PS2 needs dynamic XP gain.

[Electrofreak]

I know this is a lot to read, but please lend me a moment of your time and hear me out on this one.

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 while you were present 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 reward than a shorter battle. Back-hacking didn't really provide much XP at all since there was little to no combat involved, and neither did showing up at the last moment as the base was captured.

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. PS2 sort-of does this for kill streaks, but it's still not quite the same. This system made spawn camping far less profitable than it is in PS2, as you only got a couple XP for killing someone who spawned a few moments ago. Kill whores will always spawn camp to pad their K/D ratios, but with dynamic XP gain at least they won't be pulling in ridiculous amounts of XP while they do it.

In PS1, the dynamic XP system didn't always exist... if I remember correctly, 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. PS2 had the same problem during beta, and the solution was basically to remove XP rewards for recapturing a base, and to provide XP bonuses made to kills when defending. Unfortunately, this is largely transparent and is one of the main reasons why defending is so unappealing to many.

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 just hop in a Reaver and fly over whatever base or outpost on the map is about to get capped for an easy chunk of XP in a matter of moments. And, for the record, there are some ways PS2 handles XP better than PS1 did, with kill assist XP and XP for destroying vehicles even if the occupant has bailed out of it, but without dynamic XP gain, it ultimately just rewards rushing the base that's about to be captured and farming Sunderers and spawn rooms.

Think about it; one of the main reasons we play is to gain XP, which gives us the certifications which we use to unlock new weapons and abilities. XP is the carrot being dangled in front of the playerbase, so if we fix the way it's handed out in a matter that better rewards strategic gameplay instead of farming spawns or just zerging towards whatever is about to be captured, we should see PS2 develop some greater depth in gameplay. It's not the answer to all of PS2's issues, but I believe it's a step in the right direction.

I've been wondering if dynamic XP isn't in the game simply because it hasn't been given the development time yet, or if it's a server computing load issue.

Truly, I hope it's the former rather than the latter.

EDIT - After some good discussion in this thread and some feedback from SOE dev (and former respected community member) Malorn, I've decided that I don't think we need to make EVERY aspect of PS2's XP system dynamic.

Here's my current proposed list of changes:

Leave anything class-based static (heal/revive/repair/resupply bonuses). This helps to simplify XP balancing.

Leave infantry kill payout at 100 XP (no dynamic), just include an XP penalty curve that ramps up to full XP payout within a certain number of seconds after spawning so spawn camping isn't profitable.

Include dynamic XP to attackers for base captures, rewarding XP based upon the intensity of the battle in the area.

Make defense bonus XP more visible to defenders by showing them that they're getting more XP for defending, encouraging them to stick around.


I think this is all we need to do, and I don't think it would be terribly hard to balance as none of it benefits any class over another, isn't crazy complicated (people will figure out that killing new spawns doesn't pay well), and dangles the carrot in front of attackers and defenders alike to promote epic battles.

After all, epic battles is really what PlanetSide is all about.

EDIT 2 - Victory! One of the main features in the upcoming January 30th patch is dynamic XP! Here's what Higby says is coming for us:


Experience (XP) system enhancements:

Dynamic XP system for player kills, players who have more kills XP earned on their current life are worth more XP. Freshly spawned players will be worth a fraction of the current kill reward.
Partial damage XP for dealing damage to vehicles that you don't end up killing
Population XP / Resource bonus moved over to continent population instead of global
Better display of XP sources for things like defensive bonuses & population bonuses
Rebalancing of XP rewards to help support tasks



http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/happy-new-year-update-02-info.77203/

No dynamic base XP yet but it's a great start! I'm impressed that they went fully dynamic with kill XP as well as support XP, as it was the more difficult path in terms of development time and balancing than staying static. I really appreciate the effort!

[ShadetheDruid]

I think it would be pretty awesome to have it work like this, especially the part about only getting a few XP for recent spawners.

Even if they just implemented something simple in that vein (tiny XP amounts until you've left a spawn room and been alive for X amount of time), it would be better than what we have now (and likely wouldn't be hard or taxing on the system to do).

[CaptainP]

I wholeheartedly agree, especially in relation to base assault. This means you won't get full xp for showing up just as it flips, and you won't get punished if you leave SOI (why was it always called sphere, it was a cylinder :P) before it turns.

This will also discourage xp-motivated backhacks.

I don't think dynamic kill xp is that important, since it's much harder to spawn camp in PS2 than in PS1. You already get bonus xp for ending kill streaks.

[MrBloodworth]

I agree. Things like this are why I ask if they spent any meaningful time with the original.

This is another area of a hard lesson learned 10 years ago that's has not been incorporated and improved on for the original. Lessons learned and all that.

It was in the original, and the BF franchise does not do it, so it must be bad.

They still need to redesign bases, the designs promote spawn camping.

I don't think dynamic kill xp is that important, since it's much harder to spawn camp in PS2 than in PS1.

This has to be a Typo. Must be.

[Mutant]

100% agree.


I suspect we ended up where we have in PS2 because of the desire to simplify everything, capping a base where XP = X is very easy to understand.

capping a base where XP = (X*Y)*Z is less obvious.

[CaptainP]

This has to be a Typo. Must be.

What I mean is that you can't be killed right out of the spawn tube. Yes, vehicles can camp the entrances to the spawn, but you can always redeploy without dying.

[Aaron]

Yeah, the dynamic XP would be better I think. New spawners should be around 20 XP and should go up according to the time+XP the enemy player has accumulated.

If the server can keep track of health points and kill streak bonuses, then it should be able to do this.

[Mooseay]

meh I'm not to swayed ether way it's a nice idea though

[Aaron]

What I mean is that you can't be killed right out of the spawn tube. Yes, vehicles can camp the entrances to the spawn, but you can always redeploy without dying.

Spawn camping usually only happened at the end of a base fight in PS1, and usually didn't last long. In PS2, the spawns are easily accessed.

[PurpleOtter]

Spawn camping usually only happened at the end of a base fight in PS1, and usually didn't last long. In PS2, the spawns are easily accessed.

Correct, spawn camping in PS1 was not about farming, it was to stop the OPFOR from re taking the base.

[TomManiac]

Good idea ... been missing this myself in PS2.

I remember times in PS1 where spawn camping and killing a freshly spawned enemy gave you 1 or 2 XP (vs. up to 100-200XP when killing someone who had been alive for some time).
That made spawn camping just a waste of time (besides being lame anyway).

[CaptainP]

I don't agree that camping the spawn entrances in PS2 is necessarily about farming. It always happens in relation to a base capture, and as such it serves a tactical purpose.

That being said, I agree that the spawn camping in PS2 is a problem, but the problem is rooted in base design, not the xp/spawn mechanics in themselves. Do you honestly believe that if they just reduced xp for freshly spawned infantry, vehicles would stop campig the spawn? In my opinion, it is a problem that the spawn unit is detached from the main base, and is isolated in a courtyard full of enemy vehicles. Vehicle dominance and lack of infantry battle is symptomatic for PS2 compared to PS1, but that is a whole other discussion.

TL;DR: Base design is broken, and reduced infantry xp will not fix vehicles spawn camping.

[Soothsayer]

I liked dynamic XP, especially with vehicles.

I also liked shared XP, facilitated squad role specialization without getting left behind.

XP waypoint was cool, another tool for the SL to use.

[Mutant]

I don't agree that camping the spawn entrances in PS2 is necessarily about farming. It always happens in relation to a base capture, and as such it serves a tactical purpose.

That being said, I agree that the spawn camping in PS2 is a problem, but the problem is rooted in base design, not the xp/spawn mechanics in themselves. Do you honestly believe that if they just reduced xp for freshly spawned infantry, vehicles would stop campig the spawn? In my opinion, it is a problem that the spawn unit is detached from the main base, and is isolated in a courtyard full of enemy vehicles. Vehicle dominance and lack of infantry battle is symptomatic for PS2 compared to PS1, but that is a whole other discussion.

TL;DR: Base design is broken, and reduced infantry xp will not fix vehicles spawn camping.

I don't think you need to redesign bases to reduce the camping, although i do think a lot of bases would benefit.

Re-securing a base rarely happens due to it being so hard and unrewarding that most people simply move on to the next base.
In PS1 people had to guard the control point as a small organised group could get in to reset the hack, with PS2 there is just no need to defend like that.

If you reduced the xp for newly spawned people and provided some xp for standing on the capture point (or some other action around the base) then you will find a lot less people spawn camping.

At the moment the only way to gain XP after a base has been broadly secured is to camp the spawns.

[CaptainP]

Spawn camping usually only happened at the end of a base fight in PS1, and usually didn't last long. In PS2, the spawns are easily accessed.

If spawns were indesctructible in PS1, they would have been camped there as well.

I think spawn camping is enabled by accessibility, and either incentive or invincibility. Removing incentive (xp) won't stop spawn camping, because they will still be indestructible and as such people will camp them as long as people keep spawning. My proposal is to move spawn areas away from vehicles and into the bases, reducing accessibility.

The reason I don't have a problem with the spawn mechanics themselves, is because you can't camp like you could in PS1 (there is no debating this). When you spawn, you are safe. Before running outside, you can judge whether or not it's a good idea, and redeploy via the map if you are being camped. This stands in contrast to PS1, where you risked having a MAX in your face right as you spawned, and you were dead no matter what.

[CaptainP]

I don't think you need to redesign bases to reduce the camping, although i do think a lot of bases would benefit.

If you reduced the xp for newly spawned people and provided some xp for standing on the capture point (or some other action around the base) then you will find a lot less people spawn camping.

At the moment the only way to gain XP after a base has been broadly secured is to camp the spawns.

