Damage-based XP proposal
Moderators: Forum moderators, developers
- =FF=im2good4u
- Posts: 3821
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 7:30 am
- Location: The Netherlands, HOLLAND
- Contact:
it sonuds good to me but on the other side i never had toruble had trouble whit the xp system
i was just wondering
in situation 2
does that mean that player 1 gets 3 xp (158 dmg) and player 3 gets 1 xp (1 kill) i mean it sounds good
but wut will happent if like
situtation 5
player1 is in a smg firefight whit player 2 (both medic 160hp)
player 1 wins whit 20 Xp left and player 2 dies
does this maen player 1 gets 4 xp (50x3 dmg + 1 kill)
and player 2 still gets 2 xp ? (50x2 dmg)
caz if you die you shouldnt get xp i think
i was just wondering
in situation 2
does that mean that player 1 gets 3 xp (158 dmg) and player 3 gets 1 xp (1 kill) i mean it sounds good
but wut will happent if like
situtation 5
player1 is in a smg firefight whit player 2 (both medic 160hp)
player 1 wins whit 20 Xp left and player 2 dies
does this maen player 1 gets 4 xp (50x3 dmg + 1 kill)
and player 2 still gets 2 xp ? (50x2 dmg)
caz if you die you shouldnt get xp i think
<a href="http://bunnyherolabs.com/adopt/showpet. ... dQ=="><img src="http://petimage.bunnyherolabs.com/adopt ... Q0dQ==.png" width="80" height="100" border="0"></a>
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:47 pm
I voted no and this is why. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I saw nowhere where Bani said this would be optional, so I'm taking these proposed changes as all inclusive...and not votable or a server side cvar.
If this can be a controlled server side cvar, then I have no problem with it at all and would change my vote to YES. That would allow leagues/clans etc to test this out, see if it makes a big difference etc
I can only comment on Stopwatch play, since that is what I'm mostly involved in. I don't think these changes would make that much of a difference in SW competition play, since exp is wiped every round anyways. Nobody in my team has ever said "Wow, I got xxx experience that round". Never. Experience means close to nothing in SW play.
So, in my mind if its not going to make that much of a difference, why implent it? It just seems like a unnecessary change for Stopwatch play...
If this goes through will it HURT competitively play? No. But, IMHO it won't help it either. I'm interested in changes, modifications etc that help competitive play...and at least to me, this seems like a lateral move. Neither good nor bad, which is why I voted no.
Campaign matches and pub play this would mostly help them I imagine, which is why it should be a server side cvar if implemented (my opinion)
If this can be a controlled server side cvar, then I have no problem with it at all and would change my vote to YES. That would allow leagues/clans etc to test this out, see if it makes a big difference etc
I can only comment on Stopwatch play, since that is what I'm mostly involved in. I don't think these changes would make that much of a difference in SW competition play, since exp is wiped every round anyways. Nobody in my team has ever said "Wow, I got xxx experience that round". Never. Experience means close to nothing in SW play.
So, in my mind if its not going to make that much of a difference, why implent it? It just seems like a unnecessary change for Stopwatch play...
If this goes through will it HURT competitively play? No. But, IMHO it won't help it either. I'm interested in changes, modifications etc that help competitive play...and at least to me, this seems like a lateral move. Neither good nor bad, which is why I voted no.
Campaign matches and pub play this would mostly help them I imagine, which is why it should be a server side cvar if implemented (my opinion)
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 5:33 am
Why should someone get XP for damage (leaving aside the /kill arguments)? If you damage someone he can still kill your teammates, grab objectives, etc. The guy that finishes him off is the one that makes a difference, even if he only does 1 damage. I don't care how much damage my teammates do if they never kill anyone. That's why XP should be for kills and not for damage.
This will also penalize people for killing more effeciently. I kill someone by doing 120 damage then I would get less XP then someone who does 100 damage, lets the guy go heal up, and then does another 100 damage to finish off the kill, right? Why reward that?
Once again, why reward people for being inefficient (doing a lot of damage without killing)? In effect, it ends up penalizing people who are efficient (kill with 130 damage per frag rather than 300 damage per frag, for instance).
