Because I approach the game as a real experience (I know it can’t be). I try and do as much damage with the least amount of casualties taken. I suggest other than using planes & tanks the calculation of xp and awards should reflect the ratio of damage dished out to how many casualties a player suffers. 100+ kills with 10+ squad replacements should not be valued greater than 60+ kills with 2 squad replacements. The example of 10+ squad replacements reflects the mentality that lives have little value. This reflects the philosophy of a few dictatorial regimes that squander resources. Just a thought to perhaps make what I understand the intent of the game to be. Just a thought, really enjoy the game. Game on.
3 Likes
Ya I agree, but many players don’t seam to think that there wasting assets when they have negative K/D ratios
K/D i useless if You can’t defend point.
I’d rather have someone zerg the objective and wipe their squad every 2 minutes, than someone flying in plane all game doing fuck-all and having 20 kills while providing 0 support to play objective.
1 Like
I partly agree. I think the current system has built-in mechanics that assign certain badges after a battle (even if you’re not in the first place), but those badges can be easily manipulated with almost zero effort. I think it would really be nice to have a different reward system, depending on how much you actually contribute to the victory.
Personally, I try to stay alive with each squad for as long as possible. Because the more often you die, the faster the overall team squad points are exhausted. When after an ordinary defeat, I see the player in the first place with 120 plus kills, zero engineered buildings. and 15-20 squad deaths, and no real benefit as the whole team still loses. Kinda like here:
Damn, my comment got deleted 
Literally 1984
3 Likes
Winnie the mod again? 
2 Likes
Have no idea. Got stealth deleted, not even a massage. I just remember that i had a comment here
3 Likes
I’ve been playing these games for a long time now, and this is always a polarizing subject, guys that play the point almost exclusively tend to do so because that’s where the action is and I completely understand that that’s how they like to play the game, but personally I do that if I’m in the mood to do it but I have an aversion to having a negative kill death ratio, Because frankly I find it embarrassing, and I enjoy the other disciplines of the game allows you to explore, it always seems to me that the main objection that the guys that play the point have about those that don’t is that they tend to cock block their fun.
WW2 online had a rewards system that was very involved and looked at different categories like best rifleman best attacker pilot best mortarmen etc. and then you had best overall player and to do any of those things and be ranked highly in them You needed to have spent time in the objective and had a large number of kills in a certain amount of time and had a positive kill death ratio, and playing the support roles was also possible because those were a factor in the overall score
Unfortunately, with how the game works, this dude
Probably did way more for the team than this dude
.
The second dude just sat in the ocrner of the map with a sniper and never even touched the objective.
The first dude played the objective and actually tried to win.
So by implementing this, you’d be punishing the players who try to win.
I don’t believe that’s right.
2 Likes
I dont think people who try and die are problem. instead guys who camp so hard that enemy can smell their sausages across map are totally useless
Windowed? Oh horror
Strongly disagree mate. Look at my sreenshot;]
I have my reasons xd
1 Like