Hello all, something I’ve seen that hasn’t been talking about yet is the XP payout and what influences how much XP you receive for doing various tasks. I was excited to notice that winning a game gives a huge XP payout, more than all the others compared with it on the screen. I think this is a good thing, causing teamwork rather than fighting individually. There now seems to be a reason for winning, even in objective gametypes, rather than worrying about your K/D. This may even deter AFKing.
As seen in the picture the player receives:
for completing a game +1,000
victory +5,000
score +2,500
online + 1,000
objectives +1,540
The screen also shows how much XP we need to rank up now. (Thanks to Raging Sea Goat)
I also have this noted in my other thread that sums up everything that was revealed at RTX. Feel free to check it out.
There may not be 1-50 in Halo 4, but this will give many players the incentive to win and not just fool around. Note that I said many, not all or most.
Personally, I like it. We deserve more EXP for doing good and trying our best.
why this wasn’t in Reach surprised me, and obviously also 343i thought so too since they’ve added an extra performance bonus reward when winning in Grifball and Team Objective.
I’m very glad Victory Bonus is in Halo 4. it makes people want to win more, thus adding more competitiveness. however, while this is very nice, if there is nothing like a 1-50, victory bonuses will only last after a few months.
however, this also makes me fear more teams of 8 in BTB similar to Reach now.
> why this wasn’t in Reach surprised me, and obviously also 343i thought so too since they’ve added an extra performance bonus reward when winning in Grifball and Team Objective.
>
> I’m very glad Victory Bonus is in Halo 4. it makes people want to win more, thus adding more competitiveness. however, while this is very nice, if there is nothing like a 1-50, victory bonuses will only last after a few months.
>
> however, <mark>this also makes me fear more teams of 8 in BTB similar to Reach now.</mark>
Those will always be hard to get around. I’m sure 343i will come up with a solution for that however.
Well, at least there is some incentive to win, now. In Reach, there was none and people just liked to goof-off/not go for the objective. I still want to see the new ranking system, but at least the Progressive system actually gives an incentive to win this time.
> Hello all, something I’ve seen that hasn’t been talking about yet is the EXP payout and what influences how much EXP you receive for doing various tasks. I was excited to notice that winning a game gives a huge EXP payout, more than all the others compared with it on the screen. I think this is a good thing, causing teamwork rather than fighting individually. There now seems to be a reason for winning, even in objective gametypes, rather than worrying about your K/D. This may even deter AFKing.
>
> As seen in the picture the player receives:
> for completing a game +1,000
> victory +5,000
> score +2,500
> online + 1,000
> objectives +1,540
>
>
> I also have this noted in my other thread that sums up everything that was revealed today. Feel free to check it out.
>
> How do you feel about this? Please discuss.
> Well, at least there is some incentive to win, now. In Reach, there was none and people just liked to goof-off/not go for the objective. I still want to see the new ranking system, but at least the Progressive system actually gives an incentive to win this time.
As far as players who desire points and winning, this is a good method.
However, it will not discourage those players who simply enjoying slaying in objective games with no intent on winning. Many of people also do not enjoy seeing a death screen frequently which is usually the case in objective games.
> > Well, at least there is some incentive to win, now. In Reach, there was none and people just liked to goof-off/not go for the objective. I still want to see the new ranking system, but at least the Progressive system actually gives an incentive to win this time.
>
> As far as players who desire points and winning, this is a good method.
>
> However, it will not discourage those players who simply enjoying slaying in objective games with no intent on winning. Many of people also do not enjoy seeing a death screen frequently which is usually the case in objective games.
Good point. Maybe there can be a separate K/D for objective games, or make getting objectives worth so much more than kills that people would be tempted to play the actual objective. There are still a couple of things that could be done to promote fair gameplay.
I think this is a great idea. This will make winning more important than a players k/d ratio. I hope this will make players more friendly and work together as a team.
> > Well, at least there is some incentive to win, now. In Reach, there was none and people just liked to goof-off/not go for the objective. I still want to see the new ranking system, but at least the Progressive system actually gives an incentive to win this time.
>
> As far as players who desire points and winning, this is a good method.
>
> However, it will not discourage those players who simply enjoying slaying in objective games with no intent on winning. Many of people also do not enjoy seeing a death screen frequently which is usually the case in objective games.
True, which is why in objective gametypes, playing for the objective should net you big points, while killing nets you about 1/4 of what one objective cap can give you.
> True, which is why in objective gametypes, playing for the objective should net you big points, while killing nets you about 1/4 of what one objective cap can give you.
Yes, this needs to be coupled with the winning bonus and objective game types will hopefully support a higher population and actual player consistency the playlist is for.
