Attn SOE: Time to Implement Kill-XP Cooldown Mechanic - Page 2

Juryrig · 2012-12-18, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

Player A kills Player B. Gets XP points for the kill.
Player B will not get XP kill credit for the next (say) 2-3 minutes.

Player B starts the game for the first time, gets dropped into battle, gets shot. And then you tell him he can't earn XP for the next three minutes, because he died?

You could just prevent any new players from downloading the client instead, that would save them the trouble of having to install it, play once and uninstall it again.

Stopping anyone getting XP for a period of time because they got killed is not a good idea. At all.

If someone is better than me? Great. I get killed, he gets XP.
If someone being better than me results in me being locked out of the opportunity to progress for an arbitrary time? Not great, I stop playing, and hence spending money on microtransactions.

Elgareth · 2012-12-18, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by Juryrig

Player B starts the game for the first time, gets dropped into battle, gets shot. And then you tell him he can't earn XP for the next three minutes, because he died?

You could just prevent any new players from downloading the client instead, that would save them the trouble of having to install it, play once and uninstall it again.

Stopping anyone getting XP for a period of time because they got killed is not a good idea. At all.

If someone is better than me? Great. I get killed, he gets XP.
If someone being better than me results in me being locked out of the opportunity to progress for an arbitrary time? Not great, I stop playing, and hence spending money on microtransactions.

Agreed. The Result would be:
Player B, not being able to get XP anyway just AFKs at the Warpgate/Safe Base X for the next 3 Minutes, before he goes to battle again.
Furthermore, should he not wait, and instead risk getting his timer reset AGAIN, without even gaining ANYTHING during that time, and Player C shoots him, he gains nothing for killing Player B.
That system is bad on so many levels... dynamic XP sounds good enough, every Player is worth a small amount of Base-XP, which increases the longer he lives (small increments), and the more Kills/Captures/XP he gained during his life.

But this idea here... no... just no, it penalizes People who take a shot for their team, and that should be encouraged, NOT penalized...

Bags · 2012-12-18, 03:31 AM

I still don't understand what problem this would fix?

Having fun?

Calisai · 2012-12-18, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

The only places left to fight are really the Crown and Biolabs. If they implement this, they can restructure their base-capping, base defense mechanics around the concept.

I swear its an attempt to improve performance by thinning out the herd. The less players jammed in a single area, the better the performance of the server. The old tech plant farms were pretty epic. That is when you were able to see the hundreds of players zerging in... but then draw distance issues happened... and grenade spam, etc.

Breaking the tech plant into outlying fights over the gens and making it a courtyard fight will help with performance... but with the unfortunate side-effect of making it a much more vehicle-centric fight.

Lieken · 2012-12-18, 09:55 AM

All I took from this poorly worded post is that I kill one guy, then that guy is worth no XP for the next 2-3 minutes?

No, fuck that

Memeotis · 2012-12-18, 12:42 PM

Well, if you are trying to prevent/discourage spawn-farming...

How about this:

Player A kills Player B
-> Upon respawning, it takes 60 (or more?) seconds for Player B to return to full kill-value (5xp added to his kill-value every 3 seconds) with relation to Player A
-> However, it takes only 20 seconds for Player B to return to full kill-value (5xp added to his kill-value every second) with relation to Player C

What would this do?

It would discourage people that are already camping/farming, because campers would see a sharp drop in their ratio of:

Point gain
Time spent camping

However, it would also discourage players like Player C from joining in on the farming, because even if he was to participate briefly, the point gain would be meager.

But of course player C shouldn't be punished for not partaking in the farming process, which is why the timer for him should be shorter. It could even be as short as 10 seconds, but that is a balance issue.

What this would do is discourage the zerg by creating a sort of invisible "bubble-of-low-exp" around the spawn area. This means that spawn camping would mostly occur for tactical reasons, and if tactics are already involved, the organized group might choose to just take out the spawn-generator instead.

maradine · 2012-12-18, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Memeotis

This means that spawn camping would mostly occur for tactical reasons, and if tactics are already involved, the organized group might choose to just take out the spawn-generator instead.

Spawn camping already occurs for tactical reasons. What I find entertaining is that you feel that the "camped" party isn't also a rational actor, and isn't choosing to spawn right back into that fight for tactical reasons.

Memeotis · 2012-12-18, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

Spawn camping already occurs for tactical reasons. What I find entertaining is that you feel that the "camped" party isn't also a rational actor, and isn't choosing to spawn right back into that fight for tactical reasons.

If you are being spawn-camped, and you are part of an organized squad, choosing a different spawn-point becomes a rational option very quickly, because you know that if you take a short break from the action, you can get organized and have a large impact when you return to the battle.

