Objectives Scoring: Improving Battlegrounds

[PizzaSHARK]

Ask people what the worst part about random Battlegrounds are, and most will say it's the AFKers and the bots. I disagree - yeah, those people cause a lot of problems and I don't cry a single tear when they get the bans they deserve... but Blizzard is taking care of them. We'd all prefer we could just snap our fingers and go "You're banned!," but Blizzard's got a track record of biding their time, making sure each of the accused is really guilty, and then banning a whole batch of them at once. It works.

But, for me, the real problem is with players that don't go after objectives in the Battlegrounds. Whether it's because they don't know what to do (which could be handled quite easily with a brief tutorial quest), or because they just don't care, these people are the ones I consider to be ruining the experience for everyone else. When three people in your Warsong Gulch team are busting their asses doing everything they can to win while the other seven are just running around doing whatever, it's depressing and frustrating, because you can't do anything about it - as far as the system is concerned, they aren't doing anything wrong and getting angry about it could ironically get you, one of the few people playing to win, in trouble for harassment. Reporting people for this would just waste a Game Master's time and probably just cause a trainwreck of people getting their egos stepped on.

So what can we do? How can we encourage EVERYONE queuing for a Battleground to play with the primary focus on completing objectives, without ruining the experience for people who don't want to take things super serious? Create an objectives score, and dole out mild penalties for consistently having a sub-par objectives score in your games; the idea here is to encourage players to play to win, and to play for the team, rather than themselves. While everyone has a right to enjoy themselves, and absolutely should, it's also important to remember that Battlegrounds are team games, and it's not fair to the other players if you're being selfish and refusing to try and help them win.

I can hear people bitching already, so let's elaborate:


- Every player would have their own, personal Objectives score for each game. This would be listed on the scoreboard, just like all other stats.

- Objectives would be determined by the goal of each Battleground; capturing and defending flags in Warsong Gulch and Twin Peaks, capturing and defending towers and graveyards in Alterac Valley, knocking down walls and killing demolishers in Strand of the Ancients, and so on.

- Objectives points would be gained by performing actions involving those objectives, or within a set diameter of the objective(s). That way, you're getting points for defending a node in Arathi Basin or Battle for Gilneas even if the enemy team never really shows up to contest it much; we're also ensuring players clearing enemies out of the way for their team's flagcarrier are getting rewarded properly in Warsong Gulch and Twin Peaks.

I'll provide examples of Objectives scoring for each Battleground type below, but first, let's discuss the penalty a player might expect to see if the system determines them to be consistently underperforming, and how we'd prevent this from being unfair to players who actually are playing for the team and not themselves.

Hell, why am I suggesting the underperformers be penalized, rather than the best of the crop get rewarded? Because people doing well are already being rewarded - if you're playing to win and doing good at it, you can expect to win at least half of your games (in a perfect system, both teams play to win and are equally skilled, resulting in each team having a roughly 50% win rate.) You're getting the bonus honor for completing objectives, more bonus honor for winning, and still more bonus honor because winning will also generally entail your team having more honorable kills than their team - players don't need an extra reward on top of that, and besides, what would you reward them with? Even more honor?

On the other hand, I'm not suggesting the penalty for underperforming be something draconian like a temporary ban. My idea? Simply tag them with the Deserter debuff. Maybe not the exact same debuff, but the same concept - they're basically issued a time-out. It's penalty enough to make people realize they're screwing up the game for others, and by taking them out of rotation for a little while, it gives them time to cool off, get a drink, or maybe it'll encourage them to take a break and come back when they're fresher - whatever they need to perform better. Now, before we get into defining what "underperforming" means, let's get a quick breakdown of how I see the Objectives score working.


Warsong Gulch and Twin Peaks (Capture the Flag)

- Each team's flag will provide an aura (visible as a buff?), similar to Honorable Defender in the Conquest game mode (AB/BFG), which will allow players to gain Objectives points while inside it.

