points ideas

[[3.SA].Vlad]

Two ideas here I have done a search.

Anyway.

1.make killing a sniper or mg 2 points this would encourage your teams sniper(s) to counter snipe and take out mgs as I hardly ever see snipers doing this.

2.For the defending team if they are in the cap zone they will get something like 1 point per minute or 30 secs maybe even 2 mins this is only for the cap that is cappable by the enemy ie on stalingrad you could not just sit in south rail as axis and rack up points yet you can in north and assembly if they have took warehouse.Although I do have doubts about this idea I have a feeling if this was implemented people would just uselessly sit in a room in the cap where they won't be helping the team by killing encoming enemy to cap.

 

[Kumando]

I like the idea.

 

[Solo4114]

Amazingly, I actually don't think these are bad ideas. However, I'd make a change to #2:

- Rather than have points be determined by how long you're in the location, give defending players 2 points for killing an enemy who has entered the cap zone, and give attackers 2 points for killing an enemy defender in an active cap zone. This would encourage both sides to actually focus on the cap zones instead of running around like lunatics.

 

[murderous_eagle]

Well my problem with #2 is that it assumes the best place to defend at any given point is only in the cap zone. The best example of when this is not the case is the ridge in Smolensk. If you just give up the town between farm and ridge, than your team will lose. If you send a decent size force of competent people (not just SMGs mind you, the m38 is made for that place) you'll cause amazing havoc.

 

[dogbadger]

give the defenders 5 or 10 points for wresting back complete control of a cap if the attackers had previously taken more than 50% of it.

didn't seem popular idea when i posted this last year- but what the hell.

 

[LogisticEarth]

Well my problem with #2 is that it assumes the best place to defend at any given point is only in the cap zone. The best example of when this is not the case is the ridge in Smolensk. If you just give up the town between farm and ridge, than your team will lose. If you send a decent size force of competent people (not just SMGs mind you, the m38 is made for that place) you'll cause amazing havoc.

That is, untill the Germans wise up and start slaughtering you, ha.

But I agree with your point. The cap zones are artificial enough, I don't think it would be a great idea to exacerbate the problem by encouraging people to stay in the cap zones when it may not be the best place to be.

 

[Solo4114]

Except that most of the time it is the best place to be. The occasional "interceptor" or "delaying force" is useful, but a lot of the time the cap zone itself is where people are most needed. God knows I've been there myself PLENTY of times while my other more "aggressive" defenders have taken it upon themselves to leave the cap zone and "Defend from way the hell off over there" while simultaneously depleting reinforcements AND not being around to stop the enemy from capping because I can't do it alone.

 

[[3.SA].Vlad]

Well my problem with #2 is that it assumes the best place to defend at any given point is only in the cap zone. The best example of when this is not the case is the ridge in Smolensk. If you just give up the town between farm and ridge, than your team will lose. If you send a decent size force of competent people (not just SMGs mind you, the m38 is made for that place) you'll cause amazing havoc.

I disagree a good defence just on the ridge can work IF you are covering both sides and the middle properly with mgs and at-rifles.I mean this idea shouldn't completly stop people from doing what you just said but I think people who stay in the cap while fending off enemy should be rewarded more.i'll give you my own example say on zhitomir1941 the first apartments can be defended the whole duration of the map time to win the map yet I still see people running off to other parts of the map where the enemy won't be focusing on the only people who SHOULD be doing this is snipers or maybe an mg.We could be here all day debating about this on which maps it would work on but for the majority I think it'd work.

Keep the melting pot going guys and yes solo I think your version of #2 is better

 

[Richard_B.]

Why do not just double the points for every enemy you killed in your capzone instead of giving points for staying in the capzone?
This would give you 2 points for every soldier you kill in your active capzone and 6 for the group leaders, thus representing their importance for a cap(I mean, he counts as 1.5 regular soldiers).
This would eliminate the problem of people staying in the capzone when defending it right there is wrong.

 

[RedRaccoon]

Yes I like this idea of 2 points for defensive kills. For the squad leader, however, I don't think it should be doubled, maybe just one point extra or possibly two (four to five points).

 

[slyder73]

That is, untill the Germans wise up and start slaughtering you, ha.

But I agree with your point. The cap zones are artificial enough, I don't think it would be a great idea to exacerbate the problem by encouraging people to stay in the cap zones when it may not be the best place to be.

The third post had the solution to this. By killing enemy who have entered your cappable capzone you get 2 points. You don't need to be IN the capzone to get these points. For example, defending the Warehouse on Stalingrad, the sniper or MG sets up to fire into the Warehouse but are not actually in it still get the 2 points for killing enemy in the zone when they are trying to cap it.

Nice to see some point ideas that make sense.

 

[murderous_eagle]

That is, untill the Germans wise up and start slaughtering you, ha.

