Anyone bugged by the trend towards more XP and less gameplay

(Demo) #41

Huh… As a medic I there isn’t anything better then a field ops that just stands in the spawn dealing out ammo! He doenst get very much xp and it’s really boring but it’s great for the team and I thanks the gods for those field ops. Much better than those field ops that runs around throwing airstrikes…

(Jahuu) #42

Well I partially agree.

I mean sure we have some players just trying to get XP, but on the other hand it is sometime needed for gameplay.

For example lvl 3 medic (full revive) is allways better for the team. A lvl 3 engineer (faster construction) is also better for the team. A lvl 2 covop (Faster satchel and smoke grenade) is better for the team.

I take an example from my own game experience:

I was the only a covop of allied team on Battery, with sten as my gun. We had two engys and a medic beside me. I had 49/50 on covertop skill. I smoked the ramp always when I had my action bar filled up. I was not getting any XP for covop skill, as there were no satchel targets to destroy. The problem was that I could only throw the smoke grenade to help the engys build the ramp occasionally but I could not create a continuous smoke cover. So I switched to Garand and sniped a guy JUST FOR THE XP, but only to give continuous smoke cover for my team. (I got covop skill 2 ie. Less powerbar needed for smoke grenades and satchels)

Now on paper it seemed like XP whoring, but would you call it that?

(Mjolnyr) #43

Didn’t you miss something?

Not only your team could earn XP, but also your foes. Yes, a Lv3 ENG can arm multiple TNTs at mission objectives, and you probably see enemy Lv2 ENG defuse them as fast as those TNTs were planted.

Well you may say “with situation under our control, we can suppress enemies and earn much more XP than them. I will upgrade to Lv3 while opposite ENGs still at Lv1.” If so, it’s not “earning XP for future mission accomplishment”, but only nonsense slaughtering. The team which already dominate the game don’t need those odd XP points to gain the ability to abuse their prey.

My experience is, if somebody cannot get adequate skill level from normal gameplay, he is not the one to lead his teamates to victory. “XP whoring”, is merely the way of those unskilled players who cannot earn their XP via normal ways. All good players I have met around, do not require these “whoring” thing in order to finish their tasks with efficiency. Because they are good enough, no matter what their skill levels are.

(Kendle) #44

Obviously, because I’m confused now about exactly what it is we’re arguing about.

You started this with your comment about whoring XP being advantageous, indeed suggesting that Axis should delay winning Railgun in order to amass XP to win Fueldump, even though they don’t need it as Fueldump is already horrendously biased in their favour.

IMHO as soon as you start believing that playing for XP is OK, no matter to what extent, or for how long, or on what map, you’ve taken your eye off the ball and are no longer playing for the team or the objective. I’d rather win Railgun in 5 minutes than 15 and get a fraction of the XP, than deliberately delay winning (regardless of how minimum the risk may be).

The whole concept of playing a Campaign and deliberately NOT winning any map as quickly as possible (in order to amass XP) is a fundamentally flawed approach. Pamper, I hope you don’t play for a Clan that participates in Campaign mode Clan wars. I’ve no idea how good a player you are, but as a tactician you suck.

(Abraxas) #45

XP whoring is for the power hungry. They do it thinking the more stats they have, the more powerful, which to a certain extent is true, but you can gain those essencial stats just by completing ht mission normally. If you’re good enough, you dont need to whore XP. Im not saying I have never done it, I have, but just to see if I can max out every class and become 3 star general.

-Abraxas

(Kerunch) #46

Now imo everybody who starts playing is an xp whore as i was i started as a soldier yes with mp running around thinking wtf!!! then i noticed an engineer with little pliers and i thought ahhhhh.Then unbelievably i got promoted wahey i thought i like this…Then I eventually won the map and enjoyed that, After 2 mths playing somebody mentioned a manual ??
yeah right it wasnt on my disk…After looking for it at forums etc i found
it and read the comments on the forums and now i play the game as i think it should be played :clap: But it took a while to do the circle and fortunatly a few people on the way cursed at me called me n00b and some even pointed out where i went wrong and when i am sober i do the same.Though in drunken states of playing i do let loose now and then.
So let the xp whore do his circle and help hom on his way. :banana:
I do enjoy that banana.

(Cue) #47

Yea demo it is good for medics, but when you only have one field op on the team, that can be helping the team by throwing a airstrike down on the beach so you can them from building the ramp and wining it kinda sucks sometimes.

(Pamper) #48

There you are, again apparently unable to read.

YOU started this by saying “spending time collecting XP will benefit each side equally”. Just like almost any statement claiming that two different things are 100%, completely equal, it is WRONG.

indeed suggesting that Axis should delay winning Railgun in order to amass XP to win Fueldump, even though they don’t need it as Fueldump is already horrendously biased in their favour.

Fueldump is not horrendously unbalanced (as has been demonstrated by the democratic system). Both Radar and Railgun have a large (80%) bias towards offense. Fueldump has a moderate (65%) bias towards defense. Battery has a large defensive bias.