Getting xp for standing on the CP might help the problem somewhat, but it's not ideal since it defies tactical play (discourages securing the perimeter or whatever). Honestly though, I think you'd still have people roaming the courtyard in vehicles, unless you made the xp incentive very big.

[ShadetheDruid]

That being said, I agree that the spawn camping in PS2 is a problem, but the problem is rooted in base design, not the xp/spawn mechanics in themselves.

Personally I think it's a combination of the two. I mean, if you look around this forum even and take note of all the people who say they dislike the spawn camping but do it anyway because it's an easy way to get XP/certs, that's got to be quite a few alone.

The spawns still need redesigning (and I agree that this is the more important factor overall), but in the meantime if you got next to no XP for spawn camping, at least the people with low willpower can get themselves away from the spawns.

But maybe we should focus on the idea as a whole? I mean, the spawn-related aspect is only a small part of the OP, along with people getting lots of XP for just being in an area 1 second before it flips, disproportional XP gain in general, and all the rest.

Would be a shame to get bogged down in yet another spawn discussion, considering spawn redesign is one point everyone can pretty much agree on.

[Bags]

In the current game it is better to farm an ams than to destroy it. I don't know how the debs have jobs with a massive failing like that.

[CaptainP]

text

Yeah, sorry for derailing the thread.

The reason I don't want low spawn xp, is because in small fights where the same people kill each other frequently, this will yield very little xp, even if there's no dodgy play involved. In PS1 I quite enjoyed the smaller fights where individual impact was greater.

As long as the bases/spawns remain as they are, I don't think reduced xp will help the camping (except for Sunderers/AMS, which is a valid point). I would however be fine with reduced spawn xp if it ramps up very quickly, yielding full xp within a minute or so.

[Memeotis]

Good post. This is definitely a powerful tool SOE can use to shape the way players play the game and it is very under-utilized. These are some great suggestions.

[Qwan]

I understand the reason behind what the author of this thread is talking about, I wrote a thread a while back saying the exact same thing. I talked about how bases give a set amount of xp regardless of lenth of battle and kills in the SOI. But you have to remember one thing kids, this game is free to play :rolleyes:, and i got beach front property in Kansas City, :groovy: if they gave out xp like they did PS1 then we would be banking certs, but for SOE to make any Ioda of money the xp has to come at a controled rate.
1. If you want your xp to come faster buy a boost with SC which cost money.
2. You want thet new gun to take out air faster you have to use SC which cost money.
3. You want that cool blue and white striped pattern so you can stand out in the desert back ground you have to use SC which cost money.

If you want better weapons FASTER not exclusively, then your gonna have to spend SC or real money. This is why they have to have a controled XP gain, to produce some revenue (cause its free to play :rolleyes:) because they know there is the impatient gamer out there with a credit card, that will spend the money. This is why side grades, Reflex, extended mage, ammo load out, forward grimps, and NV and IR sights cost certs only, all the other stuff is either certs (which comes at a steady rate) or SC WHICH COST MONEY. I got the monthly subscription, and I also wait for sales on station cash, and since xp boost stack, I have decided to get the 50% xp boost on double xp weekends, I was making like 245 xp per kill that last weekend (this didnt include kill streaks and stuff). To put it all in a nut shell I dont think there going to change the xp gain at all they may change the dynamics of the hack but for this game to survive somebody has to pay. Its just a fact.

[CaptainP]

text

You're completely misunderstanding the OP. There's no intention of increasing (or decreasing) overall xp gain, the suggestion is to rebalance xp distribution in order to encourage playing the game the way it is intended, and discourage activities such as hacking empty outposts just for the sake of xp. It's also to remove some design flaws such as losing out on all cap xp if you're not in the area the moment it flips.

[Electrofreak]

Yeah, sorry for derailing the thread.

The reason I don't want low spawn xp, is because in small fights where the same people kill each other frequently, this will yield very little xp, even if there's no dodgy play involved. In PS1 I quite enjoyed the smaller fights where individual impact was greater.

As long as the bases/spawns remain as they are, I don't think reduced xp will help the camping (except for Sunderers/AMS, which is a valid point). I would however be fine with reduced spawn xp if it ramps up very quickly, yielding full xp within a minute or so.

You do make a good point. We don't want those little skirmishes where people on both sides respawn frequently to become watered down. The timer to full XP should be fairly short, and the existing kill streak XP bonus should be sufficient for the rest, as that's already dynamic to an extent.

The dynamic aspect for capturing bases was what motivated me to post, but given all the rage about spawn camping recently I figured I'd include that part of it as well.

[MrBloodworth]

It would not be a problem, IF THE SPAWN ROOMS WERE NOT RIGHT THERE. In the current base design, anyone NOT camping the spawn buildings is not playing right.

Spawns should be the last reachable location in any base, including outposts. You should have to go by every single other objective before reaching them.

Then new spawns being 1 xp would not effect anyone but campers.


And don't give me this crap about "Herp a derp you should defend the spawns better", because that's just pure fantasy. You can't effectively stop a lib that wants to camp the spawn, nor the tanks, nor the 100's of players.

Once the tanks and air show up, you are done in the current set up. 80% of taking a base in PS2 is camping the spawn buildings while the hack goes through.

[Stanis]

Linking time alive to kill xp would result in a massive and dramatic nerf to total XP income. I don't think most players really live that long between spawns.
(sniper hunting might prove really popular.)

I can see what is wanting to be achieved by having dynamic base capture xp.


Thing is I want the game to work regardless of XP rewards.
I've got a few things that are a thousand XP I'd like to get the certs for. They make them 0.04% better.
My inner mmo-addict is demanding I grind them out as fast as possible in the most optimised manner.

But I don't want to play the game that way. I kind of want to hit "BR20", have everything I need .. which I think I will after about 6 months .. and then get on with enjoying the good fights.

We should be wanting and needing to secure these bases because of the territory, the combat flow, the progression, good strategy - when there is a sound meta game and reason to fight the XP is just a nice added bonus.

Finally, there are umpteen threads about base design and building layout.
We really shouldn't have a situation where it is easier to let the enemy take the territory and take it back than actually defend.
So primarily a smaller force should be more effective with teamwork in defense than an equal sized attacking force.

[Electrofreak]

Linking time alive to kill xp would result in a massive and dramatic nerf to total XP income. I don't think most players really live that long between spawns.
(sniper hunting might prove really popular.)

People keep misinterpreting that I'm looking to change the rate at which XP is gained this way. I'm not. This system worked fine in PlanetSide and everyone was fine with the rate of XP gain, and XP values can be tweaked so that average XP payout per kill remains the same.

Besides, as I said a few posts above, I'd rather see "full" XP payout be obtainable within half a minute or so after spawning, leaving the kill streak bonuses in as they are. They essentially were in PS1 as well, they've just been split off as a second chunk of XP when you get a kill.

Sure, it'll be a reduction in XP for the kind of guy that sits in an HE Lighting farming people who spawn at a Sunderer. But I don't think many of us are too worried about upsetting him.

[AThreatToYou]

but for SOE to make any Ioda of money the xp has to come at a controled rate.

This is the biggest reason why I believe XP gains are not dynamic or scaled.
Controlling cert gain with a dynamic experience system would be much harder, whether it would be faster or slower than it is normally.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the suggested feature is not supposed to change the average cert gain rate. I also really want dynamic cert gain, and changes to the point system that encourage base defense and attack; simply reducing all other XP rewards and giving a massive payout of the difference to the winner of a base attack or defense scenario would be a great start.

[moosepoop]

dynamic bonus doesnt have to be a lot, just a little bit can feel more psychologically rewarding.

[Rivenshield]

In PS2, the spawns are easily accessed.

Point of order: they are easily BOXED IN. By tanks and aircraft, most of the time.

And yeah, we need dynamic XP to make some sort of a comeback. Along with a cooldown time on empire swaps. You know. Like much else that we had ten bloody years ago.

I have the feeling even Higby has written vets off as a bunch of atavistic old nerds who are trying to recreate their youth, rather than improve the game we've *got.*

[Wahooo]

I don't understand how these changes would be a nerf to XP generation?

See Bob it just comes down to motivation. Spawn camping in it self is kind of a natural progression in the capture mechanic HOWEVER... a well designed base would allow the defenders the possibility to fight back out of their spawns to re-take the base if they are not fully camped. A bio lab for example. Eventually it ends with spawns camped but even then if you CAN fight out it ends up being near inevitable you lose the base. With amp stations and especially with tech-plants now, the spawn camping starts at the START of the fight and the ability to fight back out is near zero.
This is an issue with base design, the dynamic XP part is just so it is less beneficial to the campers.

See the thing is TACTICAL moves need to have the tactical success be the point and not give that much XP. Destroying terminals, Gens, capturing checkpoints and towers these are tactical points to the much larger point of base capture where the fighting and capturing/defending should be the big XP maker. Remember in PS1 who killed the lobby term? The defenders because once you lost the lobby you didn't want the other team to be able to use it right? In ps2? First noob to get to it... why? gives XP and there is no tactical reason to hack them, well there is but it isn't recognized by most of the community and i have my doubts about all the devs as well.

As Bags pointed out, right now it is more beneficial to farm an AMS than kill it. That will always be the case sometimes or to some extent but MOST of the time it should be more beneficial to kill the AMS.

The point is to motivate people to fight over large bases, fight large fights and actually defend territory. Right now the system is too rewarding for giving up and going somewhere else to attack.

[Figment]

Do you honestly believe that if they just reduced xp for freshly spawned infantry, vehicles would stop campig the spawn?

Stop? No. Make that big fat Sunderer xp pinata a more attractive target than those new spawners? Hell yes.

Or in other words, it would shift player priorities.

