In this game of invasion the top 3+ players were intentionally staying away from the FINAL OBJECTIVE solely so they can peer into the german team spawn and farm 100+ kills.
I call them out in the chat for this and get mocking responses in kind.
If this is the kind of mentality that the game promotes then I don’t know what to say other than this is pathetic
Yep. Shitters LOVE to try to farm kills instead of playing objectives like its Fucking COD or Battlefield.
Adults are allowed to make their own choices and set their own objectives. Even kids some times too.
Shrug - play with randoms get random attitudes.
It is the easiest way of getting xp lol
If they get those ammount of kills they are technically playing the objective. They cut of their respawns completely and that makes you able to push the point. I dont understand the hate vs people going for kills. If the enemy is dead you win?
I dont get why you would be the one telling others what is and what is not correct behaviour in a video game. The devs allow us to shoot a spawn so if someone wants to do that they can.
Seems like a great game btw, 4 ppl with 100+ kills hot damn.
If you suppose that they were not killing them to cut off enemy reinforcements to the point, then how is it even worth it to do this? You get a 1.5 multiplier for winning.
There was an earlier post about boosting XP for objective capture/defence, which is a possible solution. It’s obviously not a crime to go for the kill count, but if this game has any pretense of being about teamplay and objective completion it should incentivise it. The issue is players prioritising kill farming and XP gains instead of playing the objectives and winning the game.
But the win bonus adds alot of XP
Wins gives u 1.5x EXP Multipler, winning is better than farming kills, if they cuttign the respawn by a ton, you aint doing the Objective right, that just mean you are one of those bad teammates, which u should have nothing to complain about.
Especially since u only show top 3 players, and refuse to show ur score
Plus losing you get 1.4x xp for top player
Yesterday I had three very long battles when attacking team (Russians in Berlin) was clearly losing. They stalled at second or third point and just stopped attacking. In one case there was literally nothing for 15 mins or so and I just had to quit. In two others there was a single player who just liked to snipe. Altering it with a tank far away when running out of ammo.
He was an asshole, no doubt, but it is not the point. Something is broken. Either bots should not stop attacking, or attacking team should lose points by timer, so battle will never go over 1 hour limit or so.
I’d rather have twice as many kills as a win if it’s a “1-or-other” choice.
Both would be better - but there’s a limit to how much the win is worth - it is exactly 50% - if you think you can get more than 50% extra kills then going for that is a very logical decision.
Yes. But because it destroys realism and overall experience (very few people will stay in stalled game till end if it means doing nothing), the engine should prevent it. If you cannot take a single point in, say, 20 mins when attacking, you lose.
If prioritizing killing enemies in a wargame “destroys realism” then something is seriously screwed!!
More seriously screwed than we all talk about already that is…
I think I explained what I experienced quite clear. My side won. There is no way enemy can defeat us. After that we are forced to stay another hour because some guy thinks it is fun to snipe a bit.
Of course I was the only one who had patience to stay on our side. And yes, in the end I earned insane amount of XP, but do you want to play such games? What realism do you see here? It was only possible because by game engine, zones, etc we could not get to him.
You are invading and enemy can’t stop you? so cap the last point yourself and win - your “quite clear” is not at all.
Our team was defending and enemy attack stalled. And then enemy just stopped doing anything. And game tolerates it. Attacker has 200 points left, but if he does not spend them, it takes a lot of time or forever. How can you kill passive attacker seating somewhere you cannot go?
Ah - I see - but of course also if he can snipe you then you can snipe him, and if some of them drop out them they get replaced by bots and you can kill them.
and if they do not drop out then they’re wasting their time too hoping you will give up and make life easy and they can sneak a win.
As the defender it doesn’t matter what you lose - but every kill you get on them does count.
Yes. And we, or just I eventually killed all his 15 squads or so. By artillery, by sniping, by grenades, by tanks. But it was pretty gamey and long. I don’t need to expose my team when on defence just to detect where he is hiding. I could afford it only because I have unlimited respawns and he does not.
I think in the end it is AI bug. Enemy had 10 teams and one real player, at least in endgame. AI should continue some attacking actions if people are too cowardly :). Otherwise time limit is the only choice.
Well, I can partly understand the OP being salty for the match ending in a defeat despite the apparent superiority.
But, on the other hand, if 3 players were able to spank the defenders that badly, wasn’t the rest of the attacking team supposed to have a very easy time capping the objective in the meantime?