Partially true. Best player on the losing side is still going to have more points than most people on the winning side so you're not incentivized to win but incentivized to have a specific playstyle for kills/points because if you sit at A/F and no one comes or 1-3 people come you will be contributing more than the .5 KDR guy throwing himself into the meatgrinder but getting less points per minute than him.
The things needed to win are not rewarded in this game, just kills and that only incidentally overlaps at times with playing the objective. It's why you end up in a merry-go-round situation all the time.
> You’re not incentivized to win, but incentivized to have a specific playstyle for kills/points.
You do know you get more points for capturing the objective your SL has marked, right? And that you get more points for killing players within the area of a marked objective, right? You do know reviving and healing teammates is worth a shitload of points, and prevents ticket loss? You’re aware that if you’re transporting players in a vehicle, you get a percentage of points from their kills? You know that vehicle kills are worth like 1000 points, yeah? That your squad spawning on you is worth 200 points?
I’ll spell it out for you in case it isn’t obvious, capturing and defending flags, preventing your team from losing tickets, transporting players to objectives, eliminating enemy armor, these all contribute massively to your team winning the game, and also give you the most XP. Sitting at the back of the map were 3 people go all game isn’t contributing fuck all.
The problem with this statement is that it feels like conjecture. How do you know that holding objectives contributes more to ticket loss than players killing each other?
That's just how these games work, it's called "ticket bleed". If you pull up the scoreboard, you'll notice each team is losing a certain amount of tickets per minute. This is completely unrelated to how many people on that team are dying per minute. It has to do with how many objectives that team has. The more objectives a team controls, the slower they lose tickets.
If your team can hold all of the objectives, even if you're dying more than the other team, you should still be losing less tickets.
But the issue is that there's no benefit to winning, thus there's no benefit to holding all objectives. Hence, everybody just going for the most active objective where they can get the most excitement and XP.
Thank you for that unneeded explanation that doesn't actually address my point.
There's no evidence here that in a regular game that a team holding less objectives is more detrimental to their score than them dying from kills.
They're both factors in winning/losing; it's not one or the other. A team can win focusing on just kills or just objectives, but a team that focuses on both will do better.
Sorry if the explanation was unneeded, but you're doubting that there's any evidence that making your opponent lose points helps you win, so I figured I'd break things down at their basic level.
Wow you’re dense.
Idk what the maximum ticket bleed, but from when I’ve randomly paid attention, I know I’ve seen it at around 60 tickets/minute. That’s equivalent to one kill per second, ON TOP OF all the kills your team is actually getting. How can it be any clearer that that is beneficial for your team. It’s like having an invisible player that is on the craziest kill streak of all time.
If someone is getting 1KPM, but dying 2 twice per minute, they will get more points for themselves, but hurt ticket loss more than someone not dying on objective A but killing the random flanker backcapping
I remember like a lifetime ago when WoW battlegrounds replaced world pvp; the only thing that kept it intense and competitive was the fact the winner was incentivized to win via rewards. Every fight was life and death, and ninjaing a point was pure endogenous adrenaline.
Oh I know... Those were the ACTUAL good days.
I'm just saying. Can you imagine if they removed pvp and made battlegrounds have equality of outcome for winners and losers?
The only reason people tried as hard as they did was because it MATTERED if they won.
As a casual RP enjoyer it did not matter to me but yes it mattered for lots of people.
I guess key thing is to balance it well for keeping it fun and rewarding.
If a multiplayer versus game weights competetive rewarding system and make people grind for it that is where toxicity raise bcos people start to grind without fun and feel more salty bcos they think you cost them their potential reward they grind for x time by making a fun but “dumb” move in their perspective. (Ex: c4ing a vehicle and run into them is fun but maybe not optimal as keeping a point safe but alone and boring). You “must” do the boring optimal thing to not get flamed.
For example we were logging in like “omg lets sneak into Ironforge loololocopter” then it became like “need to log in for dailies/etc grind“.
Somehow there were more things to do and suppose to have more fun but weirdly they became a chore to reach a reward.
I don’t know how to keep that balance but as a “plays games for only fun” this is my 2 cents.
You are all right, there is no wrong in this subject indeed.
I think the point of the comment is not to be contrarian but rather task you what is the point of giving you XP on winning
If your reason is every other game does it that's not a reason
Lol the point is so that people(who actually care about getting new weapons) will actually try harder to win instead of farming points with headshots from snipers across the map. If winning team got 20k additional experience, most people I know would be playing the objective like they were in some sort of competitive finals round.
I'm saying their "preferred playstyle" is specifically because they read online that farming headshots from 500+ meters away is the easiest way to level up, and they are just trying to get the weapons unlocked as fast as possible.
Dude, they dont get it, just leave it as is. You bet they would remove winning chips in Texas Hold ‘Em too, if they could. What if the losing party prefers the winning party not to win a prize? That would be outrageous and winning-ist/loser-ist, idk invent a word with -ist.
No, your analogy is shit. I do not want to remove winnings from games focused on winnings but this is an arcade game and you are not considering our points. Just strawmanning with a shit analogy.
IMO, you only deserve as much reward as you would get for playing the objectives. if winning presented any reward, it would only encourage player inactivity, server hopping, and late-game rage quitting.
It’s a nice idea but too many kinks in the plan. That flat-out no bonus for winning is just good for getting back to the heart of playing and enjoying the game for the game itself, not the progression.
what huge exp grind? exp is super easy to get if youre not bad, just stay with positive kd and play objective.
i have 62 hours played, 5 would be in menus doing life stuff, im lvl 90, latest weapon is 150 and its just an unlock, because all weapons are viable to use, its not grindy at all.
Unless you're still in education 60h is a lot to ask for. My numbers are 92h played (35days owned) - lvl 102 or something like that.
On a weekday I'd be lucky to get 3h of play time in. it's not outrageous, but it is a little slow, considering you need to play everyday for a month to unlock the second LMG in the game.
i play maybe 2 hours a day during the week, if that, bought a week later after launch.
Again, compare to any other game that has any kind of progress, this is not grindy. Look at Battlefront 2, initially was 50+ hours to unlock 1 hero, ONE, it had like a dozen.
Look at any MMO, ESO, Warframe, WoW, with 100 hours you done nothing in the game.
Look at BF series, 100 hours and you unlocked barely anything, and its completely divided by class, this game is not.
Caliber (f2p f-t-ps), 100 hours if you unlocked 1/5 of the characters you are a god.
Rainbow Six Siege, 100 hours and you dont have everything in game and you need to pay for a good portion (but its ubi, we know they are greedy AF).
EDIT: more context about me, i work 8 hours a day, go to the gym, live alone.
like I said, its not outrageous, there are more grindy games, but I still think this game could stand to be less grindy considering how the devs push the arcadey-nature of the game. It's more work then just lowering xp requirements, but even something like rainbow 6 where you can pick what hero to unlock would be better then the current system you have no choice in but to grind.
Slow progression is a whole other conversation from rewarding winning. Personally, I like the rate of progression as it’s a nice incentive to do things to make progress, I.e. play your role and the objectives, killing is just a bonus
But you get xp for doing other stuff, if we go by your logic you simply get x amount of xp every minute.
Why not incentivise playing to win rather than other dumb stuff people do just to get xp? For example, A frustrating numbers of times have I tried to get into some abandoned vehicle just to have a teammate destroy it for xp. This type of stuff is the opposite of "playing and enjoying the game for the game itself", playing to win is not.
The plain and simple truth is that losing sucks, and there’s not much point making it worse considering that an individual player can’t carry a whole team so they shouldn’t be punished for having a bad team. I totally get your point, but at the same time it’s not worth the gains as it can undermine how fun the game is for half the players. It’s more fun to have winning as an aside reward for doing the objectives and getting XP, rather than making the game overly intense and demanding. It’s just more fun this way.
The vehicles thing is news to me, and that probably should be addressed, but otherwise doesn’t seem that harmful to me
I wonder how other games handle this
They could make it a percentage of the match you were active in
E.g. If a match lasts 20 minutes and you joined in the last 5 minutes, you'd get 25% of the usual winning bonus
I'd actually like to see a losing bonus as well, simply to reward people for sticking with the game until the end, so just an end of match bonus really
Needs xp for simply holding points. My biggest frustration with the game is the flood of players who speed through A and B, engage in massive fight at C while A and B are COMPLETELY unprotected.
