Respawning is not realism
- Thread starter dktekno
- Start date
To follow that up:
What keeps your average pubber going? When I used to pub, I wanted to be on top for points (same as now
).
The team winning honestly has no effect on me. I play my best. If my team wins, yay, if it doesn't, eh. Many pubbers are the same way.
BUT --- Giving individual points often has the effect of making people play their best, no? So why not reward excellent individual players, who are usually the cause of a team winning?
Oh, and I'm against the whole "track only wins/losses" because some people have more input than others in a win. Who's more effective - the sniper who racks up 60 points, or the AFK squad leader. To place the worst players on a team on equal footing (in terms of points) won't be very fun for us point whores.
Plus, how would clans know how to recruit?
What keeps your average pubber going? When I used to pub, I wanted to be on top for points (same as now
).The team winning honestly has no effect on me. I play my best. If my team wins, yay, if it doesn't, eh. Many pubbers are the same way.
BUT --- Giving individual points often has the effect of making people play their best, no? So why not reward excellent individual players, who are usually the cause of a team winning?
Oh, and I'm against the whole "track only wins/losses" because some people have more input than others in a win. Who's more effective - the sniper who racks up 60 points, or the AFK squad leader. To place the worst players on a team on equal footing (in terms of points) won't be very fun for us point whores.
Plus, how would clans know how to recruit?
Upvote
0
1.) I pub. I'm not in a clan. When I play, I play to win, not to get the top score. I could give a crap about my score as long as I know personally that I've contributed to the team.
2.) Giving individuals points makes individuals perform the tasks necessary to get the points. Ideally that coincides with winning the round, but not necessarily. Who's more valuable? The sniper with 60 kills on random riflemen who weren't even in a cap zone and posed no particular threat to the team, or the sniper who killed two MGs who'd locked down an area, a single squad leader whose death tipped the balance for his team in a cap zone, and handed ammo to the team MGer for a grand total of 8 points? I'd say the second one's more valuable most of the time.
3.) As I said, I could give a crap about my personal points. I know what I did. I don't care if everyone else knows or not. So, even if I'm simply shown as "Team A won" and my name's on the roster (and no player points are listed ever), I know what I did and I know that my squad leader sat on his ass -- as does everyone else on the team and probably in the server. That's enough for me.
4.) I'd figure clans would recruit by watching players play the game and figuring out who's going to best help their team, rather than simply looking at who can score the most points. Again, if you've got a player who consistently is out for his own points but never gets his ass in the cap zone, how good is he, really?
2.) Giving individuals points makes individuals perform the tasks necessary to get the points. Ideally that coincides with winning the round, but not necessarily. Who's more valuable? The sniper with 60 kills on random riflemen who weren't even in a cap zone and posed no particular threat to the team, or the sniper who killed two MGs who'd locked down an area, a single squad leader whose death tipped the balance for his team in a cap zone, and handed ammo to the team MGer for a grand total of 8 points? I'd say the second one's more valuable most of the time.
3.) As I said, I could give a crap about my personal points. I know what I did. I don't care if everyone else knows or not. So, even if I'm simply shown as "Team A won" and my name's on the roster (and no player points are listed ever), I know what I did and I know that my squad leader sat on his ass -- as does everyone else on the team and probably in the server. That's enough for me.
4.) I'd figure clans would recruit by watching players play the game and figuring out who's going to best help their team, rather than simply looking at who can score the most points. Again, if you've got a player who consistently is out for his own points but never gets his ass in the cap zone, how good is he, really?
Upvote
0
To follow that up:
What keeps your average pubber going? When I used to pub, I wanted to be on top for points (same as now
Disagree. Most regular players on any server, once beyond the "new" players blues, the learning curve so to speak don't really care about the final score or stats all that much. They don't mean much in terms of skill and I think most players realize that. Sometimes the top scores will reflect the best teamplayers, with those continually in the capzones helping the team having the highest score, but not necessarily. And on the defending side, score means pretty much nothing.
I think what keeps the average pubber going, after they've gotten used to the game is the teamwork, the winning because your team is working together, regardless of ones own score.
Upvote
0
I haven't read the whole tread so this maybe sound like a deja vu but it is realistic!
In RO the fighting is between 2 company's (around 100 men each). So when you die the soldier you represent is dead or (more common) badly wounded so he can't fight anymore. When you have to wait to respawn a new squad comes into the battlefield and you're a new soldier.
Conclusion:
You don't respawn, you're getting in a new soldier
In RO the fighting is between 2 company's (around 100 men each). So when you die the soldier you represent is dead or (more common) badly wounded so he can't fight anymore. When you have to wait to respawn a new squad comes into the battlefield and you're a new soldier.
