Content of the article: "Thoughts about the REWARDS and the scoring system"
A bit ashamed to say I am already at well over 4,000 of the 2,500 points needed for the AAA Monthly. And at 125 Annual I am now into free premium time. Sweet.
So come September I should get everything up to a Hero's for the Monthly, and up to a day of Premium for the Annual. Thats a pleasant surprise.
Those Annual rewards will keep coming each month now even if I dont play another game – so I'm now guaranteed 12 days Premium over the year. More if I actually play. Cannot complain.
I suspect a lot of people are getting unexpected stuff for free now so this is unambiguously a good thing though not necessarily all that good…
Reward cliff edge
Biggest grumble I can see is that you need 500 points for a camo voucher…and then 2,500 points for the next reward – a Hero's. Thats a big gap. 170 games per month for a camo voucher (yay!) but 830 games per month for a Hero's (I agree with u/bull-rott). There's a lot of fresh air between these. I'm not a fan of fresh air in this sort of context.
The Annual rewards at the top end are just bizarre. Someone getting AAA every Monthly will just about edge into the 150 gold bracket at the end of the year. And only utter whales (no idea how much whaling is required) will get 13 instead of just the 12 Hero's – assuming you go over the line in the last month. Strange.
You get points for what?
The way points are being awarded seems inconsistent with team contribution and potentially unhelpful. Basically, the system is 1 point per game, 3 extra points per win and 1 extra point for not dying/2 kills-on-a-loss.
If these rewards do drive behaviour rather than tick over in the background then they will further encourage not dying as the strategy. Camping at the base or capping early will be rewarded more strongly than actually getting in there and damaging the reds.
Given that there is already a robust way of seeing who contributed to team performance – the results table – I cannot see the value in using something else. In fact it seems a bit silly so presumably is for practical reasons. I would suggest a better way of allocating more or less the same number of points would be 1 point for a loss, 3 extra points for a win and 1 extra point for being in the top 5 on your team. This would just generally be consistent with rewarding wins & good performance and wouldn't literally reward a surviving AFKer more than the guy who got a High Caliber and died.
In mitigation, the 2,000 point fresh air gap possibly/hopefully means it will have no impact. Which makes you wonder what the point is.
Just wanted to get that out there for some reason. Interested in other views.
- Other Devs should improve rewards system and some suggestions
- Analysis of the Danger Room Rework
- From game theory perspective, Battlegrounds is a mess
© Post "Thoughts about the REWARDS and the scoring system" for game World of Tanks.
Top 7 NEW Games of June 2020
Quite a few exciting games are releasing for PC, PS4, Xbox One, and Nintendo in June. Here's what to keep an eye on.
Top 10 NEW Open World Games of 2020
Video games with open worlds continue to roll out in 2020 on PC, PS4, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch, and beyond. Here are some to look forward to!
Top 10 Best New Upcoming Games 2020-2021
The best selection of games which will be released in 2020 and 2021 for PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series X, Google Stadia and PC - and you can watch in amazing UHD 4K and 60FPS with latest updates about all of the games in this list!