criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube

Calling it now... battle points...

Prev1
I feel like battle points are going to be unbalanced.

They are based on how well you are doing. Meaning there will be thousands of players and thousands of teams not able to combat all the cheap being thrown at them.

That is, without a welfare system in place. BUT welfare doesn't make it all fine and dandy either. Welfare of course meaning players getting stomped on getting free points to spend.

I'm not entirely fond of people getting rewards for doing poorly or not playing the game right...

In bf2015 the only risk you really ran is having the hero fall in some **** hands. Everything else such as vehicles and power ups were available for everyone and spread out sort of fairly.

I just see this system being a problem. It sounds awesome right now to be honest but it also sounds like a LOT of teams are gonna get **** pounded.

Yet at the same time I reeeeeally don't want to lose or have an entire match changed because some guy with 30 deaths got 5000 free points

Replies

  • I think the battlepoint system is awesome. I can see potential problems if things don't cost enough but with solid balancing it can be very good.
  • It all depends on how it is balanced. As long as those who are actively helping their team get the most points, then I'll be fine with it. Also, it is sooooo much better than the random tokens of the last game.
    #JustSayNoToReyLo
  • rollind24
    5024 posts Member
    edited October 2017
    Everyone spent money to play the game. "Let them eat cake" If your doing well yea you should be able to get more battle points but everyone should be able to get some power up at least once if they are active.
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • Alex64
    5627 posts Member
    Battlepoints are based on how much you PTO or do Teamplay.
  • It all depends on how it is balanced. As long as those who are actively helping their team get the most points, then I'll be fine with it. Also, it is sooooo much better than the random tokens of the last game.

  • SolidShatner
    16 posts Member
    edited October 2017
    I think there are SOME fair points here. Totally disagree with BF2015 being balanced in ANY way though. It was always "who has the map memorized and a jetpack!? Oh wait, EVERYONE! So I guess we'll be getting the power ups FIRST! HAHA!"

    Imagine that you wanted to get the game later, this is going to be set up JUST like the last one. Everyone will be OP, you'll suck because you wouldn't have had a YEAR (or whatever) to get gear, power cards, level ups, etc . . . and all the while peeps will be likely screaming and laughing "get good! LULZ" Just like the current community in BF 2015 does. Points, cards and crates RUIN games (unless the rewards are PURELY cosmetic). They're just micro-transaction cash grabs and bottle neck your player base.
  • Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    I feel like battle points are going to be unbalanced.

    They are based on how well you are doing. Meaning there will be thousands of players and thousands of teams not able to combat all the cheap being thrown at them.

    That is, without a welfare system in place. BUT welfare doesn't make it all fine and dandy either. Welfare of course meaning players getting stomped on getting free points to spend.

    I'm not entirely fond of people getting rewards for doing poorly or not playing the game right...

    In bf2015 the only risk you really ran is having the hero fall in some **** hands. Everything else such as vehicles and power ups were available for everyone and spread out sort of fairly.

    I just see this system being a problem. It sounds awesome right now to be honest but it also sounds like a LOT of teams are gonna get **** pounded.

    Yet at the same time I reeeeeally don't want to lose or have an entire match changed because some guy with 30 deaths got 5000 free points

    Oh they are. It'll be like back in Pandemic Battlefront 2 where skilled players would go on 30-40 streaks as Obi, Maul, or Luke. And then the next game they'll get them again, and again, and again. Which of course I love.
  • EvazanJr wrote: »
    I think the battlepoint system is awesome. I can see potential problems if things don't cost enough but with solid balancing it can be very good.

    How can you think it's awesome if you've never played the game? And how do you balance skill currency?

    Bf2015 there were loads of players going 20 to 50 kills and just a few deaths and far more players going extremely negative. It's not very fair that the guy going 5-30 gets a damn tank every time he dies. But at the same time it's also not very fair for a guy going 40-3 to get a hero or tank every time he dies.

    I just think it'll be hard balancing this system. Only time will tell but I'm calling it now
  • Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    I think the battlepoint system is awesome. I can see potential problems if things don't cost enough but with solid balancing it can be very good.

    How can you think it's awesome if you've never played the game? And how do you balance skill currency?

    Bf2015 there were loads of players going 20 to 50 kills and just a few deaths and far more players going extremely negative. It's not very fair that the guy going 5-30 gets a **** tank every time he dies. But at the same time it's also not very fair for a guy going 40-3 to get a hero or tank every time he dies.

