I mentioned desertion because it is a glaring flaw in the current system and needs to be pointed out.
Do you mean this as Desertion is a glaring flaw in the WR system, or that WR is a glaring flaw in causing Desertions?
Because either way, it’s easily fixable by DF just removing the WR stats. Seriously, does anyone other than 5 year olds actually care about this stat? It’s not like it’s an accurate representation of skill… each game has to have a winner and a loser before it even starts, you could do everything right and still lose, it’s just how it works.
DF - Remove it, then the only negative reason people might want to desert matches is gone, and fix the fact some people care way too much about WR. Wins all around.
You can always create your own suggestion topic about this.
This is literally a topic where Desertion is a key point being discussed, relating to the Q&A’s inclusion of it. If you don’t want to discuss Desertion, don’t bring it up?
" about unimportant nitpicks."
Well, it’s not really an unimportant nitpick is it? We’re not dumb, we all know you mentioned Desertion in order to advocate for the punishments. Literally the only reason you would’ve added it to your post, and portrayed it in such a negative light when in reality what you mentioned is an almost non-existent problem.
I try not to call you out on this, and instead offer a solution which alleviates your concerns whilst still not adding the unneeded and unwanted punishments, and somehow that makes me the bad guy? Okay.
Yes, some players only consider players with hard-to-get nickname decorations as human players.
Therefore, when they feel that there are too many/too few players of this type on both sides of the battle, they will choose to quit the game and feel that they are powerless to fight against the opponent. Or, they feel that their lineup is too strong, they can’t find the enemy, and they can’t squat at the fixed resurrection point to snipe.
Today we encountered an offensive and defensive battle. The attacking opponent was suppressed in the starting black zone outside the first strategic point. Then several of our players with the Golden Flower rank who were at the bottom of the record chose to withdraw midway.
They only think about themselves.
Never think about the team.
Give rewards? Do these weaklings deserve extra allowances?
They don’t consider the impact of their actions on other players at all.
With extra allowances, will they really choose to stay?
I don’t think so. They don’t stay to enjoy the victory brought by other players, which is already the biggest benefit, but they have given up these rights and even have no gratitude.
They just want to find a battle in which they can be the protagonist of a myth by quitting constantly. Map screening mechanism? New matching mechanism for team players? In the English and Russian versions, how many players who are still complaining and emphasizing punishment are choosing to turn a blind eye to these new measures and new mechanisms.
Even if these weak players choose to stay, will they lead the battle to victory? Do they really have that ability?
Similarly, in reality, people give allowances to homeless people, food, clothes, money, and job opportunities.
But there are also penalties for homeless people. Ask about the regulations and measures to prevent/expel homeless people.
The virtual world is not the world of giant babies. Some players think they can do whatever they want in the virtual world without constraints, and even need more encouragement to shorten the gap with other normal players.
I think that is the perception of extreme people who think they are the center of the universe.
Really, when referring to suggestions, check the game data of the person who made the suggestion in the data mining database of “Robil” as an additional reference.
I think it is necessary to check the real attitude of the person who extracted the suggestion towards each game.
Name decorators are usually the most reliable way to identify veteran players at a glance.
While it isnt a foolproof system it can indicate who has the better team as bots/new players usually wont have one.
albe it, would be greatly appreciated if they behave more like humans.
or rather, more " tactically ", do things that players can do such as using anti tanks, tanks, airplanes, perform more squad role actions, use smokes to cover passages or cover areas of where many bots have died before, flank, be better at cqc, have better loadouts, and on and on.
rather than be… runners from point A to B and occasionally retaliate.
one can dream i suppose.
i’d recon they are being used that way because of their… deficensy?
but at the same time, i can sort of see why people do that.
that’s sort of the canandrum.
just let AI do pretty much everything, or you having to do everything with these type of AI.
Doesn’t have to be. They’ve been running near constant events for a couple months now.
Because it wouldn’t be “FOMO.” If they did it the way I’m suggesting, the ability to get another Commando would come up again “in a few weeks.”
That’s why I suggested that the squad also be accessible as a Premium. It would have to be cheap because it wouldn’t be very useful when you get it with one soldier…or make the premium version FILLED and let the Event version be built over time.
A lot of the event rewards are appearance change orders and silver. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal to add one more prize concept into the mix
Yeah. That’s kind of the point. But it would allow a new player to just play the game and earn sweet rewards over time. I know I would have loved that when I first started.
The way the sentance was formulated, “a few players on our team have nickname decorations”, sounced to me like I was the part of the problem, having a nickname decorator (I use a rare fish decorator from I don’t even know which event and this sentence sounded like someone in the battle would hate me for that and ragequit). It would be more clear if it sounded like “Too few players”, the meaning is completely different.
And I agree, I often look at the nicknames when my team starts losing suspiciously bad - but even if there are like 3 humans on our team, I don’t care, that just means little competition for kills and vehicles, and I have fun in those games as well.
Yeah. It really only gets to be a problem when the other side is HEAVILY skewed, have lots of assault rifles/mgs, and you just can’t seem to do anything. That’s no fun, but I still 3ven play those out to the end. When it happens twice in a row, it’s a big problem.
The low weapon damage in BF makes it unfit to play as a shooter. The bots are okay, compared to the game where you shoot an assault rifle 3 times point blank at enemies head, taking probably half of his HP, and then he turns around and somehow kills you. Not to mention the Abrams shells travelling at Mach 0.2 - you can shoot at a guy looking at you, standing 30 meters away and he just steps aside over a meter to be sure the 120mm APFSDS misses him. True stories, BF3. I don’t touch any part of the series since.