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
I think this game is too small and too casual for proper MM.
1 Like
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.
That’s a fair point
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.
Horrible.
1 Like
It’s what I tried to explain that other guy.
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.
… And desert or stop trying as a result 
3 Likes
I disagree. Taking tank isn’t good for XP, but for leaderboard points. Only good for grinding FOMO events.
I don’t believe it. All that casuals see is one big red icon on screen, main lead what to do. Same thing for bots.
Would this change influence those few veterans which are in match? I don’t know. It definitely wouldn’t influence me.
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.
2 Likes
Fair points!
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?
3 Likes
I believe it will help as well.
Because to add to my points:
A player, currently might ask himself
-
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.
4 Likes
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
1 Like
It’s already okay.
But for extremely weird reason, leaderpoints are concepted completely differently. Encouraging players to behave selfishly.
So…
- if you want grind FOMO events, doing selfish actions is way to go.
- If you want get XP fast, building rally points and ammo boxes + fighting over objective is way to go. (And it’s essential to play popular faction atm)
But of course, there are some exceptions.
That’s sort of my point. We need to re-arrange the scoring so that selfish toxic play is no longer “meta”
2 Likes
Im for this…but i will say the majority of leavers I see dont leave in a timely enough manner for this to make sense to be the reason they do it…
Only logical reason they would leave after 3/4 of the match or before the final bell is to preserve/doctor their win ratio.
People just want to be winners…
Even if it means nothing.
1 Like