Posted on: 2009-05-23 19:48 in Suggestions and Ideas
Isn't ITF also available to villains?
[b][color=blue]Coldest War /[color=red]/ Omega Patient[/b]
[url="http://www.the-cow.net/"][color=red]The CoW Network (Blog) /[/url][url="http://www.collegeofwar.com/"][color=blue]/ College of War[/url]
Well there is something in your suggestion that makes me wonder why your suggestion shouldn't fall on deaf ears.
One thing that maybe said, is that it's possibly more feasible to think that more people play heroes and so it's likely that more new people play heroes.
But despite all that, what we don't know from your under an hour account is what sets are in team and past experience of the players which does make a difference. That kind of thing does matter.
Also I am not suggesting that by omitting the team make up or tactics that you're partially making anything out of yourself, like you are elite or something but I do know many Defiant players tend to "well kit" a team for "fast runs" and then make out its more about skill when it's not. A lot of other people on other servers tend to be a bit more about the social side and have toons that are less about performance and more about concept or even more of a challenge. This does not make them bad heroes at all and just by possibly accidentally suggesting something as such can be seen as kind of snobbish.
People have said it time and time again that it is easier on heroes but then I wouldn't like to see them with less merits for an average team.
I think there may simply be an issue with merit awards on villains and so I agree however, because iirc it is as so many have said about it, that the merit awards on villains could be raised. It could be of greater interest for more to play it as old discarded goals are more easily obtained.
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
[ QUOTE ]
Well there is something in your suggestion that makes me wonder why your suggestion shouldn't fall on deaf ears.
One thing that maybe said, is that it's possibly more feasible to think that more people play heroes and so it's likely that more new people play heroes.
But despite all that, what we don't know from your under an hour account is what sets are in team and past experience of the players which does make a difference. That kind of thing does matter.
Also I am not suggesting that by omitting the team make up or tactics that you're partially making anything out of yourself, like you are elite or something but I do know many Defiant players tend to "well kit" a team for "fast runs" and then make out its more about skill when it's not. A lot of other people on other servers tend to be a bit more about the social side and have toons that are less about performance and more about concept or even more of a challenge. This does not make them bad heroes at all and just by possibly accidentally suggesting something as such can be seen as kind of snobbish.
People have said it time and time again that it is easier on heroes but then I wouldn't like to see them with less merits for an average team.
I think there may simply be an issue with merit awards on villains and so I agree however, because iirc it is as so many have said about it, that the merit awards on villains could be raised. It could be of greater interest for more to play it as old discarded goals are more easily obtained.
[/ QUOTE ]
I tell you the team we had that Sing is talking about.
3 level 50s (a brute and 2 corrs)
3 sk'd up lvl 30 odds (1 brute, 1 corr and 1 dom) and me on a 49 electric corr. ([censored] char, i would delete it if it wasnt so close to 50)
We stood about talking and feeding babies for half hour and then finnished it in 1 hour 30 odd.
The tactics used were all pile on the AV 4 times then kill the required number after. The rest of the missions were not turned into kill alls, but were completed in the usual way.
Nothing at all elite about that team, and i do agree with Sing, i think Villains should have the merits upped a bit.
Given that teams of villains are generally quicker than heroes and with overall individual sustainability (the greater likelihood of recieving res shields and def shields on villains make it more likely) I can see how that is at times but what a single team of villains do in comparison to another can also be very different.
Whether or not some teams like to take everything out would push the TF nearer 2 hours 30 mins. The idea is possibly not reward speed but instead reward the average player for playing the TF.
You either want more rewards for a lesser time or are here to say villains can do it quicker and so the merit award should be lower because its time related. I am not certain but I should imagine the merit award to be the same for heroes and villains when it comes to the ITF.
I am in no doubts though that villains need love on other SFs.
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
My point still is, that an average "veteran" would make a LOT more merits playing hero side ANY build, ANY team than you can possibly do villain side.
Yes, the ITF IS hero and villain and compared to some other TFs it's not that well rewarded, same goes for LGTF. That's the point. Testing a coop TF shows that you get more merits/hour in coop or hero TFs with a fairly basic/crappy team than you could ever do villain-side SF with an "elite" team.
