But that’s the funny thing here. If people don’t give a shit about XP, why this urge for rewarding the losing side?
That’s pretty much khtk’s take. How is it gonna be then, make up your mind.
But, aside of playing the devil advocate, this is my general take:
You’re right, it wouldn’t matter for the average player. But it would matter for ppl like us in here/more experienced players.
The same group that actually decides the outcome of a battle. The same ppl who actually do care about XP.
Neutralizing the XP multiplier would give this influential group fewer incentives to actually play the game as it’s intended.
The majority of the players in this game have more or less no influence on the end-result. They will keep doing their thing regardless of any changes to XP.
Something as basic as ensuring both sides start with the same amount of players would be a big improvement.
Waiting times would be longer for the more populous faction of course but not so much to make it unviable.
This isn’t change which should influence everyone in big way. It is just small user friendly change. To make this game more fair and not so frustrating.
Yeah, we’re lacking some special competitive game mode. Enlisted is lacking clans and so too.
I don’t think public (squads game mode) should be competitive in any way. It’s basically just sand box. Everyone’s way how to grind.
It will. Imagine attacking in invasion. Two guys building AT-guns at the main spawn and keep shelling the objective the whole game. Always two players in tanks (because it’s XP christmas). Same with the bomber.
One fighter-bomber hunting tanks/planes and those air strike planes. These slots will always be occupied by someone if it doesn’t matter if you win or lose. The objective will be more or less empty and fragile to even get close to. Which will naturally lead to some players decide to snipe.
If there was no xp at all in Enlisted, ppl would play normally, and still try to win.
If the xp per match were the same for both sides, with the only variable being personal merit, ppl would again play normally, and those wanting more xp might play more seriously
Now take what we have here. Both sides are no longer equally favoured, one gets big bonuses, the other, nothing.
Even if usually ppl don’t care about xp, because it’s not an issue if everyone get the same treatment, once you artificially favour one side, the other will start having resentment, or feel unmotivated or just plain desert because of the FEELING they are not treated justly.
Because you created a NEED. A need that wasn’t there originally. The need to have the same stuff as the other guy.
That it’s true ot not doesn’t matter at all. What does is that they believe it. It’s just basic psychology.
It’s impossible not to care.A sense of accomplishment is a great motivation for people to play games. People will be happy if they gain experience and unlock the weapons they want.As for why people don’t want to play the camp with fewer people.A big reason is that there is less exp of failure, it is more difficult to upgrade, and there are more enemies to face, which is really hard to make people happy!So in fact, we should solve the problem of exp first, which I have said in other suggestions.
But still. We all know a better matchmaking situation is around the corner. More even sides, no more irritating bots filling up the teams. Hopefully.
All of these changes will remove this kind of frustration because most ppl enjoy fair and good fights. Which are good incentives to stay til the end.
There will ofc always be ppl enjoying farming fresh installs/bots (Tunisia Allies atm).
But there will be no room (or at least a smaller room) for these shenanigans after the merge.
And those who still think it’s unfair/“not being treated justly” are a selective few who mind their grind/XP more than having enjoyable games.
And enjoyable games over grind, in my world. The gameplay is the foundation.
Why would I play a game where I wouldn’t enjoy the gameplay?
Why would I want to grind a game I don’t want to play?
Why should I endure a losing match when facing a sweatstack? I’m losing the xp bonus because the game pit me against those aholes!
I’m top 1st of my team. I sweat, I try to carry. But my team just jerk off and snipe. Why should I be penalized because of them, losing 1.5x???
The merge won’t solve most issues sadly. Will help, but not completely. Stacks will remain op as long as they aren’t matched. Bad teammates will still drag you down.
My ideal way of obtaining xp would be based on personal merit only. But that’s just me, not saying it’s exactly what should be.
We need more XP and score for team-play activities and objectives, plus OP’s suggestion. This would do a lot to balance campaigns by discouraging bot-stomps
NO. Win bonuses are an absolute necessity to the game.
Without them, everyone will just run around like CoD trying to get the most kills, even worse than it is now.
The entire point of the win bonus is to reward players for completing the designated objectives and winning the game. Getting rid of that is simply just utterly stupid.
People don’t like losing? Boohoo.
Get better at the game.
Get some friends to group up with, and use teamwork to win.
In the case of a game imbalance, jump on the forums and debate how to fix the issue, so that more fair games can be played.
You want to solve the issue of players dropping out of games because they don’t think they can win?
Easy solution: Penalize them for frequently leaving.
team win bonus does indeed create the urge for victory, correct, this is even backed by game design theory, the problem is that I don’t see that much in enlisted anyway, hardly ever people really care to play the obiective and win.
You say that ppl will go for kills and not to the objective.
Imo it won’t be the case as kills made on the objective are worth more so players will have a reason to go for the objective.
what do you mean there is no incentive to win without victory xp bonus, the player ranks serve that purpose already and give rewards to players.
Sure anyone can farm that in Tunisia at the moment, because half of the campaign are just one sided bot farms, this is why OP suggested the removal of this failed mechanic.
You want players to play intelligently, work together, and play objective right?
Removing the win bonus goes the opposite direction of that.
The solution is by reworking these things:
Points given for various actions. As @VoyoMayPL pointed out, kills on objective is one part. Points for objective capture need to be at least double if not triple what they are right now.
Points for fortifying the objective should also come into play and be increased (such as adjust points according to if sandbag walls saved lives, rather than just blocked projectiles).
Push the game to have more defined offense and defense roles. Fortifications need to hold up better against random splash damage, and actually take direct blasts, engineers, or consumables to break.
Additionally defenders should get the opportunity to set fortifications in advance by being able to see where objectives are going to be.
On the flip side, attackers should get more use out of TNT mines, breaking through enemy fortifications with tanks (large numbers of points), and so on.
Add in a mechanic like this, so that the players that do decide to play support are only really rewarded for doing their job very well, to encourage players to play aggressive support, rather than just passive.
