Remove XP gain from Term destruction

Towe · 2013-01-11, 02:35 PM

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 · 2013-01-11, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2013-01-12, 02:04 AM

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 · 2013-01-12, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2013-01-12, 04:36 AM

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 · 2013-01-12, 08:51 AM

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

Ghoest9 · 2013-01-12, 09:23 AM

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 · 2013-01-12, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Wahooo

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 · 2013-01-12, 09:33 AM

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

SeraphC · 2013-01-12, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Towe

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.

Originally Posted by Wahooo

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 · 2013-01-12, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

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 · 2013-01-12, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Towe

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 · 2013-01-12, 06:03 PM

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 · 2013-01-12, 06:32 PM

Tough crap really. These are the game mechanics.

Wahooo · 2013-01-12, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

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.