The reason is simple, villain teams are more goal oriented and the players are usually more experienced and know what to do, how and when. That means villains of same skill get less than heroes. It's unbalanced because they do that "data mining" without taking that into account. So a new method of deciding merit rewards is needed.
edit: and it doesn't help that heroes have more to choose from with more people to play with, but that I can take. (but would LOVE to see more villain content)
Do a few villain task forces really slowy. Since there are so few villains anyway it won't take many slow runs to make a difference to the datamined statistics.
I really should do something about this signature.
I think the other problem with the merits, as they stand, is that it can take just as long to organise a short, low-reward TF or SF as a longer one. Nothing really seems to take that into account.
Sure, some people/SGs can throw together pretty much any team with little notice, but a lot of people need to spend time recruiting, making sure people are the right levels, good mix of ATs, etc. - and you need to do that regardless of the length of the TF. In fact, some of the shorter ones are those you need to be more careful about your mix of members on.
Also, I've found past a certain point, it doesn't matter how long it's likely to take - if you run an hour-long one, people will still often head off after, and you just get the one TF done, with less merits, if you've done one of the shorter ones.
I think villain-side ends up suffering more from these issues as it only has the more recent, shorter SFs/TFs available. On one hand, that's really good, because the old hero ones are pretty dire in a lot of ways... but on the other hand, it is really slow going picking up a lot of merits.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the ITF IS hero and villain and compared to some other TFs it's not that well rewarded, same goes for LGTF
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. 39 merits for an LGTF is plenty considering it can be done in around 2 hours with a good team. STF takes much longer with a good team and rewards 1 less merit. Sure it can be done in less then an hour by some but that's with a very very well picked team of ATs with as many temps as possible. ITF rewards 28 merits and can be done in around an hour with a good team. Seem like a fair reward to me. If you take the Katie TF and Eden trail into account they reward 15 merits all together because they can be done very quick. Treespec trials reward less merits then the Hero respec trails because they can be done a lot quicker.
I agree that they shouldn't be based on player average times but its just not going to happen.
I also agree that Villain SFs should reward a little more merits, such as Ice Mistral and Operative Renault SFs. But 12 merits for the Virgil Tarikoss SF seems fair. I've done that in just over 30 minutes.
/un-signed
i do not agree with the OP.
Vet players has and will always get faster/better rewards than non-vets.
Your suggestions does not change anything at all.
I'd rather have rewards based on how good the players are than how good the devs + friends are.
on another note:
starting your suggestion post with...
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'm slightly annoyed now, no... I'm really annoyed!
[/ QUOTE ]
kinda makes the rest seem "bla blabla blabla blaBLAAAA!!!"
not a good way to make suggestions if you want the devs to read this 
JB out!
[ QUOTE ]
/un-signed
i do not agree with the OP.
Vet players has and will always get faster/better rewards than non-vets.
Your suggestions does not change anything at all.
I'd rather have rewards based on how good the players are than how good the devs + friends are.
on another note:
starting your suggestion post with...
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'm slightly annoyed now, no... I'm really annoyed!
[/ QUOTE ]
kinda makes the rest seem "bla blabla blabla blaBLAAAA!!!"
not a good way to make suggestions if you want the devs to read this
JB out!
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, you completely misunderstood it all! Impressive! 
The point is there's an imbalance in merit rewards hero side vs villain side and THAT has little to do with veterans/non-veterans. The reason there's an imbalance DOES have to do with veterans, sort of, since villains in general are faster at doing "hard" stuff.
So same team villain side and hero side: Heroes would make LOADS more merits doing pretty much the same things, that is heroes make more merits/hour than villains.
