The concept risk vs reward is very simple. If I accomplish an action that is very risky, I should get a very good reward. Although, if I'm doing something that has a fairly low risk, I shouldn't be getting the same reward. To me, getting kills in vehicles is not risky. Yes, currently due to bugged lock-on's, using a vehicle can be frustrating, but again, it's a bug and it will be fixed. Why should you want risk vs reward in this game? Simple, when's the last time you read a thread about a MASSIVE epic battle with (insert large zerg number) armor and air? Uh... never? It doesn't happen. What does happen is a bunch of tanks shell a spawn building or the exits in hopes they'll get some easy, low risk, certs. By lowering the XP granted from kills while in vehicles would help lower the amount of vehicle spam. Yes, there are certain people who are still only going to only roll in their MBT or Liberator, but that's fine because they it's how they enjoy playing, not because it's the best way of gaining certs. TL;DR - Vehicles (Armor/Air and maybe even Maxes?) get less experience from kills. Those with the primary goal of gaining maximum certs find other ways to gain the XP, hopefully by playing infantry. We all get the MASSIVE battles the PlanetSide 2 is aiming for! Any thoughts? I'm sure certain people will hate this idea, but I feel that anyone who strives for a fair challenge and honest gaming should like this idea.
Currently, vehicles have much greater risk than infantry. So by your risk vs reward logic, vehicles should get more XP for their kills Why? Because vehicles cost resources and have spawn timers, while infantry do not. So while it may be easier to get a kill in a vehicle (reward) you actually risk a lot more by getting it in a vehicle than you do as infantry. The punishment for losing a vehicle is much greater than punishment for losing infantry unit. While playing infantry, you have almost 0 risk to do anything, because you can respawn in 10 seconds for free and try again. The only thing you are risking, as infantry player, is about 30 seconds of your time - the time it takes you to run to your objective. Someone that puts so little on the line should never have high reward
Because those are valuable things that you lose if your risky business does not pay off. Risk is about managing loss/reward ratio. It's not all reward
Exactly... so if anything, increase costs Not on everything though but MBT's I think should run a little more for 1. Additionally ESF's could charge a lil surplus for taking missile/rocket systems In fact, attachment cost could be figured into multiple things... like taking devastator or annihilators over default... with the ES lock ons also having a cost (albeit a lil smaller). just an idea.
Generally the only vehicles that actually make good exp per hour are ones with skilled drivers/pilots (and not every one of those is making good exp/hour, some enjoy playstyles that the game rewards with less exp). The average person in a tank or ESF isn't getting a particularly amazing amount of certs per hour. If there's a large fight and I wanted certs, I'd play a shotgun LA over a HE tank every time.
OP created such a non-idea that it didn't get responded to for 3 hours. Nice. He then bumped it himself 'for better gaming experience'. To TL;DR your post, you want less vehicles playing. You want to force people to play infantry, because you consider that to be 'a fair challenge' and 'honest gaming', and to be the intention behind Planetside. I think battles are only massive if the vehicles in them are massive. Infantry are insignificant fodder who should run like the Red Army two-to-a-rifle until they achieve their objective. I think they should get no kill xp, as their only actual purpose is to stand on a flag. I think they're playing the game wrong and should be forced to get into a vehicle. See, it doesn't work. It's stupid. Your priorities in this game are wrong; it's about diversity and tactical challenges. These are created by having a variety of opponents, requiring different approaches to counter. Heavyside 2 is not fun. Anyway, motive debunked, I'll move on to your actual point. There is no risk in this game. It's part of the idea. Dying means nothing. Deaths are not important. If you are in a vehicle, you are risking something. If you are running along the ground, you are risking nothing. A 15 second respawn timer is not a risk. 200 resources is a risk. A 10 minute respawn timer is a risk. Fortunately I'm not going to tell you this means infantry should have reduced XP, but rather, I'm going to tell you that risk vs reward exists in a different concept in this game. It works based upon assumptions. The game assumes a Sunderer is a high priority unit in the opponents force, and thus is likely to be well defended. You get as much XP for killing one as for taking a tower - are you that much more likely to die taking a tower or killing a Sunderer?! It assumes a Liberator is a riskier target to engage than an ESF, granting you 3 times the XP, before the pilot+gunner kills. It assumes taking on a player that has racked up a few good kills this life is a higher risk than taking on one who is just getting his bearings, and rewards you 12 times as much XP. And all of that has no bias to playstyle. It doesn't include the fact that engaging a Sunderer as Infantry bears no real risk; 1 more death and a 15 second timer. It doesn't include that if you did that as a MAX, you're risking 100 resources and a 10 minute timer. That if you did it in a Tank, you're risking 200 resources and a 20 minute timer. No. It's generous, so you ground-pounding scum don't QQ the ice caps away... Feel lucky. Also, this. If only infantry players would try out a vehicle, they'd come to realise it's not just a continuous stream of xp; LA is -FAR- faster.
Do you know where you can find the CoD ground-pounder scum when they spawn air? Belly up next to the warp gate. Then they give up and QQ on the forum that the flyboys need to be nerfed.
