Exp system is terrible for Planetside 2

[Goldeh]

I think that a lot of problems that PS2 stems from is a symptom of a much larger issue and that issue is how exp is earned. Currently, the marjority of gaining certs is from kills and the exp system is mirroring that of smaller scale titles such as CoD and BF3 (see: kill-streaks) but already we see problems croping up in the meta game.

What we have now in terms of AA is that ESF is being allowed to free-roam. Now the problem is that no one wants to pull that skyguard or go in that turret or pull that max because in a game that has progression based mostly on kills, you're not gonna see a lot of kills as AA. And because you don't see a lot of kills from AA is the reason why no one bothers in AA which is the reason why air is everywhere which is the reason why people complain about rocket pods because no one is pulling AA and thus the cycle loops. Considering that it takes more than one max or turret to effectively put a dent in airpower then no one is gonna pull one. The meta game is borked.

Thus, if the exp system was changed from kills to damage, this will incentivise people to going into AA, even dedicating themselves to it. Exp being based on damage and not kills will make people feel like they are not wasting their time just scaring away aircraft or even other mentionables. Deterrents don't give any rewards unless the guy/girl you're shooting at dies. This is a problem.

A exp system based on damage is a lot more rewarding for the player instead of straight up kills. You could have situations where you did damage someone but they got away for whatever reason, maybe you meant to scare them off, knowing that you couldn't take them alone. But the game would still reward you for your efforts. Versus. Not giving anything at all.

Further more, exp system based on damage would incentivise people to defending more, as you could see the whole amp stations aa turrets filled for a chance to get those pot shots at ESF, libs, galaxies, tanks, etc.. Then once you have a system based on damage and not kills you can balance based on the many and not the few because everyone gets a chance to earn something. People in ESF rocketpods would be less inclined to hover and instead strafe the target, knowing that they'd get rewarded for it, you could even then buff AA based on that one notion. A exp system based on damage could even aid those who are poorer in FPS, instead of outright dying and getting nothing out of it.

In conclusion the current exp system is terrible and downright silly for a game of this magnitude, and when the games philosophy stats that kills don't matter. Then the exp system should reflect that philosophy.

[AThreatToYou]

In the current system, the best way to farm certs is to find a sunderer and spam it with HE shells / rockets. Destroying the sunderer is completely optional if not discouraged because that culls your juicy flow of points.

This alone tells me there's something wrong with the point system in PS2. Territory capture is not rewarded nearly as much as it should be; it is more or less a bad idea to cap the base because then you have to find the zerg all over again which can take hours.

[Goldeh]

I'm arguing for a change in the exp system, instead of exp based on kills, exp based on damage, damage is different becauseit's more immediate, you damage a guy, even if he lives you still get exp for your efforts versus nothing if he lives.

Damage based exp gain wouldn't stop sunderer farming anyway so. *shrug*

[Palerion]

The core of the issue is that in a game so largely focused on territorial control, working for the better of your team and capturing points reaps very little reward. And earning four certs for a huge base that can take hours to capture isn't helping the fact. The reward should be much greater for a base of that size, and greater than 1 cert for smaller bases too. Try something like 10 certs for a large base, 2 for a small base. 5 or so for a medium. And about control points; a point conversion should give more than 30 xp.

[basti]

Obvious solution is obvious.


Own 100% of the continent = you get 200% of current XP.

Own 0% of the continent = 50% of current XP.

Or someting along those lines. Means, the more territory you own, the more XP you get.

That makes pushing quite important.

[Palerion]

Very good idea basti.

[Aaron]

Obvious solution is obvious.


Own 100% of the continent = you get 200% of current XP.

Own 0% of the continent = 50% of current XP.

Or someting along those lines. Means, the more territory you own, the more XP you get.

That makes pushing quite important.

That might discourage people from taking a continent completely. They'll want to farm the XP bonus as much as possible.

[AThreatToYou]

Instead of that, how about an experience system which provides a scaling boost to experience gains when one captures territory, but it wears off over time and it will immediately go away if that territory is captured by the enemy? The more important the territory, the higher the boost.
To prevent a cap-fest where no one defends, keep the defense bonus and increase it depending on how important a territory is.
Importance will be rated by number of hexes covered, resources provided, and a flat and very significant boost for whether or not the territory is also a facility (such as an Amp Station, Bio Lab, or Tech Plant).
This provides a really easy shoe-in for the mission system, which would work by modifying the exp boosts of territory.

[cooonips]

Damage based exp gain wouldn't stop sunderer farming anyway so. *shrug*

not exactly, a sunderer can take alot more damage than infantry, so focusing on damaging that should give a fair bit of xp.

but very yes with the getting xp for damaging stuff, even if its just for vehicles. the rewards for going after vehicles is far too low at the moment which is why farming infantry is sadly the best way to get certs

[Babyfark McGeez]

Obvious solution is obvious.


Own 100% of the continent = you get 200% of current XP.

Own 0% of the continent = 50% of current XP.

Or someting along those lines. Means, the more territory you own, the more XP you get.

That makes pushing quite important.

That sounds like an excellent idea there. Just i would do it on a global (server-wide) scale.

An XP gain modifier based on the global percentages of territory your faction is currently holding. Even cont locking would add up perfectly on that, lock a cont = safe % xp gain modifier for a certain amount of time.

That system would give holding territory a meaning.

[Palerion]

We just need to make sure it's a gain; I don't think 50% of current xp is a good idea, with the challenge that people have already trying to get XP. It should be a reward for owning more land, not a punishment for owning less.