Main page

personally I would rather my credits and experience be made or not made solely for what I myself do. I hate that because my team died in the first 5 minutes that I get jack squat, even if I myself do very well. I have had games where I kicked ass but my team lost, costing me a good return. Balancing so each person is responsible for their own exp and credit income would also incentivize players doing better instead of being content to sit back and let their team do everything for them. The rates of experience and credit income would have to be tweaked to reflect such a change of course but I think in the long run this would satisfy players a lot more then the rather nebulous system currently in place. Especially considering the sometimes low caliber of teams found in public matches (full disclosure: sometimes low because I myself failed the team).

panzerwagoneer, on Jan 18 2012 - 22:02, said:

Yes... however, this defeats the whole notion of a team game. What incentive do you have to help and work with your teammates if all of the rewards are centered around what you, and only you do?

If I get this correcty, the gains of XP and credits are far more influenced by the battle tiers and the team than the player itself?

Echo_Sniper, on Jan 19 2012 - 02:05, said:

If I'm correct...
- Credits are directly influenced by the player's actions, and the tiers that they play in.
- Exp is a measure of how much of the team's weight was carried by the player, and players carrying abnormally large amounts of weight on teams that performed very well are rewarded more than players who don't, and/or are on teams which didn't perform well.

You're right, edited.

Nichts the incentive of team games is the enjoyment people have playing as a team. people don't tend to play team games because they hate them, but making them suffer because of the team also doesn't help because it tells the player you don't matter, nothing you do is worth it. Most people don't know how experience really works but for others in the know it rubs us the wrong way. I shouldn't get crap for experience after doing  well in a round because the rest of my team DIDN'T do well and we got crushed early on. The balance of experience needs to be shifted a bit so it isn't so collective based. i don't mind bonuses for team work like spotters getting part of the experience for damage done and the other bonuses they have but they need to give individual players more control over their grind. Its MY grind after all not theirs. I don't go into work all day and then get only part of my pay check if someone else hasn't been doing his job, its the same story here. While a company might give everybody bonuses for doing well that quarter (round) they also don't penalize employees by making their wages dependent on everybody else's performance at their jobs. Neither should WG with my grind. You get what I am saying? There is no reason giving players more stake in their grind couldn't be done in a smart way that doesn't deincentivize team work either.

Proximity to the tank you shot does have a direct bearing on your exp/credits .

sure so snipers are screwed is what you are saying. How is that desirable by the player base?

panzerwagoneer, on Jan 19 2012 - 08:25, said:

How are you playing as a team if everyone's doing whatever is best for their interests, and not necessarily the interests of the team?

If exp is based on teamwork, than what it means is that you can't just expect to do well by yourself. You need to figure out how to get teammates to do well as well. And there's lots of ways to do it:

- wolfpacking in mediums
- passive scouting
- flanking tanks others have engaged
- alternating fire with other tanks
- taking shots for smaller tanks

etc.

Have you been playing in Public matches lately Nichts, no one gives a shit about playing as a team because of the exp bonus, most people have no idea how they get their experience anyways. The people playing as a team do it because they like playing as a team, or because they want to play with their buddy and so they platoon. You can't shape behavior with incentives almost no one realizes exists, so why bother shaping the game so you HAVE to share all your experience with the team? Instead rewarding individual behavior incentives excellence from everybody, having the same effect in the long run but being more rewarding to all involved who actually give a shit. I am all for the devs trying to encourage team work but don't do it by making my individual cut lower as a result, that is just a punishment for punishment's sake.

panzerwagoneer, on Jan 19 2012 - 19:08, said:

This reminds me of the classic communism vs. capitalism debate. Gotta love how that worked out. Anyway,

"Instead rewarding individual behavior incentives excellence from everybody, having the same effect in the long run but being more rewarding to all involved who actually give a shit."