- Each aura will be a determined range, probably between 50 and 100 yards, that ensures players attacking the enemy flagcarrier or defending their flagcarrier will be rewarded for it, even if they're not basically piggybacking on top of the flagcarrier (so healers can stand at maximum range and still ensure they're getting rewarded for healing the flagcarrier or their teammates attacking the enemy flagcarrier, for example.)

- Players inside a given flag's aura will periodically receive a small number of Objectives points. This will ensure the flagcarrier and his guards will not be "penalized" if the enemy team is playing particularly defensive and is not sending many people to reclaim their flag.

Examples of point rewards would be: Taking, returning, or capturing a flag 10 points; being within the aura when a flag is captured, 5 points; getting the killing blow on a flagcarrier, 10 points; assisting a kill on a flagcarrier, 5 points (includes healing or buffing people attacking said flagcarrier); all honorable kills of any kind within either flag's aura, 2 points per, stacking with any other bonuses (so killing an enemy flag carrier would actually be 12 points, 2 for the kill and 10 for the kill bonus); periodic point gains, 3 points per 5 (10?) seconds.

Players are rewarded with points for attacking or defending the flags. Fighting in midfield or anywhere else when a flag is not present will not reward points. Defending players will stay near their flagcarrier. Attacking players will always be near the enemy flagcarrier. Skirmishes in midfield when one or both flags are moving around will happen near the flags, and will therefore generate points.


Arathi Basin and Battle for Gilneas (Conquest), and Eye of the Storm (also Conquest?)

- Existing Honorable Defender buff will act as the "Objectives" aura.

- Enemy-held points and neutral points will also provide an aura of similar function (Honorable Attacker?)

- Idea is to ensure Objectives points are ONLY rewarded for combat and activities taking place at a point, whether it's controlled by your team, their team, or it isn't controlled at all (initial skirmishing at nodes.) Fighting on roads is not productive and will therefore not provide Objectives points.

- Auras may need to be extended slightly to ensure players that are playing "meatshield" a modest distance from the flag are still rewarded for defending the flag or a teammate attacking the flag

Examples: Successfully attacking or defending a flag, 10 points; being present (within the aura) when a flag is successfully attacked or defended, 3 points; dying within an aura ("martyr" bonus), 2 points; all honorable kills within an aura, 2 points; interrupting an enemy attempting to capture or defend a flag, 5 points (3 second "internal cooldown"); period point gains while within an aura, 3 points per 5/10? seconds. For Eye of the Storm, flag captures, flagcarrier kills, etc are all identical to Warsong Gulch/Twin Peaks; other point gains are identical to Arathi Basin/Battle for Gilneas where applicable.

Virtually any and all activities performed while within a node's aura will generate points. Essentially the ONLY thing that will not provide points is combat taking place away from points. Fight on the roads, get penalized for it eventually. Interrupting captures is given an internal cooldown to prevent players from getting large amounts of points from interrupting multiple players capturing at the same time, which could dramatically skew someone's points relative to the rest of the team; this is done to ensure players interrupting a single enemy occasionally trying to capture a node will be rewarded the same as a player spamming AOEs on a point that multiple enemies are attempting to capture.


Strand of the Ancients (Assault)

- Intact gates and all active Demolishers will produce auras. Graveyard flags will produce auras. Active Demolishers are Demolishers which have a player using them or have had a player using them within the past 10 seconds.

Examples: Destroying a Demolisher, 10 points; destroying a gate, 10 points; assisting the destruction of a gate or a demolisher (present within that gate or demolisher's aura when it's destroyed), 5 points; capturing a graveyard, 5 points; interrupting the capture of a graveyard, 5 points (3 second "internal cooldown"); all honorable kills made within an aura, 2 points; killing players carrying a bomb, 2 points (stacks with existing bonus for kills made inside of auras); disarming a bomb, 5 points; planting a bomb, 2 points; damaging an intact gate with a bomb, 3 points (5 points total for planting a bomb that causes damage); destroying a turret within an aura (a turret in range of a demolisher or at an intact gate, in other words), 5 points; periodic point gains, 3 points per 5/10? seconds.