Conclusion:
You don't respawn, you're getting in a new soldier
Upvote
0
What i say is offsite ability to check your personal stats and other people their personal stat, and the ability to compare players.
With something like the unreal stats thingy. But without to sort all players based on some ranking or on ratios etc.
So ppl can look at seperate players and compare them but not hassle about a ranking.
Then ingame only show the win loss ratio. Indeed even if you killed alot your ratio might be worse. But it could make some clanned people more passionate of getting a good clan score there so to uses voip and win rounds insstead of getting just lots of caps. People that care will focus more on winning blocking entraces etc than justs killing.
Atleast thats what i hope would happen. Atm NOBODY in a public game even remotely cares if the team wins or looses =\
With something like the unreal stats thingy. But without to sort all players based on some ranking or on ratios etc.
So ppl can look at seperate players and compare them but not hassle about a ranking.
Then ingame only show the win loss ratio. Indeed even if you killed alot your ratio might be worse. But it could make some clanned people more passionate of getting a good clan score there so to uses voip and win rounds insstead of getting just lots of caps. People that care will focus more on winning blocking entraces etc than justs killing.
Atleast thats what i hope would happen. Atm NOBODY in a public game even remotely cares if the team wins or looses =\
Upvote
0
Stats are just as pointless because all stats track are trackable events like kills, captures, and which weapon was used to get a kill, etc. They don't track things like "Delayed the enemy for 5 minutes, even though he only got 2 kills" or "covered his squad's advance with smoke so that the squad could capture, even though he died in the attempt and didn't get capture points."
Put simply, you can't track teamwork. To me, teamwork is FAR more important than trackable stats.
Put simply, you can't track teamwork. To me, teamwork is FAR more important than trackable stats.
Upvote
0
But they can track the MG who delayed them 5 mins and got 15 kills....
Also, how the hell do you pull off a 5-min delay with only 2 kills?
Upvote
0
But they can track the MG who delayed them 5 mins and got 15 kills....
Also, how the hell do you pull off a 5-min delay with only 2 kills?
Yes, they can, but then they're only tracking kills, not the REAL benefit to the team -- the delay.
As for how you pull of a 5-minute delay with only 2 kills, consider the following scenario.
German MG42 is set up at the rearmost sandbags in the Group HQ on Odessa. He's got a full view of the long approach towards the far left-hand side (left from the German perspective, anyway). This is a common path for Russian troops to take, and he knows it. The MG is defending along with two riflemen, and one STG44 assault trooper. One rifleman is at the MG's side. The other rifleman is in the corner of the building with the columns. The STG is set up in the lower sandbags looking onto the rubble pile. (I think you know where I mean)
The Russians send three troops down the approach to take the HQ. the MG opens up and kills one of them outright. One russian soldier runs to avoid the MG fire, and dives by the rubble pile, where the MG can't hit him. But the Rifleman in the building with columns picks him off. The last Russian hits the dirt and belly crawls into the cap zone by the sandbags. The STG trooper cooks a nade and blows him up. All this took about 1:15 off the clock.
15 seconds later, the same Russian crew respawns, this time with another player backing them up. Again, the MG opens up and kills one trooper, while winging another. Just as the MG's about to fire another burst, his accompanying rifleman picks off the wounded man. The other two players sneak to the sandbags again, but a German at the far side who's defending the tower approach to the HQ sees them and kills them with his G43. And we've got 2:30 left on the clock now.
Figuring that the Russians won't try exactly the same trick again, the riflman by the MG moves down to where the STG is, and the STG moves over to cover the other approach to the square, where the statues are. This time, the Russians start running down the usual approach, and two bursts of MG fire makes one of them dive for cover, figuring he can pick off that pesky MG from long range. The other three head down the alleyway, which takes a bit longer than the other approach, but has better cover. As they are about to exit the alleyway, the STG kills two of them, and one of the other two riflemen kills the last. 5 minutes are up, and our MGer has a grand total of 2 points.
On the other hand, he managed to kill two troopers, and keep the rest of the Russians busy trying to avoid him, which put them in perfect positions for his teammates to kill them. What's more, he made the Russians waste more time by taking a longer route away from his MG fire, which both ran out the clock and funneled the troops into a kill zone for his teammates.
All told, I'd rather have that guy on my team than the guy who's simply playing to pump his own points.
Upvote
0
But the guy playing to pump his own points usually has the same result.
Cap zone = 10 points. Get in cap zone.
Kill = 1-3 pts. Get kills.
