Remove XP gain from Term destruction

[Towe]

Really, it only encourages some players to kill them all making it impossible for hackers to do their jobs.

Id go so far as to say remove a lot of XP gains like killing empty turrets (not if they where manned a min ago) and undefended bases, but thats not needed.

Giving XP for killing terminals on the other hand makes organizied squads want to shoot the noobs killing them. Also I dont see any need to have this in.

[Wahooo]

Really, it only encourages some players to kill them all making it impossible for hackers to do their jobs.

Id go so far as to say remove a lot of XP gains like killing empty turrets (not if they where manned a min ago) and undefended bases, but thats not needed.

Giving XP for killing terminals on the other hand makes organizied squads want to shoot the noobs killing them. Also I dont see any need to have this in.

Agree 100%. i've said it a bunch. Terminals, empty bases, Generators shouldn't give XP. Empty turrets are a good one as well, leave them to be hacked. Or maybe give XP for killing it, if it is manned or has been manned in the previous ~ minute or so to not make people just bail out of a turret early... though jumping out to not die isn't a bad idea.

[Emperor Newt]

Agree. But also doubt it will ever happen.

It's just another example how the game rewards "bad" behavior. I cannot count how often I have been shot down by a "teammate" while hacking a gen, simply because he wanted the lousy 100xp.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Agree. But also doubt it will ever happen.

It's just another example how the game rewards "bad" behavior. I cannot count how often I have been shot down by a "teammate" while hacking a gen, simply because he wanted the lousy 100xp.

Ugh. god. yeah.

How about making broken terminals hackable? And re-introduce PS1 NTU style auto-repairs?

Make them hackable and give infils battery packs?

[Rago]

Yeah it is indeed a Tactical Element, im not against destroying them, because you can stop enemys to spawn The Spawn-bus !

That is Vehicle Terminals only.
On the other hand, if you hack them you got a Tactic advancement and you can spawn a Sundy , yourself.
And it happens That "casual single players" destroy ,them without thinking about the Team.

I dont know if removing the XP stops People from destroying them or even makes anything better Balancewise.

[ringring]

Yea, it's an encouragement for a bad practice. I don't even think it gives much xp anyway.

[Ghoest9]

Since the same noobs kep making new thread asking for this.

I will keep posting in them.

NO

Term destruction is often useful. Just because you play an inf and it didnt work out for you on some occassion doesnt mean that at many other times blowing up a term isnt a good idea.

[Ghoest9]

Agree 100%. i've said it a bunch. Terminals, empty bases, Generators shouldn't give XP. Empty turrets are a good one as well, leave them to be hacked. Or maybe give XP for killing it, if it is manned or has been manned in the previous ~ minute or so to not make people just bail out of a turret early... though jumping out to not die isn't a bad idea.

There really isnt much xp to be made from blowing gens in empty bases when you consider the effort - but its often extremely valuable for your own side.

[ShadetheDruid]

If we removed XP from stuff every time someone did something stupid, we'd run out of ways to get XP.

[SeraphC]

Giving XP for killing terminals on the other hand makes organizied squads want to shoot the noobs killing them. Also I dont see any need to have this in.

Yeah, if I feel a hacked terminal is worth more than the person shooting it I'll just pop a bullet in their head and flip it. That being said: if there is initially no infiltrator around shooting the terminal might be a better option than leaving it intact.

Either way, I kinda doubt that tiny bit of exp is the major trigger for shooting terminals. The problem would remain should you remove it.

Empty turrets are a good one as well, leave them to be hacked.

I'd argue that a turret is, more often than not useless or of limited value to attackers and that destroying it is almost always the better option. Maybe the AA ones are an exception, but then again I've been shot down more by friendly AA turrets than hostile ones (noobs shooting all over the place or trying to hit my target but shooting me instead). So as far as I'm concerned they can burn too.

[Towe]

If we removed XP from stuff every time someone did something stupid, we'd run out of ways to get XP.

Lol, how is killing an enemy/healing/repairing stupid? If that isnt your main source of xp your doing something wrong.

Some replies here I dont get. Im not against beeing able to kill trems just against the xp gain, or do you depend that much on it?

[ShadetheDruid]

Lol, how is killing an enemy/healing/repairing stupid? If that isnt your main source of xp your doing something wrong.

