View Full Version : Skill Ratings in addition to Kill Ratings

03-19-2005, 07:20 PM
I'll admit that I'm fairly new to online games, but I've quickly become addicted to BF and pretty proficient at it as well. In the past 3 months or so I've enjoyed many of the games I've played online, but not all. I understand the occasional team killer will pop into a game, and I deal with it. I understand that at least once every few days I'll have to mute a player or two who are obnoxious, rude etc. And just as of this past week almost every game I've played has involved many players who have nothing but a Halo 2 mentality. Kill, kill, kill with no concept that capturing Command Posts is one of the most important aspects of winning the game. Yes, by now many are getting bored of the deathmatch games of Halo 2 and want to move on. They come into a game like BF that requires some strategy, as well as proficiency in using various weapons or vehicles and they fail miserably. It makes for a stressful game to be on a team of 12 players and only you understand the importance of the narrator constantly telling you to ''destroy the shield generator'' or ''protect the techno union ships''. And worse yet, none of the other players will even listen.

What would seem to help would be to balance out the ''kill'' numbers with other objectives accomplished. For instance, why aren't there awards for Command Posts captured? Or Shield Generators destroyed? Even making capturing CPs worth ''X'' number of kills and so forth. Even nicer would be to use CPs captured, along with kill numbers and so on to rate players. By rating players one could get get into Optimatch games that are with players that are similiar in experience that you are. It would also give you an incentive to get even better (play more) so you can continue to play with the same players as they progress in skill. It would certainly eliminate those who play a lot from having to deal with those who are mostly playing for kill egos or even to be distractive and even abusive.

What led to all of this was playing for several days in a row this week where none of the players had a clue as to what the game was about or how to play. And worse, wouldn't even listen. To end up being the only player on Hoth trying to destroy the Shield Generator (without an AT-AT even) ends up not making the game worth playing at all. This happened on every map and almost every game for several days this week. Fortunately, every now and then I could find a game where some friends were playing and the game ended up being fun, interesting, etc. as usual. But I see as summer approaches and children are home alone all day, and Halo 2 players getting bored of the DeathMatch games of online that BF will become even harder to enjoy.

03-21-2005, 10:49 AM
Weird really, you get stats for most kills/deaths at the end of each map, but you don't get an award for most captures etc.

03-24-2005, 11:09 PM
I personally think the scoring system should go like this, your score would be your kill amount subtracted by your death amount, so for example if you killed 15 people and died 9 times your score would be 6. Then you would gain an additional 10 points for every command post captured, or destroyed, maybe objectives would be worth more, but there should be more rewards for people who help on the battlefield without necessarily killing enemies, for example if four vanguards team up to take out an AT-AT and only one gets the credit is that fair? Or what about a pilot who helps you out by giving you health and ammo, and repairing droids and turrets when you need them, but ends up near last place because he didnt have lots of kills, there should be some award for most Damage done, not just kills and number of things repaired. Right now the scoring system only rewards those who kill the most regardless of how much they died or command posts they captured.

03-25-2005, 01:41 PM
Completely agree. Depending on the planet, or even how a specific game is going a player might take on a different role other than just killing but still be valuable to success.

For instance, some command posts require defense constantly just to keep them. Your kill numbers might be low, even your capturing CPs, but your value would still be worth some credit. For instance, keeping a vanguard inside of the Homestead on Tattoine who lays a mine at each entrance and keeps replacing them as they blow up is a sure fire way to guarantee success if you're playing alone against just AIs.....and it helps when you play online. But you get no CPs and few kills.

I saw a guy on last night, he was bragging that he had killed ''32'', however he had '18'' deaths. Not sure he had much value to be honest, and in fact, he lost that game. And he certainly should have been near the bottom of the list instead of at the top.

With spring break in full gear now, strategy is out the door and finding a good game of people who are playing with strategy as well as kills is hard to come by. I've pretty much given up playing online for the time being, why get frustrated with Halo2 rejects?

04-06-2005, 01:13 PM
I don't play online games, but what i heard of FreePizza I totally agree with him, so i also ask the developers of SWBF if they good change that in SWBF2 or so. So that the people who are playing halo2 like games look for another halo2 like game, and that they are not trying to make another game (SWBF)in a boring DEATHMATCH game!:mad:

04-07-2005, 12:13 PM
Of course, that's what annoys me. While the tickets idea is cool, you're punished every step of the way without any benefits, I find it all too easy to win with inferior command posts just by slaughtering the opponent. It's team deathmatching for all intents and purposes.

Why don't they have a function that you have more or equal CPs than the opponent, you gain a point for every kill you make but if you have less, the function doesn't stop, but the timer is still ticking down, just slightly faster. (perhaps related to command point difference)?

That way, you'd have a "death nearly doesn't matter" attitude, you get a "capturing and holding them back" sort of thing.

04-07-2005, 07:31 PM
Yeah its annoying when im contolling all but one of the command posts but am still losing, maybe for if you control more then fifty percent of the command posts then your reinforcement points will slowly increase, not by alot of course so the game never ends and it cant go over the original number but it will give controlling posts more important and make it harder to win with less command posts, this way unless the opponent is really winning they wont win with just one post, unless there winning by a huge margin in which case they deserve to win in my opinion, but it doesnt make sense if your tied and lose even if you control more posts.

04-08-2005, 05:04 AM
Thats a GOOD idea...:D its nice to hear about people concerning about this subject:)