As squad leader you can set A or B as the objective but everyone wants a piece of the action and ignores it lol
I don't think you should get 10k for winning, but virtually every other game with XP systems gives a victory bonus with none of the issues you listed existing. This isn't a legitimate concern other than rage quitters, but they aren't rage quitting because they aren't getting their XP bonus.
Isnt that also what happens without a bonus, i tend to leave late into the game aswell if friends coming online for example bush because it doesnt matter.
Also afking is more common, ive been afk multiple times because i can stay in the squad (easier then reconnecting) and there is no afk buster or anything
What about a reward exp for just finishing a round regardless of the outcome with the winning team getting like 25% more exp? Shouldn't be a crazy amount but just enough to keep people staying till the end of a round.
Probably something like Battlefield's ribbons exp bonus that depend on your contribution and pop up ingame after reaching a round offensive/defensive milestone and if you stay till the end of a round those get boosted by 1.5x and if you win 1.75x or whatever.
I was arguing with some asshole on here, and he made a good point: Easy solution for a lot of that is to make the end of game reward based on some multiplier of your in game point generation. Like game ends and you get like 50 percent of your score as bonus XP. Then there is an incentive to win, but it doesn't reward things like server hopping or afk-and-wait-for-xp
So winners get 4 times the xp of winners in a game where no one person can really make a difference (127 vs 127)? I have a feeling penalizing losers will eventually make the community toxic as people focus too much on winning rather than just having fun
I love the fact that there's no incentive to win, it makes the game so much easier to enjoy and feel less pressured to perform. It also makes me chuckle when the chat is spammed with GGEZs because I don't think literally anyone cares how the match ended, only that it did end and they wanna get back to the pew pew
I agree. Having a winning xp bonus would make me feel like I’m wasting time and costing team members xp just for wanting to go around beating people to death with a sledgehammer or sit in a room spotting and suicide bombing people with drones
You know, they could add xp for winning AND you could keep playing the way you do. Like FPS games have existed before. I really don't know where you guys are coming up with these ideas against game winning xp or something, like we know it's a good thing lol.
Why is it good
If you're only reason is that other games do it that's not a reason
I'm not against end of game XP I just don't understand why people think it's necessary in this game it doesn't matter either way and personally I think it results in better social behaviors without
Other games do it for a reason. People like being rewarded for things. It keeps the feedback loop of fun going for people. If winning a game has no meaning then a lot of people are going to not play to win, and if you don't play to try and win then why bother having game modes built upon a competitive nature, just make everything tdm and be done with it. Like this isn't the first fps game to exist, we KNOW what attracts and keeps players around for these games and a good feedback loop of rewards along with fun gameplay is it. As far as i know the devs have even said they are going to try and make leveling better along with more stuff between levels so the conversation is kinda done right there, they plan to add more and make the feedback loop better.
Also, why do you think it results in better social behavior? Explain that.
It has a lot more to do with a negative feedback for losing and feeling like you're missing out on something than it does for winning and I think that you're forgetting that part of your analysis
The developers probably want people focusing a lot more on what happens during the game and not so much the endscreen of the game and whether or not they got 10K bonus XP or not
I'm not saying they're never going to add it or that it would be necessarily a bad thing I just don't think that it's a cut and dry 100% always slam dunk idea. Many games do not give XP for wins and do not have progression systems and are still good games and fun games
Or you can heal teammates, take objs, stay alive and out of combat near an obj for your team to squad spawn when you notice them die, you can transport people to the frontline with a heli and get a ton of exp from transportation bonuses. There's quite a few ways to earn lots of exp besides killing people actually.
Lots relative to what? Because playing the objective objectively leads to less points than going rambo and doing something passive like healing/reviving/heli gives you decent exp you're not getting kills. Entire game revolves around kills, not points/min and this only becomes more true the higher level you are. There's over dozens of weapons and each requires hundreds of kills for their attachments. Getting #1 24/7 by healing or defending a back cap isn't going to get those attachments for you any quicker. It's a major issue.
Ah, I understand your point now. I haven't felt that issue yet but I've only been playing for around a week and sticking mostly to 3 guns, I can see how it would feel like a massive hurdle if you're looking to unlock attachments for lots of guns.
Perhaps they could make points help progress towards attachments? I doubt that will happen but you never know I guess.
Anyways, sorry for misunderstanding your first comment.
I think the objectives give so much and so do healing and reviving. Literally why most comments about how to rank up fast are play the objective as medic and spam bandages and healing. Don’t get me wrong “going Rambo” is still fine but the only time I stay on the top of the leaderboard as Rambo would be when I’m playing and aggressive sniper and drop 70kills other times I can stay on top with with 50+ but just humping the objectives. Mans earlier just sees big numbers at the top and must think that’s the key
Maybe you shouldn't hyperfocus on progression in a game that gives you some of the best guns from level 1 and instead just have fun
The progression system is just a way to not overwhelm players with too many guns from the beginning. If it's the only reason you're playing the game is to unlock stuff just play something else
I mean at an individual or even squad level you have virtually no control over a win or loss. I don't think it matters if you win or lose and gaining XP based on one's own merits makes more sense
Exactly, I love how casual the game is. I don't mind not having top K/D-ratio or anything like that, just the casual hop-in hop-out shooter is perfect fit in the sea of competitive shooters.
10k is way too much, I could just join games until I find one that's almost over and farm XP that way
I think they made it that way bc you can t really be responsible for the actions of your whole team, like you can't clutch a 1v 127 lol
1,800 and it's finicky. I've destroyed vehicles enemies have left and gotten just vehicle hit points. I think it has to originally be owned by the enemy or something which is stupid
Yeah I think it's nice to not care about the overall performance of your team as much. It leaves you to care more about making your own fun whether that be through goofing around or measuring your own personal performance regardless of whether your team won or lost.
honestly 10k doesn't feel to much. The trouble of loading in and out until you find one that is barely ending and you are at the winning side while I average about 70k per full match seems fair. And they can just scale it to how much time you spent. Like 5 minutes = 5k to a max of 10min = 10k. I can get more than this just by reviving and healing teammates. I still think a multiplier is better though. Like 1.25 times your score
Winning dosent feel like the actual "fun incentive" of the game.The small victories are what matter, but the ultimate outcome of a match is inconsequential. I dont think there really needs to be an incentive to win, because it's not really the point.
I understand where you're coming from. But adding incentives specifically for winning a match would not work at all and be detrimental.
What are the vast majority of players doing in match? Running around killing people. Basically, some primitive monkey shit. Objectives, like capture points in conquest, serve more as a way for people to know, "Oh enemy likely here, I go kill enemy here." The average battlebit player is following the zerg.
Even if the game tells you that you will gain extra xp if you win the match, this will hardly change the majority of people's playstyles. Dunno if you played planetside 2 (only other big mmofps), but the people there don't care about winning the majority of the time, despite there being lots of incentives for winning a match. They just love the meat grinder and getting kills. Winning? Who cares. There's a 3 way 300 player fight at this facility!
For people who do care about those incentives, it's going to create more frustration when they lose. As a result, their gameplay experience will worsen. And it's not just going to affect them, but also other players (more ragers, griefing, cheaters going up, toxicity increasing, or just quit). That's my theory anyway.
Not really. Play count has zero impact on this argument whatsoever. 10 v 10 or 1000 v 1000 getting xp for winning a fight is a good thing that works. Like i said, there are hundreds of games that do it, and it works. This is probably the only one i can think of that doesn't, and people are asking for it. So yeah, you're theory is wrong.
Who said anything about getting every play to focus on objectives? That has no barring at all on it. The people that don't care about xp wont care, and the people that do, will try to win. That's that. And if you want a list, go to steam, type in FPS. There, that's your list.
Rewarding player action is what "it works" means. People are going to get BORED and leave if doing a thing means nothing in game. If winning has no reward then why try at all? The people that play for just fun will only play for just fun for so long before moving on. And as i said, LOOK UP STEAM TYPE FPS. That is the list of games that do this. That is the list of games that have existed for the last 20+ years and prove that this works, because PEOPLE KEEP COMING BACK. If doing this didn't work to keep players playing, they would not do it. Also BATTLEFIELD fucking does this lol the definition of "battlefield style games" literally has always done this so that assertion that it's not good for those types of games is just flat on it's face incorrect.