I also agree with Gigolo about making it a cvar that can be turned on and off if it does indeed get into etpro.
This will also penalize people for killing more effeciently. I kill someone by doing 120 damage then I would get less XP then someone who does 100 damage, lets the guy go heal up, and then does another 100 damage to finish off the kill, right? Why reward that?
Once again, why reward people for being inefficient (doing a lot of damage without killing)? In effect, it ends up penalizing people who are efficient (kill with 130 damage per frag rather than 300 damage per frag, for instance).
I also agree with Gigolo about making it a cvar that can be turned on and off if it does indeed get into etpro.
I actually assumed the opposite, in that Bani wouldn't enforce such a radical change without making it optional, but maybe that is his intention and it's not doable any other way. If so then I'd have to reconsider also. I'm in favour of the proposal, but I don't think this particular forum is representative of the competitive ET scene, and I'd hate to see ANY feature added without the option of disabling it that's going to effect competitive ET based on the wishes of the vast minority of the scene that visit these forums.Amish Gigolo wrote:...but I saw nowhere where Bani said this would be optional, so I'm taking these proposed changes as all inclusive...
Whilst that's true, XP does make a difference, even in SW games. How much difference exactly depends on the circumstances, it might vary from virtually nil to significant.Amish Gigolo wrote:I can only comment on Stopwatch play, since that is what I'm mostly involved in. I don't think these changes would make that much of a difference in SW competition play, since exp is wiped every round anyways.
In general, if the defending team can hold out for 10-15 minutes they can start accruing really useful XP upgrades, like Level3 Light Weapons. Whilst this has been addressed to a certain extent in Europe with our new XP limits, even so in general, defence get XP quicker than offence. This proposed change would give the attacking some XP for attacking, even if they don't rack up the kills as fast as the defenders. Whether this is entirely "fair" I'm not going to argue, but it does move the balance slightly more towards offence than is currently the case, which can only be a good thing for SW competition.
That's a very good point, and I think the solution is somewhere between the 2 options. Award XP for damage for the reasons already given, but award more for a kill, so as to retain the relevant importance of the kill compared to merely doing damage.bluejacket wrote:If you damage someone he can still kill your teammates, grab objectives, etc. The guy that finishes him off is the one that makes a difference, even if he only does 1 damage. I don't care how much damage my teammates do if they never kill anyone. That's why XP should be for kills and not for damage.
Re: Damage-based XP proposal
if a member of my clan did this as opposed to helping the team, i would probably kick them from the clan (should it become a habit). the point in competition is not to whore xp (sit at an mgnest), but it is to help the team in any way.Solal wrote:just sitting at a MG will become very rewarding....
you make a good point that it will be rewarding, but if you can't get a person out of an mgnest, they deserve the xp.
btw, remember the xp they would get would be heavy weapons.
"Common sense isn't very common."
I read the arguments and I dont have any strong feelings about this.
But here are my thoughts:
The basic thing in sw matches, is to set a time. And you have to kill the enemy in order to do that. So lets say the ability to kill the enemy is one of serveal qualities needed in a team - in other words, it´s a skill. Now, a team with better killing ability will a.f.a. killing is concerned, be more skilled than a team of lesser killing ability. Thus, lightweapon skills is a measure of difference in skill (its not called 'lightweapons kills', but its not called 'lightweapon damage' either).
- Wont the XPdamage system artificially even out the difference in skill between two opposing teams - and reward the less skilled team.
And yes, I know the defending team gather XP faster than the attacking team. But I dont think this new system would help it.
Enough said. I dont think any of the suggestions will have any big noticable impact on sw matches. And maybe it would even be a great modification. Either way, I´m sure all would adapt without problems.
But here are my thoughts:
The basic thing in sw matches, is to set a time. And you have to kill the enemy in order to do that. So lets say the ability to kill the enemy is one of serveal qualities needed in a team - in other words, it´s a skill. Now, a team with better killing ability will a.f.a. killing is concerned, be more skilled than a team of lesser killing ability. Thus, lightweapon skills is a measure of difference in skill (its not called 'lightweapons kills', but its not called 'lightweapon damage' either).
