Jump to content
mardell

[Attachment] too much human sacrifice!

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

the troops are always at the human too many expense of victims and win. East or West.
not careful, they go to death, without reason...
35-30 or 5-18 K-D rates is not uncommon.
it is not right for a team to win if they have died many times on the battlefield.

proposal.

For death of a soldier death falls, on the battlefield a penalty point is deducted from the team. collective punishment. - score point
many deaths are many penalty points...


This encourages soldiers to take care of their lives, and play more carefully.
and the gameplay might become more tactical.

 

 

 

 

Edited by mardell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No thanks, I do not want to be punished personaly just because my other teammates have never played an FPS game in their life before. 

Collective punishment has no place in an online game.

If they're getting steamrolled they need to figure out how to play better themselves, not through some poorly thought out punishment system.

Just because you are bad at a game should not mean your team has to suffer from one players poor decisions.

Edited by Boursk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boursk said:

No thanks, I do not want to be punished personaly just because my other teammates have never played an FPS game in their life before. 

Collective punishment has no place in an online game.

If they're getting steamrolled they need to figure out how to play better themselves, not through some poorly thought out punishment system.

Just because you are bad at a game should not mean your team has to suffer from one players poor decisions.

not playing well who with 35-30 or 5-18 KD ratio...

not the individual score, would result in a penalty point deduction.

the collective score is deducted, your team score.

will later receive the 5000 score limit, the team...

In many balanced games, it would be crucial to determine which team will have less man loss.

who is a less good player, he will change his mind about the conflict and not running to deadh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i'm aware this is kinda added to the TDM mode, if you team kill your team is losing point. As I'm aware this won't be added to WZ but who knows, let's see what community decides ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mardell said:

it is not right for a team to win if they have died many times on the battlefield.

This is so wrong. This isn't TDM. This is warzone, and your objective isn't to kill and not die, your objective is to take capture points.

You cannot punish people for what others are doing right, or maybe even wrong. I have had games with a negative k/d with a kill difference of maybe -7, but I came top of the team with 20k+ points. 

We need to stop encouraging prioritizing killing over objective in this gamemode. It's already bad enough as it is when you have stubborn teammates who go for kills instead of objectives.

 

Collective punishment is a no.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 9:00 AM, TCPPolak said:

This is so wrong. This isn't TDM. This is warzone, and your objective isn't to kill and not die, your objective is to take capture points.

You cannot punish people for what others are doing right, or maybe even wrong. I have had games with a negative k/d with a kill difference of maybe -7, but I came top of the team with 20k+ points. 

We need to stop encouraging prioritizing killing over objective in this gamemode. It's already bad enough as it is when you have stubborn teammates who go for kills instead of objectives.

 

Collective punishment is a no.

It worked perfectly fine in old BFs with 300 tickets per team. Holding points means u r lowering the enemy's tickets. Killing enemies means u r lowering the tickets. Here it will be: holding CPs means u r earning BPs. Killing enemies means u slow the enemy's team BPs earning. 

And if talk about ur "I have K/D lower than 1, but my BPs are higher than 20k", if amount of ur team BP loss because of ur dying exceeds the amount of ur team BPs earned by u - that means u r anchoring ur team. Pretty fair. Nobody is trying to robe u of ur earned individual BPs, but this game is about teamwork and if  u r non-stop dying it should be punished.  Why there is limited resource if we talk about how many armored vehicles we can call in, but there is no limit in how much human resources we can "call in"?

Nobody is saying that killing the enemies should allow ur team to make the enemy's team BPs go to zero. But slowing the BPs earning for team that's dying too much is IMO the right thing.

 

On 7/9/2019 at 9:51 AM, TCPPolak said:

I think I'll leave it at that. Your words nor mine won't change anything, the devs would never implement such a thing.

I think u should. Because nobody was saying that killing should cost more than capturing/holding CPs. But u keep exaggerating it over and over again. 

There was 1 match that I've won. It was Moscow, where my team was holding 1 CP and enemy was holding 1 CP and 1 was neutral. And we were leading 100 BPs. And for the last 3-4 minutes there was almost no point in fighting because the enemy team would not win no matter what they would do. That wasn't that great experience. It was close match as we've won ~ 4950-4850 but the last minutes of intense and close match were not fun. And when there is 1000-1500 gap it's starting to become "not fun" in 10-15 minutes before the match end. And it's not that rare. And than all u care about  are ur BPs.