Again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with veterans, but the CAUSE of the imbalance has. id that clear things up for ya?
your sarcasm was rather uncalled for and completely out of place.
but i'll put that down to you being [censored] at me for pointing out your rather bad way of suggesting things.
nevertheles...
having a select group of people deciding the amount of merits rewarded for TFs, SFs, and trials does not ballance the rewards any better at all! it could actually make it wors if the players prove far better at these than this "council of the merits" you suggest.
the way things are now we get rewards based on what and how the players like to play. Villains like to do things fast (and has some rather short SFs) and Heroes have more fun 
[ QUOTE ]
Again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with veterans, but the CAUSE of the imbalance has. id that clear things up for ya?
[/ QUOTE ]
now there's a contradiction!
if Vets has nothing to do with this then how can they be the CAUSE of it?
to me the word Vet. = a player who has been around long enough to know exactly what he's dealing with, what tools he has, and thus knows exactly how to win the fight.
i dont se my self as a Vet in any way as i always find people who do things faster and better than me. i take things as they come and has a lot of fun with it. even a disasterous defeat can be fun if it's with the right people.
I do agree that something should be done for the villains but i dont think this is the answer.
JB out!
EDIT!: [thick sarcasm] P.S. did that clear things up for ya? [/thick sarcasm]
I wasn't being sarcastic, I was making it as clear as possible for you since you CHOOSE to misunderstand it. I guess you just want a fight?
And saying stuff like:
[ QUOTE ]
the way things are now we get rewards based on what and how the players like to play. Villains like to do things fast (and has some rather short SFs) and Heroes have more fun
[/ QUOTE ]
Well... I'm not even gonna respond to that.
Fact remains, whatever you say:
A hero can rack up a (whoooopin censored) whole lot more merits/hour than villains POSSIBLY can. If you think that's balanced, then I guess you're also allright with me asking for the rikti com officers to be reinstated in the MA and give brutes a pvp I-win button.
The balance is off, that's the devs doing...
The devs did it because they datamined without thinking, just crunshing the numbers...
THAT actually has NOTHING to do with the veterans, does it?
...but since people brought up "veterans" I pointed out, that Ok, they might be the cause of those numbers, that the devs are using.
No matter what, easy fast task forces gives more merits than hard villain SFs, meaning villains get less merits, meaning villains are at a disadvantage, meaning villains, with less time in-game is even more unbalanced in pvp - as an example. Some people, not me, would call that an exploit!
According to you, the best things villains can now do, is to start SFs.. stand in there for a day, then finish it and wait for the next datamining? Because yeah, that way is fun! (NOW I was being sarcastic btw) 
Mindlessly using data like the devs do even if they go back every now and then to check the numbers again... Well, the data is a tool, a good tool, but still just a tool.
Edit: as an example the devs could also look at the best 10% times and the worst 10% times to get a more balanced view. Running RSFs fast doesn't mean it's actually fast since people usually have to go'n'get shivans and set up proper teams, etc. There's just simply more than numbers to take into account.
There are several factors that "ruined" the datamining in favour of heroes:
- Many TFs being longer than SFs means that teams have the chance to really rack up some time until completion with players getting tired and more breaks for all kinds of purposes with the timer running, so that TFs give a few more merits per actual content.
- With blue-side being closer to "traditional" MMORPG playstyle with tank-healer-damage as an option it lends itself better to a "slow and safe" method while red-side "peace through superiour firepower" is as safe as any other method most times. This leads to the average villain team going at a faster pace than the average hero team, thus further leading to a better merit per content ratio for heroes.
- I do not know demographic statistics, but I am quite sure that blue-side the average age is significantly lower than red-side. (Either that or it is just a matter of maturity, but the effects are basically the same.) I do not want to offend anybody with uncalled-for generalisations, but I think that many of us have already been in a situation where even one single immature player slowed down the team`s progress and if my assumption is correct the chance of this happening is higher for heroes.
These factors slow down average hero-teams in comparison and make it easier to be "ahead of schedule" in a good team. This can lead to some strange effects for those good teams, such as TFs netting more merits per time invested than SFs. Yet I know about one oddity which is the Respec Trial where it is just the other way around because of the fixed time it takes for all waves to spawn in the reactor room which is *cough* a little bit behind killspeed while the villain Respec Trial can be done quick and dirty for a nice merit per time ratio.
