[Suggestion] PS2 Needs a Huge EXP Revamp.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Darsh, May 13, 2015.

  1. Darsh

    Many ppl right now complain about the lack of Meta, and the fact that PS2 is just really a Large scale Team deathmatch. Ppl don't care about taking objectives. Ppl would rather camp a Sunderer to get many kills instead of destroying it.. ect. This is because what the game wants us to do, and what it rewards us for doing are not on the same page at all and there is simply no synergy between the two.

    This game has unfortunately been designed to reward the selfish players who would rather focus on getting a good killstreak than do what needs to be done for their faction to win a battle. This game could have ALOT more meta and ALOT more direction if only Daybreak Games changed the way exp is earned in PS2.

    How can it be changed?

    1) Reduce the amount of EXP gained from killing stuff. Killing Infantry, Vehicles and Aircrafts should not be the Main Source of EXP generation. Killing vehicles should still provide more exp, but less EXP than it currently does.

    2) Reduce the amount of EXP gained from support roles such as healing, reviving, repairs, reloads ect. Again, its nice to do these things and they should provide some exp.. but this exp generation should be reduced as well. gaining EXP should not be the motivator for supporting

    3) Significantly INCREASE the EXP gained from successfully capturing or defending contested bases. This EXP should also not be a static number. The amount of EXP gained should vary based on the amount of time you're actually spending in the contested hex, and the efforts made to capture and defend this hex. (So ppl who show up at the last minute and don't do anything wouldn't be awareded much exp, Players who did alot, but left to go somewhere else would still be awarded exp even if they are no longer present) The game should be able to track how much EXP players gained from Kills, revives, repairs reloads ect ect. during the course of attacking or defending a base / hex. Based on that number, the game could mathematically generate an amount of XP players gain at the end. THIS IS HOW players should make the BULK of EXP in PS2.

    4) Increase the amount of EXP gained from specific objectives such as Capturing or Defending Capture Points, Generators. Players within a certain radius of a Capture point or Generator which belongs to them should gain a bonus EXP modifier for protecting an objective. Destroying a Deployed AMS sunderer should also give a significant amount of EXP compared to destroying other vehicles due to its tactical benefits and effect.

    Players always do what gives them the most amount of EXP so they can farm as many certs as possible. By revamping the EXP system, PS2 could create a bit of Metagame and help players feel like they have goals and like capturing bases matters, instead of just having players join whatever big fight they can to get lots of kills / certs.
    • Up x 2
  2. JohnGalt36

    This seems like it wouldn't be worth it to play the air and tank game any more. No thank you.

    Way too much of my time is spent outside of the radius of the base, killing sundies and enemy armor. It's an important part of a combined arms game. If you got experience throughout the whole hex for killing infantry and vehicles and it was multiplied by capping the base, OK. But you shouldn't have to physically be at the base to get the increased experience in your proposal.

    This isn't a CoD infantry game, it's a combined arms game. Making it not worth it to pull vehicles seems counterproductive to this end.
    • Up x 4
  3. Cinnamon

    Killing things would still be more fun and for "end game" players the competition is more to get a better kill per minute not to get more xp.
  4. Darsh

    If you fight in a contested hex and you're in a vehicle / aircraft, you would gain EXP once that hex is captured / defended, Regardless of if you are present or not. The game would be able to track how long you were in the contested HEX and how much you contributed by killing X number of vehicles / infatry / aircrafts.. So if you just fly into the hex at the last second to gain the EXP from the win, you'd be SOL.. but if you legitimately contributed to the fight, even if you're not present when your faction wins, it doesn't matter. You would still be awarded a fair amount of EXP based on how long you were in that hex.
    • Up x 1
  5. Skiptrace

    I think that Support Role EXP should be increased actually, you generally contribute more when you are Reviving people, or repairing Phalanx Turrets (that is a HUGE thing that can in some cases turn the tide of a battle) or hacking a terminal (again, that's a tide turner) I do agree that Kills should be reduced EXP, but Deployed Sunderers and Galaxy kills should be increased in experience gain as they are Spawn Points, along with Beacons. Capturing and Defending objectives should definatly give more exp.
    • Up x 1
  6. FateJH

    There's not enough objectives; but, there's always more bodies. I doubt it would affect deathmatch mentality because, at the end of the day, people have to get shot anwyay. Additionally, if a base can stay contested (accumulating experience pay-out) by keeping alive an enemy Sunderer that keeps throwing enemiesat its Objectives then the result has not changed.

    Moreover, you're forgetting the lessons we learned from WDS. Kill farming will be replaced by Objectives juggling as the mode of points grind, and I see that as being an even worse outcome since it's a dirrect corruption of the actual game's meta, rather than a mere distraction from it. It's better to just let people decide to play how they want to play.
  7. JohnGalt36

    I could live with that.
  8. Darsh

    Kill farming Needs to be replaced. Objective juggling may happen, but the longer ppl fight at one objective, the more EXP they could potentially earn with the above XP changes. This would encourage players/ outfits to stick around until the end rather than redeploying to easier fights with less resistance.
  9. BlueSkies

    Guess what, you just suggested how PS1 and PS2 originally had XP gain sorted out. You know what happens? Zergs avoid conflict and ghost cap away from each other.
  10. FateJH

    No matter what change you impose, people will want to kill the enemy because that's how the game works. Some people get on the point, some people fights to protect the point, and what about the dozens of others who are just here and there betwixt a spawn and the point? They kill each other. Either they're running around without a head, or they have an objective in mind. You're not going to change the very psychotic joy at the base of it. Get rid of experience, get rid of Directives, get rid of all forms of accreditation for the behavior, and the result will still be that people will kill each other and find efficient ways to do so, our so-called farming methods. if you can trick the enemy to keep needlessly spawn at a Sunderer that you easily have locked-down, and they can't move beyond it, is that a farm? is it not a defense? is it not to them a method of attack?

