xp rewarded for winning.

[ked65]

Does anyone know if there is more xp awarded for winning? What I mean is if all else is equal such as damage, ships destroyed , caps etc. do you actually get more xp if you are on the winning team. I think that there would be a lot of players that would become more team oriented and helpful to the team by providing support if there was a xp multiplier by maybe X1.5 for simply winning in every battle not just the first one of the day. Or even just a set amount like an extra 250xp for everyone on the winning team. This could provide some incentive for better team play. What do you guys think?

[toinkove]

it's already in the game! you do get more XP and credits for winning the game.

[Shadowrigger1]

Yes, you get a bonus for being on the winning Team,  I am not sure what the multiplier is for it.

[Skpstr]

Yes, +50% XP and credits for winning.

 

Note that for credits, this bonus is applied BEFORE repairs, ammo, etc. are deducted, so your "take-home" is usually greater than a 50% bonus.

[QuantumEntropy]

it's already in the game! you do get more XP and credits for winning the game.

 

 

You get xp depending what you do in the game and a slight bonus if you win

Damage dealt, how many caps you reseted or capped

 

I had games where as a loosing part i got more xp then 60% of the winning team

[ked65]

If it is already there, that is good but the developers could make it a bigger reward or at least make it more obvious so more players would see it as incentive to be a team player. If the reward was big enough then the team would become a more important part of the strategy than the individual player, and I think it would improve game play.

[toinkove]

 

 

You get xp depending what you do in the game and a slight bonus if you win

Damage dealt, how many caps you reseted or capped

 

I had games where as a loosing part i got more xp then 60% of the winning team

 

ok yes I wasn't trying too say you will always get more XP/credits because you're on the winning team. Just more then if you had lost, I can see my reply might have been easily misunderstood here!

[toinkove]

If it is already there, that is good but the developers could make it a bigger reward or at least make it more obvious so more players would see it as incentive to be a team player. If the reward was big enough then the team would become a more important part of the strategy than the individual player, and I think it would improve game play.

 

I'm not entirely sure this is why "teamwork" is lacking in many games to be honest. I think there are a lot of deeper seeded issues going on, such as lack of understanding by some of how important working with a team is in this game.

[Grendel61]

If it is already there, that is good but the developers could make it a bigger reward or at least make it more obvious so more players would see it as incentive to be a team player. If the reward was big enough then the team would become a more important part of the strategy than the individual player, and I think it would improve game play.

 

You're operating under the false assumption that ALL players will be team players if there is some incentive to do so.  As others have noted, there is already an xp incentive to be on the winning team.  Yet, as we have all experienced, there are some players who are just going to play the way they want to play, team be damned.  No amount of incentives is going to change yolo play.  I will say, there does, at least at times, seem to be more team play involved in this game as compared to WoT.  It's just an "every man for himself" experience there most of the time.

[QuantumEntropy]

 

ok yes I wasn't trying too say you will always get more XP/credits because you're on the winning team. Just more then if you had lost, I can see my reply might have been easily misunderstood here!

 

I didn't misunderstood

I wanted to continue your replay and a got a fact in there

 

 

 

[VGLance]

No amount of reward or punishment will alter player behavior.  Those that refuse to apply winning / productive strategies are doing so because they believe their decisions are better and the game developers should redesign the code to accommodate.

 

So if you punish bad decisions any further and they will leave.  If you reward winning strategies further, you'll cause the winning players to move through the content all that much faster, get bored sooner, and leave.

 

WG is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Canadatron]

You wouldn't know it at times with the way some champions tend to abandon a win to chase a kill, but yes, there is more XP for winning. Imagine the possibilities!

[Shadowrigger1]

No amount of reward or punishment will alter player behavior.  Those that refuse to apply winning / productive strategies are doing so because they believe their decisions are better and the game developers should redesign the code to accommodate.

 

 

The thing is they don't have to apply any winning/productive strategies, this game lets you fail all the way to the top, all you need is the perseverance to keep playing.   It always makes me cry to see a 40% Tier 10.

[VGLance]

 

The thing is they don't have to apply any winning/productive strategies, this game lets you fail all the way to the top, all you need is the perseverance to keep playing.   It always makes me cry to see a 40% Tier 10.

 

And if WG didn't allow it, you have a huge population of players that would leave the game.  You cannot manage expectations or do anything reasonable with people who cannot be reasoned with.  People are programmed in our culture to believe they are entitled, that it is their right to have anything and everything regardless of the effort they apply.  It's the hallmark of progressivism.  Fairness, social justice, etc.

[Skpstr]

 

I will say, there does, at least at times, seem to be more team play involved in this game as compared to WoT.  It's just an "every man for himself" experience there most of the time.

 

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking it's largely because the "terrain" here is more conducive to focus firing.

[Skpstr]

 

And if WG didn't allow it, you have a huge population of players that would leave the game.  You cannot manage expectations or do anything reasonable with people who cannot be reasoned with.  People are programmed in our culture to believe they are entitled, that it is their right to have anything and everything regardless of the effort they apply.  It's the hallmark of progressivism.  Fairness, social justice, etc.

