Squadron rankings are currently meaningless

[Bloodsign]

It appears that squadron rankings are based on total activity, which basically means it's a numbers game and small squadrons won't ever reach the top. A large squadron with lazy members still trumps a small dedicated one, every time.

I propose changing squadron rankings to an average activity per capita basis, otherwise there is no purpose to squadron rankings at all.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

It appears that squadron rankings are based on total activity, which basically means it's a numbers game and small squadrons won't ever reach the top. A large squadron with lazy members still trumps a small dedicated one, every time.

On PC, Powerplay, CQC, Political and AX trophies (and in some cases 1st place) have all gone to pretty small squadrons. What's actually happening for most of the other leaderboards is that they're being won by squadrons which are both large and dedicated, especially towards the end of the season when the competition really kicks in for the trophy places, while the large and lazy (or just not focused on that board) squadrons can easily be out of the top-100.

But it doesn't just have to be about "reaching the top" - there are over 7500 squadrons on PC, so most of them are never going to win any trophies no matter how they get allocated. A squadron can still try to get a top-100 finish (should be possible for any squadron regardless of size) or a top-10 finish (quite practical for even mid-sized squadrons if they work at it). My squadron got 5th place on the Trade board in season 2, beating several bigger squadrons to do it. We didn't get a trophy, but we were still very happy with that achievement, considering that we're not a trade-focused squadron or a large one.

I propose changing squadron rankings to an average activity per capita basis, otherwise there is no purpose to squadron rankings at all.

That has a seriously distorting effect, and one very much against the cooperative and social aim of the squadrons feature, where the best strategy for a hundred player squadron is for the top performing player to leave and set up a solo squadron where the other 99 - even if they're only marginally slower - aren't holding them back.

What I would like to see is the squadron season length reduced to 28 days instead of 56 - this would make it much easier for a squadron to push for a leaderboard place without burning out, which I think would benefit the smaller ones over the larger ones.

 

[ebbrell]

For me, the squadron screens are missing the stats on your members. Yiu want to see what you people are contributing etc.

And yeah large ones dominate

 

[Robert Maynard]

It appears that squadron rankings are based on total activity, which basically means it's a numbers game and small squadrons won't ever reach the top. A large squadron with lazy members still trumps a small dedicated one, every time.

I propose changing squadron rankings to an average activity per capita basis, otherwise there is no purpose to squadron rankings at all.

.... and a single player Squadron where the player did little else but play the game would likely win on a per capita basis....

 

[MK Regular]

.... and a single player Squadron where the player did little else but play the game would likely win on a per capita basis....

How about changing just the leaderboard calculations to take squadron size into account in some way? It doesn't need to be proportional to squadron size, but something that would give smaller squadrons a bit of an edge. Maybe something like dividing the total score of the squadron by the square root of the number of players in the squadron, i.e.:

• A squadron with a single player would see the total score divided by 1
• A squadron with 25 players would see the total score divided by 5
• A squadron with 100 players would see the total score divided by 10

It would still be advantageous to be in a larger squadron, but the advantage would not be proportional to the number of players in the squadron, while at the same time, a smaller squadron that is more dedicated would have an easier time getting to the top of the leaderboards. It would still be extremely difficult for a squadron of a single player to beat a squadron of 100 players (they would still need to do 10x more than the average player in the larger squadron), but it would be easier for the squadron of 25 players to beat the squadron of 100 players (each player would need to do 2x more than the players in the other squadron).

 

[Ian Doncaster]

How about changing just the leaderboard calculations to take squadron size into account in some way? It doesn't need to be proportional to squadron size, but something that would give smaller squadrons a bit of an edge. Maybe something like dividing the total score of the squadron by the square root of the number of players in the squadron, i.e.:

Still doesn't really work, still the same anti-community incentives to ruthlessly boot out anyone not "pulling their weight".

