Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

[vbl]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

good except for the jet to jet kills - 4 points theres enough kamikazing going on already this'll only add to it. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Good basic idea though, more difficult kills should be more rewarded.

Not sure kamikazie-ing should be counted at all :)

[DLWebmaestro96]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

I have always preached that you should get more points for killing a tank than you would for killing infantry. This system takes that 3 steps forward into an even better point system! I hope someone as DICE is reading...

[vbl]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

I have always preached that you should get more points for killing a tank than you would for killing infantry. This system takes that 3 steps forward into an even better point system! I hope someone as DICE is reading...

They would have to change a lot of kill/death tracking to make this system work, so I'm afraid that it's probably way too late.

[imported_thebamsco]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

Heck I'd go for that, make people more inclined to play the way they're supposed to. I might even make Amor vs Amor / jet vs jet kills even more valubale to make em leave the infantry alone.

Totally agree.

How about some shared damage minus points at least for peeps running over there own team mines or for people who hit your front bumper. (front bumper only and maybe wheels of plane)

IE Tked player gets asked the usual, but the player who did it, gets asked if the datf ar*e had it coming and knock some points of him if he punishes the TK :)

[rombaft]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

it looks kinda balanced, but still I am against it, I think the point system is fine exept for the teamkill system.

Killing a tank giving you 4 points , I think there will be way to many AT or spec ops running around then, not even speaking of the mines everywhere in the game.

My point beeing, it is still Battlefield, the vehicles are there, and they can be taken out easely (exept jets) ,

Tell me, what's so hard to take out a tank ? c4 will do the trick in no time .
choppers melt like butter when shooting at them with a .50

then about killing infantry with a tank, well, look, sometmes I can be a real tankwhore in some maps, but I can tell you that most infantry I kill (like 90%of it) are just getting killed by there own fault, as infantry I don't get killed much by a tank or apc.

but most players when they see a tank they

- shoot at it with rifle, just telling where they are
- go prone (my god why?)
- trow nades (offcourse when they are in full sight)
- .....

just run away, there are so many hidingplaces, corners, alleys, ... in BF2 maps you can almost always run away from armor because you can here them comming miles away

[vbl]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

it looks kinda balanced, but still I am against it, I think the point system is fine exept for the teamkill system.

Killing a tank giving you 4 points , I think there will be way to many AT or spec ops running around then, not even speaking of the mines everywhere in the game.

Honestly, there's aren't enough AT guys right now, but that's not the point. Revising the points system doesn't make killing easier, it just rewards you for taking risk against higher powered targets. If there are more of kit [x] as a result, so what? The kits themselves carry trade-offs in anti-armor firepower, anti-personnel, durability, etc.

Basically, you totally mis-interpreted my post - it's not a complaint about anything and it's not being proposed as a response to things being too hard to kill. It's a suggestion to weight points against the difficulty and risk associated with a given kill.

[rombaft]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

Honestly, there's aren't enough AT guys right now, but that's not the point. Revising the points system doesn't make killing easier, it just rewards you for taking risk against higher powered targets. If there are more of kit [x] as a result, so what? The kits themselves carry trade-offs in anti-armor firepower, anti-personnel, durability, etc.

Basically, you totally mis-interpreted my post - it's not a complaint about anything and it's not being proposed as a response to things being too hard to kill. It's a suggestion to weight points against the difficulty and risk associated with a given kill.

no, I do understand your post very good
but I think there are plenty of spec ops running around
and I also think it's not realy hard to take out a tank.

Another point, say you are an AT , you shoot three rockets at a tank, the guy gets out just before it explodes (same story for every vehicle) then the AT guy stands around with his reloading ERYX or whatever and you kill him.

Or even if he kills you, then he killed infantry , so he did take "the risk" for taking out the tank, but he don't get the extra points.

Or you are in a tank VS tank , you shoot the other tank three times (he gets in flames), quickly get out of your tank and shoot the other one with a 203nade, you get the extra points for beeing a point whore.

It's just my opinion, just like you have yours, it doesn't mean I don't nderstand your post, I just think about it, don't think it's bad, but don't find it good.

not to forget, your point system would make vehicles less popular or even disliked, but in my opinion, battlefield is madwith vehicles and this is the dam game how it is, it's the game it's biggest feature and everyboy whines about it.