 

Just curious, do you read any John Ringo or Tom Kratman?

[Red_Raven_168]

Yes, +50% XP and credits for winning.

 

Note that for credits, this bonus is applied BEFORE repairs, ammo, etc. are deducted, so your "take-home" is usually greater than a 50% bonus.

 

no credit increase for winning

[desmo_2]

You wouldn't know it at times with the way some champions tend to abandon a win to chase a kill...

 

Man, isn't that the truth.  SO frustrating when I see that happen on my team...not so bad when the reds do it.

 

I recently had a game where my DD and a CV were all that remained of our team, and we were up against a CV, a DD and a CA.  We were down on caps 2 to 1 and losing points rapidly.  I capped one, attacked and killed the CV, and was running for the 3rd cap.  The enemy DD and CA showed up in pursuit of our CV.  Now, it would have made sense to me to maybe have one of them pursue the CV, but both abandoned any attempt at capping to pursue that tasty kill.  Our CV was already pointed in the right direction and fled to a far corner, dragging the reds with him.  By the time they killed him they were in NO position to re-cap and we won on points.  I had to give a compliment to the CV driver.  By dragging the enemy far away from the caps he helped secure a close win.  The reds snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by lusting for that kill.

[Shadowrigger1]

 

And if WG didn't allow it, you have a huge population of players that would leave the game.  You cannot manage expectations or do anything reasonable with people who cannot be reasoned with.  People are programmed in our culture to believe they are entitled, that it is their right to have anything and everything regardless of the effort they apply.  It's the hallmark of progressivism.  Fairness, social justice, etc.

 

I'm not say WG should, or would do anything to them, it's a company that is out to make money, Limiting its players no matter how pathetically bad they are only serves to hurt them.  Just pointing out, some people are Oxygen Thieves and F2P games will always be infested with them.      I am a horrible player at most PvP games, yet I manage to do pretty good, that says Volumes to the type of players WG attracts with its dumbed down arcady games.

[VGLance]

 

Just curious, do you read any John Ringo or Tom Kratman?

 

No.  When I have time to read—which these days have been relegated to those brief stints sitting on the throne—it's Daniel Goleman, John Gottman or other non-fiction related to anthropology, history or economics; stuff that helps you understand how the world really works outside of social and news media and progressive-plagued colleges.  You know, the kind of super intellectual stuff that doesn't help you pick up chicks at the bar.  Luckily I don't need to worry about that.

 

 

I'm not say WG should, or would do anything to them, it's a company that is out to make money, Limiting its players no matter how pathetically bad they are only serves to hurt them.  Just pointing out, some people are Oxygen Thieves and F2P games will always be infested with them.      I am a horrible player at most PvP games, yet I manage to do pretty good, that says Volumes to the type of players WG attracts with its dumbed down arcady games.

 

Yeah WG tends to cater to the lowest common denominator which kills immersion.  Man I remember the days when we'd play text based MUDs where when you died, the killer could loot your corpse, take all your stuff and when you resurrect, if you want it back, you have to re-equip yourself and go hunt the guy down. That is, if someone else didn't kill him and take your stuff which is now the first guy's stuff, which is now the 2nd guy's stuff.  That's some real world lessons on self-reliance and personal accountability.  As games removed those lessons coinciding with the reduced standards of our culture, the quality of the player base deteriorated and created a perpetual vicious circle of decay.  Just another example of the Universe's natural and unforgiving law of entropy.

 

Since the beginning of Man, games were created to teach life lessons, grow valuable character traits and do so using representations of real life.  Now many games these days are like soda.  Empty calories with very little if any nutritional value.  It is easy to fire up a quick match between projects, or while I'm waiting for something to finish in the background, so unlike the life sucking MMORPGS I used to play as a kid, there is some remaining appeal.

[bad_arcade_kitty]

your "take-home"

 

omochikaeri!

 

[1nc0mp3t3nt_1]

Does anyone know if there is more xp awarded for winning? What I mean is if all else is equal such as damage, ships destroyed , caps etc. do you actually get more xp if you are on the winning team. I think that there would be a lot of players that would become more team oriented and helpful to the team by providing support if there was a xp multiplier by maybe X1.5 for simply winning in every battle not just the first one of the day. Or even just a set amount like an extra 250xp for everyone on the winning team. This could provide some incentive for better team play. What do you guys think?

If Warships follows tanks(in this case I believe it does)  it's a 50% bonus to exp and credits. It's applied to base exp  before premium account. 

 

 

[Skpstr]

 

no credit increase for winning

 

Lol really? I never noticed TBH. Just assumed it was the same as WoT. 

 

Well that's bollocks!

[Skpstr]

 

No.  When I have time to read—which these days have been relegated to those brief stints sitting on the throne—it's Daniel Goleman, John Gottman or other non-fiction related to anthropology, history or economics; stuff that helps you understand how the world really works outside of social and news media and progressive-plagued colleges. 

 

Ah ok. The authors I mentioned do military fiction/sci-fi, and a common theme is the status quo being heavily progressive, and the protagonist(s) typically being a person or organisation that triumphs through being the complete opposite, in a fair yet heavy-handed and practical fashion.