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

There need to be incentives for winning.

Prev1
I think one of the main things lacking in the game are the abscense of real incentives to winning. As far as i know the only incentives are for playing well and being in the top of the pool of players,but technically the top 5 could consist of players of the losing side.

In galactic assault maps which have different phases, there should be a reward for winning the game earlier. At present, ending the game early feels like a self inflicted punishment, you end up earning fewer points and other than the word "Victory" at the end of the game there is no real sense of reward for crushing the other side.Battlefront 2015 had a reward system for the winning side, why not implement that system on battlefront 2 too? I think 100 extra credits for the winning time would be nice, adding more credits if you won the game if an early phase.

Replies

  • I'd say do it for any multi-player objective based game. Your scenario would work just as well for SFA.
  • Really. In a game where it's already hard enough to maintain players on the losing side. Nice.
  • @NachoFoot huh? You think that it would be unfair if the team that wins gets some kind of reward? I completely agree with the op, at the moment people tend to just focus on getting kills, rather than playing the objective, because it's more rewarding. Doesn't matter if it means they lose the game overall, if they get top spot they're fine with it.
    OOM19 wrote: »

    Imagine it

    A horde of Bipedal Millennium Falcons with cheeseburgers for legs
    If there seems to be random words or phrases in my post that don't make sense, blame Autocorrect.
    #COOMCAIBDJF
  • I can understand the desire for a victory prize, but I'm not sure if it's really such a good idea. Incentives appear nice on paper, and can be effective. However, there's a down side to incentives: There's always a losing side who doesn't get the prize. If playing the game isn't motivation enough, what motivation does the losers have to continue? This is a cause of negative feedback loops, resentment, and undesirable behaviour. I've seen plenty of this in real life.

    In this case, the net effect might easily be that those who appear to be losing, simply quit, hoping to be victorious in a different group. That's counterproductive for our purpose.

    All I'm saying is: Beware what you wish for, and the implementation thereof. Perhaps other means ought be contemplated?
  • Everyone likes to win. I don't think its an issue. Every now and again I see heroes chasing milestones and not taking risks even when situations are grim. Sometimes 5 snipers sit at the back when we need people on an objective. But its not too often.

    20 vs 11 in grand Assault is an issue. 10 matches in a row yesterday where one side outnumbered the other at the start is an issue. I'm not talking 1 or 2. I'm happy to wait a minute to even it up.
    Star fighters in Grand Assault being MVP is an issue. Never seen a star fighter take an objective. Been spawned killed by them a few times. Not interested in taking them on, otherwise I'd be playing star fighter assault.
  • NachoFoot
    262 posts Member
    edited February 10
    @DrX2345 If there was a reward for winning, there's no way anyone would stay on the losing side even if there was a punishment for leaving.
  • @NachoFoot I don't see what you mean. There was a reward for winning in SWBFI, I don't recall lots of people leaving if it looked like they were going to lose. I'm not saying there should should be a 'punishment' for losing, you'd still get xp and credits, but there could be something extra for winning, like crafting parts. Speak for yourself, but I always stay in a game until the end unless I have to leave because of something irl, whether it's going to be a challenge to win or a complete walk-over.
    OOM19 wrote: »

    Imagine it

    A horde of Bipedal Millennium Falcons with cheeseburgers for legs
    If there seems to be random words or phrases in my post that don't make sense, blame Autocorrect.
    #COOMCAIBDJF
  • So awarding a prize for winners is now a bad thing? In what universe? Of course they must implement winning rewards. I’m shocked they haven’t after it being in BF2015.

    As far as people leaving matches; that’s their business. It is annoying (team blast two nights ago and the opponents ended up with only two players and it took forever to get the tickets down but they were awesome combatants and took me down a few good times) but not so bad it stops a game, or that it happens often. Not to me, at least.

    I can’t believe a reward for winners could be seen as anything other than mandatory.

    pH
  • I find it amazing how people even in a video game can find a justification to say that a reward for winning is a bad thing. We are gradually teansforming into the opposite of an Spartan society. "Bewareeee a winning reward!!! Oh god the nerve to actually award something nice to the winning side"

    I never said the losing side would get no reward at all, i just said something E-x-t-r-a. Even if its as silly as 75 credits ( which is a part of the reward for just connecting daily to the game).

