Nope, i cant see it. In what manner did I say that?
A soldier pelting at his enemies from miles away with shots from the hip will thus learn more (experience) then a soldier sneaking up closer to aim the bullet exactly in the kissers. Does not make sense to me.
Here you are effectively saying that a soldier who does something particularily skill intensive should receive the same amount of experience as a soldier who does not, as it does not make sense to you that the reward for doing the former should be greater than that for the latter.
Using spray and pray improves your skill in spraying and praying. Exercise results in mastery. Aiming will result in more skill in aiming, not is spraying and praying. In your example, there are 2 diferent skilltypes (close comat vs accuracy) and 2 different weaponmodes (aimed shot vs auto).
There's a reason it's called spray and pray. The reason? Because you effectively give aim and control over to chance largely (hence the 'pray' component), in exchange for superior albeit inaccurate firepower (hence the 'spray' component). Consequently, because of the prominence in chance, skill plays a consequently inferior role. The implication of this of course, is that there's little actual skill development that results. Spray and pray is by no means skill intensive. It's inherant in the name, as well as the practice. The fact that it may or may not draw on differing skills (assault would be more appropriate than close combat) is irrelevant to my statement. The fact remains that the action does not, and should not contribute much to skill development.
That a pro learns as much (in xp points) from a kill/shot as a newbie (while you argue it shouldnt) is not a problem if and only if there is another mechanism that compensates for it. And that mechanism might very well be the nonlinear experience required to reach the next level in skill proficiency. 1st level: 500 points, 2nd level 1500 points, 3th level 5000 points, etc. This mechanism is used in almost every game and i cant recall readily a game that features a different approach. Therefore with such a mechanism the shooters existing skill is irrelevant.
This solution is insufficient because while it may account for skill discrepancies between various soldiers, it does not account for the skill and improvement potential discrepancies between individual shots. As stated, there is much more to learn from a shot with an estimated 40% success rate, versus one with an 95% success rate. Under this model, a soldier would inappropriately receive an equal amount of experience for succeeding at each.
I see the introduction of this mechanism as a source of unbalanced skilleveling. You see the absence of it as a problem for unbalanced skilleveling. Currently the situation is that there is no such mechanism. Please give us an example that currently results in unbalanced skilleveling. If you think weapon and firemode give rise to unbalanced skilleveling (and thus should have an explicit modifier) then please give an example.
Actually, what I'm saying is that IF per shot experience rewards are alloted, as they should be, then certain supplimental mechanisms which were introduced in my previous post must be implimented to prevent abuse. In addition, I am also saying that the current system is grossly flawed in that it does not faithfully abstract realistic skill development whatsoever. You are correct in asserting that per shot experience awards are a source of unbalanced skill leveling, assuming that tempering fire mode specific modifiers are not introduced. However, if you adjust experience outputs via this method to factor in such things as fire rates, spread and damage, then these problems will prove largely moot.
To better illustrate what I mean, assume you are awarded experience on a per shot basis for hits, and misses. You are using a riot shotgun loaded with flechette rounds, and your opponent has medium or better armour. There are no experience modifiers save those associated with hit probability. Assuming you have enough flashbangs to keep the alien helpless and immobile, you could effectively milk it for huge quantities of undeserved skill advancement, because each flechette round translates into many shots, and you discharge 7 of them on full auto. Further, each flechette shot does very small amounts of blast damage, which are easily reduced to the minimum of 1 versus the alien's armour, allowing you to fire at it for a considerable period of time. Obviously this is problematic, and clearly demonstrates the need for firemode specific modifiers, ones that would adjust experience yields for such peashooters downwards. There is a realistic aspect to this as well; generally, some weapons and firemodes take more skill to effectively use than others. Full auto versus aimed shots as a prime example, or a minigun versus a sniper rifle.