Suggestion - Applicable CQC Reward System

[DragonSoulkin]

So myself and a few friends were discussing the grind for materials and data for engineering, and the conversation drifted to CQC, and I came up with an idea to make playing CQC worth while. Now I don't know what goes into CQC itself as in, is it a separate game technically or how is CQC and the main game connected? That may dictate the feasibility of this idea.

So for the most part, minus being able to see your CQC rank in the main game, there's nothing I've seen to really make CQC worth even playing. Without an incentive it's no wonder it can take half an hour to find a match, so why not have a reward system that applies to the main game?

Something small and simple as a reward for winning a match, say like there being a high % chance of winning 2 units of decoded emission data (or some other common data or material) or a very low % chance of winning something more rare or sought after like cracked industrial firmware or datamined wake exceptions (or material or whatever rare).

Now I don't think it should be in any significant quantity, somewhere around maybe 2 units, maybe just one unit for the more rare stuff, but I definitely think it would bring more players into CQC as there would be a viable and noticeable reward for winning a match.

 

[Lngjohnsilver1]

I think when planning an implementation like this, one needs to be careful of the risk-to-reward matrix. In CQC you lose nothing, but stand to gain something? Whereas in the open game you risk your ship for the potential reward. Whether you believe the reward is worth the risk is what we call 'gambling' and your decision to buy into the 'table' is your choice..and if you lose, that is also your choice and you can blame no-one for that but yourself.

What you propose may therefore be better implemented in an ARENA - i.e. a player 'buys-in' to a game. The higher the potential reward - the higher your buy-in should be - like Poker. So if you want the chance to win an XXX you need to pay XXX in game credits. Let us assume it potentially takes 5 'attempts' on average to achieve the reward, then the risk should be equal to the cost of 5 attempts. That means the average player is no better or worse off doing it this way than the so-called in game grind. A good player might win more than that, and a poor player might win less, but the average should remain average.

The gamble is then, 'do I think I have the skills to win in less time / cost than the house thinks I can win'. its your call and don't go crying if you lose at the table.

 

[DragonSoulkin]

I think when planning an implementation like this, one needs to be careful of the risk-to-reward matrix. In CQC you lose nothing, but stand to gain something? Whereas in the open game you risk your ship for the potential reward. Whether you believe the reward is worth the risk is what we call 'gambling' and your decision to buy into the 'table' is your choice..and if you lose, that is also your choice and you can blame no-one for that but yourself.

What you propose may therefore be better implemented in an ARENA - i.e. a player 'buys-in' to a game. The higher the potential reward - the higher your buy-in should be - like Poker. So if you want the chance to win an XXX you need to pay XXX in game credits. Let us assume it potentially takes 5 'attempts' on average to achieve the reward, then the risk should be equal to the cost of 5 attempts. That means the average player is no better or worse off doing it this way than the so-called in game grind. A good player might win more than that, and a poor player might win less, but the average should remain average.

The gamble is then, 'do I think I have the skills to win in less time / cost than the house thinks I can win'. its your call and don't go crying if you lose at the table.

I actually really like this idea. Perhaps a higher pay into the match potentially rewarding a higher material/data value reward upon a victory but a loss is a loss?