    Every game should have a reward for winning. If you think that's too disruptive maybe the winning side gets something simple, like the possibility to vote on the next map and whether they play on one side or the other.

    Maybe i am getting too grumpy at 37 yrs old, but it really blows my mind how the suggestion of rewarding victory ccan be seen with such apprehension.




  • Rook008
    667 posts Member
    edited February 12
    All I'm saying is: Beware what you wish for, and the implementation thereof. Perhaps other means ought be contemplated?
    +1 for a very reasoned response.

    Generally, I like the idea of an incentive to win, but in the larger context of the way players play this game I'd prefer to not incentivize lobby shopping hopping. So the "extra" for the winners should be pretty small.

    I think 75 or 100 credits would be a nice little "extra" for the winning team. The losing team gets the standard amount of credits. Quitters get nothing.
    Post edited by Rook008 on
    She's so fine, there's no telling where the money went.
  • Lobby shopping? I play on the console version, we dont get to choose which lobby to play, indidn't knew other platform had this option. Anyways, that's what i am saying a little extra for the winning side and that's about it
  • Rook008
    667 posts Member
    edited February 12
    Sorry, no, that should be lobby hopping. I edited the post to clarify.
    Getting into a game, see it's going to be a loss, and quitting mid-match to find a new (winning) team in a different lobby.



    She's so fine, there's no telling where the money went.
  • Yeah they should add possibly just a small reward for being on the winning side, maybe 100 extra credits or 15 crafting parts or something. They could also possibly do away with the top 5 leaderboard at the end, and instead have something like how I believe it was in the beta - most kills, most objective score, most assists etc. The people on this leaderboard could get a better reward, and it can still include people from the losing team, so if you're the only one playing the objective on your team and you lose, you could still get rewards for doing that. Oit could be something like a rewards crate, the contents of which are similar to the daily crates. And they need to make objective play in general more rewarding. Maybe up the score you gain from it for infantry, and increase it even more for heroes? I rarely see heroes actually pushing the objective, although yo might get someone join I can't remember seeing idk Vader running at a point to capture it.
    OOM19 wrote: »

    Imagine it

    A horde of Bipedal Millennium Falcons with cheeseburgers for legs
    If there seems to be random words or phrases in my post that don't make sense, blame Autocorrect.
    #COOMCAIBDJF
  • I’d say I can’t believe these responses, but this is the “participation trophy” generation.

    Yes, there ought to be something a little extra for the winning team. At the very least incentivize playing the objective more.

    IMO as of right now there’s not much of an incentive to do well in this game. When I can make the top 5 and my reward isn’t much better than if I screwed around and got my face stomped in, why bother?
  • Spiito
    1349 posts Member
    edited February 17
    You already unlock things for extra kills on the battlefield. Guns and gun mods. You earn a bit of extra credits, for playing objective/s, and landing on top of your team. You can even gain a bit extra, if you went out of your way to finish credit/material based challenges. (Timed, event, or standard.) And unless it's been patched out-You can earn way more credits if you can stretch the time spent in game of Strike.

    Rewards generate the ability to buy stuff to progress. If you are progressing, you want greater rewards. So you can be more progressed. Buy more stuff. Incentive for action. Winning or losing doesn't matter in regards to your progression. Completion does. You can still complete your stuff even if you lose. (Although maybe a bit slower BUT *victories* are not there to hold you back. Victories are just personal enjoyment and glory, when it comes down to it.) At max level, with everything mostly unlocked, rewards for winning are pointless.

    If you want to win, your incentive should be your own desire to accomplish your task of winning. *More stuff* will never fill that deep personal void; if you have no actual desire to win for the sake of it. Kind of like love. So love yourself and love your victories. ...For the victories. Not the virtual stuff tacked on. Not that there's anything wrong with losing. It's just a game, after all. Winning wouldn't exist without the losing side, so both are fairly important. People learn more from loss than victories, anyway. (like how poorly a victor's character is, if they **** all over the losing side after, via nasty texts.)

