Jump to content


Base XP?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

MisterMagnificence #1 Posted Aug 13 2019 - 17:35

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 331 battles
  • 49
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    08-01-2018

Why does winning affect your Base XP score?  Shouldn't your BASE XP be based upon how well you play?  What if I play like a rock star (Sabaton) and have 6,000 damage in a Tier 6 game but 8 of my teammates have 0 damage and we lose? 

 

IMHO, Base XP should never fluctuate and the rest of the XP bonuses should stem off that.  Otherwise, it can create animosity when 38% tier 3 players buy that tier 8 premium tank and provide 0 damage for their teams.  Making winning a requirement when winning isn't always up to you is not a good idea.

 

 



Absols_blade #2 Posted Aug 13 2019 - 17:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15564 battles
  • 1,503
  • Member since:
    09-18-2011
Welcome to a team based game. If you’re able to play well enough to get a battle hero medal, you’ll get 50% more exp on a loss.

Zup77 #3 Posted Aug 13 2019 - 17:48

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 49271 battles
  • 616
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013
So many things impact your base experience. Are you spotting the tanks you damage or are you damaging tanks someone else is spotting. Are you the top tier heaving hiding behind arty and TD's farming damage or are you on the front line brawling and doing your part to try to win. If you based experience on damage dealt, that wouldn't necessary incent your team to win. If I were grinding tanks and didn't care about win rate only about maximizing experience, I would camp the back and farm damage. There are other awards you can get if you go above and beyond that can boost experience (i.e. courageous resistance). No system is perfect but something like damage dealt is definitely not the best indicator of a players contribution in one specific game.

Ken_McGuire #4 Posted Aug 13 2019 - 18:18

    Captain

  • Players
  • 31250 battles
  • 1,732
  • [CLASS] CLASS
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012
Well, it is highly unlikely that if you get 6k damage in a tier 6 game that you don't qualify for some form of "battle hero" award, and if you get a battle hero, you get credit and xp as if you had won - with the exception of first win of the day bonus.... So, what's the problem?

MisterMagnificence #5 Posted Aug 13 2019 - 19:14

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 331 battles
  • 49
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    08-01-2018
My problem is, my Base XP is tied to the other 14 players on my team and their ability to perform.  If MM saddles me with bots/casual players that have no clue what they're doing at higher tiers, then my time, premium time, boosters, effort, credits, etc. are minimized and/or completely wasted.  If I play incredibly well but my team sucks (5 games in a row), that's not really fair is it?  And before you can say "well, we all get bad teams," just because you settle for mediocrity doesn't mean that we all have to.  Some of us value our time and effort more than others I guess.

GeorgePreddy #6 Posted Aug 13 2019 - 19:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 14680 battles
  • 13,313
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostMisterMagnificence, on Aug 13 2019 - 13:35, said:

... winning isn't always up to you...

 

 

See... this is what you got really wrong, because how much you win is totally up to you.

 

Example 1:  You are a great player, but you AFK every battle and you only win 38% of the time because even though you AFK, the other 14 on your team drag you up to 38%. 

Then one day, you suddenly wake up and start playing up to the great potential you always had... and now you win over 60% (you can never do much more than that because the other 14 players on your teams drag you back from that. 

So, you see, every win rate between 38% and 60+% is totally up to you.

 

Example 2:  You are a terrible player, and you AFK every battle and you only win 38% of the time because even though you AFK, the other 14 on your team drag you up to 38%.

Then one day, you suddenly wake up and start playing up to the low, poor potential you always had... and now you win about 45%, because even though you are bad, when you play your best, you can still improve your winrate some, even though your badness will still hold your teams down to a less than average winrate of 49%.

So, in this case, every winrate from 38 to 45% is totally up to you.

 

In all 4 scenarios above (good player AFK vs. trying hard, bad player AFK vs. trying hard), the player is getting the win rate they personally deserve.

 

That's because, with skill-blind MM, all your teams are exactly average over the long haul, EXCEPT for what you personally "bring to the party".

 

So... to recap... HOW MUCH you win (within the mathematical probabilities) is always up to you and no one else but you. By understanding this and embracing the knowledge, you free yourself from false excuses and can see that getting better at the game is the answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



MisterMagnificence #7 Posted Aug 13 2019 - 19:40

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 331 battles
  • 49
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    08-01-2018

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Aug 13 2019 - 19:29, said:

See... this is what you got really wrong, because how much you win is totally up to you.

