This is a very old discussion.
On one side there’s puritan gamers who believe a player should only be in it for the prestige and not for ulterior rewards. On top of that this type of player doesn’t trust that the distribution of the rewards is in accordance with the value the actions have in game.
And they can’t be blamed for that. In a shooter it’s very difficult to gauge the appropriate reward for certain actions because it’s all so context-sensitive. Too much xp and people will start doing things that don’t make sense (statpadding). And too little and people will feel underappreciated.
SD didn’t help out with this either when they started handing out marginal xp rewards for kills and damage because ‘that’s something gamers will do naturally’.
Then there’s the other side. People who want to see the xp be of value. There’s two arguments: Firstly, humans like collecting things, especially if there’s a challenge. Players should be able to be rewarded for doing the right thing and letting players bank in on their rewards with upgrades is a way of increasing the skill gap.
For example, if you wanted to get anywhere in ET, you had to think up a plan at the start of the campaign. In this way xp becomes a system for resource gathering.
two conditions are required for that:
- Xp is temporary and doesn’t stretch further than a match or a short campaign.
- Xp distribution is representative.
If both conditions are met then I feel it cancels out the arguments against using xp in this way. After all, if the accumulated xp is anccurate representation of the player’s value in the game so far, then there’s no difference between a player playing purely to win and a player playing purely for xp. Their behaviour and their rewards will be the same and nobody will be able to tell the difference.
Then there’s a last argument, and that is that competitive teams that gain an advantage at the start will be able to extend that advantage throughout the match.
Now, personally, I think that’s just an obsession with wanting a level playing field. The rewards aren’t intrusive enough to dictate the game so a small disadvantage won’t break anyone’s chances.
In turn, it will only add more tension to games. Imagine this game as a professional Esport. What’s better than having teams become favoured or unfavoured? Teams being put in the underdog position and all the come-back stories that may ensue?
For an audience this will only add to the entertainment value of the game. This is one of the reasons why games like LoL and Starcraft are pupolar. Esport Athletes frequently find themselves backed into corners, something that was their fault to begin with, and then they have to crawl back in order to achieve an even footing or even win. It adds narrative to a game.