    Personally, I'm fine without extra incentive to win. (I already have enough, drive, enthusiasm, and determination, on my good days.)
    I do acknowledge the progression system does need some fine tuning, though. That's for sure.
    Post edited by Spiito on
  • still nothing for winning. i won the other day and it felt so stale. the game itself is not that fun most time so we need some more incentive for winning. would be nice if we got another 50 credits or at least something. it would be different if the game was more fun consistently but its mostly a **** shoot.
  • hsf_
    1024 posts Member
    edited February 23
    Maybe they could do something along the lines of this for GA:

    -Base match credits: 50 per phase completed, maps like Hoth and Kashyyyk will x2 in the first phase due to the length of time the first phase takes. Maximum of 200(I think there are 4 phases in some maps, right?)
    -Winning credits #1: If your are one the winning side and you use tickets then it should be double what your remaining tickets are. So if you win the game with 50 tickets remaining, you get 100 bonus credits. Personally I would put a minimum of 50 credits as the bonus for winning, the maximum would obviously be 200, although I doubt that will ever be attained.
    -Winning credits #2: If you are the defending team and you win then it should consider how many phases you successfully defended. So if you win on the first phase as the defender, you get a minimum of 150 bonus credits, if you win on phase 2 you get 100, phase 3 you get 50.
    -Losing credits #1: If you are the losing team as the attacker, then you should consider which phase you lost on. If you lost on the first phase you get 15 credits, phase 2 you get 25 credits, phase 3 you get 50 credits.
    - Losing credits #2: If you are the losing team as the defender, then you should consider how many tickets they have left. The less tickets they have remaining, the more credits you receive. Minimum of 15 credits as a bonus. Maximum would be 50.
    -Offense kills/assists: As the attacker, these are kills made inside the capture zone, this includes maps like Endor and Starkiller, which don't always use passive capturing. 20 credits per kill, 10 credit per assist with a maximum of 100.
    -Defense kills/assists: Same as above, but as the defender.
    -Most Valuable Players(MVP): 5 players from each team with the highest objective scores will be given a bonus. The winning teams MVP's will get 250, 200, 150, 100 and 50. The losing teams MVP's will get 100, 75, 50, 25 and 10. This is limited to only objective score such as Ion disruptor hits, damage done to AT-AT/MTT etc, capture point scores etc.

    I think making the payouts based more on objectives would make the game a little more competitive, in the sense that people would try to win more, rather than trying to just get as many kills as they can.
    You can adjust the numbers to better suit if you think it's too much or not enough, these are just example figures.
  • seems a lot better than what they currently have.
  • I agree winners should get something extra for winning or placing Top 5, but not at the cost of the losers. And I don't think anyone should come out of a match with zero credits, as happens now. On the occasions it's happened to me, I was outta there quickly and back to Arcade, where I could at least make 125 credits a match, no matter what. We want to encourage people to play Multiplayer, because if nobody shows up, there is no Multiplayer.
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    Maybe they could do something along the lines of this for GA:

    -Base match credits: 50 per phase completed, maps like Hoth and Kashyyyk will x2 in the first phase due to the length of time the first phase takes. Maximum of 200(I think there are 4 phases in some maps, right?)
    -Winning credits #1: If your are one the winning side and you use tickets then it should be double what your remaining tickets are. So if you win the game with 50 tickets remaining, you get 100 bonus credits. Personally I would put a minimum of 50 credits as the bonus for winning, the maximum would obviously be 200, although I doubt that will ever be attained.
    -Winning credits #2: If you are the defending team and you win then it should consider how many phases you successfully defended. So if you win on the first phase as the defender, you get a minimum of 150 bonus credits, if you win on phase 2 you get 100, phase 3 you get 50.
    -Losing credits #1: If you are the losing team as the attacker, then you should consider which phase you lost on. If you lost on the first phase you get 15 credits, phase 2 you get 25 credits, phase 3 you get 50 credits.
    - Losing credits #2: If you are the losing team as the defender, then you should consider how many tickets they have left. The less tickets they have remaining, the more credits you receive. Minimum of 15 credits as a bonus. Maximum would be 50.
    -Offense kills/assists: As the attacker, these are kills made inside the capture zone, this includes maps like Endor and Starkiller, which don't always use passive capturing. 20 credits per kill, 10 credit per assist with a maximum of 100.
    -Defense kills/assists: Same as above, but as the defender.
    -Most Valuable Players(MVP): 5 players from each team with the highest objective scores will be given a bonus. The winning teams MVP's will get 250, 200, 150, 100 and 50. The losing teams MVP's will get 100, 75, 50, 25 and 10. This is limited to only objective score such as Ion disruptor hits, damage done to AT-AT/MTT etc, capture point scores etc.