[Brutal Magikarp]

Would really like to see the exp system changed to ANYTHING but the way it is...

[Crator]

Yes, this would be nice. And zeroing out the XP of a newly spawned player, if killed, should exist.

[moosepoop]

Stop? No. Make that big fat Sunderer xp pinata a more attractive target than those new spawners? Hell yes.

Or in other words, it would shift player priorities.

i like the idea of a spawn camp xp penalty.

[Elgareth]

Yes, this would be nice. And zeroing out the XP of a newly spawned player, if killed, should exist.

I kind of agree, as long as the No-XP-Timer is very short (5-10 Seconds max...enough to hide somewhere, but not more)...
I don't think it'd be fun to defend a base where attackers rush to the front door from a sunderer parked directly behind a wall/building, and you don't get any XP for killing them off because they just spawned...it's not like you could just let them go on for they want to take your base...and it's not like they'd let you live long enough to get to the sunderer itself.

Mmhm... maybe only add the Zero-XP-Timer for Defending People? Meaning, only if the Zone you currently are in belongs to your faction?

[Wahooo]

I kind of agree, as long as the No-XP-Timer is very short (5-10 Seconds max...enough to hide somewhere, but not more)...
I don't think it'd be fun to defend a base where attackers rush to the front door from a sunderer parked directly behind a wall/building, and you don't get any XP for killing them off because they just spawned...it's not like you could just let them go on for they want to take your base...and it's not like they'd let you live long enough to get to the sunderer itself.

Mmhm... maybe only add the Zero-XP-Timer for Defending People? Meaning, only if the Zone you currently are in belongs to your faction?

See the reason people bring up "Like in PS1" all the time is that there was a lot in that game that worked, and it was worked out over a few years. This is what is frustrating the vets here. YES there were broken things in PS1 (like single manned aircraft being too powerful...doh) we don't want to bring up those things. People did years ago when PS2 was announced, there were DON"T DO THIS or DON"T DO THAT or PS1's biggest mistakes threads were popping up 2-3 times a day. What we have here is things that DID work in PS1, things we've been worried wouldn't work in PS2... tested in Beta and found they don't work. There are a number of areas PS2 is trying to re-invent the wheel and they are starting with big square blocks of stone when there are already formed working wheels right back over there called PS1.
So... go that out.
In PS1 it did go up fast and I don't know for sure but it jumped if you took certain actions and slowed down pretty fast. Kind of a logarithmic curve. Everyone started worth like 1XP after a few seconds you were worth like 5xp. You knew if you were defending a base and killing people for 60xp they weren't far away. I'm not 100% sure but I think getting a kill or two gave your worth jumps, but it wasn't THAT big and I think it maxed out after a while and was never all that terribly high for a softie. Vehicles were on a similar scale but started much higher, and more crew/passengers really ramped it up.

i like the idea of a spawn camp xp penalty.
No, not penalties... just less/no incentive. XP incentives to do things that will make the game fun for everyone, less or no XP for many other activities.

[SwiftRanger]

Good ideas.

It won't solve the current problem of rocket pod ESFs/Libs and tank pilots being XP hoarders though. There is a huge discrepancy between those roles gaining XP (which happens very fast, you don't need to be skilled for it either) and infantry gaining XP (rather very slow if you're not in a support role). If you want to go for fast certs you shouldn't be on foot, loads of folks rightfully got a problem with that.

Base and map design are big culprits, spawns aren't protected enough and interior base designs aren't deep (you can say almost literally) enough.

If that's too difficult to implement quickly then infantry power vs vehicles/aircraft could use a buff (or an increased XP gain). The infantry combat isn't much cop now and will only get worse as people drop off because they didn't expect a World of Tanks / World of Airplanes clone.

I might be exaggerating here but I've seen too many easy kills already. You might say people should watch out/stop spawning at a certain spot but with the current UI "clarity" that message will never get across.

[Elgareth]

It won't solve the current problem of rocket pod ESFs/Libs and tank pilots being XP hoarders though. There is a huge discrepancy between those roles gaining XP (which happens very fast, you don't need to be skilled for it either) and infantry gaining XP (rather very slow if you're not in a support role). If you want to go for fast certs you shouldn't be on foot, loads of folks rightfully got a problem with that.

And why do those roles gain XP that fast? Because they spawn camp, or reap sunderer spawns while taking care NOT to kill the Sundy itself.
And those prime-XP-gainers could be made MUCH less desireable by reducing spawn-camp-XP to almost Zero. Thus, less spawn camping, thus, more actual infantry fights (because you know... Defenders can actually defend, and don't get 1-shottet the second they leave the Spawnroom), more XP through Infantry-fighting ;)

[Sturmhardt]

Sounds good, I see no downside of this. Why is this not in the game yet?

[cooonips]

+1 to using a system like this over the current one

in a way, the more complex the system for xp gain the better. the harder it is to understand, the harder it is to learn the best ways to gain xp and focus on doing that.

[Rivenshield]

See the reason people bring up "Like in PS1" all the time is that there was a lot in that game that worked, and it was worked out over a few years. This is what is frustrating the vets here.

/snip

What we have here is things that DID work in PS1, things we've been worried wouldn't work in PS2... tested in Beta and found they don't work. There are a number of areas PS2 is trying to re-invent the wheel and they are starting with big square blocks of stone when there are already formed working wheels right back over there called PS1.

All of this.

[Electrofreak]

Not enough debate in this thread! People need to start arguing more or I'm going to have to resort to bumping! :p

[Qwan]

Maybe players shouldnt spawn at a base that is surrounded by tanks and infantry and air, I mean its not like they get xp for defending.

[velleity]

Introducing dynamic xp for kills without introducing xp scaling for low pop defenders is flawed and amounts to a nerf to defenders. Playing on a server with huge opposition zergs with an empire that gets as low as 26%, I get a 4% xp bonus and jack for playing outnumbered by 2 + to 1 on most continents other then raw kills.

[velleity]

bleh back button

[Electrofreak]

Introducing dynamic xp for kills without introducing xp scaling for low pop defenders is flawed and amounts to a nerf to defenders. Playing on a server with huge opposition zergs with an empire that gets as low as 26%, I get a 4% xp bonus and jack for playing outnumbered by 2 + to 1 on most continents other then raw kills.

I don't see how it's a nerf for defenders. Generally attackers are the ones spawn camping so this is a nerf to the XP they could get for that kind of activity. I would agree that a better system for XP when defending is needed, and I would point out that doing this in a way that is dynamic (perhaps providing defense XP bonuses that increase as time goes on and the fight goes on, to a point) is the best way of doing it.

That said, people really like to see that big XP "paycheck" when they capture a facility. Defending a facility for a period of time could have a lump sum reward as well, but if you set any specific timer on when the reward is paid out, you run into problems such as defenders bailing out after they've received their XP.

It's a difficult situation. You need to make the carrot for defense appealing, but if defenders don't feel like they'll ever get the carrot, they'll give up, and if you give them the carrot, they'll probably go back to attacking something.

Defense needs to have a tangible reward (XP bonuses to kills are borderline), but it also needs to keep defenders committed.

[SKYeXile]

I also agree with this thread, but until its fixed, THE SPAWNCAMPING SHALL CONTINUE!

[Crator]

^ Spawn camping will always occur. What it shouldn't give is a benefit other then stat padding.

[velleity]

^ Spawn camping will always occur. What it shouldn't give is a benefit other then stat padding.

Spawn camping, done properly, will always have the benefit of operant conditioning.

[Malorn]

I don't understand how these changes would be a nerf to XP generation?

See Bob it just comes down to motivation. Spawn camping in it self is kind of a natural progression in the capture mechanic HOWEVER... a well designed base would allow the defenders the possibility to fight back out of their spawns to re-take the base if they are not fully camped. A bio lab for example. Eventually it ends with spawns camped but even then if you CAN fight out it ends up being near inevitable you lose the base. With amp stations and especially with tech-plants now, the spawn camping starts at the START of the fight and the ability to fight back out is near zero.
This is an issue with base design, the dynamic XP part is just so it is less beneficial to the campers.

See the thing is TACTICAL moves need to have the tactical success be the point and not give that much XP. Destroying terminals, Gens, capturing checkpoints and towers these are tactical points to the much larger point of base capture where the fighting and capturing/defending should be the big XP maker. Remember in PS1 who killed the lobby term? The defenders because once you lost the lobby you didn't want the other team to be able to use it right? In ps2? First noob to get to it... why? gives XP and there is no tactical reason to hack them, well there is but it isn't recognized by most of the community and i have my doubts about all the devs as well.

As Bags pointed out, right now it is more beneficial to farm an AMS than kill it. That will always be the case sometimes or to some extent but MOST of the time it should be more beneficial to kill the AMS.

The point is to motivate people to fight over large bases, fight large fights and actually defend territory. Right now the system is too rewarding for giving up and going somewhere else to attack.

This, and the rest of the thread, are all good points. Thanks for the good feedback here.

[Mox]

We need dynamic xp gain furthermore we need shared xp in squads and shared xp in vecs.

It is annoying to get xp for capturing empty bases.
It is annoying to get the same amount of xp for a instant kill at the spawns and for killing a player who already shooted 20 people without dying.
It is annoying to get no xp for being passenger in a sundy or tertiary gunner in a lib.
And last but not least it is annoying to get no xp because you are the guy your squadleader has told to cover the rear.

[Electrofreak]

This, and the rest of the thread, are all good points. Thanks for the good feedback here.

Good to see you in blue Malorn! It's a comfort to the community knowing you've got a hand in base design. I maintain that arclegger has done an awesome job, but the playerbase has an amazing ability to find the ***** (ch!nk used in the traditional sense here, thanks profanity filter!) in the armor of any aspect of the game mechanics and exploit it to the fullest extent, and it's good to see SOE moving to intercept by continuing to work on base design and capture mechanics.