For me, 2 ways to achieve victory are better than 1. 

 

On 7/9/2019 at 10:19 AM, Atway said:

I played games with ticket system (in fact we`re talking about such system to be implemented

And where did that come from? TS was talking about:

Ur team has 3500BP. U die. Now ur  team has 3495BPs. Great job! Keep doing this and u'll loose.

And nothing more.

 

On 7/9/2019 at 10:56 AM, Atway said:

just a type of ticket system

after all as Polak said this is the bad idea to prioritize killing over objectives. I agree that there should be a different way to win or do a comeback, but in case of one team full domintaing the other team will have even less chances to comeback

AGAIN. WHERE DID THE IDEA OF PRIORITISING KILLING OVER OBJECTIVES come from? It's ur 2 idea that kills would cost more than PTFO. And it will be heavily dependant on how much teamscore would be lost when someone would die. If it's - (50-100) BPs then killing is more valuable. If it's 5-10 then PTFO has more value. 1 CP that u hold gives u 120BP per minute. 3BPs - 360.  Imagine what kind of onesided spawnkillingrape it should be with 5-10BPs per kill to compare with it.

Now ur death doesn't matter. U have now enough BPs to call in armor but u r near enemy base? Press suicide! Spent all ur RPG ammo, but enemy vehicle is low HP and close to u? Press suicide! Bombing run with 4 teamkills? Doesn't matter! Only the teamscore matters! I'm playing Objectives.?

BOTH team kill each other. The difference in kills would hardly reach 100. It's 500BPs. WHERE do u see here prioritising kills over objectives?

 

On 7/9/2019 at 11:58 AM, Atway said:

50% of matches are "one team fully dominates the other" with score like 5000-500. As long as the 1st team players are killing enemies right on the spawnzone, have more BPs to call heli, tanks, AFVs, etc making spawnraping even tougher, the 2nd team will not have even a chance to comeback. So yeah, the difference would hardly reach 100 for "so close" matches, whic are just ~5% of all battles. For other 95% it will make it even more unbalanced

In YOUR 50% matches where 1 team dominates it doesn't matter what would be score - 5000-500 or 5000-0 with BP deduction. For other 50 it'll matter as the team that has more BP is not obliged to have higher kill count. AND if even the leading team has higher killcount it only means that losing team has to struggle more in playing Objectives = capturing CPs.

5-10% difference can not be called "unbalanced".

 

On 7/9/2019 at 7:12 PM, Boursk said:

It's in the post

Okay. Mathematics for gradeschoolers: 5 sec spawn CD for squadleader, ~ 15 secs to run from base to the open space where u can be killed by enemy. 3 kills per minute. Let it be the max 10BP per kill. 40 minutes. 1200BP. Not enough to make ur team lose. IN IDEAL SITUATION. If it is 5 BP per kill penalty it will be 600BP.

I'll ask again: Explain, how u r going to ruin the match with this conditions?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tynblpb said:

It worked perfectly fine in old BFs with 300 tickets per team. Holding points means u r lowering the enemy's tickets. Killing enemies means u r lowering the tickets. Here it will be: holding CPs means u r earning BPs. Killing enemies means u slow the enemy's team BPs earning. 

And if talk about ur "I have K/D lower than 1, but my BPs are higher than 20k", if amount of ur team BP loss because of ur dying exceeds the amount of ur team BPs earned by u - that means u r anchoring ur team. Pretty fair. Nobody is trying to robe u of ur earned individual BPs, but this game is about teamwork and if  u r non-stop dying it should be punished.  Why there is limited resource if we talk about how many armored vehicles we can call in, but there is no limit in how much human resources we can "call in"?

Nobody is saying that killing the enemies should allow ur team to make the enemy's team BPs go to zero. But slowing the BPs earning for team that's dying too much is IMO the right thing.

It worked so well, that conquest was just a TDM with side-quest objectives.

I don't think you get it. If I have 20k+ BPs, and have a k/d of 28/35 like I had before, it means I am helping my team because I captured objectives. In this  scenario, I would capture objectives and get punished for it because I didn't treat this like a TDM game.