    I think making the payouts based more on objectives would make the game a little more competitive, in the sense that people would try to win more, rather than trying to just get as many kills as they can.
    You can adjust the numbers to better suit if you think it's too much or not enough, these are just example figures.

    I like your idea, it was along the lines of what i was thinking.

    Of course the idea would have to be expanded because you're focusing on GA but it's nice overall
  • could do something like they did in battlefront 1.
  • What's so bad about giving us credits for winning? So many complaints about slow progression and leveling. Here is a way to make it less of a grind. They already took out microtransactions so no loss there
  • Spiito
    1349 posts Member
    edited February 23
    tumblr_of38gvlr1w1rk9c31o5_500.gif
    Simply put; Progression ≠ Winning.
    And it should stay that way!

    Giving more rewards to those on the winning side, IS NOT going to help progression. Especially when we come to a point in time, in the (near) future, when only high level, fully upgraded, and complete, players are on the winning side.
  • Agree that incentives for playing objectives and pushing the win needs to be addressed. So many people padding non-existent stats while ignoring objectives.

    Also how to stop people quitting in a losing match?

    You need something braggy, given the importance people give to stats that don’t even show. Something like medal ribbons for achieving objectives, including for sticking with a losing side - valiant defence awards or something
  • NachoFoot wrote: »
    @DrX2345 If there was a reward for winning, there's no way anyone would stay on the losing side even if there was a punishment for leaving.

    This is ridiculous. If the reward for losing stays the same as it is now, so what the losing side gets doesn't change, then why is there suddenly an incentive to leave? There isn't. Anyone who thinks they are somehow having something taken away from them because someone else is rewarded better might as well have a label on their head saying "I am unintelligent".
  • Spiito
    1349 posts Member
    edited February 24
    NachoFoot wrote: »
    @DrX2345 If there was a reward for winning, there's no way anyone would stay on the losing side even if there was a punishment for leaving.

    This is ridiculous. If the reward for losing stays the same as it is now, so what the losing side gets doesn't change, then why is there suddenly an incentive to leave? There isn't. Anyone who thinks they are somehow having something taken away from them because someone else is rewarded better might as well have a label on their head saying "I am unintelligent".
    Nachofoot isn't wrong, though.
    Hypothetically; "I'm only going to get 200 credits for having the **** beaten out of me for the next 2 mins, while everyone on the winning side is going to get 1k. I only have level 5 cards while everyone else on the other team seems to have higher graded cards than me AND they have a team that is doing better than mine. Maybe, I should leave to find a match I might win, so I can get a better rewards." /Hypothetically
    Doesn't seem like faulty logic, to most people. In fact, moving onto greener pastures (to avoid danger/loss) is assumed to be the basis from which human intelligence was derived. Losing a match would mean losing out on potential credit gain...
    So boosting credits for a winning side will lead to further discouragement.

    Something like medal ribbons for achieving objectives, including for sticking with a losing side - valiant defense awards or something
    That might be good! I like the concept. But then, it would also paint a person as a loser, so people might not want to collect those. You might see more people quitting just to avoid having a visible loss on their sleeve. :D
  • I'm still not sure why this is a question. Most people, at least in matches that I'm in, tend to stick in the game until the game ends, no matter if it's obvious they're going to lose. I don't think having the winning team get something extra will incentivise the losing team to just quit, as they then won't get any reward as opposed to the current standard reward.