That's the thing though, they need to realize you're there and actively try to flush you out. Plus you won't go down easy. You've effectively made a combat zone before the next cap that they need to wade through to go on.

 

[Hummer9120]

A kill is a kill. They should all be one point.

 

[[PK]-Bad-Day]

A kill is a kill but what about the guy or tank that is on a "Killing spree" When he is finally taken down shouldn't he be worth more?

 

[LogisticEarth]

A kill is a kill but what about the guy or tank that is on a "Killing spree" When he is finally taken down shouldn't he be worth more?

The reward comes in that that tank/MG/sniper is now taken out of action. The fact that you got the shot that took him out means little in the long run. Make that shot consistantly, and you'll be rewarded through the normal means.

In the end, I think that points are a very minor part of the game. One point for killing and ten for capturing is simple enough. Maybe two for resupply. Creating complex point schemes to try and influence the way the game is played is the last thing I think the devs should be working on.

In any case, the people with the most points are, for the most part, the ones that DO attack or defend the most effectively, for two reasons: 1.) Most of the time they're trying to cap, meaning they often get the 10 point bonus. 2.) Since they're trying to take/defend the zone, naturally they run into the greatest number of enemies who are trying to do the same. And if they're good, they'll kill them. So I think the points are well enough for now, except for the 5 point resupply, which especially given the German MG's ability to be resupplied from the get-go, just mucks up the whole scheme.

After the first 10 seconds of the map, look at who's got 5 points on the German team and you can immediately tell who the point whore is.

 

[[PK]-Bad-Day]

I get what you mean but my the idea I'm trying to get across is PRIORITY targets.
An example would be You are in a Tank and suddenly 2 targets are spotted direct in front of you but a little distance apart. A rifleman and an AT soldier they are both aiming at you. Who will you shoot at first? If you said Rifleman you don't understand what a PRIORITY target is. They are both worth the same points but one has the advantage over the other . I believe the AT soldier should be worth more points in this matter.

 

[LogisticEarth]

I get what you mean but my the idea I'm trying to get across is PRIORITY targets.
An example would be You are in a Tank and suddenly 2 targets are spotted direct in front of you but a little distance apart. A rifleman and an AT soldier they are both aiming at you. Who will you shoot at first? If you said Rifleman you don't understand what a PRIORITY target is. They are both worth the same points but one has the advantage over the other . I believe the AT soldier should be worth more points in this matter.

This is entirely conditional. The tanker might be threatened by an AT solider, but the rifleman is not. The rifleman may be threatened by an SMG dude at close range, but the situation is flipped around if you're fighting at distance. The point is that making complex point systems for kills mucks up the game. PTRD soliders can be killer on Leningrad, but on maps like Smolensk, they play a very minor support role. The imporance of the class is entirely variable, so again, the "reward" is that the dangerous soldier is now dead and you are safe. Continuing to kill soldiers in such a way that will keep you safe but still productive will, again, already give you a higher score, so there's no need here.

The one solider that is worth more points right now is the commander, since, regardless of his weapon, arty, smoke, has more capturing ability than the rest. This is somewhat justified, because keeping the commander dead and/or suppressed means that you're effectively suppressing more than one solider.

 

[murderous_eagle]

Long story short, KiSS

 

[[PK]-Bad-Day]

Long story short, KiSS

ok ok I know this Kiss stuff Keep It Simple Stupid. Im cool with the kill or be killed role Just thought some people should be worth more. If thay all die with 1 shot to the head...well I guess this 1 point thing is the right way to go.

 

[{8.SS}Bottcher]

I say eliminate the points system altogether, too many scoreboard glory hounds who want to get to the top, if you abolish it altogether then the only way you can record a victory for your team is by doing just that, being victorious.
With the points, 9/10 you'll see a team of individuals, most time when you see a few friends, not strictly clan mates mind you, playing together as a cohesive force, the last thing they care about is their score. In fact, if you see the better clans and units scores after a match, most of the time the majority of the members will have very similar scores anyway, because they've been working as a team and not caring about the score.
Get rid of scores altogether and you will see a marked increase in teamwork, because people still want to win, but they can't win as an individual anymore. You'll also probably see a huge decrease in abusive players who say things like "Well you got a **** score, you must be crap!" and "I got the highest score last round, you should all do what i say because i'm the best!"
And for anyone who's about to say something like a score will help pick out teamkillers who'll be marked be a negative score, well that's what this new forgive feature is for. Besides, if a servers admins are on the ball anyone who deliberatly teamkills lasts what? 5 seconds? 10?

Just my opinion guys, but i feel very strongly about it. RO is a very realistic game, compared to what else there is on the market, and plenty of servers enhance the realism by disabling death messages and putting on small mods that do things like black out your view after you die and prevent ghosting. Surely removing scores would be just another logical step along the line?

H!
Oberscharfuhrer Bottcher