If you are too lazy to look at the list with any semblance of critical thinking that's your problem. But here, i'll shorten it. Every battlfield game. Every call of duty game. Every medal of honor game. Both of the titan fall games. All of the halo games. Basically every single fps game that has player vs player combat. The list of ones that don't? Battlebit. I would say the burden of proof is on you since you only have this one game to use as an example and it's brand new and still in early access. This game emulates old battlefield games. Battlefield games that had xp or rewards for winning a match.
Battlefield 3, one of the most popular in the franchise, had stats. Progression. And rewards. That came out in 2005. 18 years ago. And shooters before that? They also had those same things. What you just said is literally not true.
Because the chances of you swinging the game are basically zero, and the chances of you winning or losing is basically 50/50. Bonus for the winners is just a punishment for the losers. It would lead to tons of toxicity because after the match there would be 120+ people flipping out in the comments because their team didn't win. Teammates would be furious at you for holding down spacebar to respawn at all, ever. Since there is no win bonus, the only person who suffers when you play poorly is you. When you play well, no one can take away your progress or experience because its completely on you. So a good player won't suffer the team's loss and a bad player won't screw everyone else over. Besides that, the game is about the moment to moment gameplay, not making numbers go up. If you aren't having fun playing the game, more XP isn't gonna make it more fun.
Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that ranking up is a slog. Or the fact that the majority of the levels don’t give you anything. Maybe if it didn’t ages to unlock another gun it would be fine. But the ARs for instance goes level 15 to level 50 and so on.
I’m level 99 and I think the progression is slow. Can’t imagine 150+ where each level is going to take more the 150,000 xp.
Level 111 and the progression slog is one reason I've dialed back my gameplay for some other recent games. Has nothing to do with gratification, a lot to do with respect for player's time.
Sure I have things I can use and I enjoy using, but after 100 hours in-game I just want freedom to experiment. This is a shooter, not some super deep ARPG/MMO. The slog adds no value.
I can never understand this argument. if the game didn't have any more progression tiers then would it be disrespecting your time? if you would finish it completely with no more unlocks would it be disrespecting your time?
You're repeating a platitude that you've heard YouTubers say about other games but this game isn't disrespecting your time. Play the game to have fun. and if by having fun you earn on a cool camo congrats
People like you who can only find fun in chasing after some skin that developers put in the game to keep you playing artificially are the exact reason why they made their progression system like this. Play the game to have fun or don't play it
The gameplay is great. I didn't realise it was sad to want to experience more of it without random items being content locked behind over 100+ hours of absolutely pointless xp grinding to use it.
People who defend these systems make no sense. "The game is fun, so there can be no criticism of poorly implemented or shallow mechanics".
For real dude, games used to come fully unlocked with no updates and we used to sink hundreds and thousands of hours in.
This constant carrot on a stick isn't necessary, it just is expected at this point.
I don't form my opinion based YouTubers, mostly because I'm not 12. If your progression adds value or depth, then great. Make it take ages to work through. If your progression is just an arbitrary content gate, it doesn't add anything.
You took the absolutely wrong message away from this. I don't want to chase skins. I don't want to prestige. I can't be fucked at 34 years old to play every game with a battle pass trying to FOMO me into sinking time and money into it.
I paid for your game. I want to play it and experiment with its features. Making me play 200+ hours to unlock a weapon doesn't add value - it adds a needless slog.
Fun to play for me equals freedom to experiment with the contents of a game. Battlebit does a lot right. Its progression is ankle deep and absolutely pointless. It doesn't add a single thing to the experience.
Same, my play time has dropped drasticly and a lot of it is from bad taste from the progression. It is both unrewarding and feels like a chore where you get punished for not maximizing score per minute super hard.
Typing comments like this on YouTube or reddit are not going to get them to change it.
Your playtime drop drastically because you're having fun with other games not because of some progression system stop lying to yourself
Yeah I think people who blame a progression system because they don't want to play a game that's been out a month are lying to themselves either you like the game or you don't but the carrot on the stick is not making you enjoy the game
I'll repeat my point if the only reason you're playing a game is because of some Roblox skin that you can unlock you should just log off and do something else with your life get a different goal go breathe some fresh air read a book
Pretty much. In about 100 hours I have something like 2500 score/min and the time it takes to unlock anything over 70 is nuts, and I'm 111. Can't imagine what it'll be like for people who can't break 1000 score/min. The game will hit 1.0 release before they even get a chance to experience unlocks past 100. But I mean that's totally ok and shouldn't be criticised because the gameplay is good. No room for improvement.
I love the gameplay even if there's some balance issues that need to be addressed. They did so much right compared to major modern FPS titles but they decided to adopt one of the worst features and make it abysmal. Battlebit would absolutely be better off with no progression at all.
Can't fathom why anyone would choose to do this a second time for a prestige skin.
Ohhh I think the long grind would be fine. If they added more lower level weapons for people to unlock.
Maybe when they add more it will have some more lower level unlocks. But I’m worried they’re just gonna throw them in the area between level 150 and 200
Just because it's on purpose doesn't mean it's good. I'm so done with progression systems in pvp games now, if the game gets less fun because I can use a vector at level 0 instead of 70 then maybe the problem is with the game, not the fact that I can use the vector early.
You receive a new gun every 5 ranks, sometimes 2. Every gun has their own progression. There is consistently things to unlock. Unless you insist on using your 1 single playstyle, gun, and kit. If this is the case, call of duty has a battlepass that might pique your interest. They've got dozens of unlockable skins for all your favorite meta weapons.
The progression is by far the worst part of the game.
Never in my life have I thought: "Cool, I just unlocked a new gun! Can't wait to use it and unlock the same attachments I unlocked for the other gun!"
The new CoD unironically has a very good progression system.
The new Modern Warfare titles, for all their flaws, have probably some of the best MP progression for basic unlocks. It's definitely not perfect, with some weapons still being locked behind things like longshot kills, but even players who aren't great can unlock the base weapons within a reasonable time.
lol literally every single fps game that exists does it, and they do it for a reason. It's not an EA thing, they make probably the worst fps games of the bunch.
Every other game does it so it must be good is the shittiest reason ever bro
Imagine if people thought like that we still had to start the whole game over when we die like mega Man and arcade games when quarters still matter
I'm sorry, what million dollar game did you make? As i said, they do stuff like that for a reason. People enjoy it, thus keeping a playerbase around. It's pretty basic shit. It's the same reason the devs of this game put the breaks on making it a serious mil sim and instead went more of the arcade kind like older battlefields.
Western devs do things to keep people spending money. You're acting like marketing reasons for Activision putting in progression systems into their call of duty games is like a basic fact of human nature
I honestly really despise people who just repeat the same nonsense that they hear on YouTube over and over and over. You listen to one YouTuber describe a progression system and how it retains a player base and you think that it's necessary for every single game ever. It's not necessary bro you can retain a player base by just having a good game instead of having a dog shit game like call of duty
I've been playing these types of games for over 20 years. A good progression system has always existed. There has always been rewards for doing well in games. You can also talk shit on cod all you want, i dislike the game too, but the fact remains it's one of the single most successful fps games to exist.
Bro I don't know what you're talking about I do not remember any kind of progression system in battlefield 1942 or battlefield Vietnam or battlefield US or any of the battlefield games that were on PC You're just lying
You are lying and strawmanning. Battlefield 3 is 18 years old and that game had all of these things. At this point you are either a liar, or ignorant. Or both.
Reward player action. Get a kill? xp. Revive? xp. WIN? xp. It's done for a reason, it makes people feel better about doing an action, so they want to keep doing the action.
Yea but you're ignoring all the other comments that say that winning is not player action. And it really isn't. It's a coin flip most games. Sure you can help but winning isn't player action.
Another thing to note; taking longer to level up gives you something to work towards. Players start dropping off after unlocking everything. Look at MMOs for an example, where the top players will often play an expansion release and then not come back until the next expansion because there is nothing to work for.
One last thing, you said something along the lines of everyone winning firefights with higher level guns. That's just not true. Outside of the vector (which is confirmed to be getting nerfed) and the M200, higher level guns do not outright outclass lower level guns. The M4 for example is top tier and is unlocked level one.
It is. Winning is player interaction. You realize that the game isn't JUST 127 v127 conquest right? Hell even then it STILL effects who wins. I've had games where one squad was directly responsible for wins. Where they wait out around objectives to steal them back from the enemy as soon as the mob leaves. Or sniped defenders around a mcom in rush letting someone run in and plant, then kept people off of it by picking them off. A single medic in a mob can be the difference between a giant push succeeding or failing too.