    I just think it'll be hard balancing this system. Only time will tell but I'm calling it now

    How can you complain about it if you've never played the game. You both said it's a balancing issue.
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    I think the battlepoint system is awesome. I can see potential problems if things don't cost enough but with solid balancing it can be very good.

    How can you think it's awesome if you've never played the game? And how do you balance skill currency?

    Bf2015 there were loads of players going 20 to 50 kills and just a few deaths and far more players going extremely negative. It's not very fair that the guy going 5-30 gets a **** tank every time he dies. But at the same time it's also not very fair for a guy going 40-3 to get a hero or tank every time he dies.

    I just think it'll be hard balancing this system. Only time will tell but I'm calling it now

    We'll have fun not having fun
  • It doesn't seem to hard to make it so that you get points for each kill, objective completion etc so that the better players rack them up faster than the guy going 5-30.
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • Im perfectly fine with skill being rewarded consistently, not hoping to stumble upon a token like this is mario.
  • Danxoln
    2473 posts Member
    I think the system is fine as is, we'll have to wait a week to see if it's unbalanced. I think it's a good idea for rewarding good players quickly (those who get kills and PTO) and rewarding other players slowly. Everyone gets a chance at an upgrade, better players will get it faster and more often.
  • Danxoln
    2473 posts Member
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    I think the battlepoint system is awesome. I can see potential problems if things don't cost enough but with solid balancing it can be very good.

    How can you think it's awesome if you've never played the game? And how do you balance skill currency?

    Bf2015 there were loads of players going 20 to 50 kills and just a few deaths and far more players going extremely negative. It's not very fair that the guy going 5-30 gets a **** tank every time he dies. But at the same time it's also not very fair for a guy going 40-3 to get a hero or tank every time he dies.

    I just think it'll be hard balancing this system. Only time will tell but I'm calling it now

    And how can you think it will be unbalanced if you've never played the game lol
  • Alex64
    5627 posts Member
    Danxoln wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    I think the battlepoint system is awesome. I can see potential problems if things don't cost enough but with solid balancing it can be very good.

    How can you think it's awesome if you've never played the game? And how do you balance skill currency?

    Bf2015 there were loads of players going 20 to 50 kills and just a few deaths and far more players going extremely negative. It's not very fair that the guy going 5-30 gets a **** tank every time he dies. But at the same time it's also not very fair for a guy going 40-3 to get a hero or tank every time he dies.

    I just think it'll be hard balancing this system. Only time will tell but I'm calling it now

    And how can you think it will be unbalanced if you've never played the game lol

    This is just the beginning...
  • It's not as bad as you think. When you actually play it for yourself, it's balanced. I say that because I got the opportunity at EA Play.
  • They’ve had a pre alpha, alpha, and they’re about to have a beta in order to collect data and adjust the battle points requirements accordingly for the launch of the official game. Everything will be okay
  • bfloo
    14086 posts Member
    Alex64 wrote: »
    Danxoln wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    I think the battlepoint system is awesome. I can see potential problems if things don't cost enough but with solid balancing it can be very good.

    How can you think it's awesome if you've never played the game? And how do you balance skill currency?

    Bf2015 there were loads of players going 20 to 50 kills and just a few deaths and far more players going extremely negative. It's not very fair that the guy going 5-30 gets a **** tank every time he dies. But at the same time it's also not very fair for a guy going 40-3 to get a hero or tank every time he dies.

    I just think it'll be hard balancing this system. Only time will tell but I'm calling it now

    And how can you think it will be unbalanced if you've never played the game lol

    This is just the beginning...

    Get the popcorn ready.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.
  • rollind24 wrote: »
    Everyone spent money to play the game. "Let them eat cake" If your doing well yea you should be able to get more battle points but everyone should be able to get some power up at least once if they are active.

    I agree with you
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    rollind24 wrote: »
    "Let them eat cake”

    LOLOLOL :D :D :D :D
  • Incentive to play the game as a team, and play the games objectives is more important than everyone getting the same experience, Achievement is what we aspire to for gratification, not equality.

    Some people will be better than others, but a good portion of battle-points are earned through team play, rather than just outright killed.

