criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Community Calendar

Credit Earning System Needs Changing

Are credits based on time? If so, that is outlandish. Credits should be based on your score (i.e. playing ability). I've scored around 5,000 in Heroes Vs Villains and got 200 credits, and I've scored over 20,000 credits to be awarded 200 credits. Lol wut?? Let's not try to reinvent the wheel here, awards should be based on merit. Rubber bands do not deserve the same credit amount as the people (chumps who bought your game) who are actually playing the game. The first Battlefront 2015 was riddled with errors I would expect from vitamin D deficient nerds in a basement, not a multi-million dollar company. Try not to drop the ball with this game too, EA.

P.s. No Obi-Wan? lol wut

Replies

  • Sorry, multi-Billion dollar company. Also, the matchmaking system is about as backward as Alabama. Constant empty lobbies and over 5 minutes waiting time in between games.
  • Credits are more or less entirely based on time, yes.
    You get more the longer the game lasts. I've been intentionally dragging out games to make sure that the attackers reach at least the third stage, else the credits will just be capped at 200-ish credits instead of 400.
  • Credits are more or less entirely based on time, yes.
    You get more the longer the game lasts. I've been intentionally dragging out games to make sure that the attackers reach at least the third stage, else the credits will just be capped at 200-ish credits instead of 400.

    dude. Just play the fuckign game. no need to hurt other people who want to actually win by being a detriment to the team because you only care about yourself.

    your almost just as bad as the AFK credit farmers who need permanent vacations from the game. (IE. Perma Bans)
  • Eh, Drawing out the game isnt anywhere near as bad as an afk farmer. Genreally speaking Id rather play the full three phases of a game then just get slaughtered, or insta win, on phase 1. It's not even about credits either. I'd rather be playing the game then looking at yet another load screen.
  • AOD_MelournRex
    1649 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    Madinogi wrote: »
    Credits are more or less entirely based on time, yes.
    You get more the longer the game lasts. I've been intentionally dragging out games to make sure that the attackers reach at least the third stage, else the credits will just be capped at 200-ish credits instead of 400.

    dude. Just play the fuckign game. no need to hurt other people who want to actually win by being a detriment to the team because you only care about yourself.

    your almost just as bad as the AFK credit farmers who need permanent vacations from the game. (IE. Perma Bans)

    Ehm, it's to everyone's benefit if the game gets dragged out. Would you rather have 200 credits or 400 credits for five to ten minutes extra work? Defeating an enemy on phase 1 by holding the objectives happens to swiftly for anyone to gain a decent amount of credits. I rather let them capture those objectives and then defend the other objectives after that valiantly.

    When we have had such control that we can stop the enemy team from taking the first objective points, you can rest assured that we'll have control over the game that we can stop them from winning the game.
    In this scenario, everyone benefits from a prolonged game. And that's how EA/DICE designed the game by implementing a time-based reward system rather than skill-based.
  • Credits are more or less entirely based on time, yes.
    You get more the longer the game lasts. I've been intentionally dragging out games to make sure that the attackers reach at least the third stage, else the credits will just be capped at 200-ish credits instead of 400.

    Have to agree, and also with the other posters about the crazy load times.

    I'm quite happy for a game to be dragged out indefinitely in some cases, just so I can avoid having to load the next map and do the same thing all over again for no skill based reward.

    Is there any real incentive to actually get good at this game?
    PSN: TheSuperWaz // XBL: TheSuperWaz
  • Madinogi wrote: »
    Credits are more or less entirely based on time, yes.
    You get more the longer the game lasts. I've been intentionally dragging out games to make sure that the attackers reach at least the third stage, else the credits will just be capped at 200-ish credits instead of 400.

    dude. Just play the fuckign game. no need to hurt other people who want to actually win by being a detriment to the team because you only care about yourself.

    your almost just as bad as the AFK credit farmers who need permanent vacations from the game. (IE. Perma Bans)

    Ehm, it's to everyone's benefit if the game gets dragged out. Would you rather have 200 credits or 400 credits for five to ten minutes extra work? Defeating an enemy on phase 1 by holding the objectives happens to swiftly for anyone to gain a decent amount of credits. I rather let them capture those objectives and then defend the other objectives after that valiantly.

    When we have had such control that we can stop the enemy team from taking the first objective points, you can rest assured that we'll have control over the game that we can stop them from winning the game.
    In this scenario, everyone benefits from a prolonged game. And that's how EA/DICE designed the game by implementing a time-based reward system rather than skill-based.

    its to everyone benefit but i dont care. im not in it to earn credits. i have eveyrthing i need or wanted through card crafting. im simply wanting to now enjoy the game and win matches. cant do that if teammates are willingly dragging out the match.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!