    You can't disassociate the fight/farm from the Objective because one is necessary for the other. The only thing that matters is that someone plays the Objectives and that the Objective itself represents something you can't juke. That'd be moving the farm to a deeper level.
  11. Grumblefern


    [–]Retired PS2 Designer Malorn 17 points2 days ago

    " I think a simple system works best. The more complicated it gets thr more difficult to implement and tune properly. The way I liked to gauge difficulty and participation in one was to use XP earned before (5 min?) and during a capture attempt.

    To determine how big a fight is - look at total xp earned by both sides. If theres lots of people dying theres going to be lots of xp. XP is weighted heavily towards kills, so thats by default factored in. If its a ghost cap, xp value will be very low.

    To determine relative difficulty, compare your team's xp to enemy teams' xp. If youre dominating them, your xp will be significantly higher. If they simply have more skilled players thell have a higher value. But this can still simplify down to the enemy xp earned. The more they earn, the bigger and/or tougher the fight. The less they earn the more likely it was a steamroll or ghost cap.

    To determine individual contribution, its just your xp earned over the same period while in yhe vicinity of the fight. You could rank that, calculate the normal distribution mean/std deviation, etc and set up reward brackets.

    To determine how significant the reward simply look at the enemy xp earned. One way to do this is to take a fight, start measuing he xp earned and then use that to create reward tiers. The individual placing above determines where in the tier you land. So enemy xp earned is your risk factor, which scales directly with reward. Your own effort and participation is a modifier to that. Youll get a lot more reward if you contribute more.

    The result would be that the most rewarding captures and defenses would be where the enemy is strong and earning lots of xp, and/or where you are contributing the most. Since most xp comes from kills or kill-related activities, the most rewarding captures and defenses would be where the enemy is good at killing / and or you are good at killing, with the highest reward being both.

    Note I didnt specify what the reward is, just how the rewards relate. Rewards could be xp, implants, chance at gun unlocks, outfit raing points, whatever motivates. The topic is the scaling of the rewards so I dont want to conflate the two.

    The point is to set up a framework which rewards players he most for taking the hard road and gives them very little for the path of least resistance.

    I also think a key part of proper rewarding is that defeats should also be rewarded. If you fight hard and lose, that shouldnt mean you get nothing. The lack of an effort reward is one reason fights die quicklu once players believe they wont win. If you can fight against the odds and put up a good fight you shoukd be rewarded instead of just jumping on whatever fight is the most rewarding looking winning fight. "

    I'd also say removal of KD could help.
    • Up x 1
  12. Darsh

    The point is not to prevent ppl from killing other ppl. The point is to make important things more rewarding so that players feel like there's a greater goal than just a team deathmatch. Players will likely focus more on capturing objectives and doing things that advances their faction rather than simply farm kills for certs if you shift the way EXP is rewarded. Sure.. killing will still happen.. its an FPS.. it should.. but ppl should kill ppl while doing things that matter.
  13. Darsh

    He hit the nail on the head. All I can say is..PS1 had a better XP system than PS2 does.. and it rewarded long hard battles and penalized easy ghost caps.. why this wasn't included is PS2 is completely unacceptable. It shows that they just wanted to rush an incomplete game out to start making money.
  14. Darsh

    Not sure how this makes sense.. since.. ghost capping would yield almost no exp.. in PS1, destroying the Generator and Spawn tubes would end up with a lower XP since you'd effectively prevent defenders from respawning and fighting back.
  15. Pelojian

    It's too late to stop the farming mentality unless DBG wants to repeat a NGE type fiasco.

    IMHO they should boost XP for all support roles, repairs and resupply for both infantry and sundies, increase xp cap for ammo sundies. Increase AA deterrence XP, implement support XP and ribbons for damaging vehicles both for infantry and vehicles fighting each other.

    They should also add nice cert bonuses for getting a certain number of a specific ribbon, like you do along the path to get cert rewards for auraxium progress.

    they should add a shorter ranged kobalt secondary to lightnings so they can act as anti-infantry support to other vehicles and MBTs, give them a ribbon system for killing infantry with the kobalt that have AV tools out at the time (tank mines, C4, rocket launchers).

    XP for objectives should be increased but not at the cost of nerfing other XP types. anyway no matter how much they boost objective XP farming will always go on merely on the basis that the farmers can make as much xp as they like farming randoms that dont know any better.
  16. TheChris

    Result = Factions will avoid each other to farm certs with ghostcapping.
    If you are a bad aimer play as Medic or Enigneer and Support ur mates.
    you should be rewarded by doing ur task in your role.

    Kill a Sunderer ,Aircraft or a Tank will get you already alot of EXP.
  17. LeFitz

    Yeah this is like a carrot and stick approach but there is no donkey (meta) so far.
  18. Daikar

    I like the idea of reducing xp for kills and increase them for the objectives but there's problems with this when it comes to air and tanks. Lets say VS are capping Rashnu Biolab and I have an air squad 4 hexes away and take out 13 galaxies trying to drop on rashnu, how does the game know they were heading there and that I should be rewarded for the cap if I haven't even been in the hex?

    What I would like to see is a complete xp sharing within the squad/platoon so that everyone is rewarded equally, it could be a toggle and I mostly want it for outfits.
  19. Kirppu1

    I have no idea what to say, you basically want the same cycle with rewarding base capture?
  20. Kristan

    That is true, they might need to reduce kill EXP, so more people will have motivation to buy membership and guns with cash.