Feedback:User/Gamervoid/Revisiting the Participation Based Rewards system, possibly retool
Revisiting the Participation Based Rewards system, possibly retool | |
|---|---|
| User | Gamervoid |
| Categories | Mechanics |
Suggestion Summary
Ensure that the Participation Based Rewards (PBR’s) are sophisticated enough to capture all forms of meaningful participation.
Disclaimer
I am writing this as a well formed article and will mostly address the current PBR. Everything I write about is based on some core assumptions, the first being -
Assumption 1 – Humans are pattern recognizing machines and will self organize to perform tasks in the most optimal fashion they can discover. This can happen actively or passively but is especially relevant when designing for an MMO.
The Basic PBR
At its simplest design, a PBR is likely placing point values on the two base measures of quest participation, damage output and quest tasks. Damage output participation points are calculated on a per target basis depending on the difficulty rating of the target, so a weak monster gives fewer points than a strong one. Quest task participation points are given based on the number and complexity of the tasks, and like with monster difficulty ratings, the “complexity” of a task is likely based on the time it takes to complete it and the risks it poses to the player. These two measures are then balanced to ensure that the relative complexities are providing similar points. Finally, the varying levels of participation are established using the total points available, the number of players, and other significant factors.
The Damage Quota System
GW2 uses a damage quota for receiving full rewards for damaging a single monster. According to this Wiki, dealing 10%-15% of a monster HP total provides full rewards once it falls. Based on the group friendly design of GW2, it is safe to assume that this quota system is also feeding into the Damage Output Participation tally in the basic PBR. Meaning your 10%-15% damage on monster A will earn you full rewards for his defeat as any normal monster kill, and his full point value in the PBR is added to your tally for the quest.
The Results
The quota system works as intended for open world monsters, but behaves differently in an open quest. Specifically, the presence of other players and monsters lets you use/abuse the Damage Quota mechanism to greatly optimize your rewards (see Assumption 1 above). So in a given span of time, in a sea of monsters and other players, let’s assume the player can take only one of two actions -
A) Play normally and defeat the current monster they have engaged, dealing, let’s say, well over the damage quota, or
B) Utilize skill to engage/disengage as many monsters as possible while dealing their damage quota (10%-15%) to each, and allowing other player’s to actually inflict the final blows.
Using the PBR described above, it should be obvious that (B) is the more rewarding of the two by all measures. It is jarring to rethink how players will behave in such situations, but I’m not suggesting that it is inherently bad. Here are some resulting consequences from players choosing the optimal (B) over (A).
1) Individually, each player will gain rewards significantly faster, while opening up HP totals for more players to do the same.
2) The skills needed to succeed in dungeons and PVP (efficient engagement/disengagement) are being constantly honed through other core mechanics.
3) Overall complexity and challenge levels are maintained in an otherwise “easy” aspect of the MMO (See Assumption 2 in my user page).
It doesn’t sound very bad at all does it? Unfortunately, the PBR still ignores supporting actions like healing and buffing allies in its calculations. Essentially, a player attempting to maximize their rewards has no measurable incentive to reduce their damage output in order to help an ally instead. If this causes a noticeable distraction from the cooperative goals of the questing system, then the PBR needs to be retooled. If people like this topic, I will discuss the designs I have for doing so in the talk section.