Again, the idea is to reward players for going after objectives: that is, destroying or escorting demolishers, planting or defusing bombs, guarding intact gates and graveyards... all of these are objectives that must done to win the game, so you're rewarded for accomplishing them. Fighting on the beach while demolishers are rolling up to Yellow gate is not productive and will not reward points. Demolishers are defined as active to prevent players from exploiting the system by fighting on the beach near the Demolishers when the attacking team is working on knocking down Yellow gate.

Keep in mind that destroying ANY demolisher will reward points. This will ensure that, for example, a rogue or druid who sneaks down to sabotage the Demolishers the enemy team hasn't begun using yet will still see a reward; after all, even if they're on the beach, enemy players could still hop into them and slam your defense with 8 demolishers at once instead of the 4 you were expecting.


Alterac Valley (Alterac Valley)

- Captains and Generals will provide auras.

- Towers and Graveyards will also produce auras.

- Hostile NPCs of all kinds (both faction and "neutral", like gnolls, kobolds, troggs, etc) will provide minimal point gains (you probably end up killing a handful of them while capturing a mine or clearing towers/graveyards, for example.) Should be a minor reward for clearing out these NPCs, but not so much that it becomes effective to just wander into a mine and start killing everything in sight instead of participating in the actual battle.

Examples: Killing a Captain or being present (in other words, inside the Captain's aura) when a Captain is killed, 10 points; killing a General or being present when a General is killed, 10 points; successfully attacking or defending a tower or graveyard, 5 points; being present when a tower is destroyed or defended, 3 points; interrupting an enemy player attempting to capture or defend a graveyard or tower, 2 points (3 second internal cooldown); capturing a mine by slaying a faction's "foreman", 4 points; killing a hostile NPC (any faction), 1 point (8 second internal cooldown); any honorable kills while within a tower's, graveyard's, Captain's, or General's aura, 2 points; periodic gains while within auras, 3 points every 5/10? seconds.

I'm trying to keep things simple here. I'd love to reward people for turning in armor scraps, medals, blood, etc, but it would become needlessly complex to ensure players are actually contributing to fights, rather than just running around looting corpses; maybe the entire team can receive a small point boost for successfully upgrading armor or filling a blood/medal/whatever quota? Auras will be present in any place where things need to be done - you get points for contesting towers, for fighting over graveyards, for killing or defending a captain, and for killing or defending a general. It might seem odd to not reward people for fighting in the Field of Strife, but "modern" AV basically does away with anything productive happening there.



Now, with that massive wall of text out of the way, how would we work out things to decide when someone ain't playing with the team in mind? Well, this is something I'm waffling on.

I'm currently favoring the idea of the system working on an individual basis. The system would look at the highest-scoring player on a team, compare it to the lowest-scoring player on the team, and make a note of anyone falling within a certain percentile of those scores (if the highest score was 1,100 and lowest was 380, maybe everyone falling within the bottom 30% of the team gets noted?) Basically, kind of like a grading curve.

Another option might be to assign a default "performance value" for a given Battleground and note anyone who fails to meet this score. The score would be reasonable and low, so that even players who aren't very good at the game shouldn't have trouble meeting or exceeding it (and, really, this score system would reward even bad players equally with good players - it's not about skill, it's about effort.) I like this option, but how do you decide what a fair score is? It'd require a lot of testing, I think.

There are other options. Feel free to add your own.


At any rate, once these players who are consistently underperforming in their games are identified (I'd say it would need to be at least three games in a 24 hour period, and probably closer to ten), when they reach that particular number of games, they are given a "Deserter" debuff upon exiting their most recent game. If they ALSO have an actual Deserter debuff (leaving games early would log your score at the time you left, further penalizing people who abandon their team), these times would stack - so if they bailed out of a game and the system decided they were showing a trend of refusing to play for their team, they'd be stuck with a 30 minute time-out instead of a 15 minute time-out.


THE TL;DR VERSION:

Create an additional score stat for Battlegrounds that will encourage players to play to win while also lightly penalizing players who do not play to win.