Some replies here I dont get. Im not against beeing able to kill trems just against the xp gain, or do you depend that much on it?

What I mean is, removing XP from what can be a tactical action because sometimes people do annoying/stupid things is silly. If you want people to stop destroying terminals unnecessarily, it might be an idea to find out if they even know that an infiltrator can hack them first. Someone might be doing it for the XP, but equally they might not even know of certain game mechanics. Hell, they might know but not realise that it might be more tactical to flip it in that particular situation.

Besides, if destroying terminals purely for the XP really was an issue, we'd have medics all over the place killing other medics so they can get the sweet, sweet revive XP to themself. I'm sure that's happened before too, but that's not a reason to base changes on it.

[BIGGByran]

New guy here, love the topics on the forums.

1) Term Destruction
- When I play the game. I would rather have the term hacked, but if we have no hackers, I will destroy it to prevent the enemy from using it. Getting Exp or not from the terminals is irrelevant to me, the tactic of the enemy being unable to spawn a sundy or tank is more important than the 20xp for killing it. If someone is dependent on exp from term kills, then something is wrong.
-Ex. I was taking over a base but did not see any hackers close by. So I rocketed a vehicle terminal to prevent enemies from using it. Well it so happens that after I fired the rocket, a hacker told me to stop, but it was already to late. Had I known he was there, I would have let him hack it, so we could spawn a sundy for ourselves.
- Removing EXP from term destruction will not prevent anyone from destroying the terminals, as in, I hope, most people's mind, preventing enemies from spawning sunders or tank is a priority over the "massive" 20xp for term kills.

2) Removable of Exp on empty turrets and Undefended Bases
- Kinda disagree. But I do think that empty bases should reward players with fraction of the normal exp.
- Ex. Empty Base. 1/4 Exp for everything. So Amp station, instead of getting 1000xp, you get 250xp.
- Ex. Empty Turret (with empty base). Instead of getting 100xp. 25xp.
- On the other hand, even if the turret was empty for a while, so long as there are enemies at the base, you should get full EXP because it would be tactically wise to destroy all turret to prevent enemies from using it. (Enemies Detected)

3) Last Second Cap Exp
- To prevent people from flying to base to base and getting full exp. It should give you exp based on how long you were in the Sphere of Influence (if that is still the same). Meaning, when you get close enough to the base where you can see the A or B or C or the bar that shows how much of the base is taken over, you exp gain starts from there.
- Ex. If you were fighting at an Amp Station from the start and you start taking over the base. You stayed there throughout the whole time. You get 100% exp.
- Ex. Following from the top example. If you just made it to the base and it was 50% capped and stayed for the last 50% of the cap. You get 50% of the exp.
- Ex. Following from the top example. If you are flying and you made it to the last 1% of the cap. You get 1% of the exp.

I'm sure there are still issues with my proposal but it does fix it some.
- Ex. If 1 guy spawns at an amp station and he gets steam rolled by a platoon. Does the platoon get full exp for capping a base that is not considered empty? There are many variable. But to prevent the coding from being overwhelming, they kinda have to simplify exp gain and not make it so overly complicated.
- Ex. from the top, 1 guys should not provide 100% exp to a platoon when they take an amp station. Then how many guys would it require for a platoon to get 100% exp for taking over an amp station. It can get complicated.
- To simplify this situation, make it where, if there are enemies detected (when you look at a location on the map) give 100% exp when you cap it. If it is empty, then a fraction, maybe 1/4.
- Why 1/4 instead of nothing? Well tactically it is wise to take advantage of the situation but should not be rewarded as much. It would be a complete waste of my time to cap empty territories but would be unwise not to. So some reward is deserving as it takes time to cap them.

[MaxDamage]

Tough crap really. These are the game mechanics.

[Wahooo]

There really isnt much xp to be made from blowing gens in empty bases when you consider the effort - but its often extremely valuable for your own side.

But people still do it for the tiny little blip of XP. I'm just saying that actions that are and should be taken for tactical reasons don't need to give XP or only small amounts.

