Stop Rewarding Avoidance

Baneblade · 2013-06-12, 03:36 PM

I don't see why the game still rewards xp for capping uncontested territory. That was partially the problem with the hex system, and has persisted into the lattice conversion. People will still flip facilities and outposts that don't give them xp, so why keep it incentive fueled?

Reward defenders, don't reward ghosts, and watch while that coupled with the lattice finishes making PS2 the game we all wanted.

Crator · 2013-06-12, 03:46 PM

I liked the way PS1 did it. You really only got rewarded for the capture of a base if there was conflict during the hack. You'll still have people ghost-hack locations, even without a reward though. You're not going to prevent it and I don't think you should since it is a valid subversion tactic to attempt and get some of the enemy to split off of the other locations.

NUKABAZOOKA · 2013-06-12, 03:55 PM

But it's "tactical."

Baneblade · 2013-06-12, 04:02 PM

I understand it will still happen, to a lesser degree, but motivating players to go the path of least resistance by default isn't the right way. PS2 still trains us to always be on the offensive (as in avoiding defense) and to avoid the enemy if you want to just farm xp. The lattice can only do so much to curb it without being far too constricting.

ringring · 2013-06-12, 04:59 PM

I quite agree.

Don't reward stupid stuff.
Don't reward ghost capping
Don't reward turret destruction
Don't reward destruction of equip terminals
Don't reward destruction of generators.

But:
Do reward the resecuring of bases
Do reward base repairs.

Shogun · 2013-06-12, 05:10 PM

yeah, please change to the xp system ps1 had!

it rewarded defending and it rewarded going for the enemy.

it didn´t reward anything stupid or irrelevant.

and of course also take a look at ps1´s support xp system.
it rewarded absolutely everything you could do to support your team, but only when this support had an effect on the battle. so it couldn´t be exploited as easy as in ps2.

supporting a bad ass player team in a big battle would yield big amounts of xp while supporting idle players gave no xp.

i would really like to know why the devs didn´t take the old prooven system and came up with something this unsatisfying.

Wahooo · 2013-06-12, 06:13 PM

I remember a few updates ago when they announced dynamic XP I got really excited. Then I saw it was only being applied to kills and I got sad again. I liked that change but in all of our threads and posts asking for the XP changes the one they implemented was kinda secondary.

Agree on XP scaling with the size of the fight. No XP for tactical things like killing gens and turrets and terminals.
Would love XP like Ps1 for hacking a term you get bonus XP from the people that used it and went on to get kills, same for turrets.

Originally Posted by Shogun

i would really like to know why the devs didn´t take the old prooven system and came up with something this unsatisfying.

Well I think I know but don't agree with it as far as the support stuff goes. Instant gratification and not having to be dependent upon someone else. You get the XP for your action now. I rep/heal something I get the xp now. Goes along with driver being the main gunner as well.
I think that was the thought process anyway.

Dougnifico · 2013-06-12, 06:49 PM

I say that you should still give reward, but make it a 1/3rd of normal reward. That way people will still hack empties but you won't have a million people sitting on it.

Shogun · 2013-06-12, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Wahooo

Well I think I know but don't agree with it as far as the support stuff goes. Instant gratification and not having to be dependent upon someone else. You get the XP for your action now. I rep/heal something I get the xp now. Goes along with driver being the main gunner as well.
I think that was the thought process anyway.

that was my thought as well.

something along the lines of "when players execute a support action, throw the xp right in their faces!"
to prevent the hyperactive unpatient kids from raging about getting nothing for support. mainstream fps players may be used to getting direct feedback from the game engine immediately on everything they do, but even the dumbest should understand the ps1 system after getting it rubbed in the face on the tutorial and the "hello new player" window.
the system was flawless, dynamic and very rewarding for every legit player.
and the squad xp was extremely helpful for supporters as well.

Taramafor · 2013-06-12, 07:04 PM

If you're not even going to defend that bit of territory then anyone taking over an UNDEFENDED AREA should be rewarded as far as I'm concerned.

A better idea is come up with a way to get people to spread out and defend more areas. Or perhaps set it so that the deeper a terminal is behind enemy lines, the longer it takes to hack (say an extra 20 secs for any enemy tile that's around the base that isn't touching another factions).

the problem isn't the XP (Although, I often wonder if it would be better if XP was removed altogether to encourage playing as we want) or the terminals. The problem is that there's no one defending the terminals to begin with.

AThreatToYou · 2013-06-12, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Wahooo

Well I think I know but don't agree with it as far as the support stuff goes. Instant gratification and not having to be dependent upon someone else. You get the XP for your action now. I rep/heal something I get the xp now. Goes along with driver being the main gunner as well.
I think that was the thought process anyway.