    My advise to those who want to have high scores and play heroes, would be stick to your spawning squad, you get almost double points just being in each others proximity, Play officer and use his command boost ability giving you points for all troops close by, and of course play to the objective.

    someone will always get points faster than you out there, but that means always room for improvement and thus you'll continue to play the game for the incentives.

    if playing the game was the same from launch onwards in regards to battle-points, you'd stop playing within a week.
    Command_Cookem "Self proclaimed Officer Legend"

  • snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    This guy pretty much nailed it in the coffin, as someone who has put 30ish hours into the alpha I can assure you it rewards team play and objective play. If you sit in the corner the entire game camping, sorry to tell you the game will NOT reward you for that type of play.

    Stay near your squad earn more points, buff people earn more points etc etc. If you don't help the team out, and you do just about nothing why should the game reward you with a ton of battlepoints? I'm glad this game isn't a hand out game like the last one, it truly will sort the players out for sure.

    If you're an unskilled player, there is always room for improvement I played officer the entire time in the alpha, I did a small test. I went 0-0 and with in 8 mins I had 5k worth of points. How? team play, staying near my squad buffing people every chance I had playing the objective and just overall being cautious with my gameplay. So peoples arguments about it's so "tough" to earn points and it's "not fair" is invalid
    #1 Ranked Officer NA.
  • lol how would battlepoints be unbalanced? its literally the score u get for playing the objective
  • rollind24 wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    EvazanJr wrote: »
    I think the battlepoint system is awesome. I can see potential problems if things don't cost enough but with solid balancing it can be very good.

    How can you think it's awesome if you've never played the game? And how do you balance skill currency?

    Bf2015 there were loads of players going 20 to 50 kills and just a few deaths and far more players going extremely negative. It's not very fair that the guy going 5-30 gets a **** tank every time he dies. But at the same time it's also not very fair for a guy going 40-3 to get a hero or tank every time he dies.

    I just think it'll be hard balancing this system. Only time will tell but I'm calling it now

    How can you complain about it if you've never played the game. You both said it's a balancing issue.

    When and where did I complain?
  • snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    Yeah but some people have the inability to perform even though they really want to. Seems like the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players.

    This kind of scares me though because the last of us implemented this with a patch and it TOTALLY destroyed the game.
  • DarthJ
    6059 posts Member
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    Yeah but some people have the inability to perform even though they really want to. Seems like the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players.

    This kind of scares me though because the last of us implemented this with a patch and it TOTALLY destroyed the game.

    So how would you fix it out of interest?

    Because nerfing the points to the point where they are really low will only have the effect of allowing players who stack points quicker to get rewards quicker.

    I personally think its fair.
    PSN: ibrajoker59
  • It works fine. It's like the kill streak system in cod, which works fine.
  • I don’t know where you have heard the free battlepoints from, but anyway. Battlepoints are earned in match for both Kills and Playing the Objective, so if you aren’t good at shooting, PTO. Also, battlepoints build up as you play the match, but when you spend them, it’s just like money, you now have less and have to build it up again, but as a hero, you cannot earn battlepoints. Another thing is that the battlepoints do not cross over to the next game, you have to start over again.
    For me personally, this is a great system, and until I play the game, it has very few flaws
    442nd And 332nd are the BEST
  • DarthJ wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    Yeah but some people have the inability to perform even though they really want to. Seems like the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players.

    This kind of scares me though because the last of us implemented this with a patch and it TOTALLY destroyed the game.

    So how would you fix it out of interest?

    Because nerfing the points to the point where they are really low will only have the effect of allowing players who stack points quicker to get rewards quicker.

    I personally think its fair.

    That's the thing I don't really know. I'm just placing my bets on it being unbalanced.

    Like I said they had a similar problem in they last of us... they added a welfare system and it completely broke the game. Lots of people now run around with one shot kill weapons, lots of extra ammo, tons of grenades and smoke bombs etc when they aren't really losing or doing too poorly.

    I've seen it tons of times in THAT game where I get 2 kills and that causes my box drops to dwindle and enemy bombs skyrocket. I just really don't want to see that happen.
  • Vixeren
    100 posts Member
    edited October 2017
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    Yeah but some people have the inability to perform even though they really want to. Seems like the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players.

    This kind of scares me though because the last of us implemented this with a patch and it TOTALLY destroyed the game.

    Please tell me you're joking when you say the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players. Either you're a very successful troll or you're not kidding.

    Here is a thought provoking question for you, give me reasons why the game should reward bad players. Besides the cliche answer of others being unskilled.
    #1 Ranked Officer NA.
  • If you are doing good I think you deserve a reward.
    This also helps the team as more skilled players get to play heroes and reinforcements first so they can make more impact during the match.
  • Vixeren wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    Yeah but some people have the inability to perform even though they really want to. Seems like the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players.