I can only support your idea that something has to be improved about the evaluation of mined data. (Only I am afraid that this would lead to lower merit rewards for heroes rather than higher ones for villains. ) Average values alone can be deceiving as the example of the hunter illustrates who tries to shoot a rabbit and misses by a few inches to the left on his first shot and a few inches to the right on his second. The average value says the rabbit is dead, yet in reality we still have a living rabbit and a hungry hunter.
The average team might gain roughly an equal amount of merits per hour on either side, but the potential that can be accessed by good teams is considerably higher blue-side.
If it has eyes, you can blind it, if it has blood, you can make it bleed, if it has a mouth, you can make it scream.
[ QUOTE ]
I guess you just want a fight?
[/ QUOTE ]
i wasnt trying to pick a fight, i was telling you how a feel about your "suggestion" and the reasons for it.
fact is I DO NOT AGREE! so live with it because i wont change my mind just because you say so!
your suggestion does not solve the problem, it simply moves it. i can imagine how players would soon start complaining about how the devs has done this and that TF too fast and this and that too slow. Your suggestion simply moves the resposibility from the avarage player (that includes YOU) to the devs.
[ QUOTE ]
According to you, the best things villains can now do, is to start SFs.. stand in there for a day, then finish it and wait for the next datamining? Because yeah, that way is fun! (NOW I was being sarcastic btw)
[/ QUOTE ]
Being sarcastic is alright with me but i'v never said that... Praf68 has
JB out!
Villains have less SFs than Heroes have TFs. Hypothetically speaking heroes will always be able to earn more merits at the moment.
Personally I'd add a daily cap to merits earned/day/account (restricted by side). Allow all merits earned per/account be traded within that account. And set the villains cap higher than heroes, allowing villains to earn more merits in the same number of SFs rather than allowing their overall merit earning to be higher.
Difficult to explain, but essentially:
If currently Heroes can do 10 TFs in a 24 hour period and earn merits off each, earning a total 100 merits. It would mean that villains who have less SFs to do would be able to do 10 SFs in that same 24 hours and earn 100 merits. Co-Op TFs would be excluded from the change.
Adding the ability to trade merits between characters on the same account would mean that you will always be able to farm merits up on characters that can storm through story based content or who can run TFs successfully with ease, obviously restricting it by side.
I do not think a cap is necessary since it does nothing to improve the merits per played content ratio. Since the reward for the Quaterfield TF alone is 111 merits the limit would have to be at least that high which is already more than a villain can get on a typical day without serious SF/Trial farming. (Who wants and has the time to do a Lady Grey TF, a Silver Mantis SF, an Imperious TF and a Mender Lazarus Mini-SF all on one day?) So, such a limit would have little to no impact at all and certainly not improve the standing of villains in that regard.
Merits as an account-wide commodity on the other hand... Yes, I can see that having a positive impact on balance. That way players could spend their merits on a side of their choosing and it would relieve altoholics of the problem of having tons of merits but so thinly spread across toons that they still can not do much with them.
If it has eyes, you can blind it, if it has blood, you can make it bleed, if it has a mouth, you can make it scream.
Respect1= 20min 15Merits
Respect2= 20min 15Merits
Respect3= 20min 15Merits
TF Rikti= 70min 30Merits
Rsf = 50min 25Merits
In 3,4hours you kan get up to 100Merits Vilain side.
why change??
I dont find that so bad
Since when has the LGTF been 30 merits? And I'm sure the respecs aren't all 15 merits.
[ QUOTE ]
I do not think a cap is necessary since it does nothing to improve the merits per played content ratio. Since the reward for the Quaterfield TF alone is 111 merits the limit would have to be at least that high which is already more than a villain can get on a typical day without serious SF/Trial farming. (Who wants and has the time to do a Lady Grey TF, a Silver Mantis SF, an Imperious TF and a Mender Lazarus Mini-SF all on one day?) So, such a limit would have little to no impact at all and certainly not improve the standing of villains in that regard.
