|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Deadeyes Anterie
Crimson Ravens Talons
RISE of LEGION
269
   |
Posted - 2013.01.27 10:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
I voted for option #2 and stand by it.
It's just a protection from excessive SP gains simple as that. 3-4k sp a match after cap is a rate of progression that is really high and it will mean the players who are already skilled enough to get those kind of points will gain even more advantages at a faster rate. Fun for them but overall bad for the majority of players who are not only at a major skill disadvantage but would also be at a massive skill and gear disadvantage. CCP clearly doesn't want this to happen which is why they placed these sp caps here in the first place.
Skirmish should be worth more then Ambush, but if the people who only care about SP gains all go to ambush to farm sp faster after the weekly cap I think Dust would be better for it. I tend to notice the players who are obsessed with maxing out kills and getting as many WP as possible tend to play differently than people trying to win matches. It's rare to find a player willing to stop a hack because he wants the points for replanting. I also notice player won't hack a CRU because they want more free spawn kill ect ect. If the SP obsessed players all go to ambush because the rewards are better it will be less of an issue for people who enjoy objective based gameplay.
Edit:
To be clear voting for option #2 may cost me a bit of SP in a really good game for me I can push 2-2.5k. I would give up my 1.5k bonus to prevent other players from making 2.5-3k. It's a selfish point of view I suppose, but to be clear I am ok with CCP 'robbing' me because I know other players that are bigger threats to me are being 'robbed' worse. That makes me better off overall. To the general community making 1k or less its a really easy choice, as they have nothing to lose and can still watch you get robbed of more advantages over them.
I can see how to the best players you find #2 offensive it does essentially rob you of earned SP. The reason everyone voted for it is because it is unfair to you, and that makes them personally better off. I'm not sure how you fail to see that. |
Deadeyes Anterie
Crimson Ravens Talons
RISE of LEGION
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 21:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
xprotoman23 wrote:Mr Zitro wrote:Option #2 should be called charity. Getting 1000 (1,500 with booster) for either being terrible or good.... A joke for a sp system. You should have to earn it Option #2 is charity. Any SP gained after reaching the cap should have to be earned.
It's not charity, that would be taking your points away and giving them to worse players. This is a lot more akin to socialism, the community wants a 100% sp tax on skilled players after 1,000sp earned. It's because they don't like you because you kill them all the time. |
Deadeyes Anterie
Crimson Ravens Talons
RISE of LEGION
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 11:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
@ Protoman
This is really just out of curiosity at this point but as you said 1000 views and 100 comments, can you at least understand how option #2 is a valid choice for a large section of the community, even if it means it makes you personally worse off. I feel like all these comments are falling on deaf ears, and the people who are demanding no SP soft cap limits refuse to accept the majority has a good reason for their voting choice. Hopefully I'm mistaken and all the energy put into this thread at least exposed some of the benefits and downfalls of both systems so this thread isn't totally useless. |
|
|
| |
|