I think a lot of people are expecting drastic changes to base design based upon the demands of the communty, but anyone who has worked in game design before knows that's absolutely a terrible idea. Keep making small changes and observing the way the playerbase reacts and you're sure to find the best solutions.

Obviously a lot of base design centers around XP rewards and how it motivates the attacker or defender during a battle, guiding them towards certain objectives and entertaining gameplay. The mission system is a great start to this system, but as usual, we must expect the playerbase to find a way to exploit it as best they can. A combination of good base design and XP reward mechanics is absolutely necessary to prevent the playerbase from moving in mass towards a certain style of gameplay (spawn camping, vehicle spamming, infantry zerging, or aircraft whoring) and just making other elements just no longer fun.

I'm sure a lot of this is stuff that you guys already realize, but the community often gets tunnel vision when discussing topics like this (myself included).

[NapalmEnima]

One thing that might help to bolster defense is to make the turrets tougher. Their damage output "feels" right, but it seems that they got considerably more fragile at or shortly before launch.

I think a good rule of thumb is that if an MBT and a cannon turret get in a slugging match, the turret should win by small margin. Throw in an anti-armor main or any ol' secondary on the tank and it wins instead.

If you could recess the cannons a bit to make them harder (but not impossible) to hit from the air that'd be good too. A wider platform (with an upturned lip) for AA turrets to give some protection from ground attack would likewise be good.

That could result in a pretty significant redesign of the current turret-tower-thingies.

As several others have stated, making defensive XP visible as a lump sum would go a long way to help folks feel they got something out of Holding the Line. "You defended FOO for BAR earning a total of BAZ defense bonus XP."

You could throw a detailed report in as a GAQ so it wouldn't interrupt someone still fighting, but could be pulled up easily. Kills, deaths, accuracy, leaderboardy stuff...

[Lonehunter]

There's minor tweaks and things that won't be great to start with but I'd love to see this implemented. It would be far better then what we have now. This is one of those things that PS1 vets don't understand why it isn't part of the game, like being able to have more then 1 waypoint per squad lol

[kamikazety]

A curious idea, but why cant we make an AMS' xp value based on how many people it has spawned? So if you assist/kill an AMS that has spawned say 55 people it should be worth a hell of a lot more xp then an AMS that has spawned 2 people.

That'd certainly make them more valuable to kill over farming. Sure overall can still get more xp farming it for awhile but individuals tend to be selfish. If you dangle the possibility of a lot of xp for destroying it, They are more likely to destroy it than to farm it.

[Crator]

^ Intentionally create a farm? No thanks.

[Malorn]

PS1 also had indirect XP rewards. If you healed/revived/repaired/hacked a terminal, and then someone went on to get a kill or score other points shortly afterwards you would get bonus XP rewards for that. I still remember the lodestar drivers that would create little repair/rearm stations for aircraft and tanks that would make crazy XP from the repair, rearm, and indirect XP rewards from all the vehicles they helped. But as above, this is harder to teach new players.


Just to play a little devil's advocate on this subject...

The downside to dynamic xp is that xp gain becomes harder to understand for new players and becomes yet another barrier to learning the game. It is also difficult to balance. Getting a constant set of points for each action is simple to teach, and simple to balance.

Another challenge is helping make all classes roughly equally profitable in terms of XP gain. For example, Engineers and Medics have opportunities to earn XP which Light Assault, Infiltrators, MAX, and Heavies do not. Weights could be applied to certain actions but that creates inconsistency which becomes more confusion to new players.

It's simple to understand that kill is worth X, revive is worth Y, capture is Z, etc. When those numbers start varying it becomes harder to figure out how to best earn XP. Some kills will be worth more than others for no obvious reason. Of course that's true today also - sometimes you randomly get headshot bonuses, streak bonuses, streak stop, and vengeance bonuses. Passively though those reinforce certain behaviors like it is good to go on a kill streak, and good to stop enemy players who go on kill streaks. And things like headshot bonuses and kills in general are (in theory) something Infiltrators should have an easier time getting so it is a way to help counter the lack of support options for that class.

Though the basic rules of a dynamic system are fairly simple....

Take more challenging objectives, get more xp.
Kill more challenging opponents, get more xp.
Help your teammates/Empire succeed, get more xp.


Conceptually I think these are easy to teach, but learning the cutoffs and how to min/max your productivity becomes much harder to learn. The exact behaviors you did to earn more XP become masked behind the XP number while in the current system you can see the exact actions that resulted in your rewards. Ideally we would want you playing the game and doing the right thing to be the optimal XP gain so it happens naturally but that's very hard to balance.

Not saying I disagree, just channeling potential opposition and putting out some reasons why it is the way it is. It wasn't haphazardly thrown in or put in just because other games did it as might be commonly speculated by the tinfoil hat crew. There are sound reasons for the current system.

[Crator]

^ Those things Marlorn listed were there to promote team oriented game play, prevent exploitation of XP gain, and also the easy to teach hard to master element produces a sort of progression or achievement for the player.

[Mox]

I dont think dynamic xp gain or shared xp concepts are an issue regarding the new player experience. noobs have a lot of other problems than thinking about the exact amount of xp they earn for a certain action. Learning by doing is the way it works in this case.

Far more important is that dynamic xp and shared xp offer incentives for relevant participation in the game.

[raw]

Though the basic rules of a dynamic system are fairly simple....

Take more challenging objectives, get more xp.
Kill more challenging opponents, get more xp.
Help your teammates/Empire succeed, get more xp.




This is all fine and dandy in theory but in praxis challenging opponents do not reward enough XP vs. simple objectives.

For example, killing Infantry is a rather simple objective. It's at what? 100 XP now? Killing Tanks is not a simple objective (unless you're a rocket pod spamming ESF obviously), yet you get 150 XP I think for a tank kill. That in itself is not enough, but you obviously add the 1-2 infantry kills on top of that. Except, the driver will almost always bail before his tank blows up, so 150 XP it is.

In the same time an infantry can kill one tank, it can dispatch 5-10, maybe even 20 other infantry. And that doesn't even account for the fact that a tank is much bigger risk target than another infantry.

Conversly, it is so easy to farm infantry with HE weapons/Rocket Pods, why would you *ever* want to waste a shot on armor? You can rack up enormeous amounts of kills (good for the e-peen) and XP by blasting Infantry. Shooting at rmor/air is high risk low reward in comparision.

So to summarize:

For infantry its more rewarding to go after other infantry than after armor/air.
For armor/air it is much much much much more rewarding to go after infantry than after other armor/air.

At the end of the day your XP scheme doesn't add up. Rewards for "challenging" targets needs to go up considerably.

Also, you have to draw a line between catering towards new players and catering towards the mentally retarded. Emergent gameplay means that you add a number of simple tools for the players to wield and combine to enormeous complexity and depth. It does not mean that the game must be simple, in fact it must allow for complexity and depth. The long term survival of an MMO hinges on the complexity and depth, I'd even go as far and say a proper MMO cannot even be realized without faciliating complexity.

Long time Eve Online players will tell you that their game is a game of knowledge. That means that on the one side the new player experience is horrible, because they know fuck all what they are doing and get ganked and griefed to oblivion because of that but on the other side of the medal it also means there's a lot to learn, a lot of stuff to *do* (as in having both a lot of content (width) and a lot to learn about each smaller subset of content (depth)). This is the ideal model for emergent gameplay. This is why Eve Online is doing well. Obviously Eve Online isn't "easy to balance", easy on the side of the developers. That's what making an MMO means too: Commitment.

Planetside 2 clearly lacks in the complexity department, it's like cats-n-mouse on 64 sqm. And that isn't just some edgy critique about the merry-go-round of the zergs, but it's quite literally a game that is as simple as watching an episode of Tom & Jerry. Actually, considering Tom's elaborate and complex plans to catch Jerry, PS2 requires even less brainpower than following T&J.

The MMO aspect of the game cannot be made simple. It needs complexity and depth, and there needs to be knowledge attached to it. You already made the basic shooter gameplay simple and easy to get into - by following BF3 and other modern shooters. This is excellent for new players coming over from other shooters - but remember, those shooters aren't an MMO, they aren't Planetside. As you say yourself, Planetside is more, both in width and in depth. PS isn't just BF3 on bigger maps.

[Crator]

So to summarize:

The summary was longer then the body. ;) Well said though! :thumbsup:

[Wahooo]

The downside to dynamic xp is that xp gain becomes harder to understand for new players and becomes yet another barrier to learning the game. It is also difficult to balance. Getting a constant set of points for each action is simple to teach, and simple to balance.

raw hit on this pretty well. The strategy game and complex items just simply NEED to be complex. It just is.
It seems there has been too much emphasis on trying to re-capture the people that quit PS1 quickly. The complaints that it was too complex and it too long to get into the fight were taken to heart and the answers in PS2 were just bad.
And the worst part? Those player who leave a game almost immediately? They are going to leave anyway. It is bad to try and cater to whatever reason they gave. Look more at the people that played for a long time THEN quit.

Weird or hard to understand XP gain shouldn't deter anyone that was going to stick around for any length of time anyway. It isn't hard to see oh that gave me a lot I'll try and figure out how to make that more consistent and oh... that didn't give me much if I don't have the time i'm not bothering with that anymore.

The PS1 method of people going on and doing things after you repaired/resed/healed/used a hacked terminal/spawned at your AMS was great. Yes it is tough to balance. Make rezzing worth it, but not so much that a few kills by the person you rezzed afterward makes being medic worth more than being a shooter.