[Feranor]

Good ideas, but I can't resist pointing out that your "real problem" isn't the real problem either.

The real problem is that the queue system creates random groups. Your average BG team consists of players who don't know each other, don't care for each other and will usually never see each other again after the BG ends (or at least won't remember). That's why there's no teamplay.

However, I like the idea of giving rewards for completing objectives. Punishments for not doing so is a different story. More often than not I end up in a BG where basically everyone else is either vastly undergeared or completely incapable. The best way to play those BGs is to lose them as quickly as possible, having to constantly watch some kind of punishment debuff would be very annoying.

[Seraphus]

Not sure how I feel about this. What about the third catergory? Every time I do Battle for Gilneas as a Random BG, my Holy Paladin and I go 2 vs A Lot at their graveyard, therefore stifling any progress they could possibly make.

Honorable Graverobber?

[Korgoth]

Interesting ideas, but it is too much work on Blizzard's part to ever happen. A change would have to be something simpler. Like maybe changing how HKs work so only players who damage the target, or healed someone who damaged the target get honor when the target dies.

[Deleted]

I can see your point and I like the general idea. However I don't think it will ever happen and then there's the achievement hunters. I always join a BG to win but sometimes I'm chasing this one achievement that doesn't really leaves much room to really do a team effort.

Then there's the issue about why people join the BG's. Some join to win, some because they find it fun. Even though I hate it when people just farm HK's in WSG for instance, prolonging the match for no reason and maybe even end up loosing, I don't think Blizz will ever agree to punish said players. Cause if that's the reason why they joined the BG and if they find that particular part of the game fun, it would be a discussion about who has the more right to play the BG.

[ramolegenda]

there are some great ideas but i doubt this will work. blizzard won't punish anyone. about wsg, there is one problem with flag carrier (well problem is here since achi system is implemented but still...) you'd get lots of people going for flag even thou they are not good for FC (i hate when clothie takes flag even if we have tank in same room and then they get nuked in a sec as soon as they get in midfield). we already got people going like idiots for flag to get achi, getting extra points by being FC would make things even worse.

[PizzaSHARK]

there are some great ideas but i doubt this will work. blizzard won't punish anyone. about wsg, there is one problem with flag carrier (well problem is here since achi system is implemented but still...) you'd get lots of people going for flag even thou they are not good for FC (i hate when clothie takes flag even if we have tank in same room and then they get nuked in a sec as soon as they get in midfield). we already got people going like idiots for flag to get achi, getting extra points by being FC would make things even worse.

The bonus points come from simply being within range of the flag's aura. I understand there's a bonus for capturing the flag, but it doesn't mean you have to CARRY the flag - just capture it. As far as those things go, it's far better to encourage SOMEONE to pick up the flag than no one pick it up because "clothies can't carry."

The system isn't designed to encourage super-mega awesome tryhard play, just "please don't fight in the roads..." play. As mentioned, I feel a small penalty will go a longer way towards deterring negative behavior than any amount of rewards.

[Deleted]

I agree with Feranor, I think the problem is a people problem, people have different goals when going in, and it's hard to use game mechanics to align those goals.

I think there are 3 reasons why people join BG's without attempting to win.
1. They don't care for the objectives and just want Honor. Bots and AFK-ers fall into this category.
2. They don't care for the objectives, but just want to fight. This is the noble squad defending the road between Stables and Mine.
3. They DO care for the objectives, but are disheartened, because their efforts seem to make no difference.

To deal with problem 1. Don't reward honor for BG's, then there's no incentive to Bot or AFK. - BIG Downside, there has to be another way to gear up.
To deal with problem 2. Make a Meatgrinder BG, no objectives other than killing as many people as possible while losing as few people as possible. (For instance 5 v 5, 3 rounds and a 10 min timer in case 2 healers remain.)
Hopefully these 2 solutions will give no. 3 the full team of people that want to win.