But if you are a lone-wolf, it takes a lot longer for you choose to spawn elsewhere, because you don't have the same degree of certainty that spawning elsewhere will actually benefit you. Instead the temptation of maybe getting a couple of kills around the spawn-point makes you overlook the fact that you are being camped.

Duckforceone · 2012-12-18, 02:11 PM

wow.. so you want the standard player to be unable to earn xp, unless he starts camping in vehicles????

my my that's a truly bad idea you have there...

i can live with the, only gives xp reward to a specific player once every 1-3 minutes.. but that he himself becomes unable to earn xp due to being killed, that's just bad. Like really really apocalyptic 21st mayan bad...

maradine · 2012-12-18, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Memeotis

But if you are a lone-wolf, it takes a lot longer for you choose to spawn elsewhere, because you don't have the same degree of certainty that spawning elsewhere will actually benefit you. Instead the temptation of maybe getting a couple of kills around the spawn-point makes you overlook the fact that you are being camped.

Sounds like he just made a risk decision.

Lonehunter · 2012-12-18, 04:22 PM

Horrible design solution, this is like using a flamethrower to get rid of a puddle in a building. Sure it may eventually get the job done but it's going to fuck up a lot of shit and piss people off.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-12-18, 05:06 PM

I like xp, so no.

Juryrig · 2012-12-18, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

Spawn camping already occurs for tactical reasons. What I find entertaining is that you feel that the "camped" party isn't also a rational actor, and isn't choosing to spawn right back into that fight for tactical reasons.

My tactical reason is to drop a long-lasting ammo pack right behind the crowd firing out of the door.

Then go respawn someplace more fun

Mordelicius · 2012-12-18, 06:39 PM

It seems I wasn't clear enough why I made this post

. I made this post after reading so much Base Design threads.

My point is, the only way to convince Sony to change their open-ended Base Design is give up fast XP farming.

The current base design favors attackers not defenders. Hence you have cries of "nobody is defending". You have cries of "Zerging empty bases". You have cries of "where's the fight?" While the suggestions on changing bases are arguably well-meaning, it's all player-centric. Sony's position wasn't even part of the discussion or equation. It means SOE ain't gonna bite because the faster players farm their kill, the less they sell the Certs and XP boosts.

The only way for Sony to bite and change their base design philosphy to allow turtling, camping and heck even kill farming (different from xp farming), is to incorporate a Kill-XP cooldown mechanic. I lifted this mechanic from my favorite MMO where it worked wonders over there, by focusing players unto objectives (The GMs found a way ruin the game in another way but that's another story

).

Players prefer:
Defensive Bases (favors defenders) + Easy kill farm

Sony prefer:
Open Bases (favors attackers ) + Slow kills

The current system is a mix of both:
Open Bases (favors attacks) + Easy Kill farm

What I'm suggesting is a reverse. If Sony is to ever make highly defensible base, then the kill farms has to go:

Defensive Bases ( favors defenders ) + Slow kills ( Kill XP cooldown mechanic)

Now that doesn't mean getting XP is now impossible. Sony still has to adjust the XP per Certs ratio. Suppose, put it at 50 XP per certs. This system also shift focus on the objectives themselves. That means the priority is kill for the objective. The current system forces to players to go to a base to farm. It's never about objectives anymore. Also, 2-3 minutes may also a bit too high for this type of gameplay. Perhaps, 1-2 minute cooldown would be better?

Lastly, I still think they are systematically removing all the kill farm zones because it will hurt their Certs and XP boost business.

So yeah, take a pick. But I don't think we will have a defensible base and easy kill farming. Just look at how fast they took down the Techplant. They could have turned the Amp station to an easy version of the Techplant by adding two doors on each side of the main building. Instead, they made Tech plants an easy version of an Amp station.

I think the time is now while they are still constructing the new continents to give out our best suggestions. Because, if not, we'll be stuck with the same ole base concepts.

Mordelicius · 2012-12-18, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Juryrig

Player B starts the game for the first time, gets dropped into battle, gets shot. And then you tell him he can't earn XP for the next three minutes, because he died?

You could just prevent any new players from downloading the client instead, that would save them the trouble of having to install it, play once and uninstall it again.

Stopping anyone getting XP for a period of time because they got killed is not a good idea. At all.

If someone is better than me? Great. I get killed, he gets XP.
If someone being better than me results in me being locked out of the opportunity to progress for an arbitrary time? Not great, I stop playing, and hence spending money on microtransactions.

Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear with my opening post.

My suggestion is contingent on SOE on making a more defensible base. This suggestion isn't for the current base design.

They fix the bases to be more defensible and as a tradeoff, we lose the kill farms because it will turn to choke point battles for the most part. There will be alot more kills but it's not farm-able in XP points