    This kind of scares me though because the last of us implemented this with a patch and it TOTALLY destroyed the game.

    Please tell me you're joking when you say the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players. Either you're a very successful troll or you're not kidding.

    Here is a thought provoking question for you, give me reasons why the game should reward bad players. Besides the cliche answer of others being unskilled.

    Your reply leads me to believe you're okay with players going 50-0 and absolutely obliterating everyone on the enemy team with them not being able to fight back.

    I just want a game that rewards the hell out of good players but at the same time doesn't bury the other team. Im okay with some welfare but too much just ruins it as well.


    I obviously have no ideas yet on how to balance the system or if the system even needs balanced in the first place.

    I've seen great devs like naughtydog put welfare systems in their games and just ruin the experience.
  • Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    Vixeren wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    Yeah but some people have the inability to perform even though they really want to. Seems like the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players.

    This kind of scares me though because the last of us implemented this with a patch and it TOTALLY destroyed the game.

    Please tell me you're joking when you say the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players. Either you're a very successful troll or you're not kidding.

    Here is a thought provoking question for you, give me reasons why the game should reward bad players. Besides the cliche answer of others being unskilled.

    Your reply leads me to believe you're okay with players going 50-0 and absolutely obliterating everyone on the enemy team with them not being able to fight back.

    I just want a game that rewards the **** out of good players but at the same time doesn't bury the other team. Im okay with some welfare but too much just ruins it as well.


    I obviously have no ideas yet on how to balance the system or if the system even needs balanced in the first place.

    I've seen great devs like naughtydog put welfare systems in their games and just ruin the experience.

    I agree that there could be definite balance issues if the system isn't handled well, however based on what we've seen so far, it seems like things are pretty well balanced, at least at the moment.

    Additionally, things like Heroes aren't nearly as OP as they were in the last Battlefront. A well coordinated squad of players now has an excellent chance to take out a hero.

    As long as the most battle points go to the people who are actually playing the objective and helping their team, rather than spawn camping tryhards and their ilk, the battle point system should be a great asset to the game and the overall online experience.

    The last Battlefront had people who weren't great at shooting, but who were still great at playing the objective. Those people should be rewarded. Based on everything we've heard and seen regarding battle points, that is indeed the case.
    #JustSayNoToReyLo
  • bfloo
    14086 posts Member
    Better players should get rewarded for doing well.

    If anything, players who struggle to get heroes because the better players get them more will strive to do better.



    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • It's a better system than before, and the heros are much weaker now, so no one-sided matches.
    TFA-10.7.gif
  • Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    Vixeren wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    Yeah but some people have the inability to perform even though they really want to. Seems like the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players.

    This kind of scares me though because the last of us implemented this with a patch and it TOTALLY destroyed the game.

    Please tell me you're joking when you say the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players. Either you're a very successful troll or you're not kidding.

    Here is a thought provoking question for you, give me reasons why the game should reward bad players. Besides the cliche answer of others being unskilled.

    Your reply leads me to believe you're okay with players going 50-0 and absolutely obliterating everyone on the enemy team with them not being able to fight back.

    I just want a game that rewards the **** out of good players but at the same time doesn't bury the other team. Im okay with some welfare but too much just ruins it as well.


    I obviously have no ideas yet on how to balance the system or if the system even needs balanced in the first place.

    I've seen great devs like naughtydog put welfare systems in their games and just ruin the experience.

    Honestly I can't even tell what your talking about anymore. Are you talking about bad players getting rewarded through welfare or players that have the ability to go 50-0?
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    Vixeren wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    Yeah but some people have the inability to perform even though they really want to. Seems like the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players.

    This kind of scares me though because the last of us implemented this with a patch and it TOTALLY destroyed the game.

    Please tell me you're joking when you say the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players. Either you're a very successful troll or you're not kidding.

    Here is a thought provoking question for you, give me reasons why the game should reward bad players. Besides the cliche answer of others being unskilled.

    Your reply leads me to believe you're okay with players going 50-0 and absolutely obliterating everyone on the enemy team with them not being able to fight back.

    I just want a game that rewards the **** out of good players but at the same time doesn't bury the other team. Im okay with some welfare but too much just ruins it as well.


    I obviously have no ideas yet on how to balance the system or if the system even needs balanced in the first place.

    I've seen great devs like naughtydog put welfare systems in their games and just ruin the experience.