[Donkey]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

Yeah I kinda agree with the above post...Vehicles are what made the Battlefield series...yet everyone whines about them.....It must be all those Delta Force FanBoys

[vbl]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

no, I do understand your post very good
but I think there are plenty of spec ops running around
and I also think it's not realy hard to take out a tank.

Your opinion. As an experienced Spec Ops players, my success has varied. If I lay an ambush, you're right, it's not that hard. If I have to proactively place C4 on a moving tank that is hunting for infantry, it's harder. It's doubly hard if the tank has an Engineer supporting it or a gunner on top helping to spot baddies.

Another point, say you are an AT , you shoot three rockets at a tank, the guy gets out just before it explodes (same story for every vehicle) then the AT guy stands around with his reloading ERYX or whatever and you kill him.

Or even if he kills you, then he killed infantry , so he did take "the risk" for taking out the tank, but he don't get the extra points.

See my previous post on mount/dismount times for vehicles :)

That aside, you're right, he did take the extra risk in fighting a tank - but he was not successful at killing it so no, he shouldn't get the points. That's reasonable and good.

Or you are in a tank VS tank , you shoot the other tank three times (he gets in flames), quickly get out of your tank and shoot the other one with a 203nade, you get the extra points for beeing a point whore.

See my previous post on mount/dismount times for vehicles :)

That aside (sigh), lots of things can happen. He could machine gun you. He could exit his tank when the burning and beeping start and you won't get a kill at all, and since you're exposed, he might shoot you in the head (and you would've been safe if you had stayed in the tank). Someone else could cap you while you're busy point whoring. You could fire the GL too late the tank might explode before your grenade hits.

Citing a tenuous situation with a ton of variables is not a valid counterpoint.

not to forget, your point system would make vehicles less popular or even disliked, but in my opinion, battlefield is madwith vehicles and this is the dam game how it is, it's the game it's biggest feature and everyboy whines about it.

Vehicles will never be less popular. They allow people to travel faster, travel as a group, wield far more powerful weapons, and travel more safely. Small arms fire won't hurt you much if you're driving a Vodnik, and that'll never change.

When you're on foot, 100% of the battlefield weapons can kill you. When you're in a tank, about 20% are a threat. People will never stop taking advantage of that aspect - they'd be stupid to stop, really.

[rombaft]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

Another point that I have.

Tank is comming, some AT guy shoots three misiles on it, you watch it and wait, after third misile you shoot the M203 at the tank, the tank gets BOOM, AT guy gets 1 kill assist point, you get extra points for beeing an @sshole .
And be shore of it, when you point system would be used, lots of guys would aplie those dirty tricks because Tanks/apc will be like the candy of the game everyone is going to want a piece of the extra points.

[Wreck0]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

Instead of concentrating on rewarding people for the final kill, a lot more attention should be payed to rewarding people for damage done in contributing to a kill. The kill assist points partially deal with this, but not enough.

A tank should be worth 4 points total as infantry. You get a point for every 25% damage you did to the tank as infantry. If you hit it with a tank, you'd get a point for every 50% (since it's only worth 2 at that point). You should only get one bonus point for the final kill shot. So, some examples:

AT-guy-1 shoots tank, tanks goes down 25% health
AT-guy-2 shoots tank twice, tanks goes down 50% health
AT-guy-1 shoots tank once more and kills it
AT-guy-1 gets 3 points, AT-guy-2 gets 2.

Example 2:

AT-guy-1 is in a tank, and shoots a tank 3 times, tanks goes down 75% health
AT-guy-1 jumps out of his tank, finishes the enemy tank off as infantry
AT-guy-1 gets 1.5 points for the hits as a tank, and 1 point for the hit as an AT, plus 1 point for the kill = 3.5 points.

If he had stayed in the tank, he would have gotten 3 points. If he had killed the tank fully as infantry, he would have gotten 5 points. (Maybe 4+1 is too much, but this can be tweaked, the point is the damage-focused point system.)

This would reward people for risks, while reducing the stat padding gained from only being high risk for the final kill shot. If you kill a tank by lobbing a grenade at it and taking its last tiny bit of life, you'd only get the one point for the kill, since you'd basically done no damage.

[vbl]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

Another point that I have.