 

Once I saw this statement, I lost all interest in reading whatever else you wrote - This thread is clearly not for you because I'm not talking over 10,000 games or more how winrates within a certain percentage show an individual's skill.  I'm talking about how, out of 10 games, I might get 2 teams that are somewhat evenly matched where my individual skill and effort can make a meaningful contribution.  I'm talking about the completely unwinnable games that are provided to players daily. And if you're one of the people that believe that EVERY GAME is winnable (not taking into account skills, tiers, tank choices and maps), then we can never converse intelligently about this subject matter. 



Pipinghot #8 Posted Aug 13 2019 - 20:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,294
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostMisterMagnificence, on Aug 13 2019 - 11:35, said:

Why does winning affect your Base XP score?  Shouldn't your BASE XP be based upon how well you play?

That's certainly a valid perspective, that's just not the choice that WG made. WG's perspective is that the goal is winning, and if you don't win there should be a penalty. No one can force you to agree with WG, but that's their decision and that's how their game works. Considering that's how it's worked since the very beginning I doubt you're going to be able to convince them otherwise.

View PostMisterMagnificence, on Aug 13 2019 - 11:35, said:

Making winning a requirement when winning isn't always up to you is not a good idea.

This isn't T-Ball for kindergarten kids where everyone is a winner, it's a game based on teams, competition and winning.



Harvester_0f_Sorrow #9 Posted Aug 13 2019 - 20:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28158 battles
  • 1,058
  • [NOBA] NOBA
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

View PostMisterMagnificence, on Aug 13 2019 - 08:35, said:

Why does winning affect your Base XP score?  Shouldn't your BASE XP be based upon how well you play?  What if I play like a rock star (Sabaton) and have 6,000 damage in a Tier 6 game but 8 of my teammates have 0 damage and we lose?

 

IMHO, Base XP should never fluctuate and the rest of the XP bonuses should stem off that.  Otherwise, it can create animosity when 38% tier 3 players buy that tier 8 premium tank and provide 0 damage for their teams.  Making winning a requirement when winning isn't always up to you is not a good idea.

 

 

I have always asked about this too. Its pretty stupid to operate like this



MisterMagnificence #10 Posted Aug 13 2019 - 20:48

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 331 battles
  • 49
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    08-01-2018

View PostPipinghot, on Aug 13 2019 - 20:06, said:

That's certainly a valid perspective, that's just not the choice that WG made. WG's perspective is that the goal is winning, and if you don't win there should be a penalty. No one can force you to agree with WG, but that's their decision and that's how their game works. Considering that's how it's worked since the very beginning I doubt you're going to be able to convince them otherwise.

This isn't T-Ball for kindergarten kids where everyone is a winner, it's a game based on teams, competition and winning.

 

I'm not asking for a participation trophy.  I play great and better than 90% of the players in the NA, but I am penalized by being thrown onto teams that I would never have chosen with players that don't care at all about playing well or winning.  I'm glad that you and others want to jump off the ledge along with the guy in front of you because the world needs you folks, but I prefer to choose my own path.  And since my teams are not selected by me and matching/evening the teams isn't part of the criteria, then I completely disagree that I should be penalized for someone else's decision(s). 

 

I'm really good in English and I'm an upperclassman.  I get paid to tutor underclassmen who struggle in English.  If you put me on an English team with my students versus a team of all English A upperclassmen, we would lose because my guys and gals struggle with some of the basics.  If someone asked me to be in that situation, I would refuse.  No one asks me about my teammates here in WoT before I go into a pub match.  I get what I get and a lot of the time, it is greatly skewed against my odds of winning.  I could be a horses behind and just quit and move on, but that's not me.  I do the best I can and get NOTHING but more credits lost and more time wasted.  At some point, I might turn into a horses behind if I get fed up with it.  Not there yet, but I'm not far off either.



Pipinghot #11 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 05:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,294
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostMisterMagnificence, on Aug 13 2019 - 14:48, said:

I'm glad that you and others want to jump off the ledge along with the guy in front of you because the world needs you folks, but I prefer to choose my own path.  And since my teams are not selected by me and matching/evening the teams isn't part of the criteria, then I completely disagree that I should be penalized for someone else's decision(s).

Like I said, no one can force you to agree with WG, and even if I personally could force you to I wouldn't, because that particular super power is super creepy. My real intent was to address the fact that WG disagrees with you, and that your chances of changing their mind after 8+ years are are basically non-existent.

