method specific XP?

[DeadTeddy]

the devs are trying to make all weapons used, but with all honesty, most people would prefer using a phoenix over a punisher in most cases. they just take rexo, an MA and AV instead of the punisher.

I think it would be nice if XP would be calculated not only based on what you killed, but on how you did it.

an equation like this would be nice:

BaseXP + E_lifetime + Multiplier * (E_hitpoints/My_HitPoints + E_weapon/My_Weapon)

-BaseXP would be a certain minimum you can't get under.
-E_Lifetime is the time the enemy was alive before you wasted him. just like now, the longer he was alive the more XP you get.
-E_hitpoints is how much damage he could take. so if it's a rexo it would be like 300.
-E_weapon is a certain rating from 1 to 20 given to the strongest weapon in their holsters/spot in the veichle. inventory doesn't count. the more effective the weapon, the higher it's rating.
My_Hitpoints is just like E_hitpoints
My_weapon is a certain rating from 1 to 20 given to a weapon. a knife and a supressor for example should have a rating of 20, while a tank's main cannon is 1 or 2. reaver chainguns are around 10, and the rockets are 3-4. this is according to what you got the kill with.

the part in the brackets would calculate how hard it was to kill the guy, and the result would be multiplied by a certain multiplier.

in the end, you will see fresh spawners aren't worth much to a max with their little suppressors, maybe 50 XP at best. but taking out a rexo with a knife or a reaver with the prowler chainguns really pays off.

what do you think? maybe HA won't be so popular and people will start using buggies more in heavy battles.

[dscytherulez]

But then people will shy away from the true power of what is needed for taking a base. Who the hell would want to take a tank in to battle when they have to get 20 kills to match the 1 you'd have to get with a harasser?

Edit: Plus this would ruin the idea of more certs=better advantage. The people with the real advantage would be the idiots running around with an amp and in standard armor, with a 1:20 kill to death ratio, when the BR18 grunt is killing 20 times that and getting less xp.

[TheN00b]

Yep, sorry, idea's no good :( . Next?

[a pink punk]

no, this would make the game work the way it is supposed to, you would see the lighter wepeons more, and the heavery one less. also, it make it so that people would not use the main gun of a tank on a guy agile.

get where am going?

[dscytherulez]

You guys sound like the Native Americans counting cue (AKA: Running up and hitting and armed guy for praise because of bravery). All I know is that if I went to war and was given the option, I'd have the biggest damn gun there is. You want to run in there with a pistol because people will think you are braver? Be my guest. But don't penalize the smart ones.

Edit: Moral: A kill is a kill. I don't feel sorry for you when your trying to stab me while im holding an assualt rifle to your skull and pulling the trigger.

[SilverLord]

That would ruin what this game does best.

Let you play with what weapon YOU like the most.

[Ait'al]

It wouldnt make everyone walk around in standard armor. They would be just as vulnerable to being killed as before this would be implimented. They use the weaker weapons at risk of being exposed to damage longer. AKA the enemies not dieing as quickly. The idea is completely legitimate and would work for any game. It would actualy create an environement where people are better off staying alive longer like there supposed to be trying to so that you do get more experience form people. Which would also get people to become things like infiltrators or medics more and use more strategie because there not going to neccesarily get as much if they kill everything off right away. Theyll just have ot learn to seperate bases from people in there tactics instead of letting poeple respawn over and over.

[TheN00b]

Ait'al, since to me knowledge you don't even play, STFU. Just like Rulez said, bigger guns mean living longer, but they cost more certs. Why kill that system?

[Seer]

the devs are trying to make all weapons used

No, they aren't. The devs try to make every weapon useful in certain situations, and for the most part they are. AMPs and knives are great for stealthers, while the Punisher is useful for someone that wants a cheap grenade launcher. The idea that you would give someone more exp for using an inappropriate weapon is essentially flawed. People should be rewarded for being effective killers, that's all.

[dscytherulez]

No, they aren't. The devs try to make every weapon useful in certain situations, and for the most part they are. AMPs and knives are great for stealthers, while the Punisher is useful for someone that wants a cheap grenade launcher. The idea that you would give someone more exp for using an inappropriate weapon is essentially flawed. People should be rewarded for being effective killers, that's all.