Tank is comming, some AT guy shoots three misiles on it, you watch it and wait, after third misile you shoot the M203 at the tank, the tank gets BOOM, AT guy gets 1 kill assist point, you get extra points for beeing an @sshole .
And be shore of it, when you point system would be used, lots of guys would aplie those dirty tricks because Tanks/apc will be like the candy of the game everyone is going to want a piece of the extra points.

For starters, "kill stealing" happens right now within the current system.

Next, it's not always easy to gauge how many hits a tank has taken or how damaged it is. A player would have to sit and observe another AT player shooting the tank, pay attention to how many shots were taken, pay attention to if and where the shots hit, and do so while staying alive in a battlefield setting. It wouldn't be impossible, but it wouldn't be so easy that your epidemic of kill stealing would become a consistent reality.

[vbl]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

Instead of concentrating on rewarding people for the final kill, a lot more attention should be payed to rewarding people for damage done in contributing to a kill. The kill assist points partially deal with this, but not enough.

A tank should be worth 4 points total as infantry. You get a point for every 25% damage you did to the tank as infantry. If you hit it with a tank, you'd get a point for every 50% (since it's only worth 2 at that point). You should only get one bonus point for the final kill shot. So, some examples:

AT-guy-1 shoots tank, tanks goes down 25% health
AT-guy-2 shoots tank twice, tanks goes down 50% health
AT-guy-1 shoots tank once more and kills it
AT-guy-1 gets 3 points, AT-guy-2 gets 2.

Example 2:

AT-guy-1 is in a tank, and shoots a tank 3 times, tanks goes down 75% health
AT-guy-1 jumps out of his tank, finishes the enemy tank off as infantry
AT-guy-1 gets 1.5 points for the hits as a tank, and 1 point for the hit as an AT, plus 1 point for the kill = 3.5 points.

If he had stayed in the tank, he would have gotten 3 points. If he had killed the tank fully as infantry, he would have gotten 5 points. (Maybe 4+1 is too much, but this can be tweaked, the point is the damage-focused point system.)

This would reward people for risks, while reducing the stat padding gained from only being high risk for the final kill shot. If you kill a tank by lobbing a grenade at it and taking its last tiny bit of life, you'd only get the one point for the kill, since you'd basically done no damage.

You're right - the kill assist model would need to be scaled to work with the new system. As for your other idea...

I considered a damage-based points system while thinking on this. However we might do it, it would have to be simple - you don't want server CPU processing power spent on calculating damage percentages all the time, especially at the expense of performance. Something like you mentioned, 100-75-50-25% milestones, would work well.

But there are some daunting complexities that make a damage-based point model hard to execute:

What about repairing? If a point of damage is repaired, do you lose the points you gained for damaging it? Are points awarded at the time of damage or the time of death? Could someone keep shooting a tank and repairing it and stat pad that way? Would you extend this to infantry? What about healing? When a player is healed does their "damage counter" start over?

[diabolik]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

Kill armor as helicopter is EASY, TV missle or hellfires do the trick in no time. 2 points is plenty there. If anything, killing armor with jet is harder.
The rest looks reasonable enough, but I have to agree that killing armor as infantry shouldn't be 4 points, lest we all be cursed with AT people. 3 points may be an idea.

[Wreck0]

Re: Revised points system. Not going to happen, but discuss for kicks...

But there are some daunting complexities that make a damage-based point model hard to execute:

What about repairing? If a point of damage is repaired, do you lose the points you gained for damaging it? Are points awarded at the time of damage or the time of death? Could someone keep shooting a tank and repairing it and stat pad that way? Would you extend this to infantry? What about healing? When a player is healed does their "damage counter" start over?

All good questions. Points should be rewarded after the kill. The system would have to keep track of who had done damage to whom, and how much. Repairing and healing would reduce everyone's damage totals on target equally. (I wonder how BF2 does it now?)

I don't see why this shouldn't apply to infantry, you'd just have to make the point rewards make sense for the different situations, especially considering my idea for the bonus point for the kill shot. Maybe one point for infantry vs infantry, plus the bonus for kill makes two? If you want to keep a 100% infantry v infantry kill worth two points.

You'd also have to work out round-up/round-down stuff, but that's just details, easy to work out. Also, I think the CPU can handle it, these kinds of calculations, even done for every player, are probably trivial compared to all the other stuff that's going on (movement, non-player objects, debris, trajectory calculations, graphics considerations, etc.).