Why is it higher ranks get less XP for a Kill

[matthew8182 2]

Can people answer Please

[Tommy60 406]

Think about it.

 

Why should you get more points for killing those who have less experience than you do? It goes against logic to do so.

 

It makes sense that a Recruit should get 17-25 points for killing a marshal, because the Marshal has so much more experience than the recruit.

[Kyoko_Kirigiri 1,061]

i dose not matter about the rank,it matters about there rating :XD:

i think :?

[Tommy60 406]

i dose not matter about the rank,it matters about there rating :XD:

i think :?

 

That is correct.

[SilentShadow 104]

i dose not matter about the rank,it matters about there rating :XD:

i think :?

 

Yes.

Even so the Marshals and Generals will undoubtedly have a higher rating than the recruits.

[matthew8182 2]

I mean for I kill not a noob kill duh

But thanks for the answers,

Matthew!

[sgtnash 0]

not cool man not cool :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

[r_CaptCannon0 1]

I find that the system is not necessarily equitable. For example, I am working my butt off getting kills. I also may have a better kill ratio (a much better kill ratio!) than someone of a lower rank, but this guy will be in first place while I may be second, third or fourth. He may actually have more losses than kills, and he is still getting more crystals than me! I don't see how you can have more deaths than kills and still rank higher in getting crystals. I've seen this too many times. I understand that a Sergeant killing a Marshal should be given more credits, but things just seem to be a bit out of balance.

[Raphael2 3,263]

When u kill a same level, u have often ten xp

[tankcalm 324]

Why do you think you must have more points than the other guy based only in kill ratio? First of all, the ratio depends very much on your type of weapon/tank, if you play freeze+hornet to get flags, you are gonna die much more than other player with equal rank, but playing mammoth+shaft. In the other hand, if he has lower rank, probably his equipment is worst than yours, so for you is easier get kills. Finally there is the experience, higher ranks have much more experience in the game, they played more and know more tricks, they should be better.

 

Of course, i think the calculations should be made counting not only the rank, but the equipment (im reading in the forum and still not shure how exactly they made the math), because of that, the buyers have huge advantage over the normal players who cant afford the very good stuff (m3 upgrade) in lower ranks like WO's. Honestly, how many players can buy a mammoth m3 + freeze m3 (20400 + 15000) at WO5 without real money??

[ViperDog 0]

I think its fair. From the beginning I played in battles with tanks higher rank than mine, and managed tgo win quite a few games by some good play. Only ever had a Smokey. Wouldn't have ever won in such battles without the different point system.

[Imperial_Armour 1]

I was getting more crystals when I was a class 3 sergeant with Izida than now when I am a colonel with an m3 shaft. I kill 3-4 times more per game and still I am lucky if I am on 4-5 position in a table for distributing the winning fund. Before I was always in first or second. I think it's ******ed. No wander high ranks use drugs so they can kill by a dozen.

[cablaz 32]

Think about it.

 

Why should you get more points for killing those who have less experience than you do? It goes against logic to do so.

 

It makes sense that a Recruit should get 17-25 points for killing a marshal, because the Marshal has so much more experience than the recruit.

The max is 20 score per kill.

While the max EXP per kill is 25 assuming you are a low rank killing a very high rank with a score multiplier pass.