Say you have a squadron of 25 players, of whom 16 are working on the leaderboard getting 100 points each, and 9 are taking the season off to do something else.
If you go like that, you'll end up with 16 * 100 / 5 = 320 points. If you kick the 9 out, you'll get 16 * 100 / 4 = 400 points, which is definitely better. The calculations get a bit more complicated, but there also comes a point where even people who are contributing (but not much) should be kicked out because they're dragging the divisor down more than they're pushing the raw total up.

It also gives some slightly odd calculations because people can join or leave squadrons other than at a season boundary - if a squadron starts with 15 players, grows to 28 players, then shrinks to 24 players, grows to 26 players again, before an argument leaves it finishing the season on 17 players ... what size should be counted for determining how to adjust its raw score for the trophy calculation? If you scale the points based on the number of people in the squadron at the time those specific points were awarded, then you can exploit this by leaving the squadron when you log off for the night, and reapplying in the morning, to make sure the squadron only contains active workers and therefore maximises its scoring (you'd need to keep a small round-the-clock team of permanent members to approve the reapplications, of course). But if you don't do that and have some arbitrary census date - e.g. size when the award is granted - then a ruthless squadron leader could just boot X% of their members 3 hours before trophy allocation until they'd kicked out enough to get to first place.

 

[Stigbob]

Have winning in any category as a one time thing.

 

[Bigmaec]

Have winning in any category as a one time thing.

That would make sense. Once AXI for example gets the trophy for Anti Xeno stuff, any member gets it and AXI will run out of competition.

 

[Bloodsign]

Some good thoughts here!

How about changing just the leaderboard calculations to take squadron size into account in some way? It doesn't need to be proportional to squadron size, but something that would give smaller squadrons a bit of an edge. Maybe something like dividing the total score of the squadron by the square root of the number of players in the squadron, i.e.:

• A squadron with a single player would see the total score divided by 1
• A squadron with 25 players would see the total score divided by 5
• A squadron with 100 players would see the total score divided by 10

It would still be advantageous to be in a larger squadron, but the advantage would not be proportional to the number of players in the squadron, while at the same time, a smaller squadron that is more dedicated would have an easier time getting to the top of the leaderboards. It would still be extremely difficult for a squadron of a single player to beat a squadron of 100 players (they would still need to do 10x more than the average player in the larger squadron), but it would be easier for the squadron of 25 players to beat the squadron of 100 players (each player would need to do 2x more than the players in the other squadron).

I like this a lot.

Still doesn't really work, still the same anti-community incentives to ruthlessly boot out anyone not "pulling their weight".

Say you have a squadron of 25 players, of whom 16 are working on the leaderboard getting 100 points each, and 9 are taking the season off to do something else.
If you go like that, you'll end up with 16 * 100 / 5 = 320 points. If you kick the 9 out, you'll get 16 * 100 / 4 = 400 points, which is definitely better. The calculations get a bit more complicated, but there also comes a point where even people who are contributing (but not much) should be kicked out because they're dragging the divisor down more than they're pushing the raw total up.

It also gives some slightly odd calculations because people can join or leave squadrons other than at a season boundary - if a squadron starts with 15 players, grows to 28 players, then shrinks to 24 players, grows to 26 players again, before an argument leaves it finishing the season on 17 players ... what size should be counted for determining how to adjust its raw score for the trophy calculation? If you scale the points based on the number of people in the squadron at the time those specific points were awarded, then you can exploit this by leaving the squadron when you log off for the night, and reapplying in the morning, to make sure the squadron only contains active workers and therefore maximises its scoring (you'd need to keep a small round-the-clock team of permanent members to approve the reapplications, of course). But if you don't do that and have some arbitrary census date - e.g. size when the award is granted - then a ruthless squadron leader could just boot X% of their members 3 hours before trophy allocation until they'd kicked out enough to get to first place.

For these reasons, we should keep the current setup where contributions are anonymous. You can motivate your squadron to all do better, but you can't manipulate your score by booting poorly performing members, since you can't be certain who they are.

Concerning squadron size changes, they shouldn't change much if contributions are anonymous (which prevents roster manipulation), but there are several ways to calculate scores for squadrons who lost/gained members. The most draconian would be to simply use whatever number gives the squadron the lowest score, therefore squadron stability (or at least not losing members) would be critical. Squadrons would have to be more selective in recruiting also; simply focusing on bringing in new members would be short-term detrimental to the squadron if those members don't pitch in that season.

