![]() Clearly they are not trying to make it a zero-sum system where winners get everything and losers just get shame. Relic just made a compromise where you do get more, but it's not by much. ![]() That doesn't seem optimal does it? Wouldn't players like a bigger reward for a 1h 1vs1 struggle than for a quick 15min 1vs1 match that ended in a midgame push? Or in teamgames wouldn't the player that carried the match deserve a little extra over someone that did almost nothing? Yes it does matter how good. The current system gives every win 2000 regardless of what happend. Meassuring how many points you should get by how much you did though seems reasonable. Originally posted by DarTH ShodaN:Does it matter how "good" someone is to a progression system? I don't think so. iim not trying to change the game, but if your in a game lets say on left side of the map vp getting double teamed and you neighbour is build fule catches or camping around base you think he deserves the amount of rewards you do do you want to play games where poeple leave because of the map type or because they think o to many rifles 6 mins in not going to rape on this game (leave) there has to be a sytem where the good,ok and well played are given thire well deserved and the leavers campers and base stayers are punished. In your last paragrath i am with you on that, dnt punish them for being diconnected and i know its hard for the game to dermine if you lost connection or turned the game off. So your ok with an afk player gaining the same 1500-2000 points you ernd when they stayed at there base, or is someone drops half way through the games cos mg spam or early enemy tank is to much for them, is it right they dnt get penalised for there traiterness.ĭoesnt change athing to the system when the game came out it had a leveling up system but instead of crates you got to unlock things like the tiger 1 and then prestige came out which took the callenges away so the system to implement it is ingame and is doable. At least with the current system, how you play and how long are not factors, the only factors is you conclude the match without just leaving. Anyone can just play an hour-long match and accrue points against Easy AI on large map. ![]() Originally posted by daelin4:That is not "good". It rewards people for playing regardless of skill (because you can't discriminate via points how one is good or bad), and punishes leavers by nullifying them when they leave or get disconnected for any reason. The current system is cumbersome and problematic yes, but not flawed. People who want the drop content, noobs or otherwise, won't want to improve in the game to get drops faster, they want to grind faster. If however everyone gained 200 points for every match won or lost, then no one gets more or less. If it takes a hundred matches to go from level 299 to level 300, then it discourages players from grinding. They ditched the leveling system because they wanted everyone to feel and be at the same playing field. Getting owned by better players? Pay real money to get the stuff instead of playing. Second, it makes it even worse because there are microtransactions involved. ![]() In any event, this idea also just turns the loot drop system into, first, a skill-based one where only better players get the good and better stuff. So what you're asking demand huge changes to the system.yet at the end doesn't change anything with your you get loot. If anything, playing a game with LEAST amount of XP would indicate skill.but then again the problem is that skill is not calculated by how many experience units gain throughout matches, but whether you win or not against an opponent of equal or approximate competence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |