100 % agreed.
1 Like
You gotta learn the concept of artificially created inequalities to understand. Might be above you thought.
Because it’s unrelated.
I don’t believe many of those casuals are even aware of any bonus for victory.
I don’t believe any bonuses could influence this particular group of players. That’s why I think argument “victory bonus is motivation” is completely false.
It will never impact in any way the most numerous group in enlisted - casuals.
They either care about winning or they does not. No matter any bonus.
If xp really means nothing to them. People won’t care which team gets more xp.
If people care about which team get more xp, it means they care about xp.
On the other hand, I think you’re an exception for deserting having this XP-thing as your primary reason.
I’m competitive by nature. Like Joe’s example, I want to win regardless.
I desert some battles. But it’s because of integrity and that I’m valuing my own free time. I don’t desert because I’m about to lose, like you (because that’s the most convenient way to grind).
The reason why people leave games is, IMO, because:
- they think teams are unbalanced
- they’re fresh-installs and getting slaughtered by high-level players
- they can’t accept losing
I can’t imagine the majority of ppl deserting do it because it’s more efficient and thinking about how much XP they will get or not.
It is only frustrating to people like myself because:
It’s just extremely unfair.
I am literally paying money for premium stuff and so… So I can level up faster.
yeah, this issue concerns more experienced players who played for about 12 months or more.
And as OP suggests, it would be a great trade-off if the top-players were awarded.
I mean they have this system for the meaningless ranks. So why not?
If it would keep this group stay to fight til the end, I would be more than happy.
People don’t desert because they are going to lose, they desert because they are going to have a bad time. Fix the matchmaker and make games more enjoyable and people will stay in matches. Getting rid of the win bonus removes the incentive for winning. Enjoy your games of 2 teams sat camping for 25 minutes.
Yeah, just give the bonus to 3 top players of loosing team as well.
I really don’t know why this is so big problem.
There’s not often more than 3 veterans per team anyway.
I don’t think we are talking about the same thing. I am questioning his theory of “Humanity being competitive by nature, even with 0 xp involved in game, players try to win”.
This contradict with his theory of people deserting because of not getting the 1.5x XP bonus.
Yeah, I believe and hope the merge will solve a lot of these things.
But maybe will get another big problem around our necks - deserting because of the wrong map/“campaign”. That’s a bit worrying.
1 Like
Unfortunate but unavoidable. There will always be some deserters but a more pleasant environment will reduce the number.
The grind is so heavy that I can understand the argument of wanting to be rewarded even when you lose but I am against rewarding people for playing badly, which is what a bonus for having a high score and still losing promotes. I have seen this elsewhere.
1 Like
Yes, and it contradicts Adamnepee’s instrumental modus operandi. Because if he was competitive enough he would have stayed and not cared about his XP.
1 Like
We know they’re already planning to introduce option to choose or block certain game modes (in some capacity. + they’re planing more harsh punishments for deserters.
I think game modes are more problematic than certain maps. So I don’t really share your fear that much.
1 Like
To be fair here, you overestimate the average ppl common sense:
They see a big number (1.5%) they don’t reason more than this.
There’s also some guys who know the game well, that desert during the first minute to find a more favourable match, because they know right ahead it will be a loss, thus sacrificing that time playing without the 1.5x.
What I want is just for ppl to desert less, and good players stop being penalized by bad teamates 
1 Like
Plus deserting isn’t reflected in my stats in any way. Which would influence my effort more than any pseudo bonus.
Yeah, that’s what everyone wants, right?
Hopefully, merger will make it more fair and square between the opposing teams.
Bad luck getting atrocious players on your team will still exist though.
I’m just very convinced that totally neutralizing xp-multiplier between the winning and losing side will lead to a more boring gameplay. Sure, the grind will become a bit better, but everyone will lose in the end.
But still, I get the argument. Once you’re invested in this game, around 10-12 months in, these things (XP) start to matter for a lot of people. And I respect that.
1 Like
I don’t believe it.
I think there’s not enough people which would be influenced by it. Majority of them probably wouldn’t even noticed any change.
That’s my opinion.
1 Like
My objection boils down to this:
“It is wrong to reward people who lose”.
It is unfortunate that there is no matchmaker and no way to seperate sweatstacks from gen-pop so balanced matches that could be won by either side are rare. The fact that you lose is often not your fault, but you still lost.
What we should be focusing on is getting a functional matchmaker so there is a chance for both teams in every game, not asking for participation medals.
Fix the MM and most of the problem goes away.
2 Likes
It is also a way to promote balance by rewarding the losers who work hard.Otherwise, people will only choose to join the side that is easy to win.Moreover, because each camp needs players to upgrade, it is even more difficult to ensure balance, and players should be encouraged to go to the camp with fewer people through more encouraging means.
5 Likes