    I think that the credits you get at the end of a match should take into account both how long you were in the match (so as it is now) and how well/how much score you got, and then if you won the match,cy ou would get something more, maybe just 100 more credits, or some crafting parts (nothing crazy, maybe just 15?).
    OOM19 wrote: »

    Imagine it

    A horde of Bipedal Millennium Falcons with cheeseburgers for legs
    If there seems to be random words or phrases in my post that don't make sense, blame Autocorrect.
    #COOMCAIBDJF
  • Spiito wrote: »
    NachoFoot wrote: »
    @DrX2345 If there was a reward for winning, there's no way anyone would stay on the losing side even if there was a punishment for leaving.

    This is ridiculous. If the reward for losing stays the same as it is now, so what the losing side gets doesn't change, then why is there suddenly an incentive to leave? There isn't. Anyone who thinks they are somehow having something taken away from them because someone else is rewarded better might as well have a label on their head saying "I am unintelligent".
    Nachofoot isn't wrong, though.
    Hypothetically; "I'm only going to get 200 credits for having the **** beaten out of me for the next 2 mins, while everyone on the winning side is going to get 1k. I only have level 5 cards while everyone else on the other team seems to have higher graded cards than me AND they have a team that is doing better than mine. Maybe, I should leave to find a match I might win, so I can get a better rewards." /Hypothetically
    Doesn't seem like faulty logic, to most people. In fact, moving onto greener pastures (to avoid danger/loss) is assumed to be the basis from which human intelligence was derived. Losing a match would mean losing out on potential credit gain...
    So boosting credits for a winning side will lead to further discouragement.

    Something like medal ribbons for achieving objectives, including for sticking with a losing side - valiant defense awards or something
    That might be good! I like the concept. But then, it would also paint a person as a loser, so people might not want to collect those. You might see more people quitting just to avoid having a visible loss on their sleeve. :D

    I disagree with your analysis. What about chess? Connect 4? Monopoly? All games that are won and lost but there is no reward at all - yet people still play them.
  • Spiito
    1349 posts Member
    edited February 24
    I disagree with your analysis. What about chess? Connect 4? Monopoly? All games that are won and lost but there is no reward at all - yet people still play them.

    You disagree with my analysis... and then go onto to mention one of the strongest cases for it.
    Balance is achieved by having no rewards at all or by having both sides receive mostly equal rewards. (Something SWBF2 already has going for it, since credits are dispatched via time spent in match, with minor bonuses to landing top place / playing the main objective.)
    By implementing a system that gives additional credits to the winning side in a match, you'd be removing balance in the progression aspect of the game.
    Because this game's (non-base rank) progression system revolves around buying loot crates with credits
    Giving additional credits to a victorious side would mean that losers don't get to progress as much as winners.
    And if the winning side is mostly progressed and has no need for extra credits, it wouldn't have much of a point, other than to discourage players who don't win.
    Post edited by Spiito on
  • DrX2345 wrote: »
    I'm still not sure why this is a question. Most people, at least in matches that I'm in, tend to stick in the game until the game ends, no matter if it's obvious they're going to lose. I don't think having the winning team get something extra will incentivise the losing team to just quit, as they then won't get any reward as opposed to the current standard reward.

    I think that the credits you get at the end of a match should take into account both how long you were in the match (so as it is now) and how well/how much score you got, and then if you won the match,cy ou would get something more, maybe just 100 more credits, or some crafting parts (nothing crazy, maybe just 15?).

    this. it should not only be about time spent. if we steam roll them we barely get anything. there should be a bonus for finishing match quickly as well. and then naturally you get more opportunity to collect stats to boost your score if the game lasts longer.
  • Spiito
    1349 posts Member
    edited February 25
    Ignore double post.
    Post edited by Spiito on
  • Spiito
    1349 posts Member
    edited February 25
    Credits currently do take into account how much time you've spent in a match. 1 hour spent in a continuous match = 1k. It can be accomplished via Strike's overtime, in which winning or losing won't matter because everyone who spent an hour in the same game will all get 1k. I assume it can also be done by hanging onto the Cargo via jetpack cargo/not letting a side win, which would be a little harder to do considering the one hit death rockets.
    And you do get a meager bonus for landing on top/doing objective. . .
    If a player has no will to win; mindless credit hoarding won't fix that.