Turns out the same, usually.
Cap zone = 10 points. Get in cap zone.
Kill = 1-3 pts. Get kills.
Turns out the same, usually.
Upvote
0
Sometimes, yes, but not always. Plus, if he ONLY plays for his own score, he may not be where he's needed when he's needed there.
For example, the MGer on defense only got two points. He got zero points for keeping the cap zone enemy-free, and got zero points for suppressing the enemy or making them redirect towards a prepared ambush position.
If you've got a player who plays only for points, he's a lot less likely to do things that help the team but don't score points.
He may still help the team some by scoring points, but it's like the argument about which sniper is more valuable: the one who gets 15 kills, or the one who kills 5 of the RIGHT people at the right TIME.
For example, the MGer on defense only got two points. He got zero points for keeping the cap zone enemy-free, and got zero points for suppressing the enemy or making them redirect towards a prepared ambush position.
If you've got a player who plays only for points, he's a lot less likely to do things that help the team but don't score points.
He may still help the team some by scoring points, but it's like the argument about which sniper is more valuable: the one who gets 15 kills, or the one who kills 5 of the RIGHT people at the right TIME.
Upvote
0
And then my counter-argument would be, no, the game can't tell that. People's opinions of "right" targets varies.
I mean, I see where you are coming from - it's just I don't think that the scoring system is innacurate enough to merit this sort of overhaul.
I mean, I see where you are coming from - it's just I don't think that the scoring system is innacurate enough to merit this sort of overhaul.
Upvote
0
Waiting to respawn and/or running back to the battle after respawning bores you out of your ****ing mind? chose strategic locations, sit there and pick off people.
Upvote
0
A good working voice chat? A map on which the commander can at least set a meeting point and which shows the locations of MGs with a lack of ammunition if they use the given spreech commands.
If that's nothing to coordinate a team
...Sure on public servers some player still ignore those things but nonetheless you can coordinate a team quite effective. So what more do you want? A big green arrow pointing to the target selected by the squadleader?
Upvote
0
Uh....then I think we're arguing the same thing.
I also don't think the scoring system could track those types of events. Certainly not without (a) making certain prejudgments about the value of one target vs. the other (which can change in a milisecond), or (b) without causing server CPUs to burst into flame.
All of this is why I tend to disregard score and points as a barometer of player skill. Obviously points often coincides with good teamwork and a good player, but it's not a guarantee.
I think all the point system shows is how many times you did things to get points. That's it. Ideally, those things will coincide with actions that benefit the team, but it is possible (and unfortunately, does seem to happen quite a bit on pub servers) for a player to run off on his own, score a whole mess of points, but get himself killed and do basically jack for his team. I mean, a guy could conceivably get 12 points by handing ammo to an MGer, suiciding, and repeating this process 3 times, while doing exactly nothing else to help the team. (Actually, I can't remember if it's -1 or -2 for a suicide, but you get my drift.)
That's why I wouldn't have a problem with the scoreboard going away entirely. Points doesn't tell me much about a player, at least in terms of the type of information I want to know.
Upvote
0
And here is where we differ.
Points serve as a rough estimate of a player's skill. The most skilled players *usually* will have the most points - exceptions are snipers and other support classes.
Granted, the system can be exploited, but it is very hard for someone to consistently end up on top of the scoreboard while doing nothing for the team. In your example (give ammo, suicide), well, I'm going to rack up more points by resupplying the MG, then going, killing 3 people, and capping. Whether the player wants those extra points is up to him.
I have never seen a bad player manage to come on top for points. That pretty much proves that points are a good rough estimate of a person's skill.
Eh?
Upvote
0
I do agree with you the fact that scores are a good, if rough, estimate of skill.
What I'm interested is, how can you tell a bad player from a good one (if not based on score)?
I remember a round in Basovka. I was playing Germans and had my favourite role as an SMG'er. I had been present in capping both the AT gun as well as the Command bunker in the middle. I was over 15 points ahead of the rest of the team after having cleared the AT trenches twice (the first time didn't result in a cap) as well as picking off a good amount of random riflemen.
Now, the spawn point was in the bunker. The German MG was idle and standing in the middle of the spawn point. Everybody was always giving him ammo when they spawned and after five or seven minutes (man, that station was hard to cap, even with my mad l557 SMG-skillz) I was in the middle of the scoreboard and trailing the top scorers by over 30 points! Man, was I ever mad wondering how many ammo boxes that MG dude in our spawn had.
Upvote
0
Like I said, it can be exploited. However, it usually works just fine, and I see no reason to change or get rid of it.
Upvote
0