What is the point on winning, if you dont get like a little credit bonus
I know that there is the 500 credit bonus for the first win of the day, but i think will be better to give a bonus for winning the match, right now, the only thing you get is the good feling for winning
Bonus for winning
Drcipres
(Drcipres)
#1
SereneFlight1
(SereneFlight)
#2
The bonus is not getting slightly disappointed in humanity and frustrated because most of the wins are because your team was better or/and had balls while enemy team didn’t.
XavienX
(XavienX)
#4
Well I mean, I guess if there is more credit bonus everytime you win it would push people to actually try and not dick around like a bunch of llamas.
retief
(retief)
#5
Credit reward for winning would translate into more people abandoning losing matches. Losing is already demoralizing enough, adding “oh, and I’m missing out on bonus credits” would make every game turn into a 7v2 or so pretty damn quickly once one team starts to lose. People already like to win. We don’t need to add to that.
Jostabeere
(Jostabeere)
#6
Oh boy. If there would be a bonus for winning then we can kiss team balance goodbye.
There should be a bonus for balancing teams, not for stomping teams.
Izzy
(Izzy)
#8
Your reward is this little warmth in your heart that will help you to cope with all the challenges of the day.
If you fail, though, well… bad day I guess
Daergar1
(Daergar)
#10
I truly doubt adding, say, a ten percent credit bonus to the winning team upon completing the match would be anything but beneficial.
If not that, a chance for an extra crate. Anything at all over the current “everyone gets a trophy” mentality that promotes exactly nothing.
The other route that I’d prefer is awards for mvp, in both teams, in different categories, from objective points to supporting all the way down to combat.
Anything to give both sides a reason to play to win, not simply spend time online.
Daergar1
(Daergar)
#11
First off, since everyone gets the same amount of credits at the moment regardless, I don’t see the logic.
Second, people like to win? Sure, in the abstract sense, but if you truly witness this in public matches these days, as in working toward the win with teamwork as the goal, and not people dedicated to their own missions or horse-play, good for you. I sure don’t.
B_Montiel
(B_Montiel)
#12
Currently there’s a small winning bonus. Highering it to something like 10% is already a big team stack incentive.
A balance bonus would be interesting. The fact is that it might be more difficult than it seems. The simple way would be making the credit/min rate unlinear (the longer the game, the bigger the credit/min will be) and promote longer games. But in the meantime, longer games mean that attackers will pass objectives. Balanced games do not always mean that attackers will succeed. I’ve often seen totally balanced games stuck at the first or second objective of trainyard for example.
retief
(retief)
#13
First off, since everyone gets the same amount of credits at the moment regardless, I don’t see the logic.
Second, people like to win? Sure, in the abstract sense, but if you truly witness this in public matches these days, as in working toward the win with teamwork as the goal, and not people dedicated to their own missions or horse-play, good for you. I sure don’t.[/quote]
You are always going to get mission farmers, people on mercs that they can’t play, people who simply don’t realize that they should play the objective, and “L33T SN1P3RS” who can’t hit the broad side of a barn. A minor credit bonus for victory won’t change that.
However, a credit bonus for victory would change some things. The match would start, people would think “my team looks like it is going to lose, so I don’t want to ‘waste’ my time on a match that won’t give me the victory bonus,” and one side will start to lose players. New people will come in, think “wait, this is a 7v2, no way I’m sticking around” and leave immediately. People leaving matches is already a bit of a problem, and a credit bonus for winning would only make it worse.
An “mvp” system which rewards players who have the most game mode xp/combat xp/support xp (either per team or game wide) would be interesting, though. High level players would end up getting a bit more hate (they stole our jerbs … or … ummm … mvp bonuses), but it certainly wouldn’t cause as many issues as a general victory bonus.
Mister_Wiggles
(Mister__Wiggles)
#14
Bonus for winning is OK in theory but it will bring the problem of them arsehole team switchers that just hop along to be carried all game and get some easy credits. How about rewarding the best merc type in the game, e.g best medic would receive a credit boost determined but the revives and heals said merc manged in the game. This would mean you don’t have to win to be rewarded, you get rewards based on your team play and your effectiveness of your preferred role.
Hazzy
(Hazzy)
#15
That’s funny, i was talking about this with some 1 on teamspeak just now.
Iv had 2 games in a row, first i won and i was MVP, biggest exp score and best KD with a MEDIC. Now, that was around 8500 exp (could be a bit less, or a bit more). I think i got around 180 credits WITH credit boost on!!
Next match, i had a really REALLY! bad team, couldent get my own score up we where owned in just some minutes. was on second place in my own team, lost the game and had around 4500 EXP. And i got around 400 credits, no mission completed or anything just the basefee!
Whats the hole logic in that ? You play bad and you get credits, you play good well good job you get a pat on the shoulder for it.
I defnitly agree that a winning team should always get a credit boost and the losing team should get less, with that better players should get more then the bad players EXP based not KD based.
Mister_Wiggles
(Mister__Wiggles)
#16
@Hazzy
Credits are some what based off game time. Longer the game the more credits you can earn.
ostmustis
(ostmustis)
#17
[quote=“Hazzy;103617”]That’s funny, i was talking about this with some 1 on teamspeak just now.
Iv had 2 games in a row, first i won and i was MVP, biggest exp score and best KD with a MEDIC. Now, that was around 8500 exp (could be a bit less, or a bit more). I think i got around 180 credits WITH credit boost on!!
Next match, i had a really REALLY! bad team, couldent get my own score up we where owned in just some minutes. was on second place in my own team, lost the game and had around 4500 EXP. And i got around 400 credits, no mission completed or anything just the basefee!
Whats the hole logic in that ? You play bad and you get credits, you play good well good job you get a pat on the shoulder for it.
I defnitly agree that a winning team should always get a credit boost and the losing team should get less, with that better players should get more then the bad players EXP based not KD based.[/quote]
basefee = time
Drcipres
(Drcipres)
#19
[quote=“Hazzy;103617”]That’s funny, i was talking about this with some 1 on teamspeak just now.
Iv had 2 games in a row, first i won and i was MVP, biggest exp score and best KD with a MEDIC. Now, that was around 8500 exp (could be a bit less, or a bit more). I think i got around 180 credits WITH credit boost on!!
Next match, i had a really REALLY! bad team, couldent get my own score up we where owned in just some minutes. was on second place in my own team, lost the game and had around 4500 EXP. And i got around 400 credits, no mission completed or anything just the basefee!
Whats the hole logic in that ? You play bad and you get credits, you play good well good job you get a pat on the shoulder for it.
I defnitly agree that a winning team should always get a credit boost and the losing team should get less, with that better players should get more then the bad players EXP based not KD based.[/quote]
The max what i got was 508 credits without any missions or bonus
CCP1151
(CCP115)
#20
What about a 50 credit loss payout, and a 100 credit win payout.
Just cos you lose doesn’t mean you get nothing, it just means you get less. Plus, 100 isn’t enough to bust your balls over, so it doesn’t really push team stacking, it just encourages people to try a bit harder.