More XP for epic battles!

[Mox]

I just thought about the reason why people in PS1 mostly wanted to join the big zergfights over a base.

Sure there was the lattice and some fat hotspots on the map.
But there was also somethings else:

You earned more XP in a huge fight than in a small one. AND NO XP AT ALL IF NO ENEMIES WERE DEFINDING THE BASE.

Would that also be a solution for the current problems in PS2?

What do you think about?

[EvilNinjadude]

You get 700XP to 1100XP per base for flipping small bases, is that too much?
I think it's one of the methods that grant the MOST XP and certs. At the cost of earning Auraxium, of course, since you're gonna spend a lot of time away from those big bases.

[BlueSkies]

Which current problems are you referring to?

Playing on several servers and empires, it isn't that hard to find a large fight (sometimes harder to find a small fight).

If you are referring to the lack of direction in the zerg... well... the impression I get from the interviews and dev posts is that while they want to foster organization, they don't want to do something that would guide all 2000 people on a cont to the same fight (as the game would explode).

[Mox]

Which current problems are you referring to?

Well, i refer to the current lack of a zerg and the too big incentives for ghost captures.

You get 700XP to 1100XP per base for flipping small bases, is that too much?

Yes, thats way too much if there are no enemies defendig it.

I suggest (as in PS1) that flipping a base after a huge battle should be rewarded with a lot of XP. On the other hand if you are flipping a small outpost via ghosthack (with no battle at all) you should earn no or very little XP.

[Electrofreak]

I've had a thread going on this on the official forums with a fair bit of support:

Dynamic XP gain (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/dynamic-xp-gain.8197/#post-116744)

PS1 vets will remember that in the first PlanetSide, when you captured a base, you gained XP that varied based upon how much combat took place within the SOI (Sphere Of Influence) surrounding the base during the battle. Long, protracted battles would reward those who stayed and fought hard (provided they were on the winning side) by providing a much higher XP gain than a shorter battle. Also, back-hacking didn't really provide much XP at all since there was no combat involved.

Player kills worked a similar way. You got extra XP for killing a player who had been alive longer and had been making more kills. So when you snuffed out that guy who made mincemeat of 6 other guys in the tower you were defending, you got a good chunk of XP for your effort.

Now, I don't know if this is planned for PS2 (I don't recall any developer comments on the subject) and if the current XP system is just a placeholder, but if the current system is to be kept I have some concerns. In PS1, the dynamic XP system didn't always exist... it was implemented after people started exploiting the static XP system by having a couple guys from opposing factions pick an empty base on the corner of a map somewhere and flip it back and forth for the static XP gain.

I'd really like to see PS2 employ dynamic XP gain, only using the hexes instead of the SOI the PS1 bases used. There seems little reason to stay and fight in a protracted battle when you can go find a little outpost skirmish somewhere and get a quick 500 XP (or more, if you're involved in the capture). Of course, Auraxium is the primary reason to stay at a major base currently, but Auraxium will be of little use if you don't have the battle rank needed for the unlocks, and currently people just AFK to gain Auraxium (which another problem entirely).

So, what do you think? Would static XP gain work in PS2 or does it need to be dynamic like in PS1?

[Mox]

I've had a thread going on this on the official forums with a fair bit of support:

Dynamic XP gain (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/dynamic-xp-gain.8197/#post-116744)

This, +1

[BlueSkies]

I honestly haven't paid too much attention to this aspect of the game systems* so forgive me if I am mistaken, but how much of an incentive is XP? In PS1 XP was necessary to level up and thus earn more certs. In PS2 (as I said, forgive me if I am mistaken) XP just grants higher BR, which gives you... titles?

If I am correct (for all I know XP boosts auraxium gain), then wouldn't a resource/auraxium multiplier that is based on area population density be more of an incentive if you are trying to encourage the zerg (not that I think it really needs encouragement, at least on the servers I play on)?

So.. something like**:
Ghost hacking: 0 bonus
Small fight: 1.2 multiplier
Medium fight: 1.5 multiplier
Large fight: 1.8 multiplier

*Haven't really bothered to care. I always seem to have max resources

**Numbers pulled out of my ass

[sylphaen]

I just thought about the reason why people in PS1 mostly wanted to join the big zergfights over a base.

Sure there was the lattice and some fat hotspots on the map.
But there was also somethings else:

You earned more XP in a huge fight than in a small one. AND NO XP AT ALL IF NO ENEMIES WERE DEFINDING THE BASE.

Would that also be a solution for the current problems in PS2?

What do you think about?

I think it went the other way during PS1 development. Rewards for capturing a base was the same wether it was a ghost hack or a 6 hour long epic siege; it was thought as being unfair and the variable XP bonus was brought.

I wonder why that concept was not kept either. Maybe devs have more pressing matters at the moment (like improving base fights).

[Syphus]

I'd actually like to see XP have a point before we even talk about how much should be given.

[SixShooter]

The way it is now, bases and outposts and towers all earn the same XP for getting the cap but, if you're in a big fight you're probably earning 5 - 10 times that or more just through doing whatever it is that you do durring a big fight. If there is no fight at all then there is no extra XP to be had.

I really don't see a problem with this especially since leveling up seems to serve no purpose other than putting a number next to your name.

[Stew]

I kinda agree but Now we need much more tools to know whats going on ... the (( hot spot )) are broken at the momment 3 guys figthing 2 is kinda consider as a (( hot spot )) atm

We need heatmap on contested area to know where the big figth are , Also it seams their is Not 2000 players per continents at all the servers has lower pops caps than whats was expected their is hundreads of player yes but not 2000 thats for sure so when their is a big figth their is only one at time !

this is one of the major issue about the game rigth now POP caps and No tools to know properly where the big figth are actually ..

Mission sythem, Heatmaps , hotspot thats work properly and higher pop cap are the highest priority to me but yeah big figth should grant more XP