I think in terms of rewards there could be rankings, trophies, and medals. A trophy could be a one-time honor that your squadron achieves when they are #1 ranked in any category, medals would be something your squadron earns every season if they beat or tie the trophy score that season.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

For these reasons, we should keep the current setup where contributions are anonymous. You can motivate your squadron to all do better, but you can't manipulate your score by booting poorly performing members, since you can't be certain who they are.

An organised squadron could be certain, though - require that people log their activity to Inara, or EDSM, or just send Journals to the squadron leader, and assume they're performing poorly and kick them if they refuse. The effort required to convincingly fake the journals would be more than the effort required just to do the hauling/shooting/whatever.

The most draconian would be to simply use whatever number gives the squadron the lowest score, therefore squadron stability (or at least not losing members) would be critical. Squadrons would have to be more selective in recruiting also; simply focusing on bringing in new members would be short-term detrimental to the squadron if those members don't pitch in that season.

Basing it on the squadron's maximum size during the season would be harder to actively exploit, sure. But it does encourage kicking out basically everyone but your top performers near the end of each season, to get your size down before the start of the next season. I don't see why actively encouraging squadrons to be smaller is a good objective.

The other problem is that it makes the in-season leaderboards basically meaningless. At the moment I can see who is in first place, who is in second, how much effort it would take to catch them. If squadron sizes mean that points are then retroactively rebalanced for the final scores, it might be very difficult to tell who's ahead right until the end. If you look at lot of the leaderboards, competition for the trophy places boosts the performance of all the squadrons in contesting distance: if no-one can tell who that might be until day 58 or so, then a lot of the potential excitement is gone, replaced by a lot of spreadsheeting about "can we afford to keep Bob?"



I still fundamentally don't get the objective, though. Let's say we each have a squadron. In season 4, we both have 10 players in our squadron, and your squadron beats mine into 1st place by 1100 points to 1000 on a particular leaderboard. In season 5, you recruit 10 extra players, who don't do anything towards that leaderboard, whereas my squadron keeps a static membership. We both put in the same performances in season 5, so again, your squadron scores 1100 points and my squadron - having done absolutely nothing differently this season - scores 1000 points. But, because you recruited some extra deadweight, my squadron now wins. We didn't do anything to earn that win. We didn't recruit new talent. We didn't train our existing pilots better. We didn't find a new way to score points quickly. We didn't work harder. And your pilots didn't do anything less than before - it was still the same people beating us on points in the same way. But now we win? Because you were one squadron of 20 rather than two squadrons of 10? I don't get how that's a desirable outcome, or how discouraging you from taking on those other 10 is desirable either.

 

[Bigmaec]

An organised squadron could be certain, though - require that people log their activity to Inara, or EDSM, or just send Journals to the squadron leader, and assume they're performing poorly and kick them if they refuse. The effort required to convincingly fake the journals would be more than the effort required just to do the hauling/shooting/whatever.


Basing it on the squadron's maximum size during the season would be harder to actively exploit, sure. But it does encourage kicking out basically everyone but your top performers near the end of each season, to get your size down before the start of the next season. I don't see why actively encouraging squadrons to be smaller is a good objective.

The other problem is that it makes the in-season leaderboards basically meaningless. At the moment I can see who is in first place, who is in second, how much effort it would take to catch them. If squadron sizes mean that points are then retroactively rebalanced for the final scores, it might be very difficult to tell who's ahead right until the end. If you look at lot of the leaderboards, competition for the trophy places boosts the performance of all the squadrons in contesting distance: if no-one can tell who that might be until day 58 or so, then a lot of the potential excitement is gone, replaced by a lot of spreadsheeting about "can we afford to keep Bob?"



