PS2 needs dynamic XP gain.

[p0intman]

Originally Posted by kingjameo

Long time Eve Online players will tell you that their game is a game of knowledge.

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]

Originally Posted by Cyridius

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]

Originally Posted by Kate

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 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]

Originally Posted by Cyridius

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kate

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]

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

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]

Originally Posted by Kate

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kate

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]

Originally Posted by p0intman

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!"

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