PS2 needs dynamic XP gain. - Page 2

CaptainP · 2012-12-17, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Mutant

I don't think you need to redesign bases to reduce the camping, although i do think a lot of bases would benefit.

If you reduced the xp for newly spawned people and provided some xp for standing on the capture point (or some other action around the base) then you will find a lot less people spawn camping.

At the moment the only way to gain XP after a base has been broadly secured is to camp the spawns.

Getting xp for standing on the CP might help the problem somewhat, but it's not ideal since it defies tactical play (discourages securing the perimeter or whatever). Honestly though, I think you'd still have people roaming the courtyard in vehicles, unless you made the xp incentive very big.

ShadetheDruid · 2012-12-17, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by CaptainP

That being said, I agree that the spawn camping in PS2 is a problem, but the problem is rooted in base design, not the xp/spawn mechanics in themselves.

Personally I think it's a combination of the two. I mean, if you look around this forum even and take note of all the people who say they dislike the spawn camping but do it anyway because it's an easy way to get XP/certs, that's got to be quite a few alone.

The spawns still need redesigning (and I agree that this is the more important factor overall), but in the meantime if you got next to no XP for spawn camping, at least the people with low willpower can get themselves away from the spawns.

But maybe we should focus on the idea as a whole? I mean, the spawn-related aspect is only a small part of the OP, along with people getting lots of XP for just being in an area 1 second before it flips, disproportional XP gain in general, and all the rest.

Would be a shame to get bogged down in yet another spawn discussion, considering spawn redesign is one point everyone can pretty much agree on.

Bags · 2012-12-17, 11:18 AM

In the current game it is better to farm an ams than to destroy it. I don't know how the debs have jobs with a massive failing like that.

CaptainP · 2012-12-17, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

text

Yeah, sorry for derailing the thread.

The reason I don't want low spawn xp, is because in small fights where the same people kill each other frequently, this will yield very little xp, even if there's no dodgy play involved. In PS1 I quite enjoyed the smaller fights where individual impact was greater.

As long as the bases/spawns remain as they are, I don't think reduced xp will help the camping (except for Sunderers/AMS, which is a valid point). I would however be fine with reduced spawn xp if it ramps up very quickly, yielding full xp within a minute or so.

Memeotis · 2012-12-17, 11:36 AM

Good post. This is definitely a powerful tool SOE can use to shape the way players play the game and it is very under-utilized. These are some great suggestions.

Qwan · 2012-12-17, 11:42 AM

I understand the reason behind what the author of this thread is talking about, I wrote a thread a while back saying the exact same thing. I talked about how bases give a set amount of xp regardless of lenth of battle and kills in the SOI. But you have to remember one thing kids, this game is free to play

, and i got beach front property in Kansas City,

if they gave out xp like they did PS1 then we would be banking certs, but for SOE to make any Ioda of money the xp has to come at a controled rate.
1. If you want your xp to come faster buy a boost with SC which cost money.
2. You want thet new gun to take out air faster you have to use SC which cost money.
3. You want that cool blue and white striped pattern so you can stand out in the desert back ground you have to use SC which cost money.

If you want better weapons FASTER not exclusively, then your gonna have to spend SC or real money. This is why they have to have a controled XP gain, to produce some revenue (cause its free to play

) because they know there is the impatient gamer out there with a credit card, that will spend the money. This is why side grades, Reflex, extended mage, ammo load out, forward grimps, and NV and IR sights cost certs only, all the other stuff is either certs (which comes at a steady rate) or SC WHICH COST MONEY. I got the monthly subscription, and I also wait for sales on station cash, and since xp boost stack, I have decided to get the 50% xp boost on double xp weekends, I was making like 245 xp per kill that last weekend (this didnt include kill streaks and stuff). To put it all in a nut shell I dont think there going to change the xp gain at all they may change the dynamics of the hack but for this game to survive somebody has to pay. Its just a fact.

CaptainP · 2012-12-17, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Qwan

text

You're completely misunderstanding the OP. There's no intention of increasing (or decreasing) overall xp gain, the suggestion is to rebalance xp distribution in order to encourage playing the game the way it is intended, and discourage activities such as hacking empty outposts just for the sake of xp. It's also to remove some design flaws such as losing out on all cap xp if you're not in the area the moment it flips.

Electrofreak · 2012-12-17, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by CaptainP

Yeah, sorry for derailing the thread.

The reason I don't want low spawn xp, is because in small fights where the same people kill each other frequently, this will yield very little xp, even if there's no dodgy play involved. In PS1 I quite enjoyed the smaller fights where individual impact was greater.

As long as the bases/spawns remain as they are, I don't think reduced xp will help the camping (except for Sunderers/AMS, which is a valid point). I would however be fine with reduced spawn xp if it ramps up very quickly, yielding full xp within a minute or so.

You do make a good point. We don't want those little skirmishes where people on both sides respawn frequently to become watered down. The timer to full XP should be fairly short, and the existing kill streak XP bonus should be sufficient for the rest, as that's already dynamic to an extent.

The dynamic aspect for capturing bases was what motivated me to post, but given all the rage about spawn camping recently I figured I'd include that part of it as well.