The game is about teamwork and not TDM, so why should I get punished for trying to get points where my team won't? No, this is not a reason to be punished and it is just thinking like the gamemode is TDM. 

Warzone. Isn't. K/D. Warzone is score and that's what should matter.

 

The worry isn't BPs. The worry is objective play, which this feature will weaken. Enough is enough, it's time we promote objective play rather than K/D. I heard the devs had an idea to remove K/D from the scoreboard, and I fully back it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 минут назад, TCPPolak сказал:

 

I don't think you get it. If I have 20k+ BPs, and have a k/d of 28/35 like I had before, it means I am helping my team because I captured objectives. In this  scenario, I would capture objectives and get punished for it because I didn't treat this like a TDM game

What's with those "I, I, I"? It's team that will be punished for u dying, not u. And if u die too much that means u FAILED at HELPING ur team. I repeat. Human resources. They are limited too. In the case SHOULD be.

And no, CQ in old BFs was working well enough so the team who was holding more points would won the 300 ticket match vs team with top10 world stats pilot-gunner gunship crew with K/D ~70-2.

Edited by tynblpb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tynblpb said:

What's with those "I, I, I"? It's team that will be punished for u dying, not u. And if u die too much that means u FAILED at HELPING ur team. I repeat. Human resources. They are limited too. In the case SHOULD be.

And no, CQ in old BFs was working well enough so the team who was holding more points would won the 300 ticket match vs team with top10 world stats pilot-gunner gunship crew with K/D ~70-2.

That's not the same conquest I played xD Conquest was horrible compared to Warzone. Now if only people played it like Warzone and not conquest....

No but seriously, can't you see? If the team is capturing points, they win. Why should we enable TDM? Also I is a very good word because I makes up a team. Again, why are you trying to promote K/D in an objective game? PTFO is the key. 


Also, seriously, this is such a bad excuse for such a terrible game mechanic. Human resources? Ever took a look into history? 

Either way, this is not a reason to implement such a mechanic. It makes no sense to the game. 

 

Dying doesn't mean you're not helping your team. If you capture, you're helping your team. If you don't capture, you're not helping your team, easy as that. K/D doesn't matter. It is laughable to believe K/D means more than capturing, pleeeaase.


There's already enough balance complaints. Imagine if this feature gets implemented?
 

"LOOK GUYS WE HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN JUST KEEP KILLING THEM :DDDDDDDDD"
"but we've lost all six of our points, we don't have any vehicle access, no BPs and we're being mowed down at any attempt to capture an objective"
"IT'S OKAY GUYS THIS FEATURE IS GREAT"

I think I'll leave it at that. Your words nor mine won't change anything, the devs would never implement such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after all, average player is stupid AF. Sorry, dont want to offend someone, but its true. I played games with ticket system (in fact we`re talking about such system to be implemented) and i can say that players cant take an eye on tickets, They cant even notice that the CP in front of them is being captured. Ticket system WONT make them play wisely, trust me. It just will make them confused why they cant respawn anymore (in case of certain amount of tickets) or make them think that K/D is much more profitable to win than playing objectives. So WZ will become just other TDM.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Question - What sort of effect would this have on the current "Snowball Effect" players tend to complain about in Warzone?

During the free weekend, one of the more common complaints I heard was about the snowball effect in Warzone. While currently it can be challenging to come back from a full map cap, it's not impossible to do it. You & your team may bleed for it, but you only need to turn the tide once, and keep it going in that direction to maintain a chance at victory (I say a chance because you can turn the tide really late in the game and still lose.) But, As the saying goes; it's not over till the fat lady sings. With this mechanic, it makes it sound like you want the metaphorical Fat Lady to Sing while there is still 15 minutes on the clock and neither team has reached the 5000 point mark.

 

Edited by Dunabar
Mild addition
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tynblpb said:

And where did that come from? TS was talking about:

Ur team has 3500BP. U die. Now ur  team has 3495BPs. Great job! Keep doing this and u'll loose.