    (If you changed it to how quickly you complete a match, players just joining in will get abnormally large amounts of credits for a match they missed, which may have spanned over 3mins. So buffing credits earned based on speed wouldn't be viable. )

    I think the forum ate my post on this, just now, so if this is a double post, sorry.
    Post edited by Spiito on
  • A reward for winning is well overdue . This is meant to be a team game completeing objectives . Maybe if winning was important not the top 5 we have less spawn campers and killstreak wannabees running around aimlessly apart from there own fun and more team objective playing.
  • SrawDawg
    259 posts Member
    edited February 27
    Why so greedy on the credits and crafting parts? I don't get that. In 6 months this game will probably be throwing crafting parts and credits at players to get them to still play it.

    The OP is right, it is a punishment for the rounds to end early, means not near as many credits. Why play obj in SFA when it usually means very few eliminations just so someone can hog all the hero ships and get like 70 kills, when they can't even play to that if the obj's arent got on the offensive team?
  • Agree there is no incentive to win these games....Heck ,really not much incentive to do anything.

    I know I don't care if I win or lose games. Heck, I see goals like play 3 matches of jetpack cargo and I just want them over as fast as possible.

    If there were stats or other incentives for winning, I'd care much more. If I actually had a win/loss record I could see ,then maybe I'd care about it. The only thing EA has given us to care about in this game is levelling up and getting battle points. And you can do those things just fine without winning or without even playing objectives for that matter.



  • I'd much rather there were rewards for actually playing objectives.

    While I understand your theory, it simply isn't fair to the players on the losing side who actually try their damnedest to play the objectives while everyone else is going Rambo.

    Incentive's what's actually happening in a match, not the outcome.
    SNLmpJv.gif
    Thank you!
  • Your reward is pride and accomplishment.
  • Spiito wrote: »
    NachoFoot wrote: »
    @DrX2345 If there was a reward for winning, there's no way anyone would stay on the losing side even if there was a punishment for leaving.

    This is ridiculous. If the reward for losing stays the same as it is now, so what the losing side gets doesn't change, then why is there suddenly an incentive to leave? There isn't. Anyone who thinks they are somehow having something taken away from them because someone else is rewarded better might as well have a label on their head saying "I am unintelligent".
    Nachofoot isn't wrong, though.
    Hypothetically; "I'm only going to get 200 credits for having the **** beaten out of me for the next 2 mins, while everyone on the winning side is going to get 1k. I only have level 5 cards while everyone else on the other team seems to have higher graded cards than me AND they have a team that is doing better than mine. Maybe, I should leave to find a match I might win, so I can get a better rewards." /Hypothetically
    Doesn't seem like faulty logic, to most people. In fact, moving onto greener pastures (to avoid danger/loss) is assumed to be the basis from which human intelligence was derived. Losing a match would mean losing out on potential credit gain...
    So boosting credits for a winning side will lead to further discouragement.

    Something like medal ribbons for achieving objectives, including for sticking with a losing side - valiant defense awards or something
    That might be good! I like the concept. But then, it would also paint a person as a loser, so people might not want to collect those. You might see more people quitting just to avoid having a visible loss on their sleeve. :D

    Idk. Those guys would be the ones that you know will stick it out through a tough match. No one remembers the Alamo for being the loss it was, but the heroic stand taken.
  • I don't think that there should be some huge award for winners, but there should be some bonus. I also think that players who, you know, actually play objective and do what the game intended should be given bonuses.
  • BF1 had a simple "Victory bonus: 300 credits" or somesuch. A similar concept could work here. Not too much, but still enough to make it worthwhile to actually push for a win and not suck.
    Heart of darkness beateth, Ultima
    Iron enigma treateth, Ultima
    Shielding light retreateth, Ultima
    Hydaelyn defeated. Ah, Ultima
  • SrawDawg
    259 posts Member
    Agreed


    Winning teams need more credits.

    Objective and killshot (winning shot) needs something.
  • Adanar
    91 posts Member
    They finally heard us. Its on the notes released today. Extra credits for winning a round
  • Without incentives, I consider it a win if I don't get 1 shotted by a blurrg.
    PSN: CRAZYCHILD
  • The next update will provide extra credits for winning, problem solved :D
  • Lord_Oz
    433 posts Member
    Spiito wrote: »
    You already unlock things for extra kills on the battlefield. Guns and gun mods. You earn a bit of extra credits, for playing objective/s, and landing on top of your team. You can even gain a bit extra, if you went out of your way to finish credit/material based challenges. (Timed, event, or standard.) And unless it's been patched out-You can earn way more credits if you can stretch the time spent in game of Strike.