View PostMisterMagnificence, on Aug 13 2019 - 14:48, said:

No one asks me about my teammates here in WoT before I go into a pub match.

They're called "Random" battles for a reason. If you want teammates who are consistently dependable then don't play pub's, focus your play time on true team modes like Skirmishes & CW. You don't get to pick your teammates in pub battles, that's true in every game, not just WoT.



MisterMagnificence #12 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 07:02

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 331 battles
  • 49
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    08-01-2018

View PostPipinghot, on Aug 14 2019 - 05:13, said:

Like I said, no one can force you to agree with WG, and even if I personally could force you to I wouldn't, because that particular super power is super creepy. My real intent was to address the fact that WG disagrees with you, and that your chances of changing their mind after 8+ years are are basically non-existent.

They're called "Random" battles for a reason. If you want teammates who are consistently dependable then don't play pub's, focus your play time on true team modes like Skirmishes & CW. You don't get to pick your teammates in pub battles, that's true in every game, not just WoT.

 

I appreciate your comments.  I really do.  But my point is more along the lines of Wargaming makes bad decisions about things, and they don't always handle tough situations correctly.  I do not know what would happen if some form of rating/skill element was introduced into the matchmaking parameters, but I'm not afraid to find out what that is.  When I'm paying for premium time, boosters running, etc., I don't want to waste all of that for nothing.  They are precious to me.  My time is precious to me.  If I'm going to get saddled with bad situations, I want to be compensated fairly.  Yes, you and WG disagree with me, but that doesn't mean that either of you are right.  I KNOW that I am RIGHT, but it being the way it's always been and that they disagree with me is NOT A RESPONSE that I'm willing to sit back and just take.  I've been taking it. So now, I'm offering suggestions so that the environment can be a little more enjoyable and a lot less toxic.

 

Wargaming HAD THE RIGHT IDEA with Insurance.  Insurance SOLVED THE PROBLEMS with the poor quality of the MM selection process.  But you had to pay for it, and quite frankly, that's what Premium Time should be for. 

 

This might all be a pipe dream but I can hope that one day it'll change for the better and then maybe the "this game is dying" threads can stop along with all the "losing, bad mm, get gud" threads can stop as well.  Don't hate me for having hope.



Pipinghot #13 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 23:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,294
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostMisterMagnificence, on Aug 14 2019 - 01:02, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Aug 14 2019 - 05:13, said:

Like I said, no one can force you to agree with WG, and even if I personally could force you to I wouldn't, because that particular super power is super creepy. My real intent was to address the fact that WG disagrees with you, and that your chances of changing their mind after 8+ years are are basically non-existent.

They're called "Random" battles for a reason. If you want teammates who are consistently dependable then don't play pub's, focus your play time on true team modes like Skirmishes & CW. You don't get to pick your teammates in pub battles, that's true in every game, not just WoT.

I appreciate your comments.  I really do.  But my point is more along the lines of Wargaming makes bad decisions about things, and they don't always handle tough situations correctly.  I do not know what would happen if some form of rating/skill element was introduced into the matchmaking parameters, but I'm not afraid to find out what that is.

We already know what would happen with SBMM, but you're not asking for SBMM so why are you making a connection between SBMM and Base XP? I'm not following your thinking.

 

And, in case you're curious, we already know what would happen. With SBMM your win rate would go down, because you're an above average player. SBMM would force nearly every player in the game to have win rates that are within 1-2% of the average, with only a very few people being good enough or bad enough to go beyond those limits. We already have win rates compressed towards the average because this is a game with 15-person teams, why would you want to force everyone's win rate to be even more average by using SBMM? The only people who benefit from SBMM are bad players, because it would give them extra wins for free that they haven't earned.

View PostMisterMagnificence, on Aug 14 2019 - 01:02, said:

When I'm paying for premium time, boosters running, etc., I don't want to waste all of that for nothing.  They are precious to me.  My time is precious to me.  If I'm going to get saddled with bad situations, I want to be compensated fairly.

Where do you get the idea that changing to SBMM would improve the value of your premium time or boosters? You would win less often, and you would be matched with players that have a higher average skill level than you are now, which means your personal performance would be reduced because your average opponent would be as good as you. If you were to sit down and really do the math, there's a good chance that putting in SBMM in combination with your idea would reduce the total XP and credits that you earn.

View PostMisterMagnificence, on Aug 14 2019 - 01:02, said:

I KNOW that I am RIGHT, but it being the way it's always been and that they disagree with me is NOT A RESPONSE that I'm willing to sit back and just take.  I've been taking it.