I still fundamentally don't get the objective, though. Let's say we each have a squadron. In season 4, we both have 10 players in our squadron, and your squadron beats mine into 1st place by 1100 points to 1000 on a particular leaderboard. In season 5, you recruit 10 extra players, who don't do anything towards that leaderboard, whereas my squadron keeps a static membership. We both put in the same performances in season 5, so again, your squadron scores 1100 points and my squadron - having done absolutely nothing differently this season - scores 1000 points. But, because you recruited some extra deadweight, my squadron now wins. We didn't do anything to earn that win. We didn't recruit new talent. We didn't train our existing pilots better. We didn't find a new way to score points quickly. We didn't work harder. And your pilots didn't do anything less than before - it was still the same people beating us on points in the same way. But now we win? Because you were one squadron of 20 rather than two squadrons of 10? I don't get how that's a desirable outcome, or how discouraging you from taking on those other 10 is desirable either.

But it's also discouraging knowing that to earn certain trophies you have to be part of AXI or CQC or whatever top squadrons are out there. For me this means I will never win a trophy without gaming the system to switch to a big squadron. That's a bit like powerplay shopping. Discouraging. In my opinion this needs to change if FD wants to have more/different people committed to the leaderboard.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If "per member" were to be used in some way as a metric then "per hour played" would, reasonably, have to as well....

 

[Ian Doncaster]

But it's also discouraging knowing that to earn certain trophies you have to be part of AXI or CQC or whatever top squadrons are out there. For me this means I will never win a trophy without gaming the system to switch to a big squadron. That's a bit like powerplay shopping. Discouraging. In my opinion this needs to change if FD wants to have more/different people committed to the leaderboard.

Sure, I get that. But there are over 7500 squadrons and only 21 trophies awarded each season. Regardless of how it's arranged, you're probably not going to get one.

And your squadron is easily big enough already to get a trophy place in CQC if it goes for it - second place last season went to a 2-player (two) squadron.

 

[Bloodsign]

If "per member" were to be used in some way as a metric then "per hour played" would, reasonably, have to as well....

Major no to that; you'd have people staying logged in 24/7.

 

[Bloodsign]

And your squadron is easily big enough already to get a trophy place in CQC if it goes for it - second place last season went to a 2-player (two) squadron.

That's more of a condemnation of CQC mode's current implementation, not a point in favor of the current squadron ranking system.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Major no to that; you'd have people staying logged in 24/7.

I was referring to efficiency, not hours logged. More hours is worse in that context.

 

[Bloodsign]

I was referring to efficiency, not hours logged. More hours is worse in that context.

Ah, yes, I misunderstood your post. Good thought, it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

That's more of a condemnation of CQC mode's current implementation, not a point in favor of the current squadron ranking system.

There have been some pretty small squadrons getting trophies on Powerplay, Political, and AX leaderboards as well. And we managed to get 5th place on Trade basically on the strength of two miners in Season 2, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a small mining-focused squadron make a trophy breakthrough on that one someday as well. (Combat and Exploration, sure, you're probably not going to get far on those as a small squadron)

Ah, yes, I misunderstood your post. Good thought, it makes a lot of sense.

If by "makes a lot of sense" you mean "adds a further layer of exploits to the leaderboards and discourages actual community", sure.

Let's take the exploration leaderboard: if hours played is factored in, here's how you win exploration.
- Season X-1 (non-competitive). Gather as much exploration data as you can, return to a cartographics service at the end of the season, but don't sell yet.
- Season X. (competitive). Log in. Sell your data as fast as the servers allow. Log out for the rest of the season for maximum exploration points per player per hour

If I get 50 points towards leaderboard X in an hour, why should it matter in the slightest for the leaderboard results if I spend the next hour chatting to the person who docked at the same station, or logged out and playing some other game instead? It certainly - from Frontier's point of view - shouldn't be better for the leaderboard and my trophy chances if I log out and play another game!

 

[Robert Maynard]

If by "makes a lot of sense" you mean "adds a further layer of exploits to the leaderboards and discourages actual community", sure.

Exactly.

Just as, if small Squadrons were favoured, a single (single minded) player, who did nothing except the required activity, for as many hours as they liked, would likely "win" the trophy for what is designed to be a multi-player feature.