If you think fueldump is unbalanced, but battery is fair, then you must play with a mix of good players and newbies:

If everyone is a newbie, then of course all maps are balanced, because the first guy to learn the objective will win.

If everyone is skilled, then nobody makes stupid mistakes to hurt their team. No Axis wander out the battery’s backdoor, increasing the bias towards defense. And no Allies camp on the sniper-hill on fueldump, eliminating their only chance for a late-stage victory.

If there’s a mix of skilled and newbie, then the newbies on a team will be more or less helpful depending on the map and which side they’re on. Newbies tend to wander randomly and shoot enemies. On battery, that behavior from an Axis will hurt his team by giving up valuable uniforms. But on fueldump, just kinda loitering outside your spawn looking for targets is a viable defensive tactic. But an Allied newbie on that map will tend to stop advancing and try to shoot enemies as soon as he glimpses them, which leads to people staying outside the fueldump and shooting ineffectively in windows and over walls. Only by agressively entering enemy territory can Allies win fueldump. Even a non-shooting newbie would be useful by absorbing bullets meant for his team.

But 7 skilled Allies lumped with 3 aimless newbies who can’t be bothered to run towards the objective will be frustrated as they’re constantly met by superior numbers of Axis guards.

The whole concept of playing a Campaign and deliberately NOT winning any map as quickly as possible (in order to amass XP) is a fundamentally flawed approach.

There’s that same simplistic assertion again, but no logic to support it. Have you disproven (or even disagreed) that by extending railgun, Axis can get Signals points faster than Allies can get Engineer and BS points? Or that Signals is helpful to win fueldump? No, you haven’t touched that analysis at all.

Pamper, I hope you don’t play for a Clan that participates in Campaign mode Clan wars.

Is there such a thing as a Campaign Clan war?

(Kendle) #49

There you are, again apparently unable to read.
[/quote]
Really? Explain to me then what this, the very first sentence in your very first post in this thread, means:-

Fueldump is not horrendously unbalanced (as has been demonstrated by the democratic system). Both Radar and Railgun have a large (80%) bias towards offense. Fueldump has a moderate (65%) bias towards defence.
[/quote]
65%? Are we playing the same game here? Do you really see Allies win Fueldump 35% of the time, cos I sure as hell don’t. Maybe 10% of the time, but no more. Indeed, I’ve refereed matches in top Euro competitions and given 2 equally matched teams Allies NEVER win Fueldump.

But let’s not split hairs over percentages, let’s look at Pamper’s winning strats for the European Campaign.

Radar: You say it’s 80% biased towards offense, so Allies win and Axis are 1 - 0 down.

Railgun: Again, you say 80% biased to offense. Let’s hope so because if Axis lose this one they’ve lost the Campaign (being 1- 0 down already). Wouldn’t it therefore be logical, not to mention good strategy, to win this one at all costs? Lose it and you’re out, so winning it at the very, very first opportunity should be considered a priority. Yet you would have the Axis take their foot off the gas and delay victory just to gain a few more XP (see the above quote from your very first post in this thread which you then went on to qualify by giving Railgun as an example). Surely doing so risks losing the entire Campaign. I’ve often seen, as I’m sure many others have, Allies gain the upper hand and proceed to camp Axis in their spawn hut. Indeed there’s a whole thread about it on these forums. Besides which, Axis don’t need the extra XP (and yes, I know you didn’t use the word need before you go off on one again) as the next map, Fueldump is biased in their favour, even by your own admission.

Fueldump: Biased towards defence, so Axis victory, making it 2 - 1 to Axis if they’ve done the sensible thing and made sure of victory in Railgun, or, possibly, 2 - 1 to Allies if Axis have risked victory in Railgun whoring unnecessary XP.

So you see, it all hinges on Railgun. Win it and Axis win the Campaign, lose it and they lose the Campaign. Simple. Yet you would have Axis delay victory in Railgun. You claim they can do so without risking the victory. You’ve obviously never played in a Clan War, because that attitude would cost you dear. One slip up, allowing Allies to take you all out and then pin you back in spawn, and you’ve snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. No Clan would ever be that stupid in a Clan War. And it’s all on the premise that Axis “need / desire / want / feel would be useful” having the extra XP for Fueldump that they don’t actually, even by your admission, need.

There’s that same simplistic assertion again, but no logic to support it.
[/quote]
If you mean there’s no logic in “deliberately NOT winning any map as quickly as possible (in order to amass XP)” then I agree (thats what I wrote after all). If you mean you didn’t imply there was, here’s your first post again in it’s entirety:-

Did you, or did you not, in that post, advocate “deliberately NOT winning Railgun as quickly as possible”? And if you want to get pedantic about the precise wording, I’d have said almost no effort from the Allies can stop them and without risking the victory at all are contradictory statements, wouldn’t you? Surely almost no effort from the Allies can stop them means some effort could, thereby risking victory (to a certain degree) by not firing the Gun as soon as they get the chance.

