@Theatrum said:
@K1X455 said:
Lemme ask you something:
How many matches does it take you to do a 3-Star gae mode xp?
3 star objective monkey (7500xp) is 2 - 3 games however can be one or two more if you are unlucky with team balance. The thing with game mode is that while it can absolutely suck in one match you have a pretty much equal chance for it to be golden and get quadruple the xp.
I want to iterate that what I made this thread about is not my personal experience but how it relates to the performance of an average player and whether that provides a positive player experience.
These people bragging about getting 10k combat xp in one match don’t relate to the concern at all as they are not the average player, you can see the average player by playing a pub match and you can see that the median total xp amount is between 6000-8000 with a K/D approaching or around 10. It doesn’t matter how good you or me personally are at the game. Why this matters and why I felt it worth bringing up is because reward loops play a critical role in player experience and if players aren’t getting rewarded for their time they may very well just stop playing, which is bad for everyone because it reduces the size of the community.
First off, was not bragging, was merely putting it there as an example. Secondly, this entire discussion is reminiscent of all the gaming journalist articles on how games like Cuphead requiring effort to complete is bad, purely because it is not inclusive for all the special little snowflakes out there; the entire concept is a fallacy. The idea of overcoming a challenge is indicative of games as the interactive medium that it is. Games, as a medium, function similarly to a meritocracy and inherently will require you to put in X amount of effort to achieve Y results; you will not get the same Y value with less X. That being said, concept of difficulty is inherent to games as well as the concept of a challenge, the argument of lowering the requirement of something to achieve the same reward exists along the same line; it’s the same argument just applied to a recurring mission cycle. If people didn’t want to have to work for the pay-off we wouldn’t see games that boast such difficulty being as successful as they are proving to be; look at games like Dark Souls, for instance, and the large communities that sprung up purely around those games.
To put it another way, suppose you play a game on the hardest difficulty setting. Should your reward be the same as the guy who plays it on the easiest setting? Should you not be rewarded for the extra effort that you put into achieving your victory? It is essentially the question of should higher amount of X yield the same amount of Y as a lesser X value; and with the indicative nature of an interactive medium such as games the answer is no. If you get the same result working your ass off to achieve the results that someone who could’ve done it with one thumb up their rear would get why have the varied difficulty in the first place; it’s nonsensical and really just a product of people not wanting to have to put in the work to achieve a result.
Now I think your heart is in the right place, I really do, but you have to take a step back and really look at what games are; it’s roots, what made gaming into the medium it is today and changed it from being just a thing for children in the form of educational games, how are they structured. When you’ve done that it becomes rather clear that conflict, along with the potential for failure and success that comes with it, and the rewards that ensue following the outcome are all a part of what makes games what they are.
