Idk why you keep necroing this but really.
No one said average zergrusher is carrying the team, but being useful to the team.
Unlike that campper of yours that got 49kills, which has 0 value especiatly if you were on attacking side.
And no, you wont change anyones mind even if you find a campper that does 100 kills / game.
Those guys have quite a bit of captures, even if they were dying a lot they were being human shields to the actual top player that pushed and captured the point and i am sure he very much appreciate the efforts of those guys to push.
This useless fuck used a vehicle and thatâs why he died to few times, also, 49 kills while on a vehicle means that this piece of crap dont even know how to position himself to âHE spamâ the objective to be the kind of camper that help something.
So we have here:
1- your own screeshot proves that this would only benefit campers and vehicle mains
2- guys diyng a lot are still more usefull that a camper even if said camper has double the kills, what me and other âtop playersâ appreciate is the team pressuring and putting weight on the objective, not the useless pieces of crap that dont even know how to camp properly.
Someone that is pushing even when he canât do very well is just a matter of time and experience until he learn how to properly push to avoid casualties and how to get cover into the objective.
Someone that camp from the beggining will learn this, to camp; and even when he become âveteranâ will still be one of those marshalls that in some way manage to be a dead weight to the team.
if you think 3 people who achieved a total of 60 kills and lost a total of 60 squads is better than a single player who got over 100 kills and only lost half a dozen squads, then we have nothing else to discuss.
If I have 3 guys all with 100 kills vs your 3 guys with only 60 kills, that is 300 vs 60. If you cannot deduct who the better players are from that, then you have no place in this argument and are making a fool of yourself.
It is obvious and evident the issue and the suggestion stands as valid and no nonsense arguments can discredit that, as they discredit themselves in their own nonsensical manner
What you think is useful, is completely stupid and irrational and illogical and total nonsense. And you cannot possibly be serious and this clueless.
Kills? I can do them, I have the skill to get into a objective and clean it completely, what I canât do is be more than one at the same time, if I am the only one rushing the objective I am a easy target, my bots too can only do so much, those players even lacking the skill to clear objectives by their own they are WAY, WAY more useful than the 100 kill (the guy you showed donât have 100 kills but what do I know) guys that didnât pushed the objective, and I even evidenced the fact that he having so few kills with a vehicle is the proof he isnât a good pilot/tanker also, as he canât position himself well enough to even HE spam the objective.
I will say again, if I manage to get I to the point the kills I can take care of, what I need is some pressure power and weight and alone it is more difficult to do, those players give enought time and they will be cleaning objectives too, the camper guy however will camp and camp every mat h and be the usual dead weight he is forever.
so to you a guy who dies 8 times with 20 kills but managed to help cap the point all 5 times is worthless compared to the guy who died 3 times but has 40 kills but hasnât helped capped?
you guys seem to be selectively blind
the guy that I posted that had more kills also had more action on point than the other three
So again, whatever false arguments you are trying to mount and false stories you are producing in your own minds, is far from the truth and reality.
You messed up thinking that allocating a false narrative of what I am saying, and ignoring what is actually being said.
Typical from a weak culture
Even if your theory of these 3 guys running at the point dying is the bullet sponge you needed to get on the point, considering how many men they lost and how many you lost, chances are, you are still greatly outnumbered and outmatched on point, as those matches when that happens they typically lose the match for that very reason.
because everyone is narrow minded and is not dealing with the problems that is causing all the casualties, which is why they lose so many men and perform so poorly on the objective
Too many people in this game seem to think they can carry and win the game on their own with just a bunch of rushers.
That is not the case, your team has to win various other fronts or keep other fronts well occupied and distracted. Otherwise you become fish in a barrel, which is what is happening and what I am talking about
For example, there is air superiority, if your team does not challenge that, you are already at a disadvantage
There is tank superiority, same thing applies.
There are usually 2 flanks to worry about, if you ignore one, then you will suffer from that flank
And then there are the artillery and mortar threats, which can only really be minimized if a team pushes a front that is a bit wider, otherwise, again, fish in barrel and just piles of deaths
If you want to argue that a guy that lost 20 squads for 20 kills and achieved less on point points than a guy with a 100 kills and more on point action, then you are clueless and shouldnât be even attempting to argue here, and your clueless views are clear for all to see.
By opposing this suggestion with your short sighted views, you are demonstrating that you do not care about raising the standard of gameplay in the game. And that is fine, itâs your choice, but then you cannot be expected to be taken seriously in this discussion either.
If 20 people dont support or agree with what you are saying explaining even their motivation are not selective blind, they dont support what you say and stop with this moral superiority dont help your book
20 people can still be wrong tho.
No on internet, is the mass wo have rigth
twitter sojacks at the same time
you have yet to answer my question, so do you think that the person who doesnât capture the objective zone but gets more kills and points is more useful than the person who captures the points and gets less points and kills but more deaths?
(now keep in mind that you can only win by capping the defenders out since they have unlimited tickets)
action on point doesnt mean anything. it just means that target he sniped was at point.
First, you started lying and then accused other of doing so, you said that dude had 100 kills when he had less than half of that.
Second, 20 kills on point is what you call âaction on pointâ? I can do it alone with one of my bots if I manage to get there.
Third, If people are pushing the objective and dying that means my bots have a bigger chance of not being shot, that means I have several extra menâs to rack up kills and clean the objective.
I said it and I will reiterate, I donât need some weak ass camper doing 49 kills and holding enemy starter tanks, my rally points are built to avoid those tanks, planes can only bomb once every 2 minutes at best, rarely they will hold me and the most important thing off all⊠PLAYERS THAT START PUSHING IS JUST A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL THEY GET ENOUGH SKILL TO CLEAN OBJECTIVES BY THEMSELVES. While the camper wonât improve because heâs not being challenged by a selective force.
