EXP Rate Suggestion.
in Suggestions
Hello, I've been thinking of a way to make EXP and ranks more skilled based instead of total kills based and wanted to share my idea. Feel free to point out flaws when seen.
Edit: Idea Revision 2.
Suggested new rate:
(((5% of each losing player's EXP added together)+(Desertion penalty EXP))/(Total winning players amount))*(1+(Players EXP percent bonus)
Easier to read format:
((A+B)/C)*(1+D)
Basically each losing player loses 5% of their total EXP, adds EXP from players that deserted the game (5% of the deserted players total EXP), divides it evenly between the winning players (Left overs should go to the Ace), and then each player gets a percent bonus added to it.
Percent Bonuses:
Bonuses from Gear.
Bonuses from events.
Ace bonus of 10%.
MVP Bonus of 10%.
All players that finish a game should also get 100EXP (after the previous EXP formula) at the end so the game doesn't become zero-sum.
ZM/MM/HM/HMX games would not have any losses and desertions not count. So only get 100 EXP per game.
Max EXP caps should also be removed.
1% of all players' total EXP is deleted every week.
Pros:
Makes farming much harder because one loss means losing a big chunk of there EXP.
Skilled players would get higher ranks.
Non-skilled players would stay at lower ranks.
Cons:
Hackers would be able to abuse this system and keep everyone else lower.
Low skilled players can achieve higher ranks by relying on higher skilled players to win for them.
First few weeks would be very chaotic from farmers EXP totals being distributed, equilibrium would be achieved eventually with most players at the same rank range.
Edit: Idea Revision 2.
Suggested new rate:
(((5% of each losing player's EXP added together)+(Desertion penalty EXP))/(Total winning players amount))*(1+(Players EXP percent bonus)
Easier to read format:
((A+B)/C)*(1+D)
Basically each losing player loses 5% of their total EXP, adds EXP from players that deserted the game (5% of the deserted players total EXP), divides it evenly between the winning players (Left overs should go to the Ace), and then each player gets a percent bonus added to it.
Percent Bonuses:
Bonuses from Gear.
Bonuses from events.
Ace bonus of 10%.
MVP Bonus of 10%.
All players that finish a game should also get 100EXP (after the previous EXP formula) at the end so the game doesn't become zero-sum.
ZM/MM/HM/HMX games would not have any losses and desertions not count. So only get 100 EXP per game.
Max EXP caps should also be removed.
1% of all players' total EXP is deleted every week.
Pros:
Makes farming much harder because one loss means losing a big chunk of there EXP.
Skilled players would get higher ranks.
Non-skilled players would stay at lower ranks.
Cons:
Hackers would be able to abuse this system and keep everyone else lower.
Low skilled players can achieve higher ranks by relying on higher skilled players to win for them.
First few weeks would be very chaotic from farmers EXP totals being distributed, equilibrium would be achieved eventually with most players at the same rank range.
Comments
-
Hello, I've been thinking of a way to make EXP and ranks more skilled based instead of total kills based and wanted to share my idea. Feel free to point out flaws when seen.
Suggested new rate:
(((5% of each losing player's EXP added together)+(Desertion penalty EXP))/(Total winning players amount))*(1+(Players EXP percent bonus)
Easier to read format:
((A+B)/C)*(1+D)
Basically each losing player loses 5% of their total EXP, adds EXP from players that deserted the game (5% of the deserted players total EXP), divides it evenly between the winning players (Left overs should go to the Ace), and then each player gets a percent bonus added to it.
Percent Bonuses:
Bonuses from Gear.
Bonuses from events.
Headshot bonus of 1% per headshot.
Survive a round bonus of 1% per round survived.
Double kill bonus of 1% per double kill.
Triple kill bonus of 2% per triple kill.
Quad kill bonus of 3% per quad kill.
Five kill bonus of 4% per five kill.
Six kill bonus of 5% per six kill or higher.
Ace bonus of 20%.
MVP Bonus of 30%.
Teamkill bonus of -10% per team kill.
All players that finish a game should also get 100EXP (after the previous EXP formula) at the end so the game doesn't become zero-sum.
Max EXP caps should also be removed.
Pros:
Makes farming nearly impossible because they would need players with lots of EXP already for it to be practical.
Skilled players would get higher ranks.
Non-skilled players would stay at lower ranks.
Cons:
Hackers would be able to abuse this system and keep everyone else lower.
Low skilled players can achieve higher ranks by relying on higher skilled players to win for them.
First few weeks would be very chaotic from farmers EXP totals being distributed, equilibrium would be achieved eventually with most players at the same rank range.
It sounds pretty good, but I don't like giving up 5% exp if you lose
Sounds like a good way to let high skilled players level, but I think if someone gets kicked, their EXP should become useless. -
CryingMonkey wrote: »It sounds pretty good, but I don't like giving up 5% exp if you lose
Sounds like a good way to let high skilled players level, but I think if someone gets kicked, their EXP should become useless.