Have you seen the way arty plays? They will shoot guys with 14 hitpoints just to get the kills. They play selfishly and don't give a damn about teamwork. If only your direct actions were rewarded, everyone would play this way. Instead, let's look at Battlefield 3. In BF3, you get points for: reviving teammates, healing them, giving them ammo, protecting them from people shooting at them, supressing enemies they then kill, repairing friendly vehicles, etc... all these things will give you points, in addition to scoring kills. The game doesn't force you to work as a team, but it highly encourages it.

WoT needs this even more than BF3 does. People should be rewarded for work that aids the team. Rewarding players for just scoring damage and kills is a surefire way to get Counter-Strike/Modern Warfare style gaming done: selfish kill driven tards who are "IN IT FOR POINTS" instead of being "IN IT TO WIN IT"

Except WOTs doesn't do that, it just makes you get more experience if the overall damage pool your team does is higher, so its not the same. There is no benefit to selflessly throwing your tank in front of a enemies's shell so your team mate can back up into cover, or anything comparable. The benefits are too spread out and too small. What I am saying is the grind is too centered on the individual while your experience gain is too centered on the team, giving scenarios where you can do well in your BDR or your Panzer 3/4 or whatever but still get shit for experience because your team got raped early on and didn't do hardly any damage. That's a problem because now my individual grind is being held back. It doesn't matter to the Devs that I killed 4 or more tanks and single handily held back a flank for 3 minutes because the rest of my team weren't so lucky and we got rolled. 260 exp is an insult in that scenario.

Yeah that's right, two hundred and sixty experience, basically jack shit after killing 4 tanks and keeping the west flank of my team from being torn through like wet tissue paper. Was I being a team player, sure, that was the same round I took a shell for a player so he could back up into cover. he got killed a minute later by arty but the game does't care about that does it? My point is there is no reason we can't have team based incentives for experience AND Individual based incentives. Nothing is going to change how people play the game, but penalizing people who don't fit your rigid view of how it SHOULD play will definitely just piss them off instead. Pissed off customers don't stay customers very long, and no one wants a grind only made so difficult because the devs can't loosen up and let people play how they are always going to play anyways.

panzerwagoneer, on Jan 19 2012 - 19:08, said:

Sucks to be them, then, doesn't it?

If you do believe that "no one" cares about playing as a team, it's more than likely because you're at the forefront of that pack. By how much you're protesting the idea of rewarding the success or failure of the team as a whole, I'd say that this is a very good possibility.

I've seen lots of teamwork in pubs. Want some links?

panzerwagoneer, on Jan 19 2012 - 19:08, said:

Just because someone is ignorant of something doesn't make it invalid.

panzerwagoneer, on Jan 19 2012 - 19:08, said:

Translation: I don't want to be forced into teamwork, so stop punishing me for it.

No.

panzerwagoneer, on Jan 20 2012 - 00:29, said:

If you can't make the connection between helping a player survive so they can put out further damage, and the overall goal of increasing the total damage done by the team, then there's little that can be done for you I'm afraid.

panzerwagoneer, on Jan 20 2012 - 00:29, said:

Very good. Now put up all the examples of how you helped someone else save the game, and won. If you don't have any (and, by the fact that this is the best example you could come up with, I seriously doubt you do,) I do and I'll post them if you want.  

panzerwagoneer, on Jan 20 2012 - 00:29, said:

Wait wait wait... back up here for a second.

Are you seriously trying to argue that teams that decide to work together shouldn't be rewarded better than those that don't? Well, I guess you do have a good reason for arguing that, seeing how much the current system punishes your style of gameplay.

FlakAttack, on Jan 19 2012 - 20:17, said:

There is no exp given out for a kill.
Only for the damage you did.

Kills are of utmost importance to the team though.
There is psychological benefit for each enemy killed.
A 1% tank does the same damage as a 100% tank.

Depending on the circumstances (numbers of tanks and the damage I can expect to do) I will either try to simply damage every tank I can or go for the easy kill.

wow Nichts excellent work taking everything I said to mean the exact opposite of what I was actually saying, you deserve a medal. I could continue talking past you but that would be a waste of my time wouldn't it, considering the a fore mentioned penchant for you to just make up whatever you want to believe about me instead of letting actual sources speak for themselves. So good day to you Nichts.