Of course not. I haven’t “disproven” cos it’s true and I never said otherwise. I haven’t “disagreed” because I do agree and have never said otherwise. My point is that it’s not NECESSARY, that the extra XP / Engineer / BS / Signals are not NEEDED. You get all upset when I imply that you said they are NEEDED, yet why would you deliberately and consiously attempt to gain the extra XP if they were not? Just for the hell of it? Because it might come in handy? Why amass the extra XP unless you need it?

Please note: In general terms, if I don’t respond to every specific word / phrase / sentence in every post you make it’s because I either agree with you on that point or I don’t disagree by sufficient margin to merit countering your arguments. Just because we’re in agreement on some things doesn’t “prove” that my arguments relating to the things we don’t agree on are invalid.

Yes, TWL have a sucessful Campaign ladder. My reason for making that statement was that your strategy for winning a Campaign was fundamentally flawed by your assestion that it’s OK to delay winning Railgun to amass XP that you don’t require to win the next map, Fueldump. As I’ve said above, no Clan would EVER do what you advocate, in a Clan War (if they’ve any sense), as to do so risks losing the entire Campaign.

EDIT: Just thought I should add:-

I’ve never said Battery is fair, as you well know. I merely stated that Fueldump is the least balanced. Closely followed by Battery maybe, but still Fueldump is the least balanced. I base that assertion on my observations on public servers and also from my involvement in an Admin capacity in ET tournaments and from watching demos of Clan Wars.

(Kerunch) #50

Whoooooshhhhh…
Did you all hear that,its all going right over my head I thought a game was for enjoyment. :???:

(Kendle) #51

Yeah, you’re right. Took me ages to write all that. No more, I’ve made all my points, debate over as far as I’m concerned.

(Pamper) #52

Since you still can’t read, I won’t talk on this anymore, except to say (one more time) that YOU started it long before I posted, when you claimed that “gaining more XP will help both teams equally”.

THAT is the fact that is OBVIOUSLY not true. XP is MORE valuable to the defenders.

So first you said you only had experience on pubs, now you’re suddenly a major clan ref. Ok, so you should have hard statistics on how often each map is won, right? I can’t see them yet; TWL hasn’t posted ET demos just now. (What I really wish is that some major server ops would post stats on per-map results, so we could see which ones are REALLY more biased. It has now been 15 days seen I last saw an Axis victory on radar, although last night I held them off for 18:37. An allied victory on railgun is even rarer. But yes, that team went on to win fueldump the next round.)

PS. If Axis are good enough to deliver the tug, they’re good enough to break out of a spawncamp. Spawncamping the hut is more a problem on big pubs, not 8v8 games.

(Cue) #53

power hungry huh

(Kendle) #54

OK Pamper, no wonder this argument has become protracted, as it seems we’re arguing about different things.

I said that XP favours both teams, you argued that it favours defence more. Fair enough, you’ve explained your reasoning and I accept it. I thought that was clear from my previous posts, but heh. As I don’t play for XP, don’t take much notice of my own XP, and don’t find that having it or not having it particularly effects my performance, I’m happy to conceed the point as you obviously have greater knowledge of it’s effects that I do. I now agree that XP favours defence. I’m more than happy to change my opinions given reasoned argument, and admit to doing so as well.

I would still argue, however, that XP doesn’t alter the balance of a map. Defense cannot accrue enough XP to tip a map in their favour that is otherwise biased to offense, and vice versa. Which in turn renders any efforts to accrue XP rather pointless I would have thought. I’m not suggesting you said otherwise, merely expressing my own opinion on the matter.

The main point I was trying to get across is that playing for XP is A BAD THING.

The concept of ET is simple. Players are divided into 2 teams, one of which has to achieve an objective, and the other has to stop them. There just so happens to be a (fundamentally flawed) points system that’s intended to provide each team with an incentive to do just that. However, as soon as you deliberately STOP trying to achieve your team’s mission you’ve lost the plot, and possibly the game. That was what you advocated in your initial post in this thread, and that’s what all of my posts directed at you since have been arguing against.

If you seriously believe NOT playing for the objective in order to accrue additional XP is a viable strategy, then go right ahead continuing to believe it. No Clan in their right minds would employ such a strategy, and on publics it doesn’t matter, so really there’s no problem either way.

As for my background, I was an active RTCW Clan player until the early part of this year, when real-life commitments meant I was unable to devote enough time to Clan play. I have been, and still am, involved with the Clan scene, having been an Admin in 2 seasons of the UK Jolt League and a recent RTCW tournament. I’ve also officiated in an ET tournament which included the top ET Clans in Europe. I’m currently involved with a top UK RTCW Clan as a “technical consultant” (click the image in my sig for my Clan’s website, and ask them on there how much they value my experience and opinions) and I’m also currently an Admin on 1 RTCW server and 2 ET servers. Plus, of course, I spend as much time as I can playing ET on publics. None of which makes me an expert, but it does give me basis for a reasoned opinion.

Pamper, I’ve nothing against you personally, I just genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed. I find the concept of NOT trying to achieve the objective, in an objective based team game, especially in order to manipulate a points system, which should, in an ideal world, be a meaningless irrelevance, an abhorent one. I apologise for my part for any offense I may have caused in expressing my opinions.

Can we consider this matter closed now?