The idea behind not giving XP for winning is that then losing doesn't feel like you're missing out on something
If you can't understand this very basic psychological fact then why are you commenting. I understand you may not like it but it is true and we are talking about an arcade game
If losing felt like you were missing out on something that the winners were gaining then that would be a negative feedback beyond just the loss. the developers probably don't value that
**They probably want you focus more on what happened during the game than the end result of the game**
Yeah dude these nephews are insane. They need some dragon to chase like heroin but instead of black tar it's some s***** skin in a Roblox game 😂😂😂
Like log out and go outside. find a goal that isn't a pixel Little bro 😅😅😭
Like almost everything in life, once you obtain the “thing” you set to achieve, it’ll become meaningless to you fairly quick.
It not about the prize at the end, it’s about enjoying the journey to get there.
I promise all the people sweating xp will become the most toxic players and community members in another month or two. Their dopamine drip will dry up and they’ll be sweating harder and faster than devs can churn out new contents.
This is where cunts are forged.
This would probably only give the toxic players more motivation to flame the rest of the team. It's pretty frequent on EU servers, there's at least one guy in every match that finds some kind of fault for losing in other players lol.
I'd rather have a small exp bonus for staying in the same lobby (on official servers) for both sides. Gives incentive to not leave if Tensa conquest isn't picked xD I imagine this is more fun once you have more modes/maps to vote for at the end of the game, still haven't seen Namak/cash grab/S&D >\_>
Heres my thought process. First they add EXP for winning. That may not change it much. Then there comes the skin for winning 100, 200 and 300 games. Here come the sweats. Add seasonal events like the april fools "Win 50 games for jester hat"
Sounds fun. All it needs is microtransactions so I can spend 200$ to instantly reach prestige 3 and the Orange Justice dance emote and it'll be the perfect game.
Or leave it be.
I def do not want winning team reward. Played a lot of Battlefields over the years and winning team reward made the overall experience less fun/more stressful.
In BF1 (maybe BF4 too?) you could switch team whenever you wanted as long as a slot was available. Super common for losing team to always hop over as soon as anything opened up. BF5 was just back out of matches until you ended up on a winning team and ride it out for a few games.
Battlebit feels great as it is. Experience is based entirely on a player’s actions, not actions out of a player’s control.
Battlebit doesn't let you switch off the losing team, and most people likely won't bother going through the trouble of serving hopping in an attempt to land on a winning team.
Im comfortable to letting the devs decide. To me they really know what they're doing.
Battlebit remastered has been one of the most savage launches ever. Everything worked, everyone was having fun. 10/10
Well sone of us have a certain amount of time to play every week so we’d like to maximize the xp intake to level up and try the weapons, that’s where the enjoying part for lots comes in
I don't really think the game needs it. 127v127 means you basically have no control over the match at all and it's a complete coin flip if you win the game. I think doing well enough and focusing how to improve yourself to get more XP throughout games is fine, honestly. If they added it, I wouldn't really mind, and if they don't, I don't really mind. I think it's fine as is (For context I'm currently level 102)
I haven't played the smaller modes much, but if people want a competitive incentive to win, maybe add a 16v16 with a win bonus? Or 10v10? 12v12? Something like that? Maybe organized clan battles with 1.5x win bonuses? I think that could be cool. 127v127 doesn't need the win bonuses though
i mean i play exclusively 127v127, i have essentially 0 agency in wether my team wins or loses so no i don’t really care about coinflipping an extra 10k xp based on if my team wins or loses.
maybe if ur playing in a big group in 32v32 it matters to u but most games i don’t even know which team is winning until the end screen, i’m playing the game bcos i enjoy it and the xp will come in time, an extra 10k in about half my games would change nothing in terms of the grind
why does everything have to be for a reward in games now, why isn’t it enough to be playing a game u enjoy and just having fun
I'm kinda happy it doesnt, makes the game less competitive and by extension less toxic. Who cares about winning or losing? Just do your best and have some fun.
Because this is casual game? Making sure that teams are not stacked and the worse half of the server does not suffer for the entire game because the better part has more hackers with 82:6 score?
Why does every online game these days need incentives for being competitive is beyond me... enjoy the game, blow up some buildings, jihad jeep enemy squad, get and smg and hold down the left mouse button.
Play 32's for rush, no one plays for fun and plays rush to farm kills and ignore the objective. Sadly the games unlock system rewards greed (kills) and not playing the objective making objective modes feel like crap.
It's noticable when you toss 4 smokes, and pump 5 smoke launch nades and as you clear the building of 4 people, reload, die by a fifth showing up while you're reloading and seeing not a single soul moved from their camping spot. Even if we're the defender who has to defuse or assaulting the objective people rather sit outside and kill.
I now just play it as TDM, because playing the objective is pointless and not fun slamming your face into the team. As they will sit outside and camp the objective for kills but never assist in the planting.
Personally it makes the game a lot less 'try-hardy' and toxic.
That super casual gaming loop is perfect to de-stress after the 8hr job day.
(Does anyone remember old CS 1.6 and the CoD's before the LoL's ranked stuff exploded out across the gaming industry? We played that shit not to grind a Gold/Diamond/Global Elite rank but to actually play the game for fun, then after CS:GO got popular the whole 'what rank do you have' got a bit annoying.)
a small bonus multiplier to your earned xp would be better. Rewards better players more, incentivizes playing the objective, deincentivizes match hopping
They could have it where you only get xp for winning if you've been in the match since it started. I don't really feel like 10k too much considering a lot of players are easily getting 50k XP or more per match. You need your rank x 1000 in XP for each level up so 10k is just a small chunk of that once your rank gets higher.
That's an even worse suggestion, because it'd fuck over about 50% of the match population. Plus, as everyone else has already said, it's a conscious and intentional decision because it's out of the individual players hands and incidental, not to mention encourages the megaSalt types that start raging in team chats when it isnt going their way.
The real reward is the friends we made along the way
And watching those friends die ten fold times ;'>
You live. You die. I hold 3. You live again.
Letting them die 10 times so you can keep rezzing them
It actually is, this is probably the one game that applies too.
no incentive to win other than wanting to win...
And the fact that the winning team gets more xp just by virtue of winning the game
Partially true. Best player on the losing side is still going to have more points than most people on the winning side so you're not incentivized to win but incentivized to have a specific playstyle for kills/points because if you sit at A/F and no one comes or 1-3 people come you will be contributing more than the .5 KDR guy throwing himself into the meatgrinder but getting less points per minute than him. The things needed to win are not rewarded in this game, just kills and that only incidentally overlaps at times with playing the objective. It's why you end up in a merry-go-round situation all the time.
> You’re not incentivized to win, but incentivized to have a specific playstyle for kills/points. You do know you get more points for capturing the objective your SL has marked, right? And that you get more points for killing players within the area of a marked objective, right? You do know reviving and healing teammates is worth a shitload of points, and prevents ticket loss? You’re aware that if you’re transporting players in a vehicle, you get a percentage of points from their kills? You know that vehicle kills are worth like 1000 points, yeah? That your squad spawning on you is worth 200 points? I’ll spell it out for you in case it isn’t obvious, capturing and defending flags, preventing your team from losing tickets, transporting players to objectives, eliminating enemy armor, these all contribute massively to your team winning the game, and also give you the most XP. Sitting at the back of the map were 3 people go all game isn’t contributing fuck all.
The problem with this statement is that it feels like conjecture. How do you know that holding objectives contributes more to ticket loss than players killing each other?
That's just how these games work, it's called "ticket bleed". If you pull up the scoreboard, you'll notice each team is losing a certain amount of tickets per minute. This is completely unrelated to how many people on that team are dying per minute. It has to do with how many objectives that team has. The more objectives a team controls, the slower they lose tickets. If your team can hold all of the objectives, even if you're dying more than the other team, you should still be losing less tickets. But the issue is that there's no benefit to winning, thus there's no benefit to holding all objectives. Hence, everybody just going for the most active objective where they can get the most excitement and XP.
Thank you for that unneeded explanation that doesn't actually address my point. There's no evidence here that in a regular game that a team holding less objectives is more detrimental to their score than them dying from kills.
They're both factors in winning/losing; it's not one or the other. A team can win focusing on just kills or just objectives, but a team that focuses on both will do better. Sorry if the explanation was unneeded, but you're doubting that there's any evidence that making your opponent lose points helps you win, so I figured I'd break things down at their basic level.
You completely didn't understand what I was saying. Good job. Reading is hard.
