22 replies to this topic

[BlindProphet]

TimberJon, on 18 June 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

@ Blindprophet. I've addressed most if not all your questions in my post. Why award us less XP when there are so many quantifiable variables in this game that can equal bonuses?

If the base xp is scaled properly and enough why on earth do you need bonus' that can be exploited?

Quote

For your comments to #5-8: you're fired. [comment deleted]. When explaining the mechanics of something you don't bundle all mechanics under one generally defining parental mechanic. You list the primary, and all the childs (or sub-mechanics that contribute to the parent). Stop whining that a sub-point is covered by a parent. There is a point to listing them all on separate lines, and this is for the Devs to see also which means they would need to see the logic behind the triggers.

I'm not whining. I was pointing out half of your things are covered under another item, thus there was absolutely no reason for them. No there isn't any reason to list them like you did. You didn't list them as 'triggers' or sub points. You listed them as discrete bonus' to xp, which would be ontop of any gained from damage you're already causing from the damage itself.

Beyond that...why are you specially rewarding those things? Why should they be more xp than anything else? It doesn't make any sense...

Quote

An unsuccessful DFA is you trying to jump on me and missing, then tripping yourself, falling on your face, and taking a bit of damage for your trouble. Say you also slid down a hill as well, hitting rocks as you went and bouncing off other parts of the terrain. That's a failed DFA and you get no bonus. If you pull it off? XP bonus, awards, medals, chalk marks! How would a 4th grader define a DFA in one sentence? If you can't...

Going to point out there is no 'DFA' attack per se in any of the MW games to date like it is in TT. There is the use of jumpjets to try to land on someone (which is in essence a DFA) however there is no...I was trying to hit him but I didn't land on him thus I need to see if I fell over. No its just another use of jumpjets like if you were using them to jump to the top of a building, something you rarely ever fall from.

Hence the 'huh'?

Quote

#13 & 14. I'll admit I am not sure how or what to quantify here. But I wanted to put down the general concepts. I also don't appreciate you directing the term stupidity anywhere in my direction. You have no right and are not superior to anyone, nor do I claim such. That kind of talk has no place here in this community. Open your blind eyes / closed mind instead and consider that the player that depletes his ammo stores / abilities more than likely netted more total XP than the player that wandered around avoiding major firefights. Think balance, if you can, and not for veterans, but for new players - the masses.

You can not appreciate it all you want. But there is no reason to reward someone for not using everything they could have. There is no reason to penalize someone for using everything they could have. So yes, its subjective. And using completely subjective measurements for xp gain, that you yourself admittedly can't justify or explain in any detail, is stupid. You can either understand that, or you can't.

And no I'm not sorry that you can't handle the fact that I think it is a stupid idea.

Quote

#15. Again use your brain please. Yes everyone could get bonus XP for leaving the last shot in all their ballistic weapon systems, but how much XP do you think might be awarded for this? these are micro-bonuses, not 2x+multipliers. I am talking fractions of percent values, as everyone else understands.

It doesn't matter how much bonus xp it is. WHY IS IT EVEN THERE? There is no justifiable reason to reward someone for not using their ammo. None at all. Can you even explain why you would award negligible xp for this? If its not enough to matter why are you even making it a bonus? Its certainly not going to help the new guy (which you claimed earlier these bonus' were for) if its a negligible amount, so why even have them?

So we basically come back to the question for all of these... WHY? If their negligible why are they even there since its needless complexity to the xp system for completely random events (lolz hitting the cockpit with the first round fired?) or entirely subjective subjects?

Rage all you want, but your list of ideas is full of needless complexity that has no business being in the game. And yes to me that qualifies as stupid. If you want to take it personal, as if I'm calling you stupid, go right ahead. Its not meant that way. Those ideas are certainly stupid in my book. You may be intelligent, who knows? Personally? I don't care. You could have 15 different PhD's an IQ off the charts. That doesn't mean the ideas you put forth are any less stupid to me.

[Corpsecandle]

TimberJon, on 18 June 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Hrm. There is that angle. Good catch. What if you get this bonus only if you are actively firing at a target when it is either within range, when it is firing at you and total percentage of gametime that you were moving and firing at enemies? If a 'Mech is camped and gets blown up, it shouldn't get any XP even with full bins because the game notes that players participation was too low.. I would also submit that if the player truly did not move from it's spawn point, the pilot should not get any XP associated with the team winning the game.

I'll admit I've got a fairly limited MMO portfolio, but the ones I have participated in seem to indicate that creating exceptions for AFKers ends up creating a lot of overhead that doesn't resolve the issue, so ideally the way to handle it is to adjust the core of the process so it inherently limits value to AFKers, so in the interest of rewarding skilled/smart play how about this:

What if they used a weighted result for ballistic accuracy vs. ammo left over at the end of the match? If you emptied your magazine, and had a 92% hit ratio with that weapon - bam you get a pretty good "Weapon Efficiency" bonus. If you have 1 shot squeezed off, with 100% accuracy, you don't get squat, because you didn't contribute...have a 50% accuracy rating with half your ammo left, you get something, not as much as the first guy, but hey, better than nothing. In the end, it still encourages you to use what you've got, but tries to get you to use it wisely.

Of course the counter argument is "Why should a ballistic mounted mech get an XP boost over my Laser Boat?", at which point I ask, why shouldn't it? Ballistic users build in an inherent endurance handy cap and therefore value accuracy more than an energy boat. Not to say someone with a PPC doesn't value accuracy, especially taking into account weapon cycle time, but a missed shot with a Gauss Rifle is significantly more wasteful than a missed shot with a PPC.

That's not to say something like this couldn't be applied energy weapons, it'd just be shots fired vs damage dealt or something, but I'd still argue that those folks who use ammo should get a larger benefit. (This is assuming of course that the old issues of ballistic vs energy in video games still still applies. If they've somehow found the magical formula, then forget this last bit).

[Shadowscythe]

Why don't we have XP for walking in a straight line.
Why don't we have XP for running in a straight line.
Why don't we have XP for running in a zig zag.


lol, sorry, I am not much of a joker, but I couldn't pass this up

Come on people....You don't need XP for 75% of the actions in game...

Odds are there are more in the game then officially listed so far....

Edited by Shadowscythe, 18 June 2012 - 06:20 PM.