Info > Feedback and Suggestions

XP system seems wonky

<< < (2/3) > >>

CitizenFry:
Hmm, I was thinking about this overnight, and remembered that my "game 1" was a loss, and "game 2" was a win, so I guess my xp for game 1 was almost entirely for the one achievement I got, and my xp for game 2 was almost entirely for getting a win.

It seems a little odd that you would reduce the xp for losses as levels go up - the amount of xp for each level is going up anyway, so this seems like a double punishment. Feels bad that you can play a game and lose and get basically nothing for it.

Also, it seems like game duration or game type should play a role in how much xp is given for a win... 2v2 deathmatches, particularly on small maps like Duel at Dawn, can be over very quickly, while Crazy King often takes much much longer, particularly for 4v4.

Andika:
Somehow the xp system should also take into consideration who you are winning or losing against.

(In theory matchmaker should make sure we do not end up with stacked lobbies, but there is simply too much human involvement and too small playerbase for it to work properly. And well, if you restrict the system more, it will ruin the healthy amount of flexibility this game still has and should have.)

Naturally, matches won should give you more xp than matches lost, but if those matches were won against players much lower in levels than the average of your team, then there should at least be some xp penalty involved when calculating the final points. There simply needs to be an inbuilt reason or reward why players would want to balance teams and stay on the weaker side even if they recognize it as the weaker side. And this reason should not be the goodwill of people, nor the promise of a good game, but something that has to do with levelling or xp. The real xp achievement recognized by the game should be the case when you beat people whose average levels are at around your level (eg. plus/minus 10 levels) rather than beating whoever who happens to be around. When beating people whose average level is much lower than yours, the game should reward little xp. People would be more willing to scramble if having balanced teams meant more xp at the end. Again, the problem with this system is the small playerbase, eg. some of us tend to play at times when there aren't enough players with the same levels to fight.

As long as winning earns you 1k xp no matter what whereas losing will earn only around a couple of hundreds, no player in their right mind will stay on an obvious losing side for too long.

With my two matches, I do remember unlocking an achievement during the high xp one, which might explain at least partly why xp was higher, but other than that, I also remember fixing nothing but a few engines that the captain damaged with tools.

Sprayer:
So doing repairs (as opposed to rebuilds) and keeping stuff chemed as engineer doesn't award bonus xp?

sparklerfish:

--- Quote from: Sprayer on October 25, 2014, 11:11:40 am ---So doing repairs (as opposed to rebuilds) and keeping stuff chemed as engineer doesn't award bonus xp?

--- End quote ---

Apparently not.  You only get rewarded for allowing things to break and catch on fire, not for preventing it from happening.

Hoja Lateralus:
Also the problem with the current system is - I can be the greatest engineer ever but with captain lvl3 I will still loose - and it will count as my fail to the Matchmaker.


--- Quote from: sparklerfish on October 25, 2014, 01:57:13 pm ---
--- Quote from: Sprayer on October 25, 2014, 11:11:40 am ---So doing repairs (as opposed to rebuilds) and keeping stuff chemed as engineer doesn't award bonus xp?

--- End quote ---

Apparently not.  You only get rewarded for allowing things to break and catch on fire, not for preventing it from happening.

--- End quote ---

Wow. Just wow.
If you put it that way - it is incredibly stupid.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page