New XP system hypocritic? Suggestions to make it&Meta better

[Mox]

I really like the ideas of the OP. Nevertheless there is still a missing aspect:

PS2 should really support teamplay and therefore give incentives for fullfilling every task your comander wants you to do.

Lets take a closer look at some examples:

1) Your squad is holding the capture point at a small outpost. The enemy forces are coming from the south. Your squadcomander order you to cover the back of team because it could be possible that some enemies sneak around. You take your duty serious and kill each of the two sneaky cloackers approching from the north. you get 300 xp for fullfilling your task on the battlefield perfectly by saving the asses of your squad. In the meantime each of your squad members get 1000 xp for killwhoring the main enemy forces in the south.
Is that fair? No it isn't! You should get a fair share of the xp your squad gathered!

-> Therefore i suggest to introduce SHARED SQUAD XP

2) You are standing at the warpgate and a guy in the localchat yells that he really needs a guy to handle the Walker AA tertiary gun at his lib. You decide to help this guy and hop in the lib. After a quater of an hour you have killed 4 ESF and saved the asses of the pilot and his main gunner several times. You got around 500 xp but the main gunner could kill 40 guys during the same time. The pilot/owner of the lib get his share of your and the main gunner's xp but you get nothing from them.

Is that fair? No it isn't! You should get a fair share of the xp your vehicle gathered!
(Every vec with more than one seat has this problem, e.g. mbt or sundy. Only the owern get xp form the gunner. Everbody else inside the vec get nothing back.

-> Therefore i suggest to introduce SHARED VEHICLE XP

By the way: shared squad xp as well as shared vec xp were implemented in ps1 and it worked fantastic.

What do you think about these suggestions?

[Rago]

Summa Summarum Thanks Phantom

[Killjaeden]

Originally Posted by MaxDamage

Too long, didn't read.
Too many people butthurt over K/D. [...]
Tough luck for you noobs and whiners.

My character is X3Killjaeden and has a higher K/D then you... thanks for your invalid comment,

noob

Sorry, had to do it.

[typhaon]

Not going to change player behavior one bit.

Players will still go to bases.... cap them... and camp spawns while they wait for base to finish capping. Why wouldn't they? It's the best way to keep the enemy from getting back into the fight.

Overall... I think this is just going to result in more people getting less XP from fighting and will therefore be pretty unpopular.

If it does result in more people getting more XP... then people will like it.

In the grand scheme of things, this is utterly inconsequential and hardly an important issue in the game.

[Deadeye]

Originally Posted by MaxDamage

Too long, didn't read.

Too many people butthurt over K/D.

They are not removing it, nor can they dictate how people use it.
They did not "Decide that it was bad" they are taking the loudest whiners lead on this.

I will continue to use K/D as a base for improving my game (I don't HE/Zephyr/whatever grind) and to judge people.

Tough luck for you noobs and whiners.

What an ignorant noob. Let me educate you on why KDR is not an accurate depiction of anything in this game other than your personal ego.

I looked up your stats, they're pretty decent. 1.89 kdr is pretty good (better than my own 1.46) but that stat only goes so far.

Let's say you're at a biolab fight and doing decently. You kill 2 people as HA before dying. On the other side of the biolab is a medic. He throws a revive grenade and rezzes 5 guys. He then runs around a corner and gets shot without so much as firing a bullet.

Meanwhile, Those 5 guys then kill 5 enemies and 2 of them even manage 2 kills before dying again. He has contributed 7 kills for your 2. Even half of that, 3 kills, would still be more and if some of them are engineers or medics and resupply or heal others...well, you can see where this going: he contributed a lot more than you did despite being 0-1 versus your 2-1.

Now, XP/D will not show those extra kills but simply the act of reviving 5 guys for 500xp is still more than your 200xp for killing just 2 guys.

Welcome to Planetside, where teamwork is encouraged over lone wolfing it.

[Killjaeden]

Originally Posted by typhaon

Players will still go to bases.... cap them... and camp spawns while they wait for base to finish capping. Why wouldn't they? It's the best way to keep the enemy from getting back into the fight.

Yes, exactly. I wrote that as well, why i think the reduction in spawn xp won't keep people (infantry at least) from spawncamping. It's a necessity to do if you want to keep the enemy at bay sometimes.

Let me educate you

Don't waste your time mate, it's futile

[ShadetheDruid]

It likely won't stop spawn camping (and I doubt anyone has even said that it would, especially the devs considering it's not the only spawn-related change going in), but it might reduce it a small amount (like from, say, certain people around here who don't like spawn camping, but keep doing it because they like easy XP). We'll have to wait and see.