    Rewards generate the ability to buy stuff to progress. If you are progressing, you want greater rewards. So you can be more progressed. Buy more stuff. Incentive for action. Winning or losing doesn't matter in regards to your progression. Completion does. You can still complete your stuff even if you lose. (Although maybe a bit slower BUT *victories* are not there to hold you back. Victories are just personal enjoyment and glory, when it comes down to it.) At max level, with everything mostly unlocked, rewards for winning are pointless.

    If you want to win, your incentive should be your own desire to accomplish your task of winning. *More stuff* will never fill that deep personal void; if you have no actual desire to win for the sake of it. Kind of like love. So love yourself and love your victories. ...For the victories. Not the virtual stuff tacked on. Not that there's anything wrong with losing. It's just a game, after all. Winning wouldn't exist without the losing side, so both are fairly important. People learn more from loss than victories, anyway. (like how poorly a victor's character is, if they **** all over the losing side after, via nasty texts.)

    Personally, I'm fine without extra incentive to win. (I already have enough, drive, enthusiasm, and determination, on my good days.)
    I do acknowledge the progression system does need some fine tuning, though. That's for sure.

    The point of having a winner and a loser is, ya know, to WIN. The current makeup does not reward winning. It rewards the people who get the most "points" regardless of whether or not they helped their team win. It's pretty dumb that a player on the losing team can get the most rewards out of the game and be the MVP. What other team based competition does the MVP come from the losing side?
  • perducci
    33 posts Member
    edited April 16
    lols at the people thinking giving paltry rewards for winning will encourage quitting.

    1. giving 100 credits to the guys at the bottom of the winners bracket won't impact anything. they'll still be walking away with a **** XP reward (which matters more) for getting blown up repeatedly while effective players on the losing side will walk away with 3x the points. It's not like credits matter... been playing 10 days and have like 185,000 already. 100 here or there is nothing.

    2. quit to find a "better" match. on a console, that's a gamble. for starters even if your side is getting blown up you can still get rewards - xp, a few kills to make progress on that next upgrade.

    If you quit because you're losing and not gonna get an extra 100 useless credits, enjoy 15 minutes of loading screens.

    In the mean time my loser **** will probably have racked up a little something, even if just from getting wafflestomped repeatedly and will be kicking off another round before you even likely find another match.

    incentive to do the right thing - i.e. the objective at hand... is a good thing. anyone who argues this just argues in favor of more of the same selfish play that leads to 3 people trying to storm the hill while a dozen "teammates" hide back behind cover hoping to score a lucky kill or three.


    *edit - wow, didn't think that word would get censored.
  • I'd much rather there were rewards for actually playing objectives.

    While I understand your theory, it simply isn't fair to the players on the losing side who actually try their damndest to play the objectives while everyone else is going Rambo.

    Incentivise what's actually happening in a match, not the outcome.

    giphy.gif

    Right now the game rewards you more for killing rather than the objective.
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • Spiito
    1349 posts Member
    Lord_Oz wrote: »
    It's pretty dumb that a player on the losing team can get the most rewards out of the game and be the MVP.
    So your line of logic is... "Forget about that top person who basically won 1 out of the total 3 rounds almost entirely on their own; they don't matter because they didn't win against 5 better players on the other team. Their effort, skills, and time, means nothing, so long as someone else won."
    Okay then. *Shrug*

    Credit where credit is due is apparently *only* based on if you win. If you didn't win, then your credibility and your credits don't matter. Because the game is so great at balancing matches. Why does anyone bother playing the losing side with this kind of logic?
  • Spiito
    1349 posts Member
    edited April 16
    perducci wrote: »
    1. giving 100 credits to the guys at the bottom of the winners bracket won't impact anything. they'll still be walking away with a smurfing XP reward (which matters more)
    These older posts were made prior to the progression system update. Where exp only effected your base level. Something which some players already had capped at that point in time.

Sign In or Register to comment.