If no one loses EXP then ranks and EXP becomes pointless again and might as well not change it at all. Could lower it to 1% maybe but keep the 5% penalty for deserting I guess.
Being kicked carries no penalty and makes the game not count right now, so yes it should not count for EXP penalties. -
Jushirou21 wrote: »It is ok atm,people got high ranks anyway.
Rank at the moment is based on EXP instead of skill.
Skill can help get more EXP, but faster and easier ways to get EXP exist that require no skill.
At the moment rank means nothing but how much someone either played or farmed.
Many want a way to gauge skill level with out needing to play against another player to find out. At the moment their is no way to do that, this would be a step in that direction.GotTissues wrote: »Sounds pretty good. Then it rewards the team for working together....i like the idea plus farmers go away and suck....really good idea
It punishes farming too because they would lose a lot of the work/time they spent farming for that rank every time they lose.
Noticed 2 more problems with this system:
1. Needs a way to delete EXP from the system.
2. EXP exploit with how bonuses work.
Problem 1 can be solved by simply having all players lose 1% of their total EXP a week.
It a low enough amount that most players would rarely notice but high enough to remove a lot of EXP from the system. Hackers also would help with this by simply taking a lot of EXP from players before they get banned, once banned their exp is effectively out of the system.
Problem 2 tho I'm still thinking of a solution.
Want to reward players that achieve things in the game with out giving farmers a easier time farming. -
This wouldn't eliminate farming. It would vastly encourage it.
SERGEANT 1
XP is 5000.
5% of that is 250.
Multiply that by 8 = 2000
Add your percentile bonuses:
XP Gear (Lets say 100%) = +2000
Ace + MVP Bonus = +1000
End game Bonus = +100
Seeing as how I don't know if your other %'s tack on to the total or are derived from a different formula, I won't add in there.
End game, a single lone farmer with a room of 8 cows would earn roughly:
5100 xp.
Thanks to your pleasant removal of the xp cap.
As great of an idea of revamping the system is, even this one has its problems. It doesn't even touch base with modes such as ZM, HM/MM/HMX or the like either where fighting against others usually is rather moot.
Another point is that, despite there being a competitive aspect to the game I feel I should remind people that it is not the focus. -
That is the Bonus Exploit I was talking about.
Removing the bonuses except gear would eliminate the exploit.
Sure in 1 game of farming he got about 500 EXP per cow, but the cows lost 400EXP. (-500+100). He would need to level the cows every time he wants EXP from them and it only takes 1 lost game for him to lose a good chunk of his efforts.
Noted that this game isn't focused for competition.
Just trying to think of ways to satisfy the competitive communities desire for system to judge skill levels. -
That is the Bonus Exploit I was talking about.
Removing the bonuses except gear would eliminate the exploit.
Sure in 1 game of farming he got about 500 EXP per cow, but the cows lost 400EXP. (-500+100). He would need to level the cows every time he wants EXP from them and it only takes 1 lost game for him to lose a good chunk of his efforts.
Noted that this game isn't focused for competition.
Just trying to think of ways to satisfy the competitive communities desire for system to judge skill levels.
This still doesn't stop farmers from getting over 2100 xp a game, which is almost double the current cap.
Their cows are only losing 250 xp if they stay at Sarg 1. Not hard for them to play a few other game modes to idle in to score more XP bonuses.
You also didn't mention what happens in the event of a tie? Who loses? Who wins?
The removal of the xp items isn't something Z8 will ever do. -
[MOD]Talonblaze wrote: »This still doesn't stop farmers from getting over 2100 xp a game, which is almost double the current cap.
Their cows are only losing 250 xp if they stay at Sarg 1. Not hard for them to play a few other game modes to idle in to score more XP bonuses.
You also didn't mention what happens in the event of a tie? Who loses? Who wins?
The removal of the xp items isn't something Z8 will ever do.
With this system, regular players would be getting 10,000+ EXP a game for winning and losing 10,000+ EXP for losing. If the farmer ever loses a game, then he loses 5% like everyone else, 1 loss can cause them to lose a lot of what they gained.
For the Cows to get the EXP back they need to be on the winning teams and play the game. Idles already get auto-kicked anyways and not contributing to the team decreases the chances of the team winning.
The exploit I was talking about deals with when 2 High rank farmers farm off each other.
For ties, no one gains or loses EXP except the 100 EXP gain for playing a game.
ZM/MM/HM/HMX would simply have everyone just get 100 EXP (No one loses to give exp).
I didn't say anything about removing EXP gear, where you see that?
With this system I estimate the average rank would be Captain-Major.
To get higher one must constantly win games far more often then they lose. -
With this system, regular players would be getting 10,000+ EXP a game for winning and losing 10,000+ EXP for losing. If the farmer ever loses a game, then he loses 5% like everyone else, 1 loss can cause them to lose a lot of what they gained.
For the Cows to get the EXP back they need to be on the winning teams and play the game. Idles already get auto-kicked anyways and not contributing to the team decreases the chances of the team winning.
