Attn SOE: Time to Implement Kill-XP Cooldown Mechanic

[Mordelicius]

Planetside 2 players overwhelmingly want a meaningful, sustained base fights.

SOE want nonstatic, nonpervasive, elastic, wide-open frontlines to avoid base turtling and in turn kill farming (which in turn will hurt their business, due to high rate of earning Certs).

Here's the practical solution to both: Add a cooldown to kill credit everytime a player dies.

Example:
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 will also not be able to give XP everytime he dies the next 2-3 minutes.

Every time Player B dies, the cooldown is reset. What will this mechanic do?

1) It will allow SOE to contruct or reconstruct tighter bases without the fear of xp kill farming.

2) It will prevent kill farmers for the sake of gaining cheap XP. That goes for Air units and even exploiters.

3) It will rewards a community that simply wants great balanced, competitive pvp.

4) Players will still get kill credits but the XP farm simply won't be there. If Player A kills Player B 10x every minute for the next ten minutes. Player A gets XP credit for first kill but still get 10 kills.

5) The onus will be on players not to die and reward strategy to kill and not die repeatedly.

SOE will have to adjust the amount of XP per Certs, including the ones already owned by players, but it will solve the divide between SOE and the players.

[Ghoest9]

go away

You dont "fix" the game by making it annoying and unfun.

[Bags]

So dying = no xp? Okay I'm never doing anything but camping on D with a mag rider.

[Wahooo]

This is not the right approach to solve issues. Better base designs would lead to more balanced killing (though defenders usually are on the more beneficial side) and XP that encourages fights... THIS? Only encourages ghosting cap points more rather than shooting and getting shot at.

[Electrofreak]

I may be biased, but I believe implementing dynamic XP gain as I describe in another thread to be the more reasonable alternative.

[Bags]

Electro idea is much better. But it was in ps1 so we will never see it in ps2.

[Electrofreak]

Originally Posted by Bags

Electro idea is much better. But it was in ps1 so we will never see it in ps2.

Hah... there may be a bitter truth in that. Sometimes it seems like the devs intentionally avoid PS1 mechanics. I get that they don't just want to remake the same game, I get that they don't want it to be overly complicated, but I feel like we can make PS2 a game that uses some of the best elements of PS1 while building upon it. There were some good bricks in PS1's foundation.

[Bags]

In all serious the second I did with this implemented I'd jus log off and do LFR in wow since both have a habit of giving me nothing.

[Mordelicius]

Originally Posted by Wahooo

This is not the right approach to solve issues. Better base designs would lead to more balanced killing (though defenders usually are on the more beneficial side) and XP that encourages fights... THIS? Only encourages ghosting cap points more rather than shooting and getting shot at.

I'm sorry but imo SOE will not change their base designs to benefit defenders. In fact the opposite is happening. They are systematically eliminating all the farming hotspots (look at the outrage at the Mesa and Techplants). I think the Biolabs are next. Look at the ramps they added. Pretty soon, they will note the Crown as well.

There's a reason why the bases are so wide open, with no place to turtle. They designed it that way. But you're right on one thing. My suggestion shift the focus on base fights rather than pure kills. But it's no different from what is going on right now. Most base 'fights' are just capping empty bases.

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.

[Heavygain]

Lol, this is the least of PS2's problems. Don't fix it if it's not broken.

[Mordelicius]

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

I may be biased, but I believe implementing dynamic XP gain as I describe in another thread to be the more reasonable alternative.

I doubt SOE would acquiesce to that because again, they simply don't want base turtling that will evolve to cert farming. What SOE is trying to avoid is easy Cert farming for players.

That will just speed up the demise of the Crown because it would be even more prime area for defense farming. They destroyed the Techplants for that very same reason. I wouldn't be suprised if they add loads of jumppads toward the crown.

[Bags]

Why would scaling xp add to farming D? In ps2 attackers live like 5 seconds.

[Wahooo]

So, you are assuming SOE's concerns are that certs are too easy to come by with defense and that the changes were made that made bases so undefendable was because... SOE thought defenders were making too many certs? It wasn't because people were whining about not being able to win by zerging through a choke point?

I honestly don't understand what the actual problem you see and how your suggestion is a solution. What has been brought up in these other threads about base design and the dynamic XP is trying to find a way to make the game more about fighting and the fun of killing each other in a competitive way. Your suggestion does not do that.

In fact it makes so little sense i'm sure it will be implemented soon.

[maradine]

I'm trying to figure out when holding an objective successfully turned into "cert farming". Why bother with captureable territory at all if we're going to flatten fights?

[Electrofreak]

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

I doubt SOE would acquiesce to that because again, they simply don't want base turtling that will evolve to cert farming. What SOE is trying to avoid is easy Cert farming for players.

That will just speed up the demise of the Crown because it would be even more prime area for defense farming. They destroyed the Techplants for that very same reason. I wouldn't be suprised if they add loads of jumppads toward the crown.

I fail to see how a system that rewards XP for capturing a base dependent upon the duration and intensity of the battle encourages "base turtling" and "cert farming". The system still benefits the attacker more than the defender, which was still a sore point in PS1 for defenders.

All the system really does is discourage spawn farming by providing more tempting alternatives (such as actually blowing up an AMS Sunderer instead of farming it as Figment mentioned in my thread) and preventing the zerg rushing to whatever base is on the cusp of being captured, instead continuing to fight at a contested base or attacking a new territory.

So if you can explain how that lends itself to the type of gameplay you describe, I'm all ears.