    I'm not sure what your complaining about anymore. The players that go 5-30 getting welfare battlepoints or the ones that have the ability to go 50-0?
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • rollind24 wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    Vixeren wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    Yeah but some people have the inability to perform even though they really want to. Seems like the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players.

    This kind of scares me though because the last of us implemented this with a patch and it TOTALLY destroyed the game.

    Please tell me you're joking when you say the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players. Either you're a very successful troll or you're not kidding.

    Here is a thought provoking question for you, give me reasons why the game should reward bad players. Besides the cliche answer of others being unskilled.

    Your reply leads me to believe you're okay with players going 50-0 and absolutely obliterating everyone on the enemy team with them not being able to fight back.

    I just want a game that rewards the **** out of good players but at the same time doesn't bury the other team. Im okay with some welfare but too much just ruins it as well.


    I obviously have no ideas yet on how to balance the system or if the system even needs balanced in the first place.

    I've seen great devs like naughtydog put welfare systems in their games and just ruin the experience.

    I'm not sure what your complaining about anymore. The players that go 5-30 getting welfare battlepoints or the ones that have the ability to go 50-0?

    Reading helps
  • Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    rollind24 wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    Vixeren wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    Yeah but some people have the inability to perform even though they really want to. Seems like the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players.

    This kind of scares me though because the last of us implemented this with a patch and it TOTALLY destroyed the game.

    Please tell me you're joking when you say the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players. Either you're a very successful troll or you're not kidding.

    Here is a thought provoking question for you, give me reasons why the game should reward bad players. Besides the cliche answer of others being unskilled.

    Your reply leads me to believe you're okay with players going 50-0 and absolutely obliterating everyone on the enemy team with them not being able to fight back.

    I just want a game that rewards the **** out of good players but at the same time doesn't bury the other team. Im okay with some welfare but too much just ruins it as well.


    I obviously have no ideas yet on how to balance the system or if the system even needs balanced in the first place.

    I've seen great devs like naughtydog put welfare systems in their games and just ruin the experience.

    I'm not sure what your complaining about anymore. The players that go 5-30 getting welfare battlepoints or the ones that have the ability to go 50-0?

    Reading helps

    Ok I will go with your answer regarding players going 50-0 in games and disregard your comments about bad players being rewarded.
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • rollind24 wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    rollind24 wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    Vixeren wrote: »
    Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    snakebro25 wrote: »
    The system is built off earning points. So the players who do their part and earn the points deserve to be the heroes. It's not EA's place to hold the unskilled players' hands. That's like rewarding people for handicapping their team buy not helping out . Doesn't make sense.

    Yeah but some people have the inability to perform even though they really want to. Seems like the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players.

    This kind of scares me though because the last of us implemented this with a patch and it TOTALLY destroyed the game.

    Please tell me you're joking when you say the only reasonable solution is to reward bad players. Either you're a very successful troll or you're not kidding.

    Here is a thought provoking question for you, give me reasons why the game should reward bad players. Besides the cliche answer of others being unskilled.

    Your reply leads me to believe you're okay with players going 50-0 and absolutely obliterating everyone on the enemy team with them not being able to fight back.

    I just want a game that rewards the **** out of good players but at the same time doesn't bury the other team. Im okay with some welfare but too much just ruins it as well.


    I obviously have no ideas yet on how to balance the system or if the system even needs balanced in the first place.

    I've seen great devs like naughtydog put welfare systems in their games and just ruin the experience.

    I'm not sure what your complaining about anymore. The players that go 5-30 getting welfare battlepoints or the ones that have the ability to go 50-0?

    Reading helps

    Ok I will go with your answer regarding players going 50-0 in games and disregard your comments about bad players being rewarded.

    Whatever helps you sleep at night
  • xeynx
    25 posts Member
    I consider myself a so-so player. I think my K/D ratio in BF2015 was like in the 0.89 range. I just don't have 8 hours to sink into practice on a daily basis =p.

    I think the system needs to strike a slight balance. One of the worst things in BF2015 was the balance and the steamroll. It doesn't need to cater to casuals, like myself, but at least a fighting chance is nice. It's just not very fun to come across the guy that's really really good at playing Bosk and going 70-1 or 70-2, which I encountered a couple of times.

    In terms of points, there needs to be a balance for the guy that is basically a stormtrooper gunfire magnet and goes 5-30 =p. Things like spawn camping can be solved by the fact that if you kill someone in spawn you get negative points. Are there going to be the oops moments? Sure, but I think that would curb the spawn kills, or perhaps an "auto-death" bomb if you kill 3 people in their spawn within 30 seconds. (I know, people hate that kind of idea, but there should be some method to curb the behavior without being super harsh on the accidental.)