Too bad this stuff couldn't get hashed out better in Beta, some people saw it, but it was harder to see overall because the people who were playing beta WANTED the fight. There was no desire to ghost cap in general.

[raw]

The summary was longer then the body. ;) Well said though! :thumbsup:

That was just the summary for the problems around XP. Then followed a somewhat disconnected rant on how to make a good MMO. ;)

[Electrofreak]

Thanks again to Malorn for his detailed explanation as to why the current system is in place. I would like to remind our other community members that he did say he was playing the devil's advocate in his post.

That said, I think we agree as a whole that trying to keep the XP system simple in order to retain players is something that is going to end up doing more harm than anything else. It's better, IMO, to have a complex system that players can just trust to reward them fairly than a simple system that is exploitable (which, me flying a Reaver into the grid of any base about to be captured, that's exploitable.)

Our responses have also mostly sidestepped Malorn's point on ease of balance, which is a fair point. A dynamic system can have issues with balance. So perhaps we should propose more of a hybrid system. I think that the current static player XP reward system is pretty good, with the exception of the spawn camp reward factor.

Simply include a system that provides substantially less XP (like just a few) for killing an infantry player less than 30 seconds after spawning. Something on a Gaussian curve would be good so that the people killing players at 28 seconds for example aren't screwed, and it gives players time to respawn, switch kits if they would like to, and still be worth fairly little to the campers.

Then, I'd say having a base capture dynamic XP system is mandatory. In PS1 the system did work well overall and I see little reason for it not to make it into PS2, as it's class-agnostic. The only thing the PS1 system was lacking was greater incentive for defenders. Even so, it's still a better system than is implemented currently, as attackers get full XP for capturing undefended bases or showing up at the last minute before a base is captured. The dynamic system encourages attackers to commit to a battle for an area instead of changing their objectives every spawn like a caffeine-addled squirrel with ADD, and so this allows defenders to dig in and hopefully rack up the XP (assuming bases are tweaked to favor defenders more).

I'd love to see something that better handled rewarding defenders but I'm not sure how it would be implemented. The current system does provide XP bonuses for defense (or so I'm told) but players aren't aware of them, so perhaps we need something up in the corner of the screen or on the stats menu that shows that a defender XP bonus is currently active.

Anyhow that's my say on the matter.

TL;DR -
I don't think we need to make EVERY aspect of PS2's XP system dynamic.

Leave anything class-based static (heal/revive/repair/resupply bonuses). This helps to simplify XP balancing.

Leave infantry kill payout at 100 XP, just include an XP penalty curve that ramps up to full XP payout 30 seconds after spawn.

Include dynamic XP to attackers for base captures, rewarding XP based upon the intensity of the battle.

Make defense bonus XP more visible to defenders by showing them that they're getting more XP for defending, encouraging them to stick around.


I think this is all we need to do, and I don't think it would be terribly hard to balance as none of it benefits any class over another, isn't crazy complicated (people will figure out that killing new spawns doesn't pay well), and dangles the carrot in front of attackers and defenders alike to promote epic battles.

After all, epic battles is really what PlanetSide is all about.

[Crator]

Leave anything class-based static.

Can you explain that? I'm not certain what static XP gain has to do with classes.

[Electrofreak]

Can you explain that? I'm not certain what static XP gain has to do with classes.

It was in response to Malorn's post where he stated that one main reason that SOE has avoided using a more dynamic XP system is because it's difficult to balance across classes.

Another challenge is helping make all classes roughly equally profitable in terms of XP gain. For example, Engineers and Medics have opportunities to earn XP which Light Assault, Infiltrators, MAX, and Heavies do not. Weights could be applied to certain actions but that creates inconsistency which becomes more confusion to new players.

So I can see where using the PS1 system of a kill being worth a variable amount according to how long the target has been alive and how many kills they've gotten could benefit / penalize combat class XP gain versus support class XP gain. Then you have to start determining the amount of XP that a support player should be gaining on average based upon the average lifespan of a player, which varies widely depending upon the situation, and I do see how that could be difficult to keep balanced.

If the devs have found a happy balance between XP gain between the classes using the static system, they can keep it. Few people are complaining about the amount of XP that you can get as class X versus class Y.

All I want when it comes to kill XP to change is for us to stop rewarding spawn campers with booku XP and certs, by putting in the XP penalty versus newly spawned players.

[ShadetheDruid]

Can you explain that? I'm not certain what static XP gain has to do with classes.

I would assume that means anything class-specific that gives XP (hacking, revives/healing, repairs etc).

Edit: Boo, ninja. :p

[Aaron]

I still remember the lodestar drivers that would create little repair/rearm stations for aircraft and tanks that would make crazy XP from the repair, rearm, and indirect XP rewards from all the vehicles they helped.

Yup :D I was one of those. Talk about 20,000 exp per a support reward interval.

[DerpyHooves]

Also what about the average players who do not get many kills do to their fps. Mainly doing a support role and getting kill assists. What you propose seems like it would hurt their xp gain. However overall I do like your statement.

[Shogun]

i especially want dynamic xp for support stuff!
the way it was handled in ps1 was perfect.

i don´t like to be forced to shoot people to get xp at all.
a dedicated medic or engineer should be able to gain a fair amount of xp without firing his gun. healing and repairing are the main roles of these classes, so i don´t see why they should not get xp for fulfilling these roles!
if they have to kill players to get xp, they will dedicate less time to their role and that´s not a good thing.

you know, i am talking about getting support xp for every kill a healed or repaired player scores for some time after the heal/repair. and the same for hotdropper cab pilots and ams sundy drivers. ps1 had it nailed pretty well. every support activity could be as rewarding as directly shooting someone into the face.

i understand malorns post and the reason for the actual system, but i can´t help to call out the evil words again:
dumbing down
and a static xp system just to please players who need to be able to correctly calculate and plan their kills to max out their xp gain is dumbing down. the xp system should encourage to help your team instead of encouraging to maximise your k/d ratio.

[Electrofreak]

Also what about the average players who do not get many kills do to their fps. Mainly doing a support role and getting kill assists. What you propose seems like it would hurt their xp gain. However overall I do like your statement.

Well I play primarily support currently due to a 6-year old budget processor, 4 GB of RAM and a Radeon 5770. I'm lucky when my FPS is in the teens despite my processor overclocked to nearly double the stock speeds. After I finish moving into the new house I've just bought, perhaps I can invest in a better rig.

What I'm proposing doesn't increase or decrease average XP gain for combat classes. I should probably include this more recent post of mine in the first post:


TL;DR -
I don't think we need to make EVERY aspect of PS2's XP system dynamic.

Leave anything class-based static (heal/revive/repair/resupply bonuses). This helps to simplify XP balancing.

Leave infantry kill payout at 100 XP, just include an XP penalty curve that ramps up to full XP payout 30 seconds after spawn.

Include dynamic XP to attackers for base captures, rewarding XP based upon the intensity of the battle.

Make defense bonus XP more visible to defenders by showing them that they're getting more XP for defending, encouraging them to stick around.


I think this is all we need to do, and I don't think it would be terribly hard to balance as none of it benefits any class over another, isn't crazy complicated (people will figure out that killing new spawns doesn't pay well), and dangles the carrot in front of attackers and defenders alike to promote epic battles.

After all, epic battles is really what PlanetSide is all about.

So trust me man, I'm right there with yah!

[vipjerry]

Its kinda strange when devs say we have static XP cos they where worried if new players will understand XP system and for new players you dont have single useful in game tool-tip how to play, where to go, tutorial etc. Moreover introduction to PS2 for new players starts by putting them in front of shooting squad.
Common just stop stalling and fix this or PS2 will be history very soon.

You have Hamma and other videos and you know how and what to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dYq-WdzQoao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DT-PWfIQOE&feature=youtu.be

I dont see the point of this discussion. If you wanna see your game still alive after January than do it...

[ringring]

The downside to dynamic xp is that xp gain becomes harder to understand for new players and becomes yet another barrier to learning the game.

This wasn't my experience. Ok, maybe people didn't understand how exactly the xp was awaarded for a base cap, many believed it was related to the number of enemies killed in the SOI - but not understanding the exact math behind it didn't matter, people got the substance. And when a cr5 called for the spawns not to be destroyed or the gen not to be taken down in order to maximise the xp, it was understood and sometimes acted on, albeit with a little repitition for emphasis.

And I agree with this thread.

[Kate]

I agree with a lot of whan's been said here. IMHO, dynamic XP would improve gameplay by better rewarding actions which are truly more helpful and beneficial to the team, and probably more challenging and fun.

My thoughts on a possible xp scheme:

Player kill value:

Base player XP value starts at 20, goes to 50 by 3s (+10/s), increases to 75 at 8s (+5/s), then finally to 100 at 18s (+5/2s). If the player is rezzed, value goes from 50 to 100 in 5s. 5xp is added after each minute of life, leading to a max kill value of 125 xp.

Rationale: Values are based on how oriented/threatening a player would be after spawn. It takes a few seconds to look around, become oriented, and start moving/attacking. Values would link exp with effort more, and make camping for purely farming reasons less incentivized. As for the higher value for living longer, I think that generally the longer life of these players either means they are skilled, hiding, camping, doing support work in a safer area, or have flanked you and ended up in a strange spot. Taking out those sorts of enemies is helpful.

Medic: 20 xp for rez. 20 xp patient longevity bonus added for every 4s the casualty stays alive, ending at 16s. A rez where the player survives for 16s leads to 100 xp, not including healing tics or subsequent assists.

Effect: Would reward medics doing a good job by rezzing when worthwhile, and following up with ongoing care. Makes letting people dying over and over less rewarding than quality care.

