I seem to notice that “Game mode XP” is takes a bit more time to accomplish than “Combat XP” due to the observation that most players are driven to be less “objective” in games and concentrate more in TDM type of play. It only becomes consequential convenience for them to do the objective by running the container, repairing the EV or planting the C4.
I’d like to ask if any of you guys experience the same observation.
It depends on your playstyle really. With the mercs I play, I usually complete support missions in one game with combat and game mode taking 2 or 3 matches.
I usually find that game mode does take longer than combat, but I think it’s a good thing really.
This game is supposed to be more objective based than combat based anyways, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to make players work more towards objectives. It’s bad enough that most new players don’t want to repair the EV, forcing them to do missions helps stop that.
What it really comes down to though is, the whole point of missions being to force you to try a different playstyle, instead of just playing the same way you have been the entire time and get rewarded for it
I wanted to vote something else than keep it just because it just felt sad to see those “opinions” with 0 votes
I’ve found that I can get all the game mode XP I need in one stopwatch usually. Especially if it’s underground or an EV map.
Well, essentially, this poll comes out of being assigned in the offensive side in Trainyard, Underground, Bridge and Chappel a little too often (thanks RNG); and having a specificic squad for such situations where an obj specialist is always mandatory, it made me observe the XP distribution at the end of the match. Given that the game revolves around teamwork getting the objectives done, how can the game get it across new players that an objective specialist is more efficient and effective in getting the missions more quickly than your run of Skyhammer or Aura if your playstyle will just revolve around TDM? Yet they complain about not being able to gain credits quickly enough to unlock mercs.
I noticed a couple of characters new who voted to the poll. Strange but, if I would vote on this poll, I’d vote for the first option because it is easier to implement as a mathematical adjustment rather than put in a few more “secondary objectives” along the way.
EDIT: I cannot ENGLISH!!! FFS
Further, thundering down on the EV with artillery, laser or air strikes is convenient, but you’ll need to be on the defence. Objective Specialists on defence should be able to “deconstruct” the EV at the same rate as an objective specialist on offence can repair it.
That would require a lot of rebalancing as matches would immediately favor the defenders in this case. Bridge would be totally broken.
I also got the image of a proxy repairing the back of the EV while an enemy proxy deconstructs it at the same time from the front… lol
[quote=“SnakekillerX;c-221242”]…
I also got the image of a proxy repairing the back of the EV while an enemy proxy deconstructs it at the same time from the front… lol[/quote]
Prioritisation can be done… just as the server deciding on a tie between a 1v1. Easy as.
Even though I think it’s fine where it is… it’s rather sad the amount you get if you can’t really do objectives as defenders on maps that don’t have EVs. I don’t know how many maps on Underground where they haven’t even bothered to hit the side generators because it wasn’t useful and they knew it.
I never have a problem completing Objective XP missions in one or two games. If you focus on completing the objective, the XP will flow.
Abstentions are the better part of valor!
There is a disturbing lack of options here, and it kinda one-sided…
In the future please have votes for the people who think the other way.
[quote=“Dr_Plantboss;c-221252”][center] Abstentions are the better part of valor![/center]
There is a disturbing lack of options here, and it kinda one-sided…
In the future please have votes for the people who think the other way.[/quote]
Please do explain the options you had in mind.
[quote=“K1X455;c-221282”][quote=“Dr_Plantboss;c-221252”]
There is a disturbing lack of options here, and it kinda one-sided…
In the future please have votes for the people who think the other way.[/quote]
Please do explain the options you had in mind.
[/quote]
The thought I had when I saw this was that I might think game mode XP was fine, but combat missions were too large.
It would have been a good idea to cover all possible thoughts, or at least include an “I have a better idea… [explain in comments]” option
Well I couldn’t guarantee it will be a better idea that’s what the first line was all about the observation that Game Mode XP takes a lot more time than Combat XP (or so I thought).
Increasing the XP requirement of Combat XP means it’ll take a lot more gameplay to finish the mission. Decreasing the requirement of Game Mode XP because the opportunities at which a player can gain them means that it’ll take less effort to finish missions.
The second option is self explanatory.
The third option is keeping the Combat XP as it is, but increasing the opportunities at which a player can accumulate Game Mode XP.
I’ve also made my own thread on this topic earlier.
I think combat XP is fine, support XP is too easy (and the mission requires less XP to complete than objective XP) and we agree that objective XP gain is way too limited.
It takes generally 1-3 match for me to complete the 1000 credit combat XP mission (depending on the enemy players and my blood alcohol level), I always do the support XP in one match, and the 3 stars objective XP can take forever depending on luck:
attacking on trainyard/underground and failing or simply your teammates are faster at arming/grabbing the objective. Defending on the same maps and winning hard also only gives the negligible “long defense bonus” and the 500 “win bonus”.
TLDR: the sources of objective XP gain are too limited compared to the other 2 types
Fuck game mode exp. You mean to tell me the one person who plants gets 1000 xp and no one else does, so you’re forced to tunnel vision objectives and make dumb plays just to get exp instead of playing with the team?
maybe because newer player tends to go team deathmatch and ignore the main objective
[quote=“sweetColumn;c-221468”]
maybe because newer player tends to go team deathmatch and ignore the main objective[/quote]
This is one of the reasons why I put this poll up and bring it to the attention of developers. The game is shifting away from the “fast paced, team based objective driven first person shooter” to the TDM type pick up game and put it on the side afterwards.
Something like “other” or “I think that more than just the objective xp one needs rebalancing”
I think the fact this (at the time of posting) has 0 votes, I think you should hush.
No offense, but hush.