At the moment there seems to be no downside to having 4-5 low wage-high elo players on 10 streaming games per day. Sure, their fatigue levels may drop to 0%, but since their only use is streaming, that doesn't matter (I have not noticed an interaction between fatigue and streaming income) Right now you just have 5 spots in your team for money making machines which require no management whatsoever.
I see several solutions: + Make streaming influence ELO negatively. When you are streaming, you are less focused on the game, making you worse. Something like an 0.8 skill modifier with regards to soloq skill or whatever. A 2000elo player can still comfortably win 1600elo matches, but that's it. This also prevents ELO inflation, where you try to boost a players ELO by letting him play soloq until you hit a good streak and then stopping. You will also have to invest in training lest they deteriorate.
+Make fatigue influence streaming income and ELO. Not sure how much of this is implemented, but noone wants to see a dead tired streamer. (Edit: Apparently, this is already a thing.)
+Tie streaming income to player reputation, and only increase player reputation for matches won with the player in the active roster. This approach will make the dedicated streamers less effective. A first team player should generate more streaming income and be more popular than a nobody who happens to be on your payroll. Dedicated streamers are still an option, but to maximize your profit you would need to let them play games with the team as well.
1
I agree. The current issue is that the player put to stream doesn't actually have to play the solo queue games. So it works to just get a player to high ELO and put full time streaming sessions on.
Streaming could automatically lose ELO, but perhaps streaming could also mean always doing a solo queue game as well as you said with performance somewhat decreased. The last one is more reallike solution. The only downside is a little bit more cost for the server, but I think it would be fine for now.
1
It looks like fatigue affects streaming revenue quite a bit to me.
1
same for me. tired streamer earn less.
1
You seem to be correct. I edited the main post to reflect that. However, I noticed that my players still recover fatigue with 10 streaming games and 3 training sessions, making fatigue a non factor. Maybe streaming should be more taxing?
My facilities are L6 gaming, startup garage, single excluded beds and a maid for my players (L6 utilities)
1
I think revenue should just be more tied to elo and lower elo revenue be quite a bit lower.
1
I think streaming should count as a solo q game, so high elo players with low stats (which is who I have) will lose their elo and thus lose revenue. This way we would have to spend our resources training our streamers instead of just leaving them alone and raking in the money.
1
Streaming should not necessarily be a net loss in Elo, but it should count toward a Solo Queue game where stats are slightly worse (maybe like a .8 or .9). Honestly, I think that Reputation/Personality should affect income more than Elo. Streaming is just entertainment anyway, and people come for the enjoyment of the player. A low Rep/Per player with a high Elo will have fewer viewers (just the die-hard learners of the game), but the highly entertaining player will have many more viewers despite not necessarily being a better player or even despite him being at a lesser Elo.
TL;DR Personality and Reputation affect streaming income more than Elo (but Elo still helps). Streaming counts as handicapped solo queue games, not auto-losses. Sound good?
1
Streaming should not be SoloQ in any case. Maybe leave it as optional.
Risking your main Elo, cause you want him to stream, is not the right choice.
1
I actually love the idea of combining soloq and streaming. It's logical. How else would he stream? Play a game of Co-op bots??
My thoughts on this is to keep what we have: The ability to choose how many soloq a player should play and how many streams he can do. However, the twist is that streaming would affect his soloq rank, AND there should be a penalty in his ability during streaming (for example, he can only play his 90% best during streaming soloq, because he would also need to entertain the viewers and not concentrate fully on the game.)
Edit: Also I shall be a jerk for a moment and proceed to aggressively disagree with what the above post said. There is currently ZERO downsides of having players stream. Having an option in this game without a downside is detrimental. It would not be an option anymore, but a choice of "are you dumb? Why aren't every single member on your team streaming???" For me, the best and most logical downside is the fact that you would have to risk your elo while streaming. It's literally what the real pros are doing!
1
Real pros perform really well on stream, have you seen faker stream ever? The best idea would simply be to remove the energy system and have 12-16 session per day. Also make it so you cant get more than 5 players until you upgraded the gaming house. And then you get access to having more players the bigger your house gets. keep soloQ and streaming seperate like it is now. But if a player doesnt play soloQ he decays. This will make it so you have to fit in team ranked, training, soloQ and streaming into 12 sessions. Right now the energry system is flawed, sessions system worked better cause you had to make hard choices
1
@momo You brought out 2 really neat ideas that I agree with. Firstly, I really like the idea of gaming house limiting the amount of players. I also agree that ranking should decay.
As for the energy system, I do think that the energy system needs a bit of tuning (coach training sessions cost too little) and more transparency (numbers showing how much energy you are using and how much you will gain back the next day). However, I prefer the energy system over the session system. You argued that sessions give people harder choices to make, but I don't agree. Session system for me in the past is basically set my players to do 10 things, then ignore it for the rest of the season. I think having energy affecting the players ingame performance really adds a new layer of strategy and planning into this game. Further more, we can introduce elements such as temporary sickness, which could affect the players (only have half the energy regeneration etc). This will definitely keep us on our toes on deciding what our players should be doing each day.
1
@littleguypwn i am just a fan of the fact that the sessions system gives you complete transparency over what you gain VS what you lose. Atm the hidden energy losses are horrible. I feel its total RNG when it comes down to it. Which is why i am a bigger fan of the sessions system over the energy system as it is.
1
Actually there are strict numbers in the energy system. Recently the devs released a post indicating the energy usuage of certain functions. For example, ranked games cost 2 energy and coach training costs 0.5. You also gain 15 back (more if you upgraded your facilities.) I do agree that the energy system needs to be more transparent about how much we are using and how much we lose. For myself, knowing the numbers, I just do the math and plan my players' schedules.