Taking down challenging enemies:

5 xp added for each inf/veh kill the enemy inf/pilot or vehicle had gotten in that life. 3 added for each crit assist. 2 added for each assist, revive, and hack they'd done, 1 xp for every tick of heal, re-arm, and repair they'd done.

Vehicles - For vehicles killed, also add 3 xp per spawn or people it'd delivered. Damaging a vehicle for 25% of it's health within it's lifetime yields 10% of what it's kill exp would be, regardless of if it dies. This can be awarded 4 times per individual enemy vehicle.

This would promote and reward taking on formidable and successful enemies, making things more enjoyable and increasing the targeting of anything unusually successful. Veh damage reward would help motivate aa/av a little more, and would increase vehicle kill rewards.

Support assists:

When you repair, rearm, heal, revive, or spawn a player, you gain assist standing with them. Standing is proportional to the total assistance given in any form during their life, with a maximum of 100% standing. Providing a spawn gives 5%, providing one tick of healing, ammo, or repair gives 5%, and providing a max or vehicle spawn or consumable resupply via a hacked terminal provides 5%. Once an assisted friendly dies/logs/redeploys, you get exp determined by this: [percent assist standing during that person's life]*(5(Kills+vehicle destroys)+3(veh crit assists+inf crit assists)+2(assists+revives+hacks)+(ticks of heal, rearm, repairs)) = assist experience given.

Why do this? It would moderately encourage and reward close teamwork which was actually helpful.

Captures and defends

Give like 1/3rd or less of the current attack rewards as baseline for both attack and defend exp. Upon battle completion, give lump sum equivalent to all the points earned in the SOI/hexes during the battle by the player. Give 75% to winners that left but are in ajacent areas, and 50% if they left completely. Give 25% to losers in ajacent areas, 10% to those who haven't logged or left the continent.

Reasoning: This would only really reward players involved in the fight for the capture, while not overly-penalizing people who left for strategic reasons. Slightly rewards doing a last stand even when it's hopeless.

How to balance this, if needed?

Increase the cost of a cert just slightly, if needed?

How to handle the technical and learning aspects of this?

I don't do compsci, but I think this could be feasible. You'd need to keep a record of when somebody last spawned to compute their value, keep a tally of assist standings, record basic stats of player's actions in their life or in the base hex, and have a timer to award xp to medics whose patients had lived beyond 16s, or fallen short of that somewhat.

Explain to newbies that kills, assists, and base caps are good, and harder targets are worth more. Make xp messages somewhat self explanatory. They don't need to know the formulas to get the gist of it.

/TL;DR

I wrote this on my phone while bored whilst without a computer during double xp week... Sorry for any typos or mistakes. What do y'all think of this?

[kingjameo]

Long time Eve Online players will tell you that their game is a game of knowledge.http://www.wengmj.com/a128.jpg

[p0intman]

Long time Eve Online players will tell you that their game is a game of knowledge.http://www.wengmj.com/a128.jpg

it used to be. now its a game of sit in highsec and be protected by CCP from the bad men who do bad things.

[Cyridius]

Question RE; Spawning XP scaling

Would this apply to Sunderers and Spawn Beacons aswell?

[Kate]

Question RE; Spawning XP scaling

Would this apply to Sunderers and Spawn Beacons aswell?

Personally, I think it should be the same with sundies, given how vunerable one is. As for bacon and drop pods, it should probably start as soon as you begin dropping, because you have a fair amount of time to get oriented as you decend.

While you're vunerable when revived and it takes a bit to become oriented, you're already going to have a medic nearby, and may be positioned to shoot the enemy quickly. Due to that, I think the time to reach max worth when revived should be less than a normal spawn.

Anyone have a different view about that?

[Cyridius]

Personally, I think it should be the same with sundies, given how vunerable one is. As for bacon and drop pods, it should probably start as soon as you begin dropping, because you have a fair amount of time to get oriented as you decend.

While you're vunerable when revived and it takes a bit to become oriented, you're already going to have a medic nearby, and may be positioned to shoot the enemy quickly. Due to that, I think the time to reach max worth when revived should be less than a normal spawn.

Anyone have a different view about that?

You see I don't think it should apply to either. Given that Sundies and Beacons pretty much inject you straight into the battle, you'd be lucky if you ever got full XP after a full THIRTY seconds, which is an amazingly long time given the general death rate in this game - you'll get into the battle in less than 30 seconds.

I would think the that the timer should be lowered at the least for them if not altogether removed. 30 seconds is a long time to live if you're an attacker spawning close to the battle, which you usually are if it's a Sundy. The only time that really changes is when people are attacking a bio lab and they gather in the teleporter room. Or at an Amp station when they're outside the walls, and even then it would be <30 secs into the battles.

[Electrofreak]

Kate, I do like the ideas in your post (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=871575&postcount=74) as it proposes solutions to some other issues such as exploiting revive XP and encourages rezzing in situations where the rezzed soldier will survive.

PS2 would definitely benefit from these types of mechanics as they promote good gameplay while reducing the potential for exploration. However SOE seems worried that it is too complicated for casual players and may be difficult to balance. That said, I agree that if XP gain is shown to the player in an intuitive manner, it will be a non-issue.

I think that ultimately SOE is going to have to decide whether they want a simple game or a good game. Simple also means easy to take advantage of in many cases. And frankly, players don't need to understand the XP mechanics if they can simply trust it to reward them fairly.

In the short term, I believe using a hybrid system that rewards dynamic XP on base captures and reduces XP payout for killing new spawns is the quickest solution to fixing some of the broken gameplay in PS2. In the long term though, I'd love to see a more comprehensive dynamic system make it in.

[igster]

Exactly is it did in PS1, a newly spawned player at an AMS or in a Spawn Tube used to give virtually no XP to the spawn camper. Should be the same now in game.

People will actually have to work for their XP.

[Kate]

You see I don't think it should apply to either. Given that Sundies and Beacons pretty much inject you straight into the battle, you'd be lucky if you ever got full XP after a full THIRTY seconds, which is an amazingly long time given the general death rate in this game - you'll get into the battle in less than 30 seconds.

I would think the that the timer should be lowered at the least for them if not altogether removed. 30 seconds is a long time to live if you're an attacker spawning close to the battle, which you usually are if it's a Sundy. The only time that really changes is when people are attacking a bio lab and they gather in the teleporter room. Or at an Amp station when they're outside the walls, and even then it would be <30 secs into the battles.


Agreed, 30s is too long. In my excessively long post a few pages back, I was saying that after some thought, I felt like 18s to reach max value would be better, and it should grow in a non-linear way (goes from 20 to 50 in first 3s (+10 per s), then to 75 in 8s (+5 per s), to 100 in 18s (+5 per 2s), and to 125 after 5m (+5 after each min). Value is based on how oriented and threatening a player could be after spown, and value increases faster with revives.

MAX kill value could be a flat addition to this, since you have to pull them from eterms anyway. Should not be done with vehicles IMHO, since before and after roll off the player has capacity to look for mines and be aware.

Value could be computed by just subtracting spawn or revive time from death time, and then adding up some stats of what they'd done (killstreaks/assists/etc.). One could just do it in steps, but maybe some smooth formula would be more efficient.

Side thought: What if territory grew in value slightly the longer it was held, for both caps and resecures? Would motivate pushing deep and holding long, but would devalue constantly flipped bases slightly, which has benefits and drawbacks.

[ringring]

Exactly is it did in PS1, a newly spawned player at an AMS or in a Spawn Tube used to give virtually no XP to the spawn camper. Should be the same now in game.

People will actually have to work for their XP.

Absolutely.

I know this is a different game and there are fundamental differences to PS1 (ie FTP, population per map, need to attract the BF crowd) but it's remarkable how many problems there are that the original has a solution for.

[Electrofreak]

Agreed, 30s is too long. In my excessively long post a few pages back, I was saying that after some thought, I felt like 18s to reach max value would be better, and it should grow in a non-linear way (goes from 20 to 50 in first 3s (+10 per s), then to 75 in 8s (+5 per s), to 100 in 18s (+5 per 2s), and to 125 after 5m (+5 after each min). Value is based on how oriented and threatening a player could be after spown, and value increases faster with revives. Value could be computed by just subtracting spawn or revive time from death time, and then adding up some stats of what they'd done (killstreaks/assists/etc.). One could just do it in steps, but maybe some smooth formula would be more efficient.

Yeah, 30 is probably too long. I was hoping that with the right curve, you'd get like 80% XP payout 20 or so seconds after spawn so it wouldn't be a significant penalty.

I've changed my original post so as not to commit to 30 seconds. I was thinking of base spawning, but as an AMS Sundy driver I should know better.

[Kate]

Yeah, 30 is probably too long. I was hoping that with the right curve, you'd get like 80% XP payout 20 or so seconds after spawn so it wouldn't be a significant penalty.

I've changed my original post so as not to commit to 30 seconds. I was thinking of base spawning, but as an AMS Sundy driver I should know better.

Edited my last post, do you also think vehicles and MAX units should be unaffected? Also, do you think territory cap/resec xp should be dynamic in the additonal way of boosting resecure and/or attack rewards based on time held since last capture?

[igster]

Vehicles and maxes should be included to prevent old style spawn camping that is just as likely to happen at vehicle pads as respawn buildings.
Do you remeber in planetside 1 the WASP camping of air terminals? Very cheap. Necessary to deny and suppress the enemy breaking back out of a base but it is fundamentally spawn camping.
You should have to work for XP and put yourself in a position where the opponent has some chance to fight back.

[Electrofreak]

Edited my last post, do you also think vehicles and MAX units should be unaffected? Also, do you think territory cap/resec xp should be dynamic in the additonal way of boosting resecure and/or attack rewards based on time held since last capture?