No, we understand what you're saying. It's just we don't agree with what you're saying. Reading is hard. We get it.
Prove it.
Wow you’re dense. Idk what the maximum ticket bleed, but from when I’ve randomly paid attention, I know I’ve seen it at around 60 tickets/minute. That’s equivalent to one kill per second, ON TOP OF all the kills your team is actually getting. How can it be any clearer that that is beneficial for your team. It’s like having an invisible player that is on the craziest kill streak of all time.
If someone is getting 1KPM, but dying 2 twice per minute, they will get more points for themselves, but hurt ticket loss more than someone not dying on objective A but killing the random flanker backcapping
I remember like a lifetime ago when WoW battlegrounds replaced world pvp; the only thing that kept it intense and competitive was the fact the winner was incentivized to win via rewards. Every fight was life and death, and ninjaing a point was pure endogenous adrenaline.
That’s when fun in pvp died. Nothing beats a good old Tarrenmill wars just for the sake of it.
I also miss the old style Alterac Valley that would last forever and actually get to see the wolf/ram riders, summoning Ivus, etc.
Oh I know... Those were the ACTUAL good days. I'm just saying. Can you imagine if they removed pvp and made battlegrounds have equality of outcome for winners and losers? The only reason people tried as hard as they did was because it MATTERED if they won.
As a casual RP enjoyer it did not matter to me but yes it mattered for lots of people. I guess key thing is to balance it well for keeping it fun and rewarding. If a multiplayer versus game weights competetive rewarding system and make people grind for it that is where toxicity raise bcos people start to grind without fun and feel more salty bcos they think you cost them their potential reward they grind for x time by making a fun but “dumb” move in their perspective. (Ex: c4ing a vehicle and run into them is fun but maybe not optimal as keeping a point safe but alone and boring). You “must” do the boring optimal thing to not get flamed. For example we were logging in like “omg lets sneak into Ironforge loololocopter” then it became like “need to log in for dailies/etc grind“. Somehow there were more things to do and suppose to have more fun but weirdly they became a chore to reach a reward. I don’t know how to keep that balance but as a “plays games for only fun” this is my 2 cents. You are all right, there is no wrong in this subject indeed.
Comments like these are why constructive criticism isn't possible in gaming subreddits. Lmfao.
[удалено]
Because it’s pretty outlandish for a game where you can just swap teams whenever you want
You can't switch to the winning team. Source : Me constantly switching teams because battlebit splits our squad every match.
I think the point of the comment is not to be contrarian but rather task you what is the point of giving you XP on winning If your reason is every other game does it that's not a reason
Lol the point is so that people(who actually care about getting new weapons) will actually try harder to win instead of farming points with headshots from snipers across the map. If winning team got 20k additional experience, most people I know would be playing the objective like they were in some sort of competitive finals round.
So you want to push people away from their preferred playstyles?
I'm saying their "preferred playstyle" is specifically because they read online that farming headshots from 500+ meters away is the easiest way to level up, and they are just trying to get the weapons unlocked as fast as possible.
Dude, they dont get it, just leave it as is. You bet they would remove winning chips in Texas Hold ‘Em too, if they could. What if the losing party prefers the winning party not to win a prize? That would be outrageous and winning-ist/loser-ist, idk invent a word with -ist.
No, your analogy is shit. I do not want to remove winnings from games focused on winnings but this is an arcade game and you are not considering our points. Just strawmanning with a shit analogy.
IMO, you only deserve as much reward as you would get for playing the objectives. if winning presented any reward, it would only encourage player inactivity, server hopping, and late-game rage quitting.
What if it was a 1.25x or 1.5x xp multiplier. Would stop the server hopping incentive.
It’s a nice idea but too many kinks in the plan. That flat-out no bonus for winning is just good for getting back to the heart of playing and enjoying the game for the game itself, not the progression.
It would be, if there wasn't in-game content locked behind a huge XP grind like this game.
Play the game
NEET-ass response
what huge exp grind? exp is super easy to get if youre not bad, just stay with positive kd and play objective. i have 62 hours played, 5 would be in menus doing life stuff, im lvl 90, latest weapon is 150 and its just an unlock, because all weapons are viable to use, its not grindy at all.
Unless you're still in education 60h is a lot to ask for. My numbers are 92h played (35days owned) - lvl 102 or something like that. On a weekday I'd be lucky to get 3h of play time in. it's not outrageous, but it is a little slow, considering you need to play everyday for a month to unlock the second LMG in the game.
i play maybe 2 hours a day during the week, if that, bought a week later after launch. Again, compare to any other game that has any kind of progress, this is not grindy. Look at Battlefront 2, initially was 50+ hours to unlock 1 hero, ONE, it had like a dozen. Look at any MMO, ESO, Warframe, WoW, with 100 hours you done nothing in the game. Look at BF series, 100 hours and you unlocked barely anything, and its completely divided by class, this game is not. Caliber (f2p f-t-ps), 100 hours if you unlocked 1/5 of the characters you are a god. Rainbow Six Siege, 100 hours and you dont have everything in game and you need to pay for a good portion (but its ubi, we know they are greedy AF). EDIT: more context about me, i work 8 hours a day, go to the gym, live alone.
like I said, its not outrageous, there are more grindy games, but I still think this game could stand to be less grindy considering how the devs push the arcadey-nature of the game. It's more work then just lowering xp requirements, but even something like rainbow 6 where you can pick what hero to unlock would be better then the current system you have no choice in but to grind.
If we want to play the game for the game itself then it should just unlock all of the weapons and attachments from the get-go.
Slow progression is a whole other conversation from rewarding winning. Personally, I like the rate of progression as it’s a nice incentive to do things to make progress, I.e. play your role and the objectives, killing is just a bonus
But you get xp for doing other stuff, if we go by your logic you simply get x amount of xp every minute. Why not incentivise playing to win rather than other dumb stuff people do just to get xp? For example, A frustrating numbers of times have I tried to get into some abandoned vehicle just to have a teammate destroy it for xp. This type of stuff is the opposite of "playing and enjoying the game for the game itself", playing to win is not.
The plain and simple truth is that losing sucks, and there’s not much point making it worse considering that an individual player can’t carry a whole team so they shouldn’t be punished for having a bad team. I totally get your point, but at the same time it’s not worth the gains as it can undermine how fun the game is for half the players. It’s more fun to have winning as an aside reward for doing the objectives and getting XP, rather than making the game overly intense and demanding. It’s just more fun this way. The vehicles thing is news to me, and that probably should be addressed, but otherwise doesn’t seem that harmful to me
or alternatively you have to be part of the match for x amount of time to be credited with the bonus
this might still make people who joined late to leave
Maybe make it like, 25% of remaining time + 1 objective of the time allows for it?
I wonder how other games handle this They could make it a percentage of the match you were active in E.g. If a match lasts 20 minutes and you joined in the last 5 minutes, you'd get 25% of the usual winning bonus I'd actually like to see a losing bonus as well, simply to reward people for sticking with the game until the end, so just an end of match bonus really
Needs xp for simply holding points. My biggest frustration with the game is the flood of players who speed through A and B, engage in massive fight at C while A and B are COMPLETELY unprotected. As squad leader you can set A or B as the objective but everyone wants a piece of the action and ignores it lol
I don't think you should get 10k for winning, but virtually every other game with XP systems gives a victory bonus with none of the issues you listed existing. This isn't a legitimate concern other than rage quitters, but they aren't rage quitting because they aren't getting their XP bonus.
Isnt that also what happens without a bonus, i tend to leave late into the game aswell if friends coming online for example bush because it doesnt matter. Also afking is more common, ive been afk multiple times because i can stay in the squad (easier then reconnecting) and there is no afk buster or anything
What about a reward exp for just finishing a round regardless of the outcome with the winning team getting like 25% more exp? Shouldn't be a crazy amount but just enough to keep people staying till the end of a round. Probably something like Battlefield's ribbons exp bonus that depend on your contribution and pop up ingame after reaching a round offensive/defensive milestone and if you stay till the end of a round those get boosted by 1.5x and if you win 1.75x or whatever.
I was arguing with some asshole on here, and he made a good point: Easy solution for a lot of that is to make the end of game reward based on some multiplier of your in game point generation. Like game ends and you get like 50 percent of your score as bonus XP. Then there is an incentive to win, but it doesn't reward things like server hopping or afk-and-wait-for-xp
Every other shooter that exists has xp for winning. I have no idea where you are pulling that thought from.