MrBloodworth · 2012-12-17, 12:56 PM

It would not be a problem, IF THE SPAWN ROOMS WERE NOT RIGHT THERE. In the current base design, anyone NOT camping the spawn buildings is not playing right.

Spawns should be the last reachable location in any base, including outposts. You should have to go by every single other objective before reaching them.

Then new spawns being 1 xp would not effect anyone but campers.

And don't give me this crap about "Herp a derp you should defend the spawns better", because that's just pure fantasy. You can't effectively stop a lib that wants to camp the spawn, nor the tanks, nor the 100's of players.

Once the tanks and air show up, you are done in the current set up. 80% of taking a base in PS2 is camping the spawn buildings while the hack goes through.

Stanis · 2012-12-17, 01:43 PM

Linking time alive to kill xp would result in a massive and dramatic nerf to total XP income. I don't think most players really live that long between spawns.
(sniper hunting might prove really popular.)

I can see what is wanting to be achieved by having dynamic base capture xp.

Thing is I want the game to work regardless of XP rewards.
I've got a few things that are a thousand XP I'd like to get the certs for. They make them 0.04% better.
My inner mmo-addict is demanding I grind them out as fast as possible in the most optimised manner.

But I don't want to play the game that way. I kind of want to hit "BR20", have everything I need .. which I think I will after about 6 months .. and then get on with enjoying the good fights.

We should be wanting and needing to secure these bases because of the territory, the combat flow, the progression, good strategy - when there is a sound meta game and reason to fight the XP is just a nice added bonus.

Finally, there are umpteen threads about base design and building layout.
We really shouldn't have a situation where it is easier to let the enemy take the territory and take it back than actually defend.
So primarily a smaller force should be more effective with teamwork in defense than an equal sized attacking force.

Electrofreak · 2012-12-17, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Stanis

Linking time alive to kill xp would result in a massive and dramatic nerf to total XP income. I don't think most players really live that long between spawns.
(sniper hunting might prove really popular.)

People keep misinterpreting that I'm looking to change the rate at which XP is gained this way. I'm not. This system worked fine in PlanetSide and everyone was fine with the rate of XP gain, and XP values can be tweaked so that average XP payout per kill remains the same.

Besides, as I said a few posts above, I'd rather see "full" XP payout be obtainable within half a minute or so after spawning, leaving the kill streak bonuses in as they are. They essentially were in PS1 as well, they've just been split off as a second chunk of XP when you get a kill.

Sure, it'll be a reduction in XP for the kind of guy that sits in an HE Lighting farming people who spawn at a Sunderer. But I don't think many of us are too worried about upsetting him.

AThreatToYou · 2012-12-17, 02:24 PM

but for SOE to make any Ioda of money the xp has to come at a controled rate.

This is the biggest reason why I believe XP gains are not dynamic or scaled.
Controlling cert gain with a dynamic experience system would be much harder, whether it would be faster or slower than it is normally.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the suggested feature is not supposed to change the average cert gain rate. I also really want dynamic cert gain, and changes to the point system that encourage base defense and attack; simply reducing all other XP rewards and giving a massive payout of the difference to the winner of a base attack or defense scenario would be a great start.

moosepoop · 2012-12-17, 02:36 PM

dynamic bonus doesnt have to be a lot, just a little bit can feel more psychologically rewarding.

Rivenshield · 2012-12-17, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Aaron

In PS2, the spawns are easily accessed.

Point of order: they are easily BOXED IN. By tanks and aircraft, most of the time.

And yeah, we need dynamic XP to make some sort of a comeback. Along with a cooldown time on empire swaps. You know. Like much else that we had ten bloody years ago.

I have the feeling even Higby has written vets off as a bunch of atavistic old nerds who are trying to recreate their youth, rather than improve the game we've *got.*

Wahooo · 2012-12-17, 07:35 PM

I don't understand how these changes would be a nerf to XP generation?

See Bob it just comes down to motivation. Spawn camping in it self is kind of a natural progression in the capture mechanic HOWEVER... a well designed base would allow the defenders the possibility to fight back out of their spawns to re-take the base if they are not fully camped. A bio lab for example. Eventually it ends with spawns camped but even then if you CAN fight out it ends up being near inevitable you lose the base. With amp stations and especially with tech-plants now, the spawn camping starts at the START of the fight and the ability to fight back out is near zero.
This is an issue with base design, the dynamic XP part is just so it is less beneficial to the campers.

See the thing is TACTICAL moves need to have the tactical success be the point and not give that much XP. Destroying terminals, Gens, capturing checkpoints and towers these are tactical points to the much larger point of base capture where the fighting and capturing/defending should be the big XP maker. Remember in PS1 who killed the lobby term? The defenders because once you lost the lobby you didn't want the other team to be able to use it right? In ps2? First noob to get to it... why? gives XP and there is no tactical reason to hack them, well there is but it isn't recognized by most of the community and i have my doubts about all the devs as well.

As Bags pointed out, right now it is more beneficial to farm an AMS than kill it. That will always be the case sometimes or to some extent but MOST of the time it should be more beneficial to kill the AMS.

The point is to motivate people to fight over large bases, fight large fights and actually defend territory. Right now the system is too rewarding for giving up and going somewhere else to attack.