Yes to vehicle and MAX being unaffected. Both need to be pulled after spawning and thus the player should be making the decision on whether it's safe to pull a vehicle or MAX, and with a vehicle as to whether there are mines in front of the vehicle pad (a valid tactic IMO).

I like the idea of more XP for capturing a location which has been held by the enemy longer. As some outposts are small and sparsely defended, this would provide further incentive to pushing into enemy territory. That said, it could also simply reward further back-hacking. So, I'd have to say I'm on the fence about it.

Vehicles and maxes should be included to prevent old style spawn camping that is just as likely to happen at vehicle pads as respawn buildings.
Do you remeber in planetside 1 the WASP camping of air terminals? Very cheap. Necessary to deny and suppress the enemy breaking back out of a base but it is fundamentally spawn camping.
You should have to work for XP and put yourself in a position where the opponent has some chance to fight back.

Eh, I have to say it's easy to put ourselves on a slippery slope here. Vehicle pads and equipment terminals are fair game in my opinion. As long as defenders have a way of spawning and then moving to defend, after that, attackers should benefit from hitting strategic points within the base or killing players moving to specific points.

Its fairly obvious that base design would need to change to allow defenders to spawn or at least travel safely to the main defensive points (such as the center building in an AMP station) where they can push back the attackers instead of trying to run there from an outlying building.

[Kate]

Yes to vehicle and MAX being unaffected. Both need to be pulled after spawning and thus the player should be making the decision on whether it's safe to pull a vehicle or MAX, and with a vehicle as to whether there are mines in front of the vehicle pad (a valid tactic IMO).

I like the idea of more XP for capturing a location which has been held by the enemy longer. As some outposts are small and sparsely defended, this would provide further incentive to pushing into enemy territory. That said, it could also simply reward further back-hacking. So, I'd have to say I'm on the fence about it.

Vehicles and maxes should be included to prevent old style spawn camping that is just as likely to happen at vehicle pads as respawn buildings.
Do you remeber in planetside 1 the WASP camping of air terminals? Very cheap. Necessary to deny and suppress the enemy breaking back out of a base but it is fundamentally spawn camping.
You should have to work for XP and put yourself in a position where the opponent has some chance to fight back.

Eh, I have to say it's easy to put ourselves on a slippery slope here. Vehicle pads and equipment terminals are fair game in my opinion. As long as defenders have a way of spawning and then moving to defend, after that, attackers should benefit from hitting strategic points within the base or killing players moving to specific points.

Its fairly obvious that base design would need to change to allow defenders to spawn or at least travel safely to the main defensive points (such as the center building in an AMP station) where they can push back the attackers instead of trying to run there from an outlying building.

I think there's truth to both sides of this. I guess to find what sounds like the best option, we'd have to define what the purpose of xp is, and the basis of why it should vary.

I was thinking something like this: "XP is a positive reward for an action which furthers the goals of your team. XP should be modulated by both the helpfulness and level ofchallenge of the act to be rewarded."

Given that, my reasoning is as follows:

Enemy's capacity to respond or positive/negative harmfulness ≈ Threat level [and thus, level of challenge] ≈ Helpfulness of neutralization ≈ What the XP reward should be

With freshly spawned infantry, they have low capacity at first, and then quickly become fully threatening, and the ones that have lasted a long time tend to have done so due to being more cautious and dangerous.

With vehicles and maxes, they've already had the time to get pretty situationally aware, so as soen as the driver gains full control, they're pretty threatening and challenging. Allowing one to escape is definitely detrimental, but it's not too great of a challenge to destroy it the instant it spawns. The longer lived ones tend to have survived due to their skill and survivability, and are often the ones racking up long kill streaks.

Given that all, perhaps a vehicle and max kill value should start at 75%, then reach 100 in 5s (+5%s), and then ramping up in value by +5% after each minute of life, with a maximum bounty of 200% after 20 minutes. Player and passenger kill value should remain independent.

How does that sound?

[Electrofreak]

I think there's truth to both sides of this. I guess to find what sounds like the best option, we'd have to define what the purpose of xp is, and the basis of why it should vary.

I was thinking something like this: "XP is a positive reward for an action which furthers the goals of your team. XP should be modulated by both the helpfulness and level ofchallenge of the act to be rewarded."

Given that, my reasoning is as follows:

Enemy's capacity to respond or positive/negative harmfulness ≈ Threat level [and thus, level of challenge] ≈ Helpfulness of neutralization ≈ What the XP reward should be

With freshly spawned infantry, they have low capacity at first, and then quickly become fully threatening, and the ones that have lasted a long time tend to have done so due to being more cautious and dangerous.

With vehicles and maxes, they've already had the time to get pretty situationally aware, so as soen as the driver gains full control, they're pretty threatening and challenging. Allowing one to escape is definitely detrimental, but it's not too great of a challenge to destroy it the instant it spawns. The longer lived ones tend to have survived due to their skill and survivability, and are often the ones racking up long kill streaks.

Given that all, perhaps a vehicle and max kill value should start at 75%, then reach 100 in 5s (+5%s), and then ramping up in value by +5% after each minute of life, with a maximum bounty of 200% after 20 minutes. Player and passenger kill value should remain independent.

How does that sound?

Eh, honestly, I say leave vehicle and MAX kill value alone initially; I don't see much wrong with the way it works already. One thing I think PS2 did well that PS1 didn't do was reward vehicle kills separately. I think what really needs to be done is fixing the bail mechanic, as currently, killing a vehicle with someone still inside it is difficult enough as they just jump out at the last second.

I'd love to see a fully dynamic system that does a good job of properly rewarding players based upon risk and impact on the battle, but I'm afraid the devs will get scared off by the idea of balancing the concept. Baby steps!

[raw]

it used to be. now its a game of sit in highsec and be protected by CCP from the bad men who do bad things.

regardless of CCP sucking up to the carebears, you still need a lot of knowledge for even minor success if you don't belong to the carebear highsec whores. the fundamentals of what made eve great are still there, CCP just needs to penalize staying in high-sec more, like moving the most valuable trade into low/0.0 and stuff like that. i think going to low/0.0 should be sort of a "natural progression", say if you're some buddying industrialist, you should be able to make cash in highsec but the big buck should be rolling in 0.0 and the game should make that abundantly clear to you: "if you wanna be spaceship rich you need to take risks, move to low/null!" :love:

the ideal solution would be of course aborting highsec entirely but that's not gonna happen. (even darkfall is adding safe zones now :rolleyes:)

[Electrofreak]

regardless of CCP sucking up to the carebears, you still need a lot of knowledge for even minor success if you don't belong to the carebear highsec whores. the fundamentals of what made eve great are still there, CCP just needs to penalize staying in high-sec more, like moving the most valuable trade into low/0.0 and stuff like that. i think going to low/0.0 should be sort of a "natural progression", say if you're some buddying industrialist, you should be able to make cash in highsec but the big buck should be rolling in 0.0 and the game should make that abundantly clear to you: "if you wanna be spaceship rich you need to take risks, move to low/null!" :love:

the ideal solution would be of course aborting highsec entirely but that's not gonna happen. (even darkfall is adding safe zones now :rolleyes:)

I've been playing EVE since early 2004 (over 136 million skill points) and I've bounced between life at the edge of lowsec, several null sec alliances, industry in high sec, and I think the fact is that the game, as a sandbox, shouldn't directly provide any risk vs reward or penalties for high or low sec... ccp needs to stay out of that and let the playerbase dictate how it works. Let carebears carebear in high sec, let nullsec alliances battle over the technetium and such in null.

I've always been bothered by how so much of the playerbase is so obsessed with attacking the people who don't want to be attacked. Personally I think that kind of high sec industrial-corp war deccing is lame (players who want to shoot at people who can't defend themselves are cowards in my opinion) and drives people away from the game.

I'm not saying its an element that needs to be removed from the game, but I don't have a very high opinion of the people who are whining about how ccp has nerfed high sec ganking. Boo hoo, go shoot something that shoots back. Join an alliance and go on roams into other alliance territories. Hell, join Red vs. Blue if you need your high sec PVP fix.

Anyhow, this is a thread about PlanetSide 2, not EVE Online. Lets put the train back on the tracks.

BuzzCutPsycho recently posted support for the dynamic XP system in a thread (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/problems-with-planetside-2-as-i-see-them.73820) which has recently garnered a lot of attention (http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/01/03/planetside-2-critiques/).

The solution to this problem comes straight from Planetside 1; in Planetside 1, your XP gain for a capture was based upon how much fighting was on that base. If it was a heavily contested base, the reward scaled appropriately to reflect that. If the base was empty, the reward for the capture was insignificant. Basically, you were rewarded for taking risks. High risks held the promise of high rewards and encouraged players to always move towards the areas with the heaviest fighting.

I'm not a fan of BuzzCut personally (I've seen his application rejections, and I don't think it's funny) but I'm glad to see the topic of this thread get so visibility. In fact, it looks like the PS2 team has something in the works:

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/285949826498170880

So, for the record folks, if dynamic XP makes it into PS2, you saw it here first. :thumbsup:

[Archonzero]

If the xp system is directed to ease of play for young children, then I completely understand. Lets be clear here though, a game like this isn't for children, nor making it a simple system does much in the way of keeping an intelligent playerbase. Also it really demeans the ability of how smart, clever or intelligent many players really are. The more dynamic a system, even one that has layers to the formula is a system that will retain players better, as well entice more players to join.

I for one, do appreciate the concept of ensuring the xp gains are equal as roughly possible, also I appreciate the concerns for xp exploitation.