You can dial back the volume on the self-righteousness, that's not what I said. What I actually was good luck getting WG to change their mind. They made that choice for a reason, and unless you can change their mind about their reasons it's not going to change. So far all you're saying is that you want them to change a game mechanic to match your personal preference, that game mechanic was in WoT before you were, so rather than yelling about how you "KNOW YOUR RIGHT" you will need to provide an argument that demonstrates it would be good for the game.

 

The thing is, this isn't a "morally right or wrong" issue, it's a matter of opinion about what's better for the game and what's not. You've made a broad statement that changing the game mechanic would reduce toxicity, but when you consider that this is an issue that has practically never been seen on the forums your idea that it would reduce toxicity has basically no evidence and no support. You would like it to change to match your preference, now convince WG that it would make a difference in the game that actually matters.

View PostMisterMagnificence, on Aug 14 2019 - 01:02, said:

So now, I'm offering suggestions so that the environment can be a little more enjoyable and a lot less toxic.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. This is a PvP game, which means it's always going to have a lot of toxicity, so far there's no compelling reason to believe that your suggestion would make any difference to the toxicity.

Wargaming HAD THE RIGHT IDEA with Insurance.  Insurance SOLVED THE PROBLEMS with the poor quality of the MM selection process.  But you had to pay for it, and quite frankly, that's what Premium Time should be for.

Premium time already gets you +50% XP & credits, even when you lose.

This might all be a pipe dream but I can hope that one day it'll change for the better and then maybe the "this game is dying" threads can stop along with all the "losing, bad mm, get gud" threads can stop as well.  Don't hate me for having hope.

There have been "this game is dying" theads since the game was in beta, there's no chance that your suggestion (or anyone else's) is going to stop them from happening.



Klaatu_Nicto #14 Posted Aug 15 2019 - 02:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,561
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

"how much you win is totally up to you."

 

When over half your team dies within a few minutes no amount skill will give you a win.

 

Back when I was named after a drug addicted lizard alien tank commander.

 

 


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, Aug 15 2019 - 02:03.


Ken_McGuire #15 Posted Aug 15 2019 - 16:15

    Captain

  • Players
  • 31250 battles
  • 1,732
  • [CLASS] CLASS
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012
I personally would not mind if they added a "Best of the Worst" so the best XP on the losing team gets winning XP and credits.

__WarChild__ #16 Posted Aug 15 2019 - 19:12

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31529 battles
  • 5,630
  • [OPIC] OPIC
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017

View PostKen_McGuire, on Aug 15 2019 - 09:15, said:

I personally would not mind if they added a "Best of the Worst" so the best XP on the losing team gets winning XP and credits.

 

I have argued for something like this for a while.  I'm pretty sure that is why I was the very first person to be offered Insurance on the NA server.  I had like 3-4 posts about it before anyone knew what I was talking about.

 

It is hard for me to personally look at what life is like at 100,000 battles and be able to say, "okay, I am happy with my MM."  Instead, I log in every day and choose tanks of different tiers for the Tank Rewards missions.  Not a big fan of Tier X, and from my stats you'd say, "WarChild isn't any good at Tier X."  And I would say, "You're correct, my Tier X stats aren't very good, especially my winrate."  I played Tier X today for one game and, of course, I lost.  So yes, it was my fault that I lost because I must learn to be a better player at Tier X:

 

 

I am clearly a bad Tier X player because I cannot win much there.  :facepalm:

 

But more to the OP's point, I COMPLETELY AGREE that Base XP should be based off of effort and not victory. I received 1/2 of the Base XP that their winning team's leader (in an OP tank) received.  I was penalized for things outside of my control.  I do not agree with that premise because this is not an isolated incident for me.  In truth, only a handful of you even understand what I'm talking about.  If either Insurance were a full time thing for everyone or we had more of a Ranked Battles system, then everyone would benefit and effort would be rewarded appropriately.

 

 



MisterMagnificence #17 Posted Aug 15 2019 - 19:23

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 331 battles
  • 49
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    08-01-2018

That is pretty funny stuff right there I don't care who you are.

 

Base XP like everything else is clearly tied to uncontrollable elements.  It shouldn't be, plain and simple.



Klaatu_Nicto #18 Posted Aug 15 2019 - 20:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,561
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

It's really frustrating when you have a great battle only to get a defeat from it.

 

Some of my WOWS battles which didn't earn the amount of XP you should get for your effort.

 

Spoiler

.

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users