- Wont the XPdamage system artificially even out the difference in skill between two opposing teams - and reward the less skilled team.
And yes, I know the defending team gather XP faster than the attacking team. But I dont think this new system would help it.
Enough said. I dont think any of the suggestions will have any big noticable impact on sw matches. And maybe it would even be a great modification. Either way, I´m sure all would adapt without problems.
#rtcw.no:ET and #rtcw.no @ Qnet
- IdNotFound
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 8:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
- Contact:
Make it a CVAR so makes everybody happy.
About the amount of damage... Couldn't this be calculated through life % ? I know panzers and other splash damage weapons will be treated differently (thank god), but medics have more life... Isn't it possible you get more XP shooting them rather than killing on the normal way?
I mean, isn't this supposed to fix the scenarios rather than giving more XP ?
That's my only fear, but I still like the idea. If only there was a way to make it the closer the possible to the regular 3XP for a kill and 5XP for a headshot (which could be discussed too.. why must the LAST shot be a headshot? couldn't it be the first, the second, ... ?)
Maybe making the XP based on how much % of their life you took would keep that 3/5 XP thing going on, but I might be wrong... I'm just saying whatever comes to my mind.
I'm sorry I couldn't read all the 8 pages (come on, EIGHT) so I read the first and the 7th and 8th. Sorry if I say something stupid, but I'm not actually trying to change anybody's mind. I'm trying, however, to help someone brighter than me to come up with a near-perfect solution.
Still, this proposal rocks. Can't wait
About the amount of damage... Couldn't this be calculated through life % ? I know panzers and other splash damage weapons will be treated differently (thank god), but medics have more life... Isn't it possible you get more XP shooting them rather than killing on the normal way?
I mean, isn't this supposed to fix the scenarios rather than giving more XP ?
That's my only fear, but I still like the idea. If only there was a way to make it the closer the possible to the regular 3XP for a kill and 5XP for a headshot (which could be discussed too.. why must the LAST shot be a headshot? couldn't it be the first, the second, ... ?)
Maybe making the XP based on how much % of their life you took would keep that 3/5 XP thing going on, but I might be wrong... I'm just saying whatever comes to my mind.
I'm sorry I couldn't read all the 8 pages (come on, EIGHT) so I read the first and the 7th and 8th. Sorry if I say something stupid, but I'm not actually trying to change anybody's mind. I'm trying, however, to help someone brighter than me to come up with a near-perfect solution.
Still, this proposal rocks. Can't wait
nZ/IdNotFound
NaZGûL TeaM Leader
SAWL Tech Staff
NaZGûL TeaM Leader
SAWL Tech Staff
i hope not with the mortarbani wrote:yes, splashdamage type weapons (grenade, arty, airstrike) could require higher X. and heavyweapons (mg42, mortar, panzerfaust, etc) also.pack wrote:Which means in general, spam weapons in the new system will indeed be encouraged. This isn't necessarily good for gameplay. A solution would be giving them a higher value for X.
scoped fg42 is the most ridiculous weapon ever though. the scope on there is pretty useless because its so inaccurate... combined with the ridiculously low damage... up close its ET's equivalent of the RTCW venom.
i personally am a mortar guy, and i couldn't count the amount of times i've done damage (in small amounts admittedly) to members of the other team, and didn't even know. the only way i knew is because i was on the phone with a clan-mate, and he told me i was giving the team a beating (i could hear a mortar hit over the phone, then "i need a medic")... but it was giving me nothing.
basically i am saying for all heavy weapons i agree you should probably up the X, but with the mortar, i am a bit opposed to it... how many times (excluding battery and 64 person servers) have you seen a mortar guy doing any good at all?
i know i've been *key* to the team's victory several times... each of which i was at the bottom of the xp charts.
oh well, there's my small input. it's not really a big deal, so please dont post 2 pages about the mortar guy, how mortars shouldn't be in the game, how i gotta accept that, etc. i understand all of that.
"Common sense isn't very common."
I don't think this would have much impact on SW ladder either, but i do find a few problems with the idea itself.
