[SUGGESTION] Tie PvP Experience to Point Results

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

Yeeah like PVP needs further nerfs. Anyone notice how the amount of bots skyrocketed AFTER they nerfed the XP for losers? just return it to an equal high amount of XP for all participants and ignore the whiners. You do want people to queue for pvp right SE?

Hi. What do you think we did before XP was given?

PvP WAS a thing before XP and Garo. I said already it was the lifting of GC restrictions that made it more active. . . Give people something they wanted for 2 years and it's hardly a surprise to see activity increase. But it's worth noting it wasn't dead before that. GC imbalances just made matchmaking more difficult. If there's 6 Adders, 4 Flames, and 2 Maelstrom in queue, you're not even gonna get a 24 man match.

[TankHunter678]

And what about those of us who were PvPing well before that? Pretty sure any of us could swap GCs tonight, turn off Freelancer, and still win. That is unless somehow us not being in one GC over another makes us play worse, despite our experience?

Then go right ahead and do so, maybe you will improve the experience of those people in the GCs that consistently lose. You will just trade one consistently winning GC out for a different one and the same complaints will keep going, just the GC names will be different.


Seriously, if they want serious pvp then they should just make a damn ranked version and leave the unranked version for those just looking to grind xp. Where win or loss does not affect your xp gains. After all, true pvpers should be competing with each other right? For bragging rights? Then they should do it in a mode where it is tracked and ranked against everyone else also trying to push to prove they are the best.

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

Then go right ahead and do so, maybe you will improve the experience of those people in the GCs that consistently lose. You will just trade one consistently winning GC out for a different one and the same complaints will keep going, just the GC names will be different.


Seriously, if they want serious pvp then they should just make a damn ranked version and leave the unranked version for those just looking to grind xp. Where win or loss does not affect your xp gains. After all, true pvpers should be competing with each other right? For bragging rights? Then they should do it in a mode where it is tracked and ranked against everyone else also trying to push to prove they are the best.

We call it the Feast. But unfortunately people are trying to grind XP there too.

I should also note that the Feast DOES have an unranked mode, but currently the ranked 4v4 still gives XP, and that should really change before the official 5th season starts. How bad would it sting if you get a teammate - and note, there's nothing but solo queue now for ranked - who doesn't care if they win or lose during one of your promotion matches?

P.S. I think an equally large issue is the rather awful perception that Frontlines isn't serious PvP.

[TankHunter678]

We call it the Feast. But unfortunately people are trying to grind XP there too.

That is... baffling, since match length is supposed to increase the amount of xp one gets.

I actually would not mind xp being removed from feast to give back a place for hardcore pvpers to compete, but that opinion is born from me never feeling like running feast to begin with.

[Dizhonor]

snip

You're wrong on multiple accounts. No offense, but don't use "Google" as a basis for your knowledge. You don't know enough about the subject to know whether or not what you think you know is right. "Inductive" arguments depend upon probability, and therefore are evaluated based upon strength and cogency. You were using "deductive" reasoning, which depends on necessity, and is evaluated in terms of validity & soundness. In fact, you were drawing your conclusion from personal experiences, which is by definition an anecdotal argument. But I can understand your confusion between that and a hasty generalization. Again, someone who doesn't know enough about the subject can make easy mistakes here. Here's a very simply difference:

Below is an example of anecdotal reasoning (note the subjective "me"):
Premise: A black dog just bit me.
Premise: The only dog that has ever bitten me was black.
Conclusion: Therefore, all black dogs must be biters.

Below is an example of a hasty generalization:
Premise: A (insert political candidate) supporter believes X
Conclusion: Therefore, all (insert political candidate supporter) must believe X

While both examples draw a conclusion from a small sampling, the difference is that anecdotal reasoning employs personal experiences as evidence of something. Again, it's very easy for someone who only uses Google as a basis for their knowledge to make this mistake.

In any case, it doesn't follow necessarily from your personal experiences with X grand company that X grand company is good or bad. It doesn't matter how often you had those experiences. You can flip a coin a hundred times and get "heads" and it doesn't follow necessarily that "heads" will turn up the next time you flip it.

[Shut]

And no, no free candies for everyone. You're last, that's a game over, in every other games in the world, you don't get anything when you have a game over. You have accepted in any other video games that you're, at least, not gonna get the same rewards as the winner, or even no rewards at all. you even accepted it for garo event, anyone I've seen either here or on reddit that asked for defeat to count for a garo mount got told to shut up.

And isn't that a bit ridiculous for a community that criticized players that lvl'd with PotD/jump potions to promote pvp for lvling, which is by far worse than PotD for understanding jobs mechanics in PvE? In before we got thread with "OMG those players that lvl'd in PvP are sooooo bad"

[Nixxe]

So again, what happens when those cooperative and productive teams go Freelancer? What happens when a bunch of knowledgeable, long-time PvPers just randomly end up on a NOT-Maelstrom team?

Seriously, I'm just going to be blunt in saying if you think you're winning more because you're on one GC over another now, you're wrong.

The evidence says otherwise, your inability to grasp the argument notwithstanding.

You're wrong on multiple accounts. No offense, but don't use "Google" as a basis for your knowledge. You don't know enough about the subject to know whether or not what you think you know is right. "Inductive" arguments depend upon probability, and therefore are evaluated based upon strength and cogency. You were using "deductive" reasoning, which depends on necessity, and is evaluated in terms of validity & soundness. In fact, you were drawing your conclusion from personal experiences, which is by definition an anecdotal argument. But I can understand your confusion between that and a hasty generalization. Again, someone who doesn't know enough about the subject can make easy mistakes here. Here's a very simply difference:




While both examples draw a conclusion from a small sampling, the difference is that anecdotal reasoning employs personal experiences as evidence of something. Again, it's very easy for someone who only uses Google as a basis for their knowledge to make this mistake.

In any case, it doesn't follow necessarily from your personal experiences with X grand company that X grand company is good or bad. It doesn't matter how often you had those experiences. You can flip a coin a hundred times and get "heads" and it doesn't follow necessarily that "heads" will turn up the next time you flip it.

You have no idea what you are talking about and it isn't clear that you even read my post. Please don't hassle me with your ignorance again.

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

Oh I grasped it just fine. So fine in fact I saw you were wrong and said you were wrong. And others did too.

The players matter more than the GC, and you even so much as said so yourself.

[Nixxe]

Oh I grasped it just fine. So fine in fact I saw you were wrong and said you were wrong. And others did too.

The players matter more than the GC, and you even so much as said so yourself.

No, you don't understand it. You are still responding in a way that only makes sense if you think I am arguing that the Maelstrom is better per se, rather than its superiority being incidental. However, as it seems rather clear you're going to stubbornly insist you're right over and over and over without actually responding to the argument, I'm simply going to stop responding to you.

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

No, you're going to backpedal and try to play the intellectually superior card because you perhaps see whatever point you attempted to make can and generally has been disproven already. I've played this game before, and I won that too.

I responded to the argument, not just with facts, but with experience, but you simply can't be told otherwise. So, go on. Take the convenient out.