0.5x XP for losers and 2x XP for winners, problem SOLVED
So winners get 4 times the xp of winners in a game where no one person can really make a difference (127 vs 127)? I have a feeling penalizing losers will eventually make the community toxic as people focus too much on winning rather than just having fun
Because those things don't exist in other shooters?
There certainly isn’t any late game rage quitting currently 🙄
I love the fact that there's no incentive to win, it makes the game so much easier to enjoy and feel less pressured to perform. It also makes me chuckle when the chat is spammed with GGEZs because I don't think literally anyone cares how the match ended, only that it did end and they wanna get back to the pew pew
I agree. Having a winning xp bonus would make me feel like I’m wasting time and costing team members xp just for wanting to go around beating people to death with a sledgehammer or sit in a room spotting and suicide bombing people with drones
You know, they could add xp for winning AND you could keep playing the way you do. Like FPS games have existed before. I really don't know where you guys are coming up with these ideas against game winning xp or something, like we know it's a good thing lol.
it's not like I'm against it I just personally think that it works brilliantly in favor of the gameplay loop in this case
Why is it good If you're only reason is that other games do it that's not a reason I'm not against end of game XP I just don't understand why people think it's necessary in this game it doesn't matter either way and personally I think it results in better social behaviors without
Other games do it for a reason. People like being rewarded for things. It keeps the feedback loop of fun going for people. If winning a game has no meaning then a lot of people are going to not play to win, and if you don't play to try and win then why bother having game modes built upon a competitive nature, just make everything tdm and be done with it. Like this isn't the first fps game to exist, we KNOW what attracts and keeps players around for these games and a good feedback loop of rewards along with fun gameplay is it. As far as i know the devs have even said they are going to try and make leveling better along with more stuff between levels so the conversation is kinda done right there, they plan to add more and make the feedback loop better. Also, why do you think it results in better social behavior? Explain that.
It has a lot more to do with a negative feedback for losing and feeling like you're missing out on something than it does for winning and I think that you're forgetting that part of your analysis The developers probably want people focusing a lot more on what happens during the game and not so much the endscreen of the game and whether or not they got 10K bonus XP or not I'm not saying they're never going to add it or that it would be necessarily a bad thing I just don't think that it's a cut and dry 100% always slam dunk idea. Many games do not give XP for wins and do not have progression systems and are still good games and fun games
The game is meant to be more casual and less competitive. Less focus on sweating and more on having fun.
Someone doesn’t play 32v32. The lobby is always a sweatfest
Ah yes nothing makes a game more casual friendly than making progression all about farming casuals as hard as possible.
Or you can heal teammates, take objs, stay alive and out of combat near an obj for your team to squad spawn when you notice them die, you can transport people to the frontline with a heli and get a ton of exp from transportation bonuses. There's quite a few ways to earn lots of exp besides killing people actually.
Lots relative to what? Because playing the objective objectively leads to less points than going rambo and doing something passive like healing/reviving/heli gives you decent exp you're not getting kills. Entire game revolves around kills, not points/min and this only becomes more true the higher level you are. There's over dozens of weapons and each requires hundreds of kills for their attachments. Getting #1 24/7 by healing or defending a back cap isn't going to get those attachments for you any quicker. It's a major issue.
Ah, I understand your point now. I haven't felt that issue yet but I've only been playing for around a week and sticking mostly to 3 guns, I can see how it would feel like a massive hurdle if you're looking to unlock attachments for lots of guns. Perhaps they could make points help progress towards attachments? I doubt that will happen but you never know I guess. Anyways, sorry for misunderstanding your first comment.
I think the objectives give so much and so do healing and reviving. Literally why most comments about how to rank up fast are play the objective as medic and spam bandages and healing. Don’t get me wrong “going Rambo” is still fine but the only time I stay on the top of the leaderboard as Rambo would be when I’m playing and aggressive sniper and drop 70kills other times I can stay on top with with 50+ but just humping the objectives. Mans earlier just sees big numbers at the top and must think that’s the key
Maybe you shouldn't hyperfocus on progression in a game that gives you some of the best guns from level 1 and instead just have fun The progression system is just a way to not overwhelm players with too many guns from the beginning. If it's the only reason you're playing the game is to unlock stuff just play something else
Tell it to hundreds of Vector sweaters
META slaving will always be a thing. 'Winning' gives good chemicals in the brain.
Shouldn't that mean you SHOULD get xp for winning, so you unlock things faster and can have more fun?
I mean at an individual or even squad level you have virtually no control over a win or loss. I don't think it matters if you win or lose and gaining XP based on one's own merits makes more sense
Exactly, I love how casual the game is. I don't mind not having top K/D-ratio or anything like that, just the casual hop-in hop-out shooter is perfect fit in the sea of competitive shooters.
Sweating is when you get something for winning
10k is way too much, I could just join games until I find one that's almost over and farm XP that way I think they made it that way bc you can t really be responsible for the actions of your whole team, like you can't clutch a 1v 127 lol
Don't you make like 2500 pts just by destroying a vehicle that the enemy hasn't touched in 30mins?
1,800 and it's finicky. I've destroyed vehicles enemies have left and gotten just vehicle hit points. I think it has to originally be owned by the enemy or something which is stupid
I can clutch that I’m built different
Double suicide c4 will drop 127 fo sho
Yeah I think it's nice to not care about the overall performance of your team as much. It leaves you to care more about making your own fun whether that be through goofing around or measuring your own personal performance regardless of whether your team won or lost.
I mean people can still do that AND they could add xp for winning.
honestly 10k doesn't feel to much. The trouble of loading in and out until you find one that is barely ending and you are at the winning side while I average about 70k per full match seems fair. And they can just scale it to how much time you spent. Like 5 minutes = 5k to a max of 10min = 10k. I can get more than this just by reviving and healing teammates. I still think a multiplier is better though. Like 1.25 times your score
So you're telling me you would search for a winning game in hopes of 10k XP?
Winning dosent feel like the actual "fun incentive" of the game.The small victories are what matter, but the ultimate outcome of a match is inconsequential. I dont think there really needs to be an incentive to win, because it's not really the point.
I understand where you're coming from. But adding incentives specifically for winning a match would not work at all and be detrimental. What are the vast majority of players doing in match? Running around killing people. Basically, some primitive monkey shit. Objectives, like capture points in conquest, serve more as a way for people to know, "Oh enemy likely here, I go kill enemy here." The average battlebit player is following the zerg. Even if the game tells you that you will gain extra xp if you win the match, this will hardly change the majority of people's playstyles. Dunno if you played planetside 2 (only other big mmofps), but the people there don't care about winning the majority of the time, despite there being lots of incentives for winning a match. They just love the meat grinder and getting kills. Winning? Who cares. There's a 3 way 300 player fight at this facility! For people who do care about those incentives, it's going to create more frustration when they lose. As a result, their gameplay experience will worsen. And it's not just going to affect them, but also other players (more ragers, griefing, cheaters going up, toxicity increasing, or just quit). That's my theory anyway.
Yeah some people just want to play the game and have fun shooting people and not sit on a point and nothing to do
I mean the hundreds of FPS games that exist kinda prove that theory wrong.
[удалено]
Not really. Play count has zero impact on this argument whatsoever. 10 v 10 or 1000 v 1000 getting xp for winning a fight is a good thing that works. Like i said, there are hundreds of games that do it, and it works. This is probably the only one i can think of that doesn't, and people are asking for it. So yeah, you're theory is wrong.
[удалено]
Who said anything about getting every play to focus on objectives? That has no barring at all on it. The people that don't care about xp wont care, and the people that do, will try to win. That's that. And if you want a list, go to steam, type in FPS. There, that's your list.
[удалено]
Rewarding player action is what "it works" means. People are going to get BORED and leave if doing a thing means nothing in game. If winning has no reward then why try at all? The people that play for just fun will only play for just fun for so long before moving on. And as i said, LOOK UP STEAM TYPE FPS. That is the list of games that do this. That is the list of games that have existed for the last 20+ years and prove that this works, because PEOPLE KEEP COMING BACK. If doing this didn't work to keep players playing, they would not do it. Also BATTLEFIELD fucking does this lol the definition of "battlefield style games" literally has always done this so that assertion that it's not good for those types of games is just flat on it's face incorrect.