First off, im just not comfortable with the idea that a good medic that dies little because he heals himself would end up giving the other team MUCH more experience than the rest. Not being able to kill someone isn't something i want to see rewarded.
Another big problem imo is lost XP. When a team has good crossfire going, chances are the majority of the team will hit a single player a few times, leading to a everyone not getting the magical damage requirement and no one being awarded any experience except for the person who kills the target who gets 1xp (depending on the system of course). So for using great teamwork and shooting together, only one person is awarded very little experience. Counter that with a disorganized team that gets very few kills and always damages opponents a bit and they get a bunch of experience.
I dont like the fact that 1v1s will lead to both players getting almost the same experience every time. Thats just wrong imo.
Bottom line is killing enemies is what matter because damaging people but not killing doesn't really help win the objective. If one person is left alive and kills the last opponent with a pistol shot and makes the way clear for a fueldump plant, so all the power to him! Don't get caught up on the semantics of the word "skill", understand the nature of the game is still to kill people, not to almost kill them.
First off, im just not comfortable with the idea that a good medic that dies little because he heals himself would end up giving the other team MUCH more experience than the rest. Not being able to kill someone isn't something i want to see rewarded.
Another big problem imo is lost XP. When a team has good crossfire going, chances are the majority of the team will hit a single player a few times, leading to a everyone not getting the magical damage requirement and no one being awarded any experience except for the person who kills the target who gets 1xp (depending on the system of course). So for using great teamwork and shooting together, only one person is awarded very little experience. Counter that with a disorganized team that gets very few kills and always damages opponents a bit and they get a bunch of experience.
I dont like the fact that 1v1s will lead to both players getting almost the same experience every time. Thats just wrong imo.
Bottom line is killing enemies is what matter because damaging people but not killing doesn't really help win the objective. If one person is left alive and kills the last opponent with a pistol shot and makes the way clear for a fueldump plant, so all the power to him! Don't get caught up on the semantics of the word "skill", understand the nature of the game is still to kill people, not to almost kill them.
kills could be awarded more, and damage less...
imho if someone is really hard to kill, eg an adrenaline'd medic, i should be rewarded more for killing them than killing a level 0 engineer...
imnsho the experience system really has no place in competition, since all it does is give a better team a crutch vs a worse team. its sort of a reverse-handicap -- a skilled team will get skills which will make it even easier to kill the less skilled team. the skill system was obviously designed for pubs.
if i get killed by someone i'd like to know it was because they were a better shot than I was, not because they had an artificial crutch of xp artificially making them harder to kill.
imho if someone is really hard to kill, eg an adrenaline'd medic, i should be rewarded more for killing them than killing a level 0 engineer...
imnsho the experience system really has no place in competition, since all it does is give a better team a crutch vs a worse team. its sort of a reverse-handicap -- a skilled team will get skills which will make it even easier to kill the less skilled team. the skill system was obviously designed for pubs.
if i get killed by someone i'd like to know it was because they were a better shot than I was, not because they had an artificial crutch of xp artificially making them harder to kill.
By the same argument, you could say that XP shouldn't be awarded for kills either, unless followed by a gib.Vraknor wrote: Bottom line is killing enemies is what matter because damaging people but not killing doesn't really help win the objective.
I agree with bani, that having XP in it current form exaggerates skill differences between teams. The better team gains skill faster, and hence have an even bigger advantage, and gains skill even faster. It also makes biased maps even more biased, since the team with the strategic advantage will get XP faster. Although not always the case, this is usually the defense...
For those that say "xp doesn't matter in SW, so don't change it", well, if it doesn't matter, then changing it shouldn't hurt, right ?
But, IMO, XP does matter. level 1 soldier is a huge step up for a PF (arguably the best soldier upgrade), and is quite reachable in a 15 - 20 minute half-round. Level 1 light weapons and/or first aid is a large improvement for a med.
I'm not sure that damage based XP is good or bad. I do think it would reduce the two unbalancing tendencies mentioned above. In any case, it would obviously need play testing and tuning of the exact XP rewards.
send lawyers, guns and money