Jump to content


XP Rebalancing.

xp aircraftvalue rebalance maneuverability hitpoints

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6 replies to this topic

OpheliaAlexiou #1 Posted 07 February 2014 - 10:28 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 171
  • Member since:
    11-16-2013

From what I have been told, Heavy Fighter Aircraft are worth more Experience Points than Standard Fighter Aircraft, and that Ground Attack Aircraft are worth more Experience Points than Heavy Fighter Aircraft.

I would propose one of two solutions, because the current setup encourages "priority targeting" of Ground Attack Aircraft which is a tactical mistake and one which the current Experience Point setup encourages if the above statement is true.


One.

Make the Experience Point value of all aircraft identical -- for instance, 200 XP per aircraft or 300 XP per aircraft, something along those lines.

 

Two.

More ideally, in my opinion, make the Experience Point value of each individual aircraft be dependent not upon how many Hit Points the aircraft has, but rather on the aircraft's Maneuverability score: the harder an aircraft is to hit in the first place, the more experience points it should be worth when it is successfully hit/destroyed.

 

Now, it needn't be a LITERAL translation of points.

My LaGG-3 has 276 Maneuverability. My IL-2 (mod.) has 139 Maneuverability.

Perhaps the LaGG-3 should be worth 276 Experience Points and the IL-2 (mod.) should be worth 139 Experience Points, as a baseline, while also adding some value in Experience Points based on what tier the aircraft is (for instance +25 or +50 Experience Points for Tier V Aircraft), and adding some value in Experience Points based on the difference between the tiers of the aircraft (for instance, -20 Experience Points in overall total value when a Tier VI destroys a Tier IV, +20 Experience Points in overall total value when a Tier IV destroys a Tier VI).

 

My primary reason for this suggestion is tactical, but also realistic.

It is plainly unimpressive when an LaGG-3 destroys an IL-2 (mod.) The IL-2 (mod.) is a pincushion with wings, Rear Gunner notwithstanding.

Similarly, it is plainly unimpressive when a Tier IV Fighter destroys a Tier III Heavy Fighter or Tier III Ground Attack Aircraft.

 

I have observed the ability of Standard Fighter Aircraft demonstrating a tendency of being able to keep up with Heavy Fighter Aircraft from a tier below them, which makes it furthermore unimpressive when they shoot down a lower-tier aircraft of heavier construction due to the fact that the Boom & Zoom Tactic associated with aircraft such as the BF110B or Blenheim F does not work quite so well against aircraft like the BF109E or the P-40, neither of which seem to have any trouble catching up with a diving Heavy Fighter using full boost one tier below them. This is something I am stating from experience: I have been in a BF110B making a steep-angle dive with a BF109E coming down behind me and being able to remain within 1,000 feet of me the entire time, even when I was using the throttle to boost it.

 

My overall point here, though, is not that a Tier IV Boom-and-Zoom Aircraft should be able to outrun a Tier V Boom and Zoom Aircraft.

My overall point, here, is that the Experience Point value of an aircraft should be based on how hard the aircraft is to hit, and not how many times you have to hit it before it blows up.

 


Since starting to play the game on December 08, I have achieved the Ace Medal in: TSh-3 -- Fw 57 -- Ao 192 -- Bf 110 B --


SkywhaleExpress #2 Posted 07 February 2014 - 10:40 PM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

I agree that there is an issue with XP gains between the aircraft types. Fighters and HF gain the most XP, typically off of clubbing sky whales. However, I don't think this was an intentional implementation of XP balancing... but rather, they gave much much more HP to GAs and moderately more HP to HF and CBF.

 

The GA didn't need more HP, they needed more armor. They also didn't need a supremacy factor that literally makes them instead of easy target... ---> Now they're easy target AND priority target #1.

 

Something needs to be done to give GA more xp gains (can have 7 air and 10 ground kills in the same match and barely get 1200 xp) and credits as well. GA aren't the only aircraft that have that issue though.

 

Good thread, Ophelia.



Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


An_Average_Jho #3 Posted 07 February 2014 - 10:43 PM

    Helvetic Polyglot

  • Alpha tester
  • 57 battles
  • 2,588
  • [WWPD] WWPD
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Dealing more damage gives you more XP. Since HF and GA have more health than fighters, then they are worth more experience. 

 

If a tier 4 fighter kills a tier 3 HF, then the simple fact that the HF is a tier lower offers less XP. You gain extra XP for damaging planes of a higher tier and earn less XP for damaging lower tiers. This is why, if you get to be the top tier, you have to have an outstanding game to earn as much as if you were playing against same/higher tier planes.


Everything tastes better if it tries to eat you before you eat it

I named my airplane Iosef because it kept on Stalin

 

"Quod natura non dat, Salmantica non præstat"


WulfNose #4 Posted 07 February 2014 - 11:46 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Community Ace
  • 570 battles
  • 2,315
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Sure is hard to read that tiny, purple font. Wulf

OpheliaAlexiou #5 Posted 11 February 2014 - 04:13 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 171
  • Member since:
    11-16-2013
@WulfNose : Most internet browsers include a "zoom" option which would allow someone to enlarge everything on the screen. Fonts larger than this honestly bother me a little bit, which is why I use font this small almost universally.

Since starting to play the game on December 08, I have achieved the Ace Medal in: TSh-3 -- Fw 57 -- Ao 192 -- Bf 110 B --


SkywhaleExpress #6 Posted 11 February 2014 - 06:33 AM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012
For the record, I can read it just fine... And I wear glasses!


Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


eggplant84 #7 Posted 11 February 2014 - 08:17 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1 battle
  • 357
  • Member since:
    03-18-2012

View PostOpheliaAlexiou, on 07 February 2014 - 10:28 PM, said:

From what I have been told, Heavy Fighter Aircraft are worth more Experience Points than Standard Fighter Aircraft, and that Ground Attack Aircraft are worth more Experience Points than Heavy Fighter Aircraft.

