Balanced Point Distribution?

[imported_Nefarious]

-4 + 2 does not = 2.

[davelisowski]

+1 for destroying an asset because more than likely someone will repair it... Otherwise, there'd asset-whores, or folks whose friends are enemy commanders and let the dude blow it up, drop a supply, and continue the cycle.

I guess they figure you have 4 or 5 assets to destroy, and eventually someone will repair them so you can destroy them again... or blow them, whatever you prefer.

As for TKs... it's -4. +2 for a revive would mean -2 pts overall... just to clear up your math problems.

[imported_Donkey]

Your lucky now to get 1 point, you used to get 0 points way back when....

[TheDeltaStorm]

Yeh i've always thought you should get more points for blowing up assets. god knows how they worked that one out.

That would suck. You go blow it up great. After 15 seconds and commander will send a supply crate to repair. You get more C4s from the package and repeat. People would be getting major points IMO.

[LahLahSr]

It's a rather flawed logic to say that you should get very few points for destroying an extremely important enemy capability (scan, UAV, arty) just because and enemy MAY come by and repair it fast.

For as long as it is destroyed, it doesn't work for the enemy. When it is repaired, the "charge-cycle" is restarted from scratch as well.

The same (flawed) logic should then apply to killing enemies, since a medic MAY come by to insta-revive your victim.

It's a lot faster to bring a soldier back to full health than it is to bring back arty to operational and ready status.

Of course the point-system is flawed. It's an inferior design to begin with - why else would say, bomber pilots, more easily earn more points than a determined outpost-grabber of equal skill?

"Conquest" is a misnomer for BF2 vanilla - it should be TDM, judging from how the point-system routinely awards more points to those who focus on kills, rather than the game's objectives itself.

Cheers :-)