And nothing more.

just a type of ticket system

after all as Polak said this is the bad idea to prioritize killing over objectives. I agree that there should be a different way to win or do a comeback, but in case of one team full domintaing the other team will have even less chances to comeback

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TCPPolak said:


 

"LOOK GUYS WE HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN JUST KEEP KILLING THEM :DDDDDDDDD"
"but we've lost all six of our points, we don't have any vehicle access, no BPs and we're being mowed down at any attempt to capture an objective"
"IT'S OKAY GUYS THIS FEATURE IS GREAT"

I don't think you get it. If I have 20k+ BPs, and have a k/d of 28/35 like I had before, it means I am helping my team because I captured objectives. In this  scenario, I would capture objectives and get punished for it because I didn't treat this like a TDM game. 

but the penalty point after death would not be deducted from the individual score.

By the end of the game you can keep your 20,000+ individual score the same way.

most scores would still be for BP bookings

4-5  points deducted after death from team scores can even reverse the end game in the event of many deaths.

 the final result may turn

with my proposal I would like to achieve, that WW3 should not be a KOD.

Edited by mardell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tynblpb said:

The difference in kills would hardly reach 100. It's 500BPs

50% of matches are "one team fully dominates the other" with score like 5000-500. As long as the 1st team players are killing enemies right on the spawnzone, have more BPs to call heli, tanks, AFVs, etc making spawnraping even tougher, the 2nd team will not have even a chance to comeback. So yeah, the difference would hardly reach 100 for "so close" matches, whic are just ~5% of all battles. For other 95% it will make it even more unbalanced.

 

18 minutes ago, tynblpb said:

WHERE DID THE IDEA OF PRIORITISING KILLING OVER OBJECTIVES come from?

from average player POV: me a dumbass sniper on the edge of the map. Before me was just a sniper who cared only personal K/D. But now me useful! Me making enemy team score less! Me smart! Me useful!

Cmon, even now players think their KD matters. But if you give them at least a liiiiiiitle chance to affect teamscore by their KD, they will prioritize it for sure

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Atway said:

just a type of ticket system

after all as Polak said this is the bad idea to prioritize killing over objectives. I agree that there should be a different way to win or do a comeback, but in case of one team full domintaing the other team will have even less chances to comeback

there will be no primary goal of killing.

X. team: if on one side 150 deaths are about, -750 score deductions.

Y. team: the other side is less human loss, only 80 death -400 score deductions.

maybe the Y. team wins because he played more carefully and cautiously, taking care of the lives of his soldiers.

because only 400 scores will be deducted from them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mardell said:

there will be no primary goal of killing.

X. team: if on one side 150 deaths are about, -750 score deductions.

Y. team: the other side is less human loss, only 80 death -400 score deductions.

maybe the Y. team wins because he played more carefully and cautiously, taking care of the lives of his soldiers.

because only 400 scores will be deducted from them...

 

15 minutes ago, Atway said:

50% of matches are "one team fully dominates the other" with score like 5000-500. As long as the 1st team players are killing enemies right on the spawnzone, have more BPs to call heli, tanks, AFVs, etc making spawnraping even tougher, the 2nd team will not have even a chance to comeback. So yeah, the difference would hardly reach 100 for "so close" matches, whic are just ~5% of all battles. For other 95% it will make it even more unbalanced.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, mardell said:

not playing well who with 35-30 or 5-18 KD ratio...

not the individual score, would result in a penalty point deduction.

the collective score is deducted, your team score.

will later receive the 5000 score limit, the team...

In many balanced games, it would be crucial to determine which team will have less man loss.

who is a less good player, he will change his mind about the conflict and not running to deadh.

No and no.

If people wanted to exploit this they easily could.

They could have someone on the other side continously letting himself be killed by his friend on the other team and thus making your team lose the game.

Bad players need to learn like everybody else that if you make bad decisions; you are gonna suffer for it, and you only. 

Bringing on something that punishes everyone for one players actions only makes people hate those players for losing the game.

Not to mention that griefers will easily make use of this to make them team lose.

Edited by Boursk
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 час назад, Boursk сказал:

 

If people wanted to exploit this they easily could

How? Explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tynblpb said:

How? Explain.

It's in the post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Boursk said:

 

If people wanted to exploit this they easily could.

They could have someone on the other side continously letting himself be killed by his friend on the other team and thus making your team lose the game.

 

why do you assume, such negative things about the WW3 gaming community?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Declined as low up-votes.

(if you want to refer this suggestion in the future post. Please add a link to this topic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...