[Pokty]

- Each aura will be a determined range, probably between 50 and 100 yards, that ensures players attacking the enemy flagcarrier or defending their flagcarrier will be rewarded for it, even if they're not basically piggybacking on top of the flagcarrier (so healers can stand at maximum range and still ensure they're getting rewarded for healing the flagcarrier or their teammates attacking the enemy flagcarrier, for example.)

Except that camping the graveyard is a much more effective defense for your flag carrier than being close to him and waiting for the enemy.

[Mercos]

There is a very simply solution to this problem that Blizzard has ignored for years. If they created a death match BG then most of the people that ignore objectives and just want to fight would que up for that. A lot of PVPers just want to fight, they don't want objectives. With death match implemented the objective based BGs would be left to the players that actually want to do the objectives. It would be a win-win situation.

[Deleted]

Some people want to actually PvP, and fight other players.

A lot of the time I join a WSG with 3 or 4 friends, and we camp the enemy gy for most of the game. This normally means we win because the rest of our team are free to do whatever they want.

Luckily your system would give us all the deserter debuff.

That said, they should change the buff for defending, to give you ticking honor. Cuz defending a lone base in AB or something is no fun and no honor a lot of the time.

[PizzaSHARK]

There is a very simply solution to this problem that Blizzard has ignored for years. If they created a death match BG then most of the people that ignore objectives and just want to fight would que up for that. A lot of PVPers just want to fight, they don't want objectives. With death match implemented the objective based BGs would be left to the players that actually want to do the objectives. It would be a win-win situation.

This is what the Murderball BG will be. It's basically 10v10 Deathmatch with pretenses towards objectives - the but primary objective is "kill everything with red text" more than "play with the macguffin."

---------- Post added 2011-10-29 at 11:52 PM ----------

Some people want to actually PvP, and fight other players.

A lot of the time I join a WSG with 3 or 4 friends, and we camp the enemy gy for most of the game. This normally means we win because the rest of our team are free to do whatever they want.

Luckily your system would give us all the deserter debuff.

That said, they should change the buff for defending, to give you ticking honor. Cuz defending a lone base in AB or something is no fun and no honor a lot of the time.

Should be worth noting that the "penalty" system would be disabled as a matter of course for premades and RBGs. Objectives scoring would still be present, but you wouldn't be noted for having extremely low scores - it's assumed that premades and RBGs will have their own plans of action and won't need any kind of outside refereeing.

I agree that GY camping is an effective means of winning games - but it's not fun for the team being GY camped. Correlation is that if you're getting GY camped, you deserve it (it's not like one team has an automatic advantage towards setting up a camp compared to the other), but since the GY terrain change, it's almost impossible to escape that situation once it's begun, even if 8 out 10 players rage out and new ones are swapped in.

The entire purpose of the system is to discourage players ignoring objectives in favor of mindless HK farming, to make things less frustrating for the (unfortunately, minority) players wanting to actually play Conquest or Capture the Flag. Arenas exist for deathmatching purposes, and soon enough we'll have a BG pretty much dedicated to deathmatching.

Til then, you can either form a premade for mindless deathmatching (again, penalties are disabled for premades and RBGs), or play to win. Remember, BGs are a team game - if you aren't being considerate towards your teammates, I frankly think you have no place being in a BG.

[Paranoid Android]

Nice post. Yeah again 101% agree with your post. This is what always frustrates me in bg's than anything. Sure if one side happens to outgear us or actualy is a better team..fine. What kills me is people who do not work as a team. I know its a pug what can you do but It kills me that people do not have that much intelligence or common sense to follow the rules of the bg.

My two favorites of all time coming from fail like them are "its just a game". Hmmm? Let me see last time I remember the objective of games is to win and then my big favorite is when you say something they come back with look how many kills/damage you have. I was just in a Strand complaining about people not getting vehicles and go the response "u suck look at your damage and 0 kills 1 deaths". Well again the idiot didnt realize I was heals. GG.

On your post about rewarding more honor/pts for people who acually play the objective based pvp. Yeah good thoughts and ideas but again I'm such a skeptic when it comes to pug bg's I do not think it matters what you do.