The exploit I was talking about deals with when 2 High rank farmers farm off each other.
For ties, no one gains or loses EXP except the 100 EXP gain for playing a game.
ZM/MM/HM/HMX would simply have everyone just get 100 EXP (No one loses to give exp).
I didn't say anything about removing EXP gear, where you see that?
With this system I estimate the average rank would be Captain-Major.
To get higher one must constantly win games far more often then they lose.
So, how does this help competitive players? This seems to only hurt farmers in retrospect. If everyone is a lower rank than you because you are so skillful, what benefit is there to you for playing? You get practically nothing for playing in pubs because the xp rate is significantly smaller for you winning than it is compared to losing.
All of a sudden you get paired up with a crappy team, lets say Ghost Mode. You play on GR, your on a team full of noobies. Guess what? Prepare to see your hard earned xp go down the drain because of your team.
Same thing as SnD. It no longer cares about who is better as an individual. It just cares who wins.
There is no security. If you get lucky enough to make it to LT, you better stick to ZM or something.
Things such as Marshal would be a laughable impossibility. -
[MOD]Talonblaze wrote: »So, how does this help competitive players? This seems to only hurt farmers in retrospect. If everyone is a lower rank than you because you are so skillful, what benefit is there to you for playing? You get practically nothing for playing in pubs because the xp rate is significantly smaller for you winning than it is compared to losing.
All of a sudden you get paired up with a crappy team, lets say Ghost Mode. You play on GR, your on a team full of noobies. Guess what? Prepare to see your hard earned xp go down the drain because of your team.
Same thing as SnD. It no longer cares about who is better as an individual. It just cares who wins.
There is no security. If you get lucky enough to make it to LT, you better stick to ZM or something.
Things such as Marshal would be a laughable impossibility.
Noted:
Players who are more skilled then the average are more likely to lead their team to victory and thus get a better win rate then the rest. They would be higher rank then the average but achieving very high ranks compared to the average would be very difficult. But players that work together in teams could be skilled players with out teams.
(Current prediction: With this system the average player would stay at First LT-Major, bad players stay below Master Sergeant, and good players would be around Colonel)
Trying to think of a way to make rank relate to skill with out making it easy to get with out skill. -
I don't really like this suggestion, as it will basically take the fun out of pubs. The game will basically just turn into people only joining a team if one side has a lot of high ranked players, and never joining a side with low ranked players. All high ranked players would probably kick all low ranked players on their team as well, because they don't want to lose as losses become devastating the higher up you go.
-
Noted:
Players who are more skilled then the average are more likely to lead their team to victory and thus get a better win rate then the rest. They would be higher rank then the average but achieving very high ranks compared to the average would be very difficult. But players that work together in teams could be skilled players with out teams.
(Current prediction: With this system the average player would stay at First LT-Major, bad players stay below Master Sergeant, and good players would be around Colonel)
Trying to think of a way to make rank relate to skill with out making it easy to get with out skill.
If I recall, someone around the forums did a comparison guide to ranks. Especially which were the most popular.
Lets say the average is Staff Sarg 1 = 17785 xp total (889 xp from such for playing against them.)
And you are a 2nd Lt 1 = 326725
You lose 16,336 XP for every match your team fails. Almost equivalent to ranking up to that Staff Sarg.
You would have to win roughly 18 games without losing a single match to maintain your XP. -
GodsGunman wrote: »I don't really like this suggestion, as it will basically take the fun out of pubs. The game will basically just turn into people only joining a team if one side has a lot of high ranked players, and never joining a side with low ranked players. All high ranked players would probably kick all low ranked players on their team as well, because they don't want to lose as losses become devastating the higher up you go.
Good point, sounds like something the in game community would do.[MOD]Talonblaze wrote: »If I recall, someone around the forums did a comparison guide to ranks. Especially which were the most popular.
Lets say the average is Staff Sarg 1 = 17785 xp total (889 xp from such for playing against them.)
And you are a 2nd Lt 1 = 326725
You lose 16,336 XP for every match your team fails. Almost equivalent to ranking up to that Staff Sarg.
You would have to win roughly 18 games without losing a single match to maintain your XP.
I know, I made those threads. Thanks for reminding me its about time for a third revisit to see if the pattern is still holding.
This would imply for everyone, not just me. So yes my rank may go down and be harder to maintain, but so will everyone else. Once it stabilizes after about month it be a way to get a better idea how good everyone is in comparison.
Worst case scenario: Everyone ends up around the same rank.
Best case scenario: Rank becomes a decent way to gauge ones skill.
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2.5K CrossFire
- 715 CrossFire Announcements
- 714 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 323 Community
- 12 Modes
- 393 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 73 CF Competitive Forum
- 1 CFCL
- 16 Looking for a Team?
- 524 CrossFire Support
- 7 Suggestion
- 15 CrossFire Guides
- 37 CrossFire Off Topic