I think a person who lives a long time because they don’t run in and still kill shouldn’t get any less points than a person who just walks in and kills more but dies every minute.
That could be achieved if the score for kills comes up after comparing a person’s lifetime with the kills in that time. Or another possibility would be if a kill cost more points than it does now.
7 Likes
Like war thunder time of survival is a nice featurecif they add that and even a possibility of reinforce you squad at cp
I disagree.
The objectives are to take and hold ground. Sitting in the back and cherry picking shouldn’t be rewarded more than it already is. Also, if you set up in strategic locations I believe you get bonuses for defending the objectives.
9 Likes
You already can be at the top of the scoreboard just by kills and assists alone, without ever touching a point. Why do want more reward for that?
That would be completely counter to the way the game is played. People camping around out of the way or behind the hot zones looking to get kills while preserving their own life and not playing the objective while the enemy team just waltzes into an empty cap zone and takes it in seconds without breaking a sweat is enough of a problem already. As it stands the scoring system, awards system and subsequent XP earnings and progression is already weighted towards getting kills over playing the objective, playing your class role or doing anything to help your team. In fact people are easily farming kills now, and too often people at the top of the leaderboard aren’t necessarily the ones helping your team win the fight - in fact it usually is the kill farmer or some super skilled player with few deaths at the top. Right now there is no incentive to support your team, play the objective, play the class role or fill any sort of support role that exists beyond killing the enemy. This would only exacerbate the problem and make teams matches and gameplay that whole lot more unplayable and players a whole lot more selfish.
Game design of Enlisted and the way it is meant to be played is entirely about numbers and gaining and ceding ground: forward defensive positions and the “no mans land” that exists in the middle of the crossfire; physically being inside the cap zone to take and defend it; rushing objective areas or the front line of the battle to reinforce it so you have enough numbers to cope with the attack or to be able to take it; pushing forward onto new objectives to take ground and objectives. Self preservation in this game usually means not being in the action or helping the team at all. Everyone in the team needs to take the initiative and do their due diligence otherwise the match is already over. On top of that, you have classes which should assist each of these efforts (that doesn’t involve directly getting kills) which go almost entirely unrewarded as of now, and are borderline useless a lot of times because nobody bothers with the aforementioned. Gameplay of Enlisted is of the meat grinder variety, teams are meant to throw soldiers at the problem otherwise you lose and you’re on the backfoot for the rest of the match with the remaining time being more difficult because you’ve lost ground and the enemy has pushed forward their no mans
You should get less points if you’re not contributing and the only thing you’re and concerned with is not dying or getting kills. The only way I could conceive of this idea working in this game is if it only applied to people defending inside a capture zone and an enemy is present or it is being bombarded by bombs/artillery/mortar. That being said, aside from kill farmers or being super skilled, often most kills to be had are at the front lines in the middle of the action anyway for the average player and death counts aren’t that high in this game to begin with.
11 Likes
Yeah, we need larger cap zones. Right now it’s absolutely pointless to bring anything but smg with a crap load of grenades to a cap zone. The whole “playing objective” is comically disproportional in terms of getting XP. When I have fresh, newly unlocked squads, it’s enough to just run into cap points and maybe kill 1-2 people, to level them up. Then bring next squad and so on. I’ve seen people with like 20 kills and 10 death at the top half of the scoreboard. All this leads to a crappy gameplay of run and gun into a single house. No tactics, no strategy.
With larger cap zones, it would be an incentive to setup fortified position and cover one flank with MG for example. Right now it’s kind of pointless as you just get shot by absolutely any soldier because you are too close and a single grenade can clear almost everyone on the point.
Basically we need dynamics of both teams pushing inside of the cap zone, not outside of it, this will prevent current situation of just few individuals camping in cap zone and getting pissed that nobody else is there with them.
3 Likes
My concern with this is that it would destroy every single invasion mission since no one would want to capture any points and instead would just sit at the back on obj 1 and pick off people at range…
1 Like
Big NO. Game shoulnt reward for sniping couple bots and ignoring capping. In some invasion games there is people with 5 captures so its natural they die more then some random sniperking roleplaying vazili tsaitsev
If something need more rewards its capping and defending
4 Likes
You get it wrong. I mean, why is a person with the same everything in scoreboard with 3 times the kills of me and 3 times the deaths of me, over me on scoreboard. He get more points in the scoreboard but for what.
1 Like
Because he’s killed more? because he’s captured objectives? They’ve got vehicle kills? They’ve had squad wipes or constant multi-kills?
There’s a lot that accounts for points in Enlisted and deaths are not punished with points at all which makes sense considering the style of game and the game modes that exist.
1 Like
Yes. I mean this. No tactics and no stategy, only running into it, is rewarded. Play with tactic and stay alive isen’t rewarded.
1 Like
Mayby he got more zone defence kills?
edit: misread
Depends, you can do really well as a sniper or MG, or as an engineer. The lackluster squads are those of pure infantry with rifles that are too slow in cqb but not very useful at long range, their place is kind of midrange but they neither have a firepower of MG not accuracy of the sniper. At the same time mid range is where pretty much any weapon can easily kill you. This is why I think we need much large cap zones and bigger maps. Currently, on many maps of conquest, you can kill someone with an smg from one cap point on the another cap point, kind of rediculous.
More for caps and point-defense kills would be ideal.
Too often am I one of the 2 players struggling for A and C on conquest while the idiots jumping into the pointless meatgrinder that is B gets rewarded more because they’re bashing their head against a wall harder despite their efforts having half the real value.
1 Like
Increase all XP gains but give minus XP for dying. Along with some fixes for how points are capped this should fix the whole meat grinder issue.
Reduce bomber plane efficiency, give it a real counter (bot manned AA with high accuracy) and limit mortars to their starting ammo and this shouldn’t be an issue.
Give trooper squads 12 men and force everyone to bring minimum 1 trooper squad (remove fg42 and m2 carbine from regular troops).
Someone who just sit back and snipes doesn’t really contribute to a team, especially if they are the attacking side.
I don’t think there should be any reward for this type of play.
You can argue that someone who spares their squad ‘is helping more’ but realistically, they aren’t doing much to help the attack.
2 Likes
Actually it’s good that the game rewards risk-taking rather than camping. The gameplay is overall more dynamic and fast-paced. Ofc there are problems like kamikazeing in planes, but those are rather minor. If you want a more tactical experience there more than enough choices in the over-saturated milsim games market, like arma and squad and shit.
1 Like
It’s good in your subjective opinion.