Incentivizing doing more with a single squad (surviving for a period of time) with score/time mechanic

Suggestions
1

Numerous times now it has been brought up that the “meat grinder” type of play is not for everyone. Trying to survive for a longer amount of time should not be seen as a bad thing, actually quite the opposite. Surviving with a squad should generate a bonus, but under the requirement that they are still actively helping out their team in a noticeable way. Whether it is done by a close quarters fighter, or by longer range support (sniper, MG, or field gun support for example), if they are still helping the team, it should give a bonus for staying alive simultaneously.

What I suggest is perhaps along the lines of a bonus for surviving for x amount of time, while still racking up x amount of score.

Both longer distance support and close quarters combatants could make use of this. It essentially just means that you would need to meet certain “quotas” of score to get your bonus for surviving and reaching that goal at the same time.
Additionally, if they are reaching it more than just the one time, perhaps an increasing size of a bonus if the quota of points within x time is being reached time and time again by that SAME squad/ character. (The same expectation should be applied to all infantry types, so a universal rule would need to be set.

The example of this is say the time frame is 3 minutes, and the expected quota of points is 450 points (this averages down to 150 points/ minute = 5 kills or similar actions/ minute which SHOULD be fairly obtainable).

  • If a SQUAD survives for 3 minutes and racks up the 450 points, they get an additional 50 points.
  • If that same squad is alive for another 3 minutes and racks up ANOTHER 450 points, they get an additional 100 points, total of 150 now.
  • If they survive an additional 3 minutes and rack up ANOTHER 450 points, they get an additional 150 points, total of 300 now.
  • ETC.
  • If the time limit is hit but the quota is not met, the bonus counter is reset.
  • If the quota amount of points is hit before the end of the 3 minute timer, it starts the next stage of bonus, and resetting the timer.

The point is to get them to not just try to survive for longer, but to continue assisting the team in meaningful ways (enough to generate the quota score in x amount of time), this would also potentially help to incentivize things like putting down ammo boxes and rally points, as that would help to generate the needed points within that amount of time!

So my question to the other members of the forum on this thread is this:

What amount of score should be EXPECTED from players within say a 2-3 minute time frame?

Personal thoughts relating to this part:

  • If the time for the quota amount is too LONG, it will make it to where their support isn’t pressing enough. This especially plays into the players that are surviving by just sitting back with radio operator squads raining artillery every 2 minutes.

  • While it needs to be an OBTAINABLE goal, it shouldn’t be set too low to where it is an EASY thing to do. Players should still be providing their team with enough support that it is quite noticeable.

  • I don’t think vehicles should be included in THIS particular scoring mechanic, but they should have their own that incentivizes smart and effective play.

  • Please keep in mind the score you get for certain actions such as:

    • Kills = 30
    • Assists = 15
    • Rally point spawns = 30
    • Ammo box uses = 30
    • Destruction of enemy strategic structure = 55
    • Taking out enemy tanks and aircraft are also extremely lucrative for points.
    • These things can stack up quickly!
  • A small timer listed as Bonus could be added to the HUD, along with a points counter to track how much more you need to do.

@EdVanSchleck You always give pretty good debate and ideas to a topic, what are your thoughts here?

EDIT: This will also help to put a big difference of points and rewards to the players that are actively pushing hard or giving very effective support and making a big difference in the game.

8 Likes
2

Hi, thanks for the tag!
Here are my two cents about this:

  1. I like the idea, so that someone who plays safe but still effective would profit. I have particular newcomers in mind.
  2. I am not sure if this will interfere with the game design. I can forward your suggestion and ask.
  3. I am not sure if this will overcomplicate things, although I get your point. Where to draw the line? How can the game make sure that this won’t be exploited.

This is just my opinion but I’ll pass it in short form to see if this might be something, if you don’t mind of course.

3

As much as i agree i ain’t sure this is ever going to happen given current game design, there’s a reason they call this game a dopamine farm. You kill and die a lot.

1 Like
4

By all means!

Are you referring to the “you get less xp the longer you live for” part?
IF so, I would like to point out that while I understand why it was implemented, it doesn’t feel like it has had the best of effect on the game. As those that put in some serious ranged support (for example I enjoy using the field gun), get less and less returns, even though the team would likely not succeed without that support.

1 Like
5

I can’t tell you if this is meant by design. But I saw a lot of people complaining about it…

1 Like
6

Name me a penalty for spending lives playing the objective.

There are no repair costs.
There are no post-battle ammunition costs.
It only affects your ego as reflected on a statcard.

For what reason does the game give you a squad’s worth of lives, if not to participate in mutual mass killings?

If anything, dallying around with undermanned squads that fear exposing themselves for prolonged periods is a detriment to the team.

The suggestions provided only provides personal incentives to stay alive. Whoever you share the same team with, will not only be frustrated with the lack presence on the objective, but will share the same sentiment and turn it into a ghost town.

The game is thankfully meritocratic enough in that the only way for one to earn points is through active participation playing the objective.

Besides, if anything, it’s even possible for one to not expend a squad, top the score board and not have to use a vehicle.

But that’s in the realm of those with the actual skill to do so.

2 Likes
7

gamepace needs to be slowed down, and objectives take longer, respawn more controlled, built spawnpoints in few preselect areas, like radio station, campsite etc or some sort
too much Call of Duty, rush to cap, spray n pray
Need more tactical approach and the tools to use it, better incentives of teamplay

2 Likes
8

Well there are a couple of pretty obvious ones actually.

If you are on offense of invasion and assault mode, getting killed a lot just wastes tickets (lives) for your team.