    I think that's where the PTO comes in, to try and help people who maybe aren't the best at gun play, but want to participate.

    Quite honestly, and I know this may not be popular either, I think it should be skewed more to objective based accomplishments and less on "kills". Does it matter if you go 70-0 if your team never "wins" the objective? To me, no, you really didn't accomplish the objective. However, at the end of the day, it is a FPS, so I can understand why kills = points.
  • bfloo wrote: »
    Better players should get rewarded for doing well.

    If anything, players who struggle to get heroes because the better players get them more will strive to do better.



    ^^This. As a admittedly mediocre player who just jumped back into FPS after an 8 year layoff, I was terrible at the BF2015, and consistently felt like I hurt the team, so I knew I had to get better. So instead of crying or quitting, I learned how to improve my gameplay.(okay, maybe I cried a little :'( ). Now I know that if I can't rack up huge kill counts, I can still help the team by PTO, and supporting my teammates, plus the advice I have gotten from a lot of the good gamers on these boards helped immensely. Made the game fun again.
  • i'm sure they'll be a limit to how many times you can be a certain hero in a row, or how many heroes there are on the battlefield at the same time. maybe you earn less points (or none at all) while you're a hero. stuff like that. it may not be perfect at launch but after constructive feedback from the community, it'll be easy to rebalance i think
  • xeynx wrote: »
    I consider myself a so-so player. I think my K/D ratio in BF2015 was like in the 0.89 range. I just don't have 8 hours to sink into practice on a daily basis =p.

    I think the system needs to strike a slight balance. One of the worst things in BF2015 was the balance and the steamroll. It doesn't need to cater to casuals, like myself, but at least a fighting chance is nice. It's just not very fun to come across the guy that's really really good at playing Bosk and going 70-1 or 70-2, which I encountered a couple of times.

    In terms of points, there needs to be a balance for the guy that is basically a stormtrooper gunfire magnet and goes 5-30 =p. Things like spawn camping can be solved by the fact that if you kill someone in spawn you get negative points. Are there going to be the oops moments? Sure, but I think that would curb the spawn kills, or perhaps an "auto-death" bomb if you kill 3 people in their spawn within 30 seconds. (I know, people hate that kind of idea, but there should be some method to curb the behavior without being super harsh on the accidental.)

    I think that's where the PTO comes in, to try and help people who maybe aren't the best at gun play, but want to participate.

    Quite honestly, and I know this may not be popular either, I think it should be skewed more to objective based accomplishments and less on "kills". Does it matter if you go 70-0 if your team never "wins" the objective? To me, no, you really didn't accomplish the objective. However, at the end of the day, it is a FPS, so I can understand why kills = points.

    I'm pretty sure we'll be getting battlepoints for objective gameplay. If someone gets kills they should also get points for that. It's a whole chicken or the egg argument when it comes to someone killing 70 people not helping with an objective. Sure they didn't actually clear the objective but that's 70 less people for those at the objective to worry about which is a lot. Maybe a weighted point system for kills based on how close the enemies killed are to the objective.
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • rollind24 wrote: »
    "Let them eat cake”

    I understood that reference
  • Goldhawk1 wrote: »
    When and where did I complain?

    Let's see, when you titled the thread and made your first post?
  • xeynx
    25 posts Member
    rollind24 wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure we'll be getting battlepoints for objective gameplay. If someone gets kills they should also get points for that. It's a whole chicken or the egg argument when it comes to someone killing 70 people not helping with an objective. Sure they didn't actually clear the objective but that's 70 less people for those at the objective to worry about which is a lot. Maybe a weighted point system for kills based on how close the enemies killed are to the objective.

    I agree with you (as I mentioned), I can understand kills = points because it is an FPS; and have to assume objective points will be worth something similar to the kill points. I like your idea of weighted points for kills "near" an objective counting more than just random kills somewhere completely away from what you're "supposed" to be doing.
  • This is all based on a false premise. There is no "welfare" for Battle Points. You earn them by getting kills, by playing the objective, and by buffing/aiding teammates. If you contribute, you earn reinforcements as a reward. Period.
  • If getting kills makes you more powerful I may be in trouble lol. I play with guys that are absolutely insane and the thought of them getting more perks is scary lol. Maybe us lowly guys get a bone every now and then. I guess we find out soon.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!