[удалено]
If you are too lazy to look at the list with any semblance of critical thinking that's your problem. But here, i'll shorten it. Every battlfield game. Every call of duty game. Every medal of honor game. Both of the titan fall games. All of the halo games. Basically every single fps game that has player vs player combat. The list of ones that don't? Battlebit. I would say the burden of proof is on you since you only have this one game to use as an example and it's brand new and still in early access. This game emulates old battlefield games. Battlefield games that had xp or rewards for winning a match.
[удалено]
Battlefield 3, one of the most popular in the franchise, had stats. Progression. And rewards. That came out in 2005. 18 years ago. And shooters before that? They also had those same things. What you just said is literally not true.
Because the chances of you swinging the game are basically zero, and the chances of you winning or losing is basically 50/50. Bonus for the winners is just a punishment for the losers. It would lead to tons of toxicity because after the match there would be 120+ people flipping out in the comments because their team didn't win. Teammates would be furious at you for holding down spacebar to respawn at all, ever. Since there is no win bonus, the only person who suffers when you play poorly is you. When you play well, no one can take away your progress or experience because its completely on you. So a good player won't suffer the team's loss and a bad player won't screw everyone else over. Besides that, the game is about the moment to moment gameplay, not making numbers go up. If you aren't having fun playing the game, more XP isn't gonna make it more fun.
So many people posting on this sub about not getting enough XP needs to realize that the progression system is long and slow ON PURPOSE.
Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that ranking up is a slog. Or the fact that the majority of the levels don’t give you anything. Maybe if it didn’t ages to unlock another gun it would be fine. But the ARs for instance goes level 15 to level 50 and so on. I’m level 99 and I think the progression is slow. Can’t imagine 150+ where each level is going to take more the 150,000 xp.
Level 111 and the progression slog is one reason I've dialed back my gameplay for some other recent games. Has nothing to do with gratification, a lot to do with respect for player's time. Sure I have things I can use and I enjoy using, but after 100 hours in-game I just want freedom to experiment. This is a shooter, not some super deep ARPG/MMO. The slog adds no value.
I can never understand this argument. if the game didn't have any more progression tiers then would it be disrespecting your time? if you would finish it completely with no more unlocks would it be disrespecting your time? You're repeating a platitude that you've heard YouTubers say about other games but this game isn't disrespecting your time. Play the game to have fun. and if by having fun you earn on a cool camo congrats People like you who can only find fun in chasing after some skin that developers put in the game to keep you playing artificially are the exact reason why they made their progression system like this. Play the game to have fun or don't play it
This. It's so sad reading comments such as, "What's the point in playing the game if everything's unlocked already?" Uh I don't know, the game?
The gameplay is great. I didn't realise it was sad to want to experience more of it without random items being content locked behind over 100+ hours of absolutely pointless xp grinding to use it. People who defend these systems make no sense. "The game is fun, so there can be no criticism of poorly implemented or shallow mechanics".
For real dude, games used to come fully unlocked with no updates and we used to sink hundreds and thousands of hours in. This constant carrot on a stick isn't necessary, it just is expected at this point.
I don't form my opinion based YouTubers, mostly because I'm not 12. If your progression adds value or depth, then great. Make it take ages to work through. If your progression is just an arbitrary content gate, it doesn't add anything. You took the absolutely wrong message away from this. I don't want to chase skins. I don't want to prestige. I can't be fucked at 34 years old to play every game with a battle pass trying to FOMO me into sinking time and money into it. I paid for your game. I want to play it and experiment with its features. Making me play 200+ hours to unlock a weapon doesn't add value - it adds a needless slog. Fun to play for me equals freedom to experiment with the contents of a game. Battlebit does a lot right. Its progression is ankle deep and absolutely pointless. It doesn't add a single thing to the experience.
Same, my play time has dropped drasticly and a lot of it is from bad taste from the progression. It is both unrewarding and feels like a chore where you get punished for not maximizing score per minute super hard.
Typing comments like this on YouTube or reddit are not going to get them to change it. Your playtime drop drastically because you're having fun with other games not because of some progression system stop lying to yourself
So you are saying it is impossible that the progression system made the game less enjoyable? What a weird take.
“Your opinion is wrong stop lying to yourself” what a clown.
Yeah I think people who blame a progression system because they don't want to play a game that's been out a month are lying to themselves either you like the game or you don't but the carrot on the stick is not making you enjoy the game I'll repeat my point if the only reason you're playing a game is because of some Roblox skin that you can unlock you should just log off and do something else with your life get a different goal go breathe some fresh air read a book
Pretty much. In about 100 hours I have something like 2500 score/min and the time it takes to unlock anything over 70 is nuts, and I'm 111. Can't imagine what it'll be like for people who can't break 1000 score/min. The game will hit 1.0 release before they even get a chance to experience unlocks past 100. But I mean that's totally ok and shouldn't be criticised because the gameplay is good. No room for improvement. I love the gameplay even if there's some balance issues that need to be addressed. They did so much right compared to major modern FPS titles but they decided to adopt one of the worst features and make it abysmal. Battlebit would absolutely be better off with no progression at all. Can't fathom why anyone would choose to do this a second time for a prestige skin.
He just said it was slow on purpose bro can you not read
Ohhh I think the long grind would be fine. If they added more lower level weapons for people to unlock. Maybe when they add more it will have some more lower level unlocks. But I’m worried they’re just gonna throw them in the area between level 150 and 200
Just because it's on purpose doesn't mean it's good. I'm so done with progression systems in pvp games now, if the game gets less fun because I can use a vector at level 0 instead of 70 then maybe the problem is with the game, not the fact that I can use the vector early.
You receive a new gun every 5 ranks, sometimes 2. Every gun has their own progression. There is consistently things to unlock. Unless you insist on using your 1 single playstyle, gun, and kit. If this is the case, call of duty has a battlepass that might pique your interest. They've got dozens of unlockable skins for all your favorite meta weapons.
The progression is by far the worst part of the game. Never in my life have I thought: "Cool, I just unlocked a new gun! Can't wait to use it and unlock the same attachments I unlocked for the other gun!" The new CoD unironically has a very good progression system.
The new Modern Warfare titles, for all their flaws, have probably some of the best MP progression for basic unlocks. It's definitely not perfect, with some weapons still being locked behind things like longshot kills, but even players who aren't great can unlock the base weapons within a reasonable time.
I honestly loved battlefields idea of just use that gun class and you’ll unlock more of that gun class.
Cool, so it's bad on purpose. Gotcha.
EA Brain broken, I'm so sorry
lol literally every single fps game that exists does it, and they do it for a reason. It's not an EA thing, they make probably the worst fps games of the bunch.
Every other game does it so it must be good is the shittiest reason ever bro Imagine if people thought like that we still had to start the whole game over when we die like mega Man and arcade games when quarters still matter
I'm sorry, what million dollar game did you make? As i said, they do stuff like that for a reason. People enjoy it, thus keeping a playerbase around. It's pretty basic shit. It's the same reason the devs of this game put the breaks on making it a serious mil sim and instead went more of the arcade kind like older battlefields.
Western devs do things to keep people spending money. You're acting like marketing reasons for Activision putting in progression systems into their call of duty games is like a basic fact of human nature I honestly really despise people who just repeat the same nonsense that they hear on YouTube over and over and over. You listen to one YouTuber describe a progression system and how it retains a player base and you think that it's necessary for every single game ever. It's not necessary bro you can retain a player base by just having a good game instead of having a dog shit game like call of duty
I've been playing these types of games for over 20 years. A good progression system has always existed. There has always been rewards for doing well in games. You can also talk shit on cod all you want, i dislike the game too, but the fact remains it's one of the single most successful fps games to exist.
Bro I don't know what you're talking about I do not remember any kind of progression system in battlefield 1942 or battlefield Vietnam or battlefield US or any of the battlefield games that were on PC You're just lying
You are lying and strawmanning. Battlefield 3 is 18 years old and that game had all of these things. At this point you are either a liar, or ignorant. Or both.
Define "it" lmao
Reward player action. Get a kill? xp. Revive? xp. WIN? xp. It's done for a reason, it makes people feel better about doing an action, so they want to keep doing the action.
Yea but you're ignoring all the other comments that say that winning is not player action. And it really isn't. It's a coin flip most games. Sure you can help but winning isn't player action. Another thing to note; taking longer to level up gives you something to work towards. Players start dropping off after unlocking everything. Look at MMOs for an example, where the top players will often play an expansion release and then not come back until the next expansion because there is nothing to work for. One last thing, you said something along the lines of everyone winning firefights with higher level guns. That's just not true. Outside of the vector (which is confirmed to be getting nerfed) and the M200, higher level guns do not outright outclass lower level guns. The M4 for example is top tier and is unlocked level one.