[Blueobelisk]

I'll be honest, I have anger issues when it comes to BGs, because it drives me crazy when people can't do their part or that they suck or there is no healer on my team and I fight battle after battle.

I agree people need to do their jobs better.

I also have a problem with the scrub PVPers with no gear I get teamed up with too.

And like said, since it's random people there's no communication or good strategy.

[Larynx]

I'm pretty sure what most people dislike about BGs is when people bitch about them for having fun in the middle.

[PizzaSHARK]

I'm pretty sure what most people dislike about BGs is when people bitch about them for having fun in the middle.

Better be trollin'.

Those shitbags "having fun" in the middle can kindly go play a solo game, then. When you sign up for a Battleground, you're signing up for a team game. If you aren't gonna place the team above yourself, you frankly have no business being in BGs - that's my stance, anyway. However, it wouldn't be smart business sense if Blizzard banned people for being shitbags, so implementing a system that mildly inconveniences them occasionally is an acceptable compromise.

[insmek]

OP, you hit the nail on the head. As they exist right now, the objectives that each BG has are what really makes random BGs so frustrating. In honor of this being a WSG weekend, I'll give you this little tidbit about why I hate it so much:

In Warsong Gulch....

- 1/10 times you'll get a group that actually wants to win. They stick together, defend the flag carrier, and defend the base. Most of them seem to be capable of operating with something resembling coordination. You'll probably win this BG.

- 3/10 times you'll get a group that looks like it wants to win. They stick together long enough to capture the opposition flag, but lose all sense of cohesion once they spot the other team coming across midfield. From then on out there's a bunch of shouting/QQing in battleground chat, a few people try to mount an offense or defense, but for the most part it's chaos. You might win this BG.

- 2/10 times you'll get a group that just wants to farm honor. They put up no facade about actually caring whether they win or lose, but hey--at least they manage to kill that sneaky druid trying to make off with your flag most of time. Depending on the other team's level of fail, you might actually sneak by with a win--it's unlikely though.

- 4/10 times you'll get a group that's 1.) Made up of 7 Hunters but no healers or 2.) Still has fishing poles equipped. You could waste your breath screaming about how bad they suck, but nobody would hear you since they're all AFK anyway. It's just best that you leave this BG.

[PizzaSHARK]

The real problem is that the queue system creates random groups. Your average BG team consists of players who don't know each other, don't care for each other and will usually never see each other again after the BG ends (or at least won't remember). That's why there's no teamplay.

I missed this somehow the first time.

I agree. We can opt to requeue with a dungeon group we found works really well, and it's pretty fucking badass when that happens - you get a tank that knows how to hold aggro, a healer that can keep everyone at 100% HP while watching TV and getting blown by his girlfriend, and three DPS that aren't AFK taking a crap for half of the run.

But when you get an awesome group like that in a BG, it's a one-shot deal and while you MIGHT (if you're really lucky) get a few of them back next game, you certainly can't keep the whole thing. It really does ruin the sense of teamwork present in the game.

[ComputerNerd]

It is not so much that the groups are random, but that there is a reward for complete and utter failure.
Dungeons do not award justice or valor points for failing to kill any bosses, so battlegrounds should not award honor for non-participation in the objectives.

A new point system is not I feel the right solution, but your mechanism for determining participation based on proximity to objectives however is similar to an idea I had myself.

My version of that would be the same radiating buff from objectives, but instead make that buff the only way you can gain any honor.
Kills by yourself or others nearby should not award honor if you are not close to an objective.
Ganking in the mid-field when the enemy flag carrier is about to cap should not be rewarding you.

While you may have largely hit the nail on the head as to the cause, you are simply not resolving it by introducing new points because the current reward for doing nothing useful still remains.

Your system is already there in part with Conquest Points.
But a system which is simply not working due to reward elsewhere.
There is no penalty for failure.

[PizzaSHARK]

There is no penalty for failure.

I agree. I do think there should be penalties for poor performance in general, rather than "oh you just get less than they did," but I've got a significant authoritarian bent, and I realize not everyone agrees with my outlook.

So I tried to come up with a compromise solution :P