I would propose one of two solutions, because the current setup encourages "priority targeting" of Ground Attack Aircraft which is a tactical mistake and one which the current Experience Point setup encourages if the above statement is true.


One.

Make the Experience Point value of all aircraft identical -- for instance, 200 XP per aircraft or 300 XP per aircraft, something along those lines.

 

Two.

More ideally, in my opinion, make the Experience Point value of each individual aircraft be dependent not upon how many Hit Points the aircraft has, but rather on the aircraft's Maneuverability score: the harder an aircraft is to hit in the first place, the more experience points it should be worth when it is successfully hit/destroyed.

 

Now, it needn't be a LITERAL translation of points.

My LaGG-3 has 276 Maneuverability. My IL-2 (mod.) has 139 Maneuverability.

Perhaps the LaGG-3 should be worth 276 Experience Points and the IL-2 (mod.) should be worth 139 Experience Points, as a baseline, while also adding some value in Experience Points based on what tier the aircraft is (for instance +25 or +50 Experience Points for Tier V Aircraft), and adding some value in Experience Points based on the difference between the tiers of the aircraft (for instance, -20 Experience Points in overall total value when a Tier VI destroys a Tier IV, +20 Experience Points in overall total value when a Tier IV destroys a Tier VI).

 

My primary reason for this suggestion is tactical, but also realistic.

It is plainly unimpressive when an LaGG-3 destroys an IL-2 (mod.) The IL-2 (mod.) is a pincushion with wings, Rear Gunner notwithstanding.

Similarly, it is plainly unimpressive when a Tier IV Fighter destroys a Tier III Heavy Fighter or Tier III Ground Attack Aircraft.

 

I have observed the ability of Standard Fighter Aircraft demonstrating a tendency of being able to keep up with Heavy Fighter Aircraft from a tier below them, which makes it furthermore unimpressive when they shoot down a lower-tier aircraft of heavier construction due to the fact that the Boom & Zoom Tactic associated with aircraft such as the BF110B or Blenheim F does not work quite so well against aircraft like the BF109E or the P-40, neither of which seem to have any trouble catching up with a diving Heavy Fighter using full boost one tier below them. This is something I am stating from experience: I have been in a BF110B making a steep-angle dive with a BF109E coming down behind me and being able to remain within 1,000 feet of me the entire time, even when I was using the throttle to boost it.

 

My overall point here, though, is not that a Tier IV Boom-and-Zoom Aircraft should be able to outrun a Tier V Boom and Zoom Aircraft.

My overall point, here, is that the Experience Point value of an aircraft should be based on how hard the aircraft is to hit, and not how many times you have to hit it before it blows up.

 

 

I halfway agree wit da tiny purple stuff, but then this gonna turn them Jappos into the new skywhale, which if you look at priority of BnZ, they already easy fill the #2 spot cuz they're one-shot wonders...

 

I think this post just makes a stronger case for more innovation. Players want innovation, choice, sand-boxyness, call it what ya' want...

3 types of GAA: High-alt, Low-alt, Medium-alt, with speed, maneuverability, and armament characteristics balanced accordingly. The highs are fast, but turn like bricks and use mainly bombs. Low are slow but maneuverable, mix of rockets, and  bombs. Mediums are somewhat speedy, not more than high alt, but not as maneuverable as low alt.

And o'course you could mix and match some too, a fast, but non-maneuverable low altitude sneaky GA, a high alt slower but maneuverable GA, etc. etc.

Also the GAA's need to get some cred/exp buffs anyways, considerin' after you get to the tier 6 your ordnance becomes so damn expensive, your lucky to see a profit.

 

Course you could also buff the exp/creds that GT's give, and actually make them viable to all planes since there isn't much different than 20mm's on a German/Russian/Jappo/American or any nation's guns used on a GT. But not in this game. Make all weapons capable of damage. Now anyone could attack GT's, but this makes GAA's unviable yes? Sure if that's all you do. Make AA guns fire at twice the range they can now, high-alt capable, and give regular GT's current AA gun dmg/range. Your HF/LF ain't gonna get any increase in an ability to survive the GT's, but they will be able to damage them, at quit a bit of health expense if they aren't careful, or near to many. GAA's? They're built for it, so they're planes resist a majority of the damage from them in this situation.

 

Unfortunately this requires some customization, and since WG wants an arcade-style ezpz game, probably never gonna happen. Course with the dumbing the game down mentality their playerbase ain't never gonna happen neither. Same story every online game I ever seen, EQ, WoW, ton a MMO's started as pretty detailed, in-depth, and sandboxy. Then they got a little moreso with a few expansions, then came the one expansion that basically killed em'. LoL started out the same, easy to use cookie-cutter champs, problem was though players wanted more risky, more complicated, but better rewarding champs. So they started making em' and the game has been a top one ever since. But while history speaks for itself, WG continues to go toward the dumb-it-down mentality. It comes down to telling how your players their gonna play, rather than catering to how they wanna play. While you might decide what content we get, our dollars decide what content you can even make. I don't doubt there will be enough saps to keep shelling WoWP in business, but with this game currently going down this road, it won't ever be WoT, or near their profits.

 

But who knows maybe they will see reason, one mod did say the "We's" and "Teams" were aware, and listening, course we'll have to wait til a few patches from now, some minor fixes and things seem to be coming in the next patch, whenever that is, but the MM solution that was proposed will definitely kill this game, and quick. So much for the aware and listening. On the bright side they might not have to anymore after that, after all empty queues and chats/forums make for very quiet places.







Also tagged with xp, aircraftvalue, rebalance, maneuverability, hitpoints

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users