Actually, the reason, as stated directly by smed and higby for having non-dynamic XP gains for support and base capture is to control player progression. The developers decided upon static gains so they could control the business model and control about how long a player will have to play before they can unlock something. This is actually very important to PS2's business model, and the business model of any F2P game.

They also did it to simplify the rewards that players give. They won't always understand why healing doesn't actually display up-front the experience they are getting for it. In PS1, you didn't get any XP at all if you healed someone and they went on to gain 0 XP. Higby agreed to static XP rewards for things like base capture and support roles both for the business model and for the reason that it makes it easier for players to understand the rewards for doing these kinds of things.

Imagine if you didn't get any up-front XP for healing, reviving, repairing, or assisting. Some players would still do it no doubt, but new players wouldn't even bother because they don't understand how it will gratify them. So yes, you would be right it is at least partially involved with instant gratification.

Baneblade · 2013-06-12, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Taramafor

If you're not even going to defend that bit of territory then anyone taking over an UNDEFENDED AREA should be rewarded as far as I'm concerned.

Defenders don't get rewarded. Why should attackers be?

A better idea is come up with a way to get people to spread out and defend more areas.

I'm not sure, but I think this was addressed already. Give defense XP.

Or perhaps set it so that the deeper a terminal is behind enemy lines, the longer it takes to hack (say an extra 20 secs for any enemy tile that's around the base that isn't touching another factions).

Umm, not applicable.

the problem isn't the XP (Although, I often wonder if it would be better if XP was removed altogether to encourage playing as we want) or the terminals. The problem is that there's no one defending the terminals to begin with.

When you institute a reward system the general trend for a playerbase is to gravitate to what turns out the reward. The rational method of waging war is entirely irrelevant without logistics and value in conquest.

So the solution is obvious, reward everything.

Taramafor · 2013-06-12, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Defenders don't get rewarded. Why should attackers be?

Because the base is undefended. Don't want terminal hacked then defend it (or better yet, stop blaming the hackers and come up with ideas for better defense/incentive to defend or make the hacking behind enemy lines more difficult).

Also, defenders didn't didn't get XP because said hacker wasn't killed (Or if they were... Well then, XP rewarded right there).

Originally Posted by Baneblade

I'm not sure, but I think this was addressed already. Give defense XP.

Defense XP won't make people go to undefended bases (There's simple too much territory). I was thinking more along the lines of getting people to form a defensive line instead of all being zerged at an alert. Wouldn't stop the hacking on undefended bases, but it would help to hold the enemy back across the map instead of having people flank a zerged base and take over territory while everyone's there (XP farming).

Or perhaps have terminals in only large bases and have the surrounding territory tied to the base so that it'll change to the factions side.

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Umm, not applicable.

Live with having quick hack times and bases taken under your nose then.

Originally Posted by Baneblade

When you institute a reward system the general trend for a playerbase is to gravitate to what turns out the reward. The rational method of waging war is entirely irrelevant without logistics and value in conquest.

So the solution is obvious, reward everything.

If XP didn't exist, people wouldn't grind for XP in zergs. Without XP, people would play for fun and in the way they WANT to play. Not be forced to farm alerts or camp spawn points.

And there can be other rewards then XP and certs. Perhaps some faction ability that's unlocked when 40% of the map is controlled with a boost at 60%. Christ, I remember when people used to play games for fun and not the farming.

Wahooo · 2013-06-13, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

Higby agreed to static XP rewards for things like base capture and support roles both for the business model and for the reason that it makes it easier for players to understand the rewards for doing these kinds of things.
*SNIP*
but new players wouldn't even bother because they don't understand how it will gratify them.

Originally Posted by Taramafor

Christ, I remember when people used to play games for fun and not the farming.

And here, taken together is the issue.
The fun is lost on a large portion of the market, replaced with a dangling carrot of some kind of progression model.
Then to add to that,
The mechanics for the progression model has to be dumbed down and simplified for the greater player base because if there is any kind of complexity they will lose interest, quit and take their money with them.

psijaka · 2013-06-13, 03:56 AM

Symptomatic of the way I'm feeling about PS2 right now I'm afraid - meaningless.

I got a mega XP reward the other day by switching to a continent just SECONDS before an alert finished (just by chance - honest!)

And I'm sick of the whole "hanging around a base whilst the takeover timer counts down" nonsense, what a waste of time, and totally exploitable by latecomers. And it only encourages spawn camping as well; lame. I often forsake the XP capture reward to push on to the next base. And the reward for actually doing something useful like capping "A" is meagre, to say the least.

The whole XP/resources/certs system is a complete mess, and does not reward effort and effectiveness, despite the introduction of the lattice.

It's all beginning to feel a bit pointless and I'm feeling rather burnt out; think I'll take a break from PS2 for a month. Or 6.