Also, your vehicle user one day will face a enemy experienced tanker or pilot and will continue trying to spawn heâs vehicle and eventually spend more tickets than those infantry guys as vehicles are a bit more expensive than 2 infantry squads ticket wise. It has slightly variations as tickets are used to balance factions and teams with more player bots get a discount but a infantry squad is USUALLY 11 tickets and a vehicle/plane 25 tickets.
well he doesnt understand that for player to win they need to do objective and not camp and endlessly kill. even if he takes whole enemy squad while sniping, defender will just spawn 40m away on some friendly rally point and be on cap in 5-10 seconds. unless he manages to take out all rally points in vicinity of cap, âsofteningâ is impossible.
so best strategy becomes going in the objective, clearing the enemy and maybe if someone manages to push those 40m and destroy enemy rally point.
Answers are in my replies, if you cannot comprehend them, I cannot help you with that
Yet it is the measurement you are willing to adhere to when looking at the others stats, you canât have it only one way. If that stat is good for the guys that lost 20 squads for only twenty kills, why is that stat not good for the same guy on their own team that outperformed those guys in every category?
it seems again I have exposed more of your nonsense.
No. You made the comment you would take any one of the 3 guys with 20 squads lost with only 20 kills, even over a guy with over 100 kills. So I used that to exemplify how ridiculous that is, given as the example I used that the guy who finished with more points had more kills, had more on point action and had lost less squads than the other three losers on their team that spent all match dying.
Which letâs not forget you value more, even though the on point action from them was also inferior to the guy with more kills that finished above them all. Showing without a doubt that he was more useful. Yet you are opposed to that fact, and want everyone to believe that the other three below him are more valuable, because somehow you value useless team mates that act as bullet sponges more than smart players.
Well what you may not realize is that some players donât just camp, they also get involved in the objectives, and camp intelligently, shredding the squads of people who run out in the open. I went 38 kills with one individual soldier earlier as an example of this. While they tried to get the point and never got it. So they definitely do not learn any skill doing the same failure over and over again. That is not how learning works, you have to try new things. Running at bullets in a straight expected route all day is not how you learn anything new.
The only matches where those players perform better, is when they are being carried by better players who kill the enemy more, and therefore make it easier for them to get on points and they largely have nothing to do with actually helping in winning, they just show up and run around. Itâs kind of funny.
Most the other stuff is not worth addressing since it is either irrelevant or a bunch of nonsense
If you think the outcome above is inferior to this outcome:
Then I am sorry, but you are not credible for any official contribution to this discussion
That was from a General ranked player who performed so poorly
Clearly he also subscribes to this ideology on just holding down the w key and not engaging any brain function
And it has obviously worked for him, because he has been fortunate to be carried by his team mates.
However, when those people arenât around to carry him, he gets smashed even more. He is just fortunate there are enough people around to carry him regularly enough
what we are looking is not actions at point, but how many cap points did you capture (number between 0 and 5).
look at this
e.g ukiyo187 even though he is in 8th position with 20 deaths is more useful to team than big sin in 5th place with 7 deaths, or 4th place with also 7 deaths cause he capped 3 points. both players managed to cap 1 point together and they both have more kills than 8th place player.
Letâs try a new approach:
Just ignore all the self-praising bullshit the OP said in the comments, and stick with the core of the suggestion.
Whose proper answer is,
Your suggestion would ultimately make game experience WORSE for everyone.
That team lost because you slaughtered 223 of them, so your example is completely irrelevant, you actually proved my point, that kills win games, you killed twice the amount of their best player, so itâs completely irrelevant if a guy got 3 captures, they still lost and they were slaughtered. And having more people run at bullets was never going to change that.
What would have changed it, was if they had a player or players who had hundreds of kills to compliment the objective fighters. You had also the most kills of people on the point, again thank you for backing my point.
That is false, itâs the opposite, it would make people play with more care. Or they can continue as they do now and face the reduced rewards and they miss out on rewards that smart players would benefit from. Which means this would be a great thing to reward smart players, and make dumb players realize why they are dumb and force them to face a choice. Which is very much needed right now.
Rewarding players and reducing rewards on dumb people is exactly how you improve the players and the game. This does actually appeal to the players, as it makes them think about how they play. Instead of this clueless and fake idea that all they have to do is run at the point without thought. It is crucial to stimulate thinking in games, otherwise we create reduce the quality of the game. As we see exemplified regularly.
The game is already in the trash. Usually one team camps, while the other either runs at the campers and dies, or camp themselves, or they all rage quit and the winning team plays against bots and left over players.
You make the incorrect conclusion jump, of assuming that just because there is an incentive to play smarter, that suddenly nobody would take risks. That is a false assumption on your part.
Already players get max rewards for camping. So often I see the top player and deciding factor in a battle being a tanker with hundreds of kills. And then when finally the enemy can deal with his tanks, he rushes his squads into death, just so he can get back in his tanks as soon as possible. Same thing from pilots. Who will face bomb and kill themselves or parachute out after just one run. Everything is a rush to get to the next big hit of xp, with zero thought towards preserving life or even assets or anything that makes any sense. War is not about xp and dying more so you can get more xp, and games that reflect it wrong like this game are not good when that becomes the culture of the game
I would say this suggestion would just be a scratch on the surface, we have other severe issues to deal with the game cycle that already make players play in a way that is not reflective of war or a game where you should try to kill the enemy and dominate the field while preserving your soldiers.
The game has no idea how to portray the life preservation side into the game, and instead have given it zero value or meaning. And this is what makes the game far worse than it should be, and just another reason why it needs to be addressed.