There are basically 3 reasons these actions are taken.
1. Boredom / Grief - Cant change this and it happened all the time in PS1 we have a base and some ass hat decides to blow the gen or kill all the terms or set an NTU drain. Can't get away from it but at least it is the least common. Hacking empty bases? The lone guy just flipping bases pulling people off of a good fight was one of the most annoying things in PS1, there should be no reward for doing these things.

2. Tactical. Who blew the lobby term or V-term in PS1? The defenders to prevent the attackers from using it. Terms were much more valuable in PS1. back hacking a base to split the defense and killing a gen at an interlink or techplant. Killing the empty turrets at a base before they were manned or upgraded. Tactical play will be rewarded by the outcome it is still done by tactical minded squads and it is done right with proper timing, a small XP bump is not needed.

3. All for the XP. It is just a simple fact that there are a lot of noobish retards that play online games. Destroying everything that gives them any little xp tick is what they are good at. Yes there are medics that kill other medics so they get the revive xp. Yes there are people who blow up friendly AMS's and then deploy theirs in the same spot. These aren't huge problems anymore but was an epidemic at release. I don't see much of a solution to some of that behavior but a lot of the other stuff like competing over the gen kill and blowing terms is easy. Take away the pitiful little xp tick and we take away the motivation from these dumb asses and it becomes much more often a purely tactical decision.

[james]

I do it out of boredom. I run tanks a lot of the time and there isn't much to do once they are pushed back into the spawn. Heck i go afk so often while waiting for the base to flip. I think people wouldn't do it as much, if it didn't take 2-5+ min of nothing to cap a base.

[Sylvanicus]

These all may become moot points come the 30th, but here's my two cents. Now I'll warn you now, take this with a grain of salt I suppose, as I primarily play an infiltrator and I am undoubtedly biased.

The problem, as I see it, is that at least in my experience, people destroy terminals simply because they can. It's not out of any tactical reasoning, it's just because hey, it's a thing I can shoot, and I get XP for it.

Now this wouldn't be a problem if people first asked if there was an infiltrator around. They don't. They just start shooting. In fact, some times they seem unaware that infiltrators can even hack them. I was once half way through hacking one when a guy C4'd it (and me along with it).

One solution I can think of is simply make terminals indestructible. Not only does this solve this problem, but it gives the infiltrator's hacking ability a tiny bit more worth. It gives them a niche, as it were. Right now that niche can be filled by anyone with an overabundance of bullets.

But, like I said, that's just my 2 cents.

[Ghoest9]

These all may become moot points come the 30th, but here's my two cents. Now I'll warn you now, take this with a grain of salt I suppose, as I primarily play an infiltrator and I am undoubtedly biased.

The problem, as I see it, is that at least in my experience, people destroy terminals simply because they can. It's not out of any tactical reasoning, it's just because hey, it's a thing I can shoot, and I get XP for it.

Now this wouldn't be a problem if people first asked if there was an infiltrator around. They don't. They just start shooting. In fact, some times they seem unaware that infiltrators can even hack them. I was once half way through hacking one when a guy C4'd it (and me along with it).

One solution I can think of is simply make terminals indestructible. Not only does this solve this problem, but it gives the infiltrator's hacking ability a tiny bit more worth. It gives them a niche, as it were. Right now that niche can be filled by anyone with an overabundance of bullets.

But, like I said, that's just my 2 cents.


Or they could just make kiddie pool server for you guys.

[Eliphas]

If we removed XP from stuff every time someone did something stupid, we'd run out of ways to get XP.

^
Agreed

[Towe]

For all of you who didnt play PS1, all the xp there was only handed out because of kills. Heal a guy? Get xp when he kills. Same with repairs. Taken a base? Get xp depending on how many got killed there. That was the way to go imo.

Now I can see thats too complicated for PS2, also giving xp for dmg without kill is a good thing. Telling every noob terms can be hacked and when they should be is much work too. Removing the xp is almost no efford.

The way I see it the game tells noobs what to do by rewarding them with xp. So it basicly tells them to kill every term if theyre not infiltrators (they might get more xp for hacks).

But what I do not understand with all of you opposed to my idea is whats the positive effect of getting xp for that? Maybe I missed something but I didnt get a single reason what good it does to the game.

Makes me think youre just afraid to loose that little extra way to get points. If not go on, tell me how it improves gameplay to have this.