One of my growing concerns is that if our current XP/cert reward system isn't branched out in a few ways. This game will turn more lackluster an stagnant as it doesn't engage the brain enough with flexibility of dynamic options, directions an content to reflect those.

This idea is a bit of an amalgamation of XoO's (Xen of Onslaught) thoughts an concerns. I cannot take fully credit for the work, an many of them agree, lack of the metagame aside. There needs to be a more dynamic system of reward an toolsets for players that aren't simply looking to run n gun die respawn rinse repeat. A full blown reason for the players willing to take up the mantle of command an do the logistical work for their factions.


NEW CERTIFICATION POOLS/TREE

Vehicle Specialist ??? (not entirely sure how to design this one.. but Empire Specific vehicles really need to be in their own classification, this will prevent ease of access an more logical use, less spam all around I would think)


COMMAND Experience + CERTIFCATION

What is Command Experience (CEP)
Command Experience or CEP is a second set xp reward system for players who take up positions of squad/platoon lead, doing their best to keep other players organized, run operations, do the logistic work to keep their squads or platoons on target, in the fight an keep them moving. They are the players spending more of their time staring at the map, versus down the sights of their weapons.
Command Experience (CEP) was a reward system that did very well in PS1 it clearly defined the differences between the grunts an the players who were willing to take the selfless mantle of command and could be recognized for it. The Global faction com channel was only available to the highest ranking CR4 and CR5s (Command Ranks of which there were 1 to 5).



Why have Command Experience?

Having leadership skills/options purchased through XP gained certs is simply a poor reward system. There's little to no incentive for actual leaders to step up. Yes there are plenty of vets or players that enjoy doing this, there is no reward/minimal tools for them in doing this. Adding CEP will minimize early abuse of command systems that are currently open to ANYONE (anytroll).

Currently the system has no defined reward system for those that want to command nor an incentive for new players to step up an take role as a leader. The common pool cert gain is allowing an promoting irresponsible players access to features they have no intention of using with proper strategic purpose or insight, for the most part access to GLOBAL faction is showing more TROLL/Ethug commentary use rather than strategic (maybe not the case on Waterson, but I've noticed it on a few other servers).

(CEP gain) Command Experience, how could it work?

Squad/Platoon leaders forgo regular BEP (Battle Experience) for CEP (Command Experience) gaining CEP from successful defense, capturing of territory, as well capturing/disarming/detonating objectives inside the facilities before it flips. They will only gain BEP or XP from personal combat kills only.

Squad leaders gain CEP from...

+15 CEP per squad member at capture point when neutralized/secured
+15 CEP per squad member at designated attack/defense marker on CP/Gen/SCU when secured/destroyed
+15-25% of final capture value as CEP
+10-20 cep for every generator/SCU secured or destroyed by their squad.

Platoon Commanders gain CEP from...
+10 CEP for every platoon member at a capture point when neutralized/secured
+10 CEP for every platoon member at a designated CP/Gen/SCU when secured/destroyed.
+15-20% of final capture value as CEP
+5-10 cep for every objective taken by a squad/or platoon member?

In addition since Squad leaders an Platoon commanders forgo xp gains for capturing territory/objectives, they should gain a deployed BEP gain, for all elements inside of their objective target designations. The only BEP gains a leader can make is from actual combat themselves.

+5 BEP or XP per kill made by squad members, similar to transport drivers getting deployable kills?

Gaining CEP xp for CommandCerts occurs from successfully taking objectives (either territory or objectives like CP/Gen/SCU's). A squad leader/platoon commander who uses objective marker to designate attack priorities an members of their group are present once it is taken.. he will gain a % of that cap as command certs. These command certs are spent only on command skills/options.

Squad Leadership
The options would remain as it currently is. The leadership certs are no longer accessible or unlockable with regular cert gain or battle experience. The only real change should be the Global chat function unlock, either removed entirely from Squad leadership... or placed into an unlock system that would be a final unlock for a high cert cost. I really think global command channel should be an option that platoon commanders can unlock rather than a squad leader.
Squad Reinforcement Markers - could be expanded to include
options for additional support packages, artillery strikes, munition bursts, defensive measures.

Platoon Command
Platoon beacon - Gives a platoon commander a spawn beacon that will allow all platoon members to hot drop to. more Certification to reduce timer re-use.
Platoon Command Comms
Platoon objective markers (Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta markers)
Platoon Priority Markers (Attack/Defense)
Platoon Colored Smoke (4 types, squad coloration)
Platoon Strobe Marker (for better aerial designation)
Platoon Reinforcement Markers
Outfit Calldowns (frequency of use, types = defensive/attack/support)


Outfit Logistics (outfit pool)
Outfit creation should have an initial startup roster cap, 200? members on startup, that is enough for 4 platoons if you have a fully active roster. NOW that said outfit certification system would have a way to increase the outfit size. This idea is to prevent the new outfit, mass zerg recruiting that has happened in PS2 (an plenty of complaints)


How does one gain Outfit Certifications?
Utilizing a % taxation model for acquiring certifications+resources for the outfit itself. This could be a new rank feature, an option available to be set by the leader for w/e ranks they want, as well this can be set to tax either all members or a completely voluntary system. Depending on how the outfit leader/officers wish to operate. Outfit logistic certs could be useful for unlocking/expanding the outfits strength/size, as well allowance of command features for use during operations. A New outfit starts off with 200? (+/- 50?) members, with the logistic cert system paying to expand with either additional +platoon strength, or simply +50/100 members for each unlock.

This is not a hard counter to preventing zergfits from forming entirely, it will slow down the expansion of such outfits, as well allow outfits to maintain a MORE ACTIVE roster, rather than a massive roster that has 1/3 actives. Nor will it prevent larger groups from splintering into smaller outfits under a TS command structure under the same leadership as the previous large outfit. The Outfit Logistics (outfit pool) options reward outfits with more ability to affect the gameflow, have an impact on the global scale with more strategic success, as well rewards outfits with a highly active playerbase. Outfits looking to stockpile/unlock features will be more dedicated to large rosters of active players an less likely to zergfill a roster with mostly 2/3 inactive lists. Many of the outfit pool features will have a considerable cost, but a cost that isn't ridiculous to achieve, a balance in cost will prevent the desire to massrecruit (but not eliminate).

Reasoning...

Contribution of members to the outfit cert pool via tax%, is to unlock outfits ability to purchase deployable features. Call down support items, from air strikes, bombardments, supplies, fortifications, mine fields (anti-personnel, vehicle or even air) or any other fancy outfit only ideas.

All these options can be stockpiled, just like consumables an require resources to purchase once unlocked. These options will then be available to Platoon an Squad leaders that purchase the unlocks in their own certification trees.

How could Outfit Logistics work?

Outfit Logistics - increases roster size by 50 (?) for each unlock.

Platoon objective markers (These markers will increase CEP gain on set objectives by a % modifier)

Call Downs - Cost both certs to unlock, resources to stockpile. Deployed calldowns would have a non-renewable timer until despawn, as well a CD timer for use. Both Timers could be certed for shorter CD an longer deployement.

Defensive Call Downs
Call Downs (D)- Heavy Gun Emplacement (AI/AV/AA) (consumable)
Call Downs (D)- Barrier Defense (bubble shield to prevent bombs/rockets/shells or minimize AOE damage) (consumable)
Call Downs (D)- Deployable Minefields (Infantry/Vehicle/Air) (consumable)
Call Downs (D)- Deployable Tank Barricades (consumable)

Attack Call Downs
Call Downs (A) - Orbital Strike (timer CD)
Call Downs (A) - Artillery Barrage (AV) (timer CD)
Call Downs (A) - Munitions Air burst (AI) (timer CD)

Support Call Downs
Call Downs (S) - Supply Crate (acts as AOE vehicle/infantry resupply + equipment terminal for both) (consumable)
Call Downs (S) - Health Field (doubles health/increases regen rate) (consumable)
Call Downs (S) - EMP Blast
Call Downs (S) - Radar Field (100m/200m/300m) (consumable)


Thoughts ideas alterations/additions?

[Electrofreak]

Well, I'm going to chalk up the upcoming patch as a victory for this thread.


Experience (XP) system enhancements:

Dynamic XP system for player kills, players who have more kills XP earned on their current life are worth more XP. Freshly spawned players will be worth a fraction of the current kill reward.
Partial damage XP for dealing damage to vehicles that you don't end up killing
Population XP / Resource bonus moved over to continent population instead of global
Better display of XP sources for things like defensive bonuses & population bonuses
Rebalancing of XP rewards to help support tasks



http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/happy-new-year-update-02-info.77203/

Still no dynamic base capture XP, but still, you can tell that the dev team pulled a lot from the constructive posts in this thread or others.

This is a great start!

[maradine]

/clapclapclapclap

[ShadetheDruid]

Woo!

Probably important to point out the clarification by Higby as well.

tweet by higby
Clarification on dynamic XP: it won't just be kills that increase a players XP bounty, that was a poorly worded example...

2nd tweet by higby
Any XP earned will add to your XP bounty, not just getting kills.

The dynamic XP is probably the part of the patch i'm most excited about. I should probably be more excited about the spawn changes, but I love the curiousity aspect of seeing variable XP pop up and seeing how much people are worth (as opposed to a flat number).

[Kate]

Really looking forward to dynamic xp, however it gets implemented. It should add more depth to the game, and help motivate behaviors leading to good fights and fun. Lot of good points in this thread, I hope the devs have read it and considered some of our thoughts on it.

[Wahooo]

(even darkfall is adding safe zones now :rolleyes:)

The game runs like crap for me right now, so I haven't done much and haven't been in the forums at all, but I was hoping this was just a Beta thing.

So far from what i've seen the only changes from DF to DFUW have been in the wrong direction, except graphics.