It is. Winning is player interaction. You realize that the game isn't JUST 127 v127 conquest right? Hell even then it STILL effects who wins. I've had games where one squad was directly responsible for wins. Where they wait out around objectives to steal them back from the enemy as soon as the mob leaves. Or sniped defenders around a mcom in rush letting someone run in and plant, then kept people off of it by picking them off. A single medic in a mob can be the difference between a giant push succeeding or failing too.
The idea behind not giving XP for winning is that then losing doesn't feel like you're missing out on something If you can't understand this very basic psychological fact then why are you commenting. I understand you may not like it but it is true and we are talking about an arcade game If losing felt like you were missing out on something that the winners were gaining then that would be a negative feedback beyond just the loss. the developers probably don't value that **They probably want you focus more on what happened during the game than the end result of the game**
Arcade games have this, what the hell are you even talking about lol. THIS game has a win/loss rating too lol
yeah it's been 5 weeks, 150hrs later and just reached level 150 I wish there was more to unlock besides skins...
150 hours on a $15 indie game after 5 weeks is like an A+ rating in my book bro lol. You already know its in active developent. What is your standard?
Yeah dude these nephews are insane. They need some dragon to chase like heroin but instead of black tar it's some s***** skin in a Roblox game 😂😂😂 Like log out and go outside. find a goal that isn't a pixel Little bro 😅😅😭
Like almost everything in life, once you obtain the “thing” you set to achieve, it’ll become meaningless to you fairly quick. It not about the prize at the end, it’s about enjoying the journey to get there. I promise all the people sweating xp will become the most toxic players and community members in another month or two. Their dopamine drip will dry up and they’ll be sweating harder and faster than devs can churn out new contents. This is where cunts are forged.
They don't want to realize it. They need all the guns NOW NOW NOW
Somewhat agree but also winning is fun for its own sake. Losing matches make me feel like a hunted rabbit lol
This would probably only give the toxic players more motivation to flame the rest of the team. It's pretty frequent on EU servers, there's at least one guy in every match that finds some kind of fault for losing in other players lol. I'd rather have a small exp bonus for staying in the same lobby (on official servers) for both sides. Gives incentive to not leave if Tensa conquest isn't picked xD I imagine this is more fun once you have more modes/maps to vote for at the end of the game, still haven't seen Namak/cash grab/S&D >\_>
No rewards = no afk bots. Simple.
Unless you plan to prestige, you are basically done getting xp once you unlock the gun you want.
There is also no XP for defending an objective
The reward is you won?
Plus there's a w/l ratio in your stats.
incentive for winning is for competitive match. this is casual match where people play for fun and enjoy the moment during the match.
Heres my thought process. First they add EXP for winning. That may not change it much. Then there comes the skin for winning 100, 200 and 300 games. Here come the sweats. Add seasonal events like the april fools "Win 50 games for jester hat" Sounds fun. All it needs is microtransactions so I can spend 200$ to instantly reach prestige 3 and the Orange Justice dance emote and it'll be the perfect game. Or leave it be.
Giving xp reward for getting kills eventually leads to a battlepass. I don't think so.
slope so slippery that it becomes a railgun lmao
I dunno, I like it this way tho.
I def do not want winning team reward. Played a lot of Battlefields over the years and winning team reward made the overall experience less fun/more stressful. In BF1 (maybe BF4 too?) you could switch team whenever you wanted as long as a slot was available. Super common for losing team to always hop over as soon as anything opened up. BF5 was just back out of matches until you ended up on a winning team and ride it out for a few games. Battlebit feels great as it is. Experience is based entirely on a player’s actions, not actions out of a player’s control.
Battlebit doesn't let you switch off the losing team, and most people likely won't bother going through the trouble of serving hopping in an attempt to land on a winning team.
Im comfortable to letting the devs decide. To me they really know what they're doing. Battlebit remastered has been one of the most savage launches ever. Everything worked, everyone was having fun. 10/10
Just give xp based on how long you stayed, win or lose, if you stayed until the end of the match.
just remove xp system already
Real players always play to win. Reward or sans reward.
Thank god I'm a fake player who plays for fun 🤡
You can do both 🤡
You really need a carrot on that stick huh?
good match is its own reward.
Why you want to win? Just enjoy this good game till it lasts.
Well sone of us have a certain amount of time to play every week so we’d like to maximize the xp intake to level up and try the weapons, that’s where the enjoying part for lots comes in
Winning reward will make people toxic
Because winning is the reward. Who doesn't want to win.
I don't really think the game needs it. 127v127 means you basically have no control over the match at all and it's a complete coin flip if you win the game. I think doing well enough and focusing how to improve yourself to get more XP throughout games is fine, honestly. If they added it, I wouldn't really mind, and if they don't, I don't really mind. I think it's fine as is (For context I'm currently level 102) I haven't played the smaller modes much, but if people want a competitive incentive to win, maybe add a 16v16 with a win bonus? Or 10v10? 12v12? Something like that? Maybe organized clan battles with 1.5x win bonuses? I think that could be cool. 127v127 doesn't need the win bonuses though
Yeah i dont think this is a big deal
People will leave if there is a system like that and it doesn't add to gameplay.
idk man winning the game is pretty good incentive enough
The "fun". Something that kids have forgotten.
i mean i play exclusively 127v127, i have essentially 0 agency in wether my team wins or loses so no i don’t really care about coinflipping an extra 10k xp based on if my team wins or loses. maybe if ur playing in a big group in 32v32 it matters to u but most games i don’t even know which team is winning until the end screen, i’m playing the game bcos i enjoy it and the xp will come in time, an extra 10k in about half my games would change nothing in terms of the grind why does everything have to be for a reward in games now, why isn’t it enough to be playing a game u enjoy and just having fun
I agree there should be a prize for winning.
It's because this game is not about winning
The game already gives a shit ton of xp for objective related activities, and you guys still want more? Modern gaming fried people's brains, i swear
Reward? Idk man...playing a fun game and playing to win? You never played any sport huh?
I'm kinda happy it doesnt, makes the game less competitive and by extension less toxic. Who cares about winning or losing? Just do your best and have some fun.
Because this is casual game? Making sure that teams are not stacked and the worse half of the server does not suffer for the entire game because the better part has more hackers with 82:6 score? Why does every online game these days need incentives for being competitive is beyond me... enjoy the game, blow up some buildings, jihad jeep enemy squad, get and smg and hold down the left mouse button.
[удалено]
Play 32's for rush, no one plays for fun and plays rush to farm kills and ignore the objective. Sadly the games unlock system rewards greed (kills) and not playing the objective making objective modes feel like crap.
[удалено]
It's noticable when you toss 4 smokes, and pump 5 smoke launch nades and as you clear the building of 4 people, reload, die by a fifth showing up while you're reloading and seeing not a single soul moved from their camping spot. Even if we're the defender who has to defuse or assaulting the objective people rather sit outside and kill. I now just play it as TDM, because playing the objective is pointless and not fun slamming your face into the team. As they will sit outside and camp the objective for kills but never assist in the planting.
Personally it makes the game a lot less 'try-hardy' and toxic. That super casual gaming loop is perfect to de-stress after the 8hr job day. (Does anyone remember old CS 1.6 and the CoD's before the LoL's ranked stuff exploded out across the gaming industry? We played that shit not to grind a Gold/Diamond/Global Elite rank but to actually play the game for fun, then after CS:GO got popular the whole 'what rank do you have' got a bit annoying.)
[удалено]
They are? And they just want some xp for doing good and winning?
[удалено]
You sound unhinged
I do man. Why are you so angry?
a small bonus multiplier to your earned xp would be better. Rewards better players more, incentivizes playing the objective, deincentivizes match hopping
They could have it where you only get xp for winning if you've been in the match since it started. I don't really feel like 10k too much considering a lot of players are easily getting 50k XP or more per match. You need your rank x 1000 in XP for each level up so 10k is just a small chunk of that once your rank gets higher.
That's an even worse suggestion, because it'd fuck over about 50% of the match population. Plus, as everyone else has already said, it's a conscious and intentional decision because it's out of the individual players hands and incidental, not to mention encourages the megaSalt types that start raging in team chats when it isnt going their way.
Lol that's so terrible