Another Hypothetical Idea

[strathound]

If you don't like thinking about gameplay ideas that will never be implemented, please skip this post. I love the game, I'm a fanboy, I'm just thinking out loud here. Ok?

I'm just curious what you people think the affect on gameplay and teamwork would be if you changed the scoring system to give them priority. What would happen, if say, kills earned you one point and teamwork earned you two (the opposite of the current situation)?

I thought of this the other night when I noticed our team confined to a single base and losing the round. And nobody was making a serious attempt at a break out. Everyone was just trying to find a way to keep racking up kills. So of course, we had lots of snipers on our side. Meanwhile, I swam across the bay in Wake and captured the other base. And I wondered why more people weren't being more resourceful. Shoot, go steal a boat or something.

[imported_HorrorBusiness]

Re: Another Hypothetical Idea

I think that would just lead to more ammo and med pack spamming. I think they should broaden the 'team play point' to include squad based objectives. For example, the commander tells squad one to cap a flag. All of the members of that squad should get a x2 bonus for capturing that flag. If told to defend, x2 for all kills defending the flag. x2 for demo, repairs, etc. I think that would lead to more team play.

[vbl]

Re: Another Hypothetical Idea

The problem of teamwork-less and kill-centric play is far more complex than can be addressed with reprioritizing point awards.

I don't have any time to write extensively right now, but suffice to say, the game isn't about teamwork - at least not as much as we, and probably DICE, wanted it to be.

At a high level, just consider what can net you teamwork points:

- Giving health
- Giving ammo
- Repairing vehicle
- Capturing flags (defending flags to a lesser degree).

Will your team win battles by doing these four "teamworky" things? Probably not.

So what does win battles?

- Good communication (where to strike, when, and how)
- Sharing information (spotting, intelligence gathering)
- Sticking together (watching each other's backs, moving as a group)
- Cooperating to kill more bad guys (team damage assists - which are so broken right now - and combo attacks)
- Cooperating to defend valuable tactical assets and comrades (flag defend points focus on kills to gauge defensive effectiveness, even though simply being present at a flag is a viable defense and should be rewarded)

None of the real battle-affecting actions that we take are rewarded in any substantial way. It's no wonder that players, focused on a ranking system that highlights mostly personal achievements, gravitate toward the actions (kills, limited use but high point teamwork activities) that are most likely to raise their personal standing - regardless of the usefulness to the team.

[strathound]

Re: Another Hypothetical Idea

Yes, but a lot of the things you mention cannot be implemented in game very easily. The AI would have to be substantial. The only real software solution would be to give winning higher priority. And that would cause it's own issues.... hmmm ....

[vbl]

Re: Another Hypothetical Idea

Yes, but a lot of the things you mention cannot be implemented in game very easily. The AI would have to be substantial. The only real software solution would be to give winning higher priority. And that would cause it's own issues.... hmmm ....

You're right, but only insofar as Battlefield 2 is too one-dimensional to accomodate most of those suggestions.

Other games have been pretty successful at incorporating teamwork activities (even unrewarded ones) as a critical part of gameplay, mostly because the goals in those games are to be a successful team, not top a ranking.

Planetside is one good example.