Merits as an account-wide commodity on the other hand... Yes, I can see that having a positive impact on balance. That way players could spend their merits on a side of their choosing and it would relieve altoholics of the problem of having tons of merits but so thinly spread across toons that they still can not do much with them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry was using 100 as merely an example, I have no way of knowing how many you can actually earn in a day as it is.
The reason I mentioned a cap was more to limit the earning potential of heroes, as then there will be less of a balance issue between the two sides.
Because not everyone can do the same TFs in the same sort of time. And given the same time for heroes they can earn more merits. At least that is what the OP is saying, personally I don't know the figures as I seldom do TFs.
[ QUOTE ]
Respect1= 20min 15Merits
Respect2= 20min 15Merits
Respect3= 20min 15Merits
TF Rikti= 70min 30Merits
Rsf = 50min 25Merits
In 3,4hours you kan get up to 100Merits Vilain side.
why change??
I dont find that so bad
[/ QUOTE ]
Your never going to do any of those in those times without a specialised team.
Nor are you including the time it takes to get temps.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
According to you, the best things villains can now do, is to start SFs.. stand in there for a day, then finish it and wait for the next datamining? Because yeah, that way is fun! (NOW I was being sarcastic btw)
[/ QUOTE ]
Being sarcastic is alright with me but i'v never said that... Praf68 has
JB out!
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't quoting you, but according to your logic it IS the same IMHO. You do say that you think the current system is fair, that is: heroes getting more merits for the same amount of work.
Basically you're saying "play heroes if you want merits, villains if you're not that bothered". By the same logic it would be ok to have the RCO exploit in the game: "Use it if you want xp, do something else if not".
Actually that exploit would be better since it's the same for both sides, while the merit imbalance gives the heroes an unfair advantage (and obviously they need it - Yes, It's a joke).
I, on the other hand, am pointing out an imbalance and suggesting one way of dealing with it. I didn't say they should take my suggestion straight ot of the box, I'm just pointing out that they should do SOMETHING more than just datamine, since the difference is rather big. If you're just hung up on my suggested solution, fine, it was an EXAMPLE of how the problem could be adressed and not supposed to be a solution. But if you actually think it's ok that heroes have an advantage I say: Bring the Rikti com officers back, bring on constant 4x XP, or just pull the plug and be done with it. Leaving a rather major imbalance like this in-game isn't ok imho, but OF COURSE you're allowed to think whatever you want, even if you're wrong and I'm right! (Yes, another attempt at humour)
Also: Good team or not has nothing to do with it imho. A bad hero team still make more merits than a good, speeding villain team. Long TFs probably indeed has something to do with it even if they just look at actual in-mission-time. Too bad they can't(?) measure actual "combat mode" time instead!
just loool
making team : max 10min
elite team now not realy just good players
seems like the vigilance server is not so bad after al
[ QUOTE ]
just loool
making team : max 10min
elite team now not realy just good players
seems like the vigilance server is not so bad after al
[/ QUOTE ]
When you complete a LRSF in 50 mins with a 10 minute pick up team, no nukes and no shivans, you come back and start laughing.
Till then keep loool'ing.
Ok, I'm slightly annoyed now, no... I'm really annoyed!
We just did another ITF in no time... we stood around waiting for about 30 minutes and still did the ITF in about 1.30.. and we really thought we where amazingly, annoyingly slow. I've done the ITF in way less than 1 hour without "exploiting" anything.
How many RSFs without shivans go that fast? So what's my point: Hero TF's are just simply rewarded more than villains because of one simple thing:
Sorry for being slightly impolite about this: There's simple more heroes, and more well.. BAD heroes that makes the average time of hero TFs so much higher than the villain ones. Or there's just fewer and better villains doing fewer SFs that they know very well.
Sure, I don't play heroes much, but enough to have seen how rediculously easy it is to get merits compared to villains.
I think the ITF/RSF comparizon shows it well, but we could go on comparing any hero TF with any villain SF really. The balance is just off, way off. Sure, villain SFs in general are a lot better, but...
My suggestion is:
Let the devs (or devs friends, whatever) play through the SFs and TFs a few times and use THAT average time as a measure for the merits instead of the player base average times.