I thought in bf once you controlled all points the reinf counter quickly went to 0.
Based on how many cap zones your team has determines how slow your resources drain and how quickly theirs does. If you do own all zones, it will reach zero eventually, but so long as there are enemies on the map somewhere, the game will continue on until they are killed.
In its current state having unlimited reinforcements is in 90% of the maps the same as they play now (a few maps are tweaked so that 1 team or both teams pretty much run out of reinf in the last cap). But a change in the system would allow mappers to get different playstyles for more variety and some additional effects that can have good effects.
If you adjust the respawns to give every person 30 respawns, and that would be too much for a map then you could set it to 20 or 10 or whatever. All up to the mapper.
Then based on your original calculations, if it was only 10-20 spawn points, depending on the class you pick you'd only have maybe 5 or so spawn lives and then you're out of the game, or spending the rest of the game harassing everyone else bumming for their extra lives... or you leave for another server/map or another game altogether.
Tbh in case of recappable capzones, in maps i wouldnt mind to have some time left like 1 or 2 minutes to cap something back. Because plenty of times you would have capped an other capzone within 10 seconds. I think after all caps have been capped a short time where the defenders must hold the caps and defend it can be pretty fun (although it should be definable by a mapper).
The focus shouldnt be on wiping everybody out together, the game should be focused mostly on objectives, hardly anything would change concerning that if reinforcements were given to everybody individually instead of to the team as a big group. But if mappers like to use the reinforcements for a special scenario they should be able to do it in a way that the team doesn't run out halfway of all reinforcements, and thats why individual reinforcements are nice.
Granted that I do not mind the limited tank classes in certain maps where you can only get maybe 5 tigers etc..... cuz there were only 5 tigers in the real battle perhaps..... and perhaps something like that could be put into place for the troops. What I mean is that say there were only 5 snipers out of 50 troops..... once 5 snipers are killed off, there are no more snipers for the round, but keep the spawn settings as they currently are (entire team) so that you can at least spawn again as assault or rifleman.
The problem with that though is that near the end of the round, all that would remain would be all riflemen on both sides unless one team decided to save all their special classes for near the end and completely slaughter the other team who all have just rifles.
Your above proposal may wind up allowing the map to allow that you don't run out of grouped reinforcements halfway through the game, but when you only end up having 3 guys left out of 20 to defend against everybody else on the other team doesn't sit well with me..... and your solution to that of having a vote surrender doesn't sit well with me for already explained reasons.
I just feel the current system is a nice balance for all aspects of each player's style..... including the styles I may not agree with. Some may not agree with my style.... that's how she goes.
Just as i think it could be nice to have unbalanced maps where the game balancer puts teams in a 2:1 ratio for instance so 20 allies play against 10 germans.
Wow... we must be at opposite polar ends with our ideas cuz I don't like that idea either, lol.
How many people do you think will want to play a level where the majority of the time they will always end up with them being on the losing side and chances of winning are pretty well nil meanwhile those lucky enough to get on the side with the majority of players/spawns will surely win everytime and it's just basically a one-sided slaughter fest?
I know I've played more then enough online matches in various games to know how much it sucks being greatly out numbered, nobody on the other team wants to even things up and you're stuck being whooped non-stop the moment you spawn because they're all surrounding your spawn area to gradually exterminate you, having no chance at getting further then spawning?
Those are matches I avoid and/or leave as well, because when you stand no chance and the balance of the game is unfair from the very start, where's the enjoyment?
You're just a walking frag waiting for the hounds to tear you apart for points.
And in the same way i think it could be fun to make a gamemode where one team got half the reinforcements as the other team, but in order for that to work the team must actually keep an eye on the reinf which currently hardly ever happens (although often enough you have people screaming that people should watchout for reinforcements).
Some gameplay parts of a game no matter how unrealistic could just be more realistic than RO, doesnt mean the game is more realistic. But it can make a player to react more realistically in one way.
I somewhat agree, but I as already stated before, there are already enough things in place to make people want to play more realistically.
Like I said, you're complaining and trying to force change on what happens on "Public" servers, when the easiest solution is just to join or create a clan/server that suits your way of playing. Set the rules, set the style of play and for anybody who wants to fart around and not play the game right..... kick em. It'd be your clan and/or your server, and you'd have every right, meanwhile the public servers can remain as they are for those who like the game the way it is, which I do.
Then everybody wins.
Upvote
0