If you are in most of the other modes, getting killed a lot still has the penalty of losing lives for the team. Some of these modes such as Confrontation literally comes down to who managed their lives more efficiently.

Continuously throwing bodies at an objective is NOT always the best play. If you are losing more lives than what you are efficiently taking objective wise, you are more of a liability to your teammates!

That is where this suggestion comes in. Its not so much about “SURVIVING for a long period of time” but more about keeping up a consistent amount of support for your team WITHOUT losing tickets at the same time.

Its benefitting those that are only really a net gain to their team that are otherwise suffering a penalty to their xp because they aren’t dying repeatedly.
Those that have an efficiency far higher than other teammates, that BECAUSE they are playing intelligently, it gives their team more spawns to work with!

There are other ways to rack up those points too, such as keeping rally points down, building ammo boxes, using field guns to put down heavy fire on troops and tanks alike, use AA to keep the skies clear, in campaigns with medics keeping teammates alive and healed will do it too, even putting down ACCURATE mortar fire.

There are more options than just “run at point”. Things that help the players that do that very thing be more successful on the objective.

I do it all the time. Often times by finding an intelligent location to set up the field gun and clean up both tanks and pockets of infantry running toward the objective. It helps my team by reducing the amount of enemy forces they have to contend with on the objective, but because I live for more than 5 minutes or whatever it is, I don’t get anywhere near the xp that I should be. I’m having games with like 100+ kills and 5-10 vehicle kills all with one squad.
Is it difficult to kill me? Not at all!
In fact, a sniper could clean up my entire squad with ease. So could a tank, plane, mortar, AT soldier, etc.
Yet because everyone is so focused at rushing headfirst into the meatgrinder (because lives are so meaningless currently), they don’t stop and use their brains to deal with the issue.

9

Just kill more.

If you hit some roadblock, you take a detour and get rid of it, whether it be rallies, funni MG nests or tanks. Also gives you a bit of an opportunity to attack enemies from their back and prevent them from taking the objective.

You seem to think “playing the objective” is mutually exclusive to “playing intelligently”. It’s telling when you stress using the word “intelligent” and categorize playing the objective as merely something wasteful.

Enlisted is a game about momentum.

Presence on the objective is mandatory for either team. For attackers, the more are inside the point, the faster it gets captured. For defenders, lack of presence at all is literally permitting the attacking team to drain the capture timer.

Whatever net you’re trying to cast by “whittling down the enemy before they reach the objective” doesn’t matter when the 3 that make it through wipe everyone inside the objective and start draining the capture timer.

Ultimately, whatever team you’re in is going to appreciate the additional manpower for actually staffing the objective and keeping it either fully occupied or contested in your team’s favor.

No one will appreciate the guy hiding in his little corner of the map pretending to be a turret waiting for enemies to come into his field of vision as the objective is getting taken.

Or you could merely be fighting against bots. Nothing worth praising.

10

I’m all for slowing the pace of the game down and making combat more realistic and honest. There are way too many goofy aspects rn

2 Likes
11

You can play the objective, and still play intelligently. Though you can also play the objective and not die endlessly though too, especially if you have teammates giving support to thin out the numbers that are coming through their doors.

I don’t disagree the game has a large element of momentum. The problem though is that just because you are slinging large numbers of troops at the objective, doesn’t mean that the momentum is carrying. Sometimes its hitting a brick wall, other times it could be getting reduced on the way in, and by the time you get there, you have 1 troop to every 4 of theirs.

I don’t disagree. However, as I was saying, if you thin out the enemy forces BEFORE they get to the objective, your team as a whole is a lot more likely to be able to handle those that do get there easier and quicker.

If only 3 people made it through my support fire and are on the objective, I did my job, VERY efficiently I might add. at that point, our players that are rushing the objective SHOULDN’T have too much issue. If they are, then that is a question of THEIR efficiency.

If I abandoned the post where I had wiped out all but 3 of them, to go hold down the point, then the entire enemy team would come crashing down on the respawn.

You want to talk about momentum, there is a perfect example. If I hold back their momentum, our team shouldn’t have any trouble moving forward.

I’ve actually had quite a few people reach out with DM and say THANK YOU for playing the support roles that I do. I’d say that when your efficiency hits levels that mine do, people would much rather have you on support than just another set bodies on point.
After all, I’m removing several sets of the enemies from the point.

No, not bots. A lot of Playstation Players, but not as many bots as one might think.

I can usually tell if its a bot lobby off the kills alone, as I’ll have around 200 kills, but little to no tank kills.

1 Like
12

I completely agree, there are more ways to play than just rushing in automatics blazing away for a glorious 45 seconds, then repeating ad nauseum. I can do that, but it gets boring after a while, I shouldn’t be punished for playing tactically.

Plenty of times I’ve seen players at the top of the scoreboard with the most kills and zero points for being on the objectives. How is it helping the team when you’re off fighting your own personal war somewhere else?

13

It depends on the situation. They might not be on the point itself, but through their efforts they are keeping a lot of enemies from reaching the objective, making it easier for those there to succeed.

Just because they aren’t on the objective directly, doesn’t mean they aren’t helping the team.

They could be helping with artillery support, building rallies, digging trenches for safer troop movements, killing tanks, killing aircraft, etc.

1 Like
14

The medic class helps alot with squad survivability. So use it.

As for being rewarded for hidding in a cave untill the end of the match saving all your squad members…mmm Care Bear medal maybe?

15

The thing is though, you don’t get points for saving or healing your OWN squad, ONLY those of teammates.
So for this suggestion, that wouldn’t even really be a concern.

1 Like