So this is the problem. Without a true incentive to defend, circlejerking is more rewarding than fighting. We can just lose bases in the north, cap them in the south, and then swap when we get close to the warpgate.Here is how I see it: XP for capping bases is 250, 500, or 1000. Defense incentive is 15% max. This means that in order for defending to be worthwhile, your PRE-INCENTIVE xp must equal 1666, 3333, or 6666 over the duration of the defence. 16 kills for a small defence, 33 kills for a medium defence, 66 kills for a large defence... or a LOT of support functions, if that's a legitimate thing. ... However, I am a premium member. I also use my Alpha Squad bonus. Therefor... XP for capping bases is 400, 800, or 1600. Defence incentive is 15% max... BUT - an additive 15% bonus on my existing 60% bonus is really only a 9.5% increase. This means that in order for defending to be worthwhile, my PRE-INCENTIVE xp must equal 4210, 8421, or 16842 over the duration of the defence. 42 kills for a small defence, 84 kills for a medium defence, and 168 kills for a large defence... or an absolutely OUTRAGEOUS number of support functions. At 5xp per repair tick, that is 3400 repair ticks. 8400 spawns at an AMS. That's an awefully long defense... ... Or, instead of all that, I can just bail on this fight that isn't rewarding, and go cap an empty base up north. It's boring, but I get my certs! Anyone see the problem?
And, just to clarify, I'm talking about the benefit of defending OVER attacking - so this whole concept functions under the assumption that attackers and defenders get roughly equal kills... which generally isn't the case, but I digress...
It's unrewarding to defend? Funny. Every time my Outfit has dug in, we've cost the opposing forces massive amounts of time and resources to dislodge us. We get tons of xp thanks to the constant flow of mans to shoot and **** to do, and meanwhile the main zerg is using the distraction we're creating to go cap territory (and yes, we know when we need to just bail and go do something else). How much more rewarding do you want to get?
The "defense incentives" is 15% bonus per kill and meat grinding the enemy. From Tech plants and Biolabs over the last few days.
Defending feels too hard, there are no HARD defense options as everything is quickly destroyed and there are no actual chokepoints once you learn the layout of the bases. I'd love to see some Gatling turrets that were shielded for example.
Ayup. The outfit I'm in turned Tawrich Tech Plant into a giant god damn death trap a few days ago and absolutely shredded everyone who attempted to take it. We all racked up massive amounts XP from the constant fighting and soaked up so much attention that our friendly zerg was able to march around with impunity before finally linking up with us and pushing out further into enemy territory. That 15% adds up really fast.
[QUOTEThis means that in order for defending to be worthwhile, your PRE-INCENTIVE xp must equal 1666, 3333, or 6666 over the duration of the defence.][/QUOTE] PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS.
15% of each of those numbers are the respective awards of XP for assaulting a base. The OP is stating that in order to earn the XP bonus gained from capturing a base via the defender XP bonus (of 15%) you need to gain those scores. In other words saying, "I could have just earned 1666 score while capping a base and AND getting the reward XP also. You have to earn more than this number for it to be better to defend.". I think disagree, however, because you actually could get 1666 score defending whereas it's much harder on the offensive. Edit: Format and clarification.
Maybe my math is wrong here but each defensive kill is worth 115 XP. Therefore to make defense worth while: Small base = 2.17 kills Medium base = 4.35 kills Large base = 8.70 kills Dividing numbers by 15% to get some sort of incentive number is googly math IMHO. AM I WRONG HERE?
This would assume that defenders die as much as attackers which for the most part in these poorly designed bases is correct. If all bases were designed like the Crown or Tech Plants this would not be the case so I concede to your point.
That would be to obtain just the bonus XP. Or, if you didn't earn any XP while attacking. He's basically saying that if you earn the same score while attacking and defending you need 6666 score to make defending worthwhile over assaulting a 1000 XP bonus base. As most people have mentioned, defending usually earns you more score to begin with. Edit: Super clear example: I defend base: I kill 10 dudes. (10*100)*1.15 = approximately 1150 XP earned. I assault biolab: I kill 10 dudes. (10*100) + 1000 = approximately 2000 XP earned. I defend biolab: I kill 66 dudes (666*100)*1.15 = approximately 7659 XP earned. I assault biolab: I kill 66 dudes (666*100) + 1000 = approximately 7666 XP earned. edit: was using 10 xp/kill not 100xp/kill.
The incentive for defense should be: 1) Fun. The fun of playing the game 2) Keeping your foes from achieving their goals 3) tactics: Keeping open lanes of supply and reinforcements to defend your interior or expand your teritory. The problem is, to many people don't care about any of those things. They want certs. Sweet sweet certs. They want to get PAID! They want to be shown da benjamins man! LOOT! CASH! LUCRE! We needs our BLING! Which I think is stupid. Screw the certs; so you get a weapon that's a little better then your old one, or some cute camo. If I want to 'earn' something, I go to work. I play the game to have fun. Part of my fun is defending ground we fought hard for. BUT: I know my opinion is meaningless to anyone but me. So, I say give the rest of the folks what they want. Take away the 15% and give a flat bonus. Sure, as an engineer I get around 200xp a turret, in a hard fight that breaks your pre-incentive threshold, not to mention kills and other repairs (something like 25 or so at sungrev the other day). I don't care about losing out on those certs. Whereas so many other folks only play to earn certs. That they may lose out in the long run is inconsequential; they NEED to see that big fonted 1000XP!! <cue confetti and music>. So give them what they want. THEN maybe I won't be stuck defending that the enemy wants because it'll cut off our adjacency, air, tank, and spawns and eliminates our ability to control the air/ground space with turrets. Which, strangely enough, on Jaeger the Vanu and TR seem to understand fully well. Because THEY actually seem to protect the things, at least for a while. NOTE: The above is my personal opinion. If you don't like it, cry me a river build a bridge and get over it. It is not a slight to you, it is meaningless to anyone other then myself.
You actually prove so much about what is wrong with the game. Killwhoring ruins this game for the majority. That's unrelated to my point however. Long story short, your results aren't representative of the population. Those numbers aren't sustainable for larger numbers of people. Also, you probably sat at a turret and didn't perform support actions at all - because that's what the defence incentive REQUIRES for it to be of benefit to you. And a giant thanks to everyone that broke down my numbers, I often forget to show my work. Cost me a lot of marks back in highschool >.<
The top two were in a magrider and the other 4 were a mix of HA and infil. And I'd perform support roles if they were fun. I don't like helping random people have fun at my expense.
I think the defense XP bonus should be bumped to 20% or 25% if the devs are being generous. If it goes too high though, then EXP ****** will never attack.
Wow Bags, that's actually great work in a Mag =) I know they are a little OP right now, but that's still a great streak.
Yup right now defending sucks unless you just camp with HE tank. I feel sorry for anybody doing anything else while defending.
Nice try, but you can do that with any tank, especially Prowlers, and even Lightnings with default gun due to its rapid fire (devastating against infantry) and high ammo count for streaks. This is why the world's #1 player prefers Lightning.