But even besides that, if people are going to spawn camp, the least we can do is not reward them super easy and gigantic amounts of XP for it. Even if it doesn't affect the spawn camping situation one bit (going to be hard to tell though because it's going in with more than one change to spawns), that's still a positive.

[Deadeye]

The problem with spawn camping is a problem with capture mechanics, not xp. We camp the spawns because outposts and bases allow no way to end a fight outright before the capture goes through. We can't go into the spawn building and kill the defenders and kill the spawn tubes so we are essentially forced to camp them whether we like it or not.

In PS1 you could clear out the spawn ( and suffer pain field damage while doing it) but once you did, the fight was over except the cap unless the enemy came back with a massive gal drop. If they chose not to gal drop they would then set up defenses at the next base in line.

In PS2 you fight to the capture point(s) then you push them back into their spawn and camp them wasting your time and resources and they waste time they could be using to buff their defense or form a counter attack.

So the problem isn't xp, the problem is the gameplay mechanics. And those mechanics are bad now and will be bad afterwards.

Let us blow up the spawn tubes and we'll be happy to not camp (well most of us).

[Killjaeden]

Let us blow up the spawn tubes and we'll be happy to not camp (well most of us).

Although that would lead to the problem that a zerg could just roll over half the continent if the defenders react unorganized. Especially since there are multiple paths the zerg can take, which is imo a good thing. It would be cool if the defender could use the sattelites to counterattack (which is of course already possible) but they are so easy to take over and most people just spawn in the spawnroom, walk into the thick of the battle instead of thinking about (re)securing possible spawns to counterattack from if the SCU defense failed.
And often (except in biolabs) you have to cover alot of open ground to get to the base.

[Deadeye]

back in PS1 when there were large expanses between bases and bases were defensible, you still got zergs that took over multiple continents but what happened was that as you pushed the enemy back further and further toward their sanctuary warp gate, they would slowly but surely be more and more concentrated and thus harder to break through. Continents had routes through them from warp gate to warp gate and continent to continent at some point the empire either put up a defense or they were sanc locked.

The one big problem with this system right now is that it's not really feasable with just 3 continents. Maybe once more are added and thus creating these neutral continents to fight across, they'll add a linearity to the continents so that you fight from one to the next and back again.

[igster]

Originally Posted by Mox

I really like the ideas of the OP. Nevertheless there is still a missing aspect:

-> Therefore i suggest to introduce SHARED SQUAD XP

-> Therefore i suggest to introduce SHARED VEHICLE XP

By the way: shared squad xp as well as shared vec xp were implemented in ps1 and it worked fantastic.

What do you think about these suggestions?

Amen Brother.

Devs Read this. Dynamic XP. Shared Squad XP. Shared Vehicle XP.

Was always great getting feedback from your team about how well they were doing with you supporting them.

[Killjaeden]

Originally Posted by Deadeye

they would slowly but surely be more and more concentrated and thus harder to break through. Continents had routes through them from warp gate to warp gate and continent to continent at some point the empire either put up a defense or they were sanc locked.

The same thing happens in PS2 as well. The more territory you lose the more concentrated you are. Peak is at beeing warpgated at which a zerg of your own faction develops. I wouldn't want to be prevented from playing on a continent, just because 5 man had taken over 2 continents when everyone was asleep...

[Deadeye]

Originally Posted by Killjaeden

The same thing happens in PS2 as well. The more territory you lose the more concentrated you are. Peak is at beeing warpgated at which a zerg of your own faction develops. I wouldn't want to be prevented from playing on a continent, just because 5 man had taken over 2 continents when everyone was asleep...

The difference is that you had no choice what-so-ever in PS1. You couldn't just say "Screw this, let's just change continents". If you were pushed back to your home continent, you were stuck fighting there till the enemy was repelled. If I remember correctly, each faction had 2 home continents to defend so you weren't totally out of things you could do, but if you lost both, you had to fight on one or the other.

Also, while ghost hacks were possible in PS1, once a ghost hack started to go so far, someone on the opposing faction would eventually see what you were doing and come to stop you. Taking a base took 15 minutes of sitting in it which meant it could take a couple hours to conquer even an empty continent. 5 guys might take one or two before someone noticed, but you couldn't take the whole place before you pissed someone off on the other side and were delt with.

The war felt like a real war, you fought from your home continent across the world to the enemy's home continent and then you sanc locked them and they were forced to push out. Maybe once more continents come out they'll be able to switch to something like this and make taking or losing territory mean something; and I don't mean a damn "You win" or "You lose" screen. Have some pride, people. Kick them out because this is your house and they ain't gonna come in and screw you out of it.

[Chefkoch]

Just remove death tracking all together and work up the metagame.