:nod:

[TheN00b]

No, they aren't. The devs try to make every weapon useful in certain situations, and for the most part they are. AMPs and knives are great for stealthers, while the Punisher is useful for someone that wants a cheap grenade launcher. The idea that you would give someone more exp for using an inappropriate weapon is essentially flawed. People should be rewarded for being effective killers, that's all.

/signed

[Bad Mojo]

While we're beating a dead horse, I'll point out that driving people to behave a certain way in game with the reward of XP is a short-term solution. Eventually they will hit BR20/CR5 and that XP won't mean jack.

[SpunkJackel]

I'm all for this idea.

I stopped playing for exp so many weeks ago and would love to own fool after fool with my lasher/rexo get up that come charging at me decked out in standard with knife swinging.

[TheN00b]

lol SJ :lol:

[Madcow]

Funny, do that experience system and watch all the xp whores come over to be an infiltrator next to me. I already run around with the least armor and use a knife a huge chunk of the time. It's fun, I don't need extra xp to entice me. Knifing an MCG user to death is it's own reward.

[TheN00b]

Yep, it all comes down to your play style. In Mad's case, he's chosen to be an infiltrator, which means he uses a free (no cert cost) weapon while spending his Certs on support and transport. On the other hand, I spend my Certs on Heavy Assault and ReXo, knowing that I can count on others in my squad to have Adv Hacking/Med and Comabt Engineering.

[DeadTeddy]

ok, I guess I didn't explain it well. the idea is supposed to make all roles equivilant when it comes to XP. that way a dedicated infiltrator would make the same amount of XP as a dedicated reaver pilot and a surgile HA and any other role in one hour if they have the same amount of skill at what they do.

currently you are limited because if you want to get XP and fast, you're gonna take the biggest baddest weapon around. this way, you would take a weapon according to what you think is most fun, cause they all give the same XP.

[Krinsath]

ok, I guess I didn't explain it well. the idea is supposed to make all roles equivilant when it comes to XP. that way a dedicated infiltrator would make the same amount of XP as a dedicated reaver pilot and a surgile HA and any other role in one hour if they have the same amount of skill at what they do.

Um...they do. I blow up a MAX as an infiltrator, I get the same XP as if I gunned him down with a Reaver, and the same as if I hit him with a Deci. I've gotten more kills in some battles as an infiltrator than the Reaver pilot has because I can get places he can't. By the same token, I can't take on a tank as an infiltrator, because I don't have the kit to deal with it. As a Reaver, if you're lucky, you might get three or four tanks in an hour...they're tough, they usually have AA assets with them and your aircraft has the armor of paper. A skilled infiltrator can get dozens of people in a battle, especially if they've certed CE.

Certain weapons are more ADEPT at certain things (for instance, an infil without CE would have a tough time killing MAXes), but then again most of those roles are support and not combat. I've already said the support classes need some sort of XP for doing their jobs, and Smoke has indicated that may be coming down the pike at some point. Hence, things are already in motion to be balanced.

currently you are limited because if you want to get XP and fast, you're gonna take the biggest baddest weapon around. this way, you would take a weapon according to what you think is most fun, cause they all give the same XP.

Not true. You go hunting for the guys in the biggest, baddest weapons around. For example, you can take a Prowler and get a gunner and kill guys and get maybe 200-300XP per kill (on average). Blow up a crewed prowler and you can get literally thousands of XP in one fell swoop. Use CE to set booby traps in defense and you can get 2000XP in a matter of minutes.

It shouldn't be based on what the enemy is carrying either. They already adjusted the XP per kill a while because MAXes were hunted with extreme prejudice, since they were worth 600 and the infantry only 300 (maximum). It wasn't worth being a MAX because everyone and their mother aimed for you, even if you weren't a threat (aircraft gunning down a ScatMAX for instance). Now it's not *as* bad where targets are really taken on a threat basis.

As Rulez pointed out, your system rewards people who take the weakest armor and the weakest weapons that are even once successful. I could make 1000XP wearing standard with a beamer and taking out a Rexo with HA, especially since your system makes no adjustment for damage done by others. It'd degenerate into people wearing standard for everything just because that was the highest XP payoff. People who didn't care about XP would carry weaker armor and weapons because they don't want to GIVE XP to the enemy.

The system we have works, it does what it is supposed to do. Want the higher XP from killing the big targets? Get a cert that does it. You get 7 certs for free, that's more than enough to get whatever you're looking to do.