BF2S Forums Deaths should be -1.

san4 wrote:

Here's a question: Would a real-life military force be more or less effective if the soldiers didn't care about getting killed?

History books will answer that question if you look hard enough.

Hmm... I hazard a guess at more. The Samurai were crazy though. Reading a translation of the bushido code is highly reccomended. Very, very interesting read.

san4 wrote:

I agree. It would encourage teamwork because that's the way to stay alive (or be revived by a medic and avoid the death).

How would you feel about being a Sergeant Major still, with the prospect of earning the 8,000+ points to 2nd Lt. taking maybe 3 or 4 months?

san4 wrote:

Here's a question: Would a real-life military force be more or less effective if the soldiers didn't care about getting killed?

Depends. The Finns showed that caring about dying while fighting tooth and nail can more than combat a numerically-superior force. And then some: their KDR was 40:1 against the Soviets, despite them also having far, far more firepower.

If your army were effectively unlimited in size you could just swamp with numbers in certain situations; the Romans, Persians, Mongols, Afghans, Soviets, Chinese and NVA/VC have all proved that this may work in certain circumstances at different points in history. But the stupidity of British command during WWI proved conclusively that embedded, motivated defenders armed with appropriate weaponry can often prove insurmountable by sheer numbers alone.

Of course today with air power and modern artillery little of the historical precedent is relevant any more.

This could at least decrease the kamikazes and make people putting more effort in surviving which would give a better gameplay!!!


Like the idea!!!! +1

=MCHD= arush5268d wrote:

Des.Kmal wrote:

For this topic, your karma should be:

-1 or

-2?

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Nah...Some people would never rnk up!

this man speaks the truth.

i said "or -2" not because i actually think thats what it should be, but to drive home the point that no penalty at all is not an option.

and realize that u are putting your names next to a pretty stupid post. i suggest a way to improve the whole bf2 experience for everyone, and you guys respond by overlooking how it would be a better game with different but better stats (and just as easily, an adjusted set of ranking requirements - u smug dumbasses) and instead hypothetically penalize me for my essentially unselfish suggestion. i mean u guys do realize that those accounts with some team points and horrible KD ratios were made under the present system. u realize that if people were going into the negatives due to deaths, they would attempt to play differently right? who knows how many of those horrible accounts would even exist if the players had been defining their success differently as they played. and sorry for all those noobs that literally could not rank up and would just remain in negative points, but doesnt that make sense? if u hardly contribute anything, then u should just remain a low rank. i dont really see these players being that disappointed. they must realize in game dying over and over that they arent doing well. who messes up on the job all the time but expects promotions? in difficult singleplayer games, u can get stuck if a level is over your head. why not have bf2 be this way?

even though i honestly think bf2 would be a better game with -1 for deaths, i made the thread jokingly knowing that EA would never want to make a potentially wide market game less rewarding for beginners than BF2 already is. they would rather make it like WoW where even if you hardly try at all and just put in hours you still get rewards. and if i was to threaten those empty rewards of yours and replace them with more meaningful ones, you would somehow like to see me penalized. that honestly makes me laugh at this whole group of quoters.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-01-08 09:19:43)

Des.Kmal wrote:

For this topic, your karma should be:

-1 or

-2?

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Nah...Some people would never rnk up!

this man speaks the truth.

and you thought spawn raping was bad now....everyone would be doing it then....make sure they couldnt die.  and maps like wake and karkand would never last.

Last edited by siciliano732 (2007-01-08 09:22:53)

siciliano732 wrote:

and you thought spawn raping was bad now....everyone would be doing it then....make sure they couldnt die.  and maps like wake and karkand would never last.

this is easily one of the most intelligent responses ive heard yet (its too bad youre one of the circlejerkers posting the dumb quote) because to some extent it would have to be true. but remember, spawnraping gets people kills much more than it helps them survive. unless u are a good player capable of scanning alot of area thouroughly and fast, standing at one spawn waiting for kills will get you killed within a minute or so (of course it depends on the map etc). it also brings down your score per minute. i spawnkill and every "good" player i know of does it, however it only works well and contributes to exceptional kill to death ratios when it is used as one small part of a total strategy. and if u are referring specifically to baseraping, i really dont sympathize. it only happens to teams that fall flat on their face and lose, its the equivalent of a blowout and its unavoidable if a team completely dominates in combat. remember that as the match begins, both teams are separate and free make their attacks as they will. if they never successfully capture any terrioty then they can plan on dying in their base. somebody else could come along and suggest that this would also increase the amount of glitchers and hackers because those things also improve kill to death ratios. i think it might be more realistic to assume that cheaters are cheaters. if they would cheat to win in one system, they probably would cheat in another.

Barrakuda777 wrote:

It would also note that negative scores should NOT be logged and therefore you would never get a negative, only positive rounds would count.  Essentially you would only get rounds logged where you helped contribute, i think thats a nice way of getting new players started.

nice constructive criticism of the idea, i agree, no need to go into negatives, but maybe no need to get a new rank just yet.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-01-08 09:52:00)

Losing points for deaths would be retarded. Imagine the fighting that goes on for the J-10, or armor on Karkand. Now imagine that ten-fold.

People would want the J-10 for its near-invincibility. What's -4 for a teamkill if you don't lose any more points because your vehicle is invincible? I don't even know why this is being argued. You know as well as anyone with half an iota of brain power does that DICE is not going to make another patch for this game, and if they do it won't include something like this. Even DICE have their limits as to how much they ruin their game.

Todd_Angelo wrote:

san4 wrote:

I agree. It would encourage teamwork because that's the way to stay alive (or be revived by a medic and avoid the death).

How would you feel about being a Sergeant Major still, with the prospect of earning the 8,000+ points to 2nd Lt. taking maybe 3 or 4 months?

uh todd, game designers could actually adjust both aspects of the game to an appropriate extent.

Todd_Angelo wrote:

san4 wrote:

Here's a question: Would a real-life military force be more or less effective if the soldiers didn't care about getting killed?

Depends. The Finns showed that caring about dying while fighting tooth and nail can more than combat a numerically-superior force. And then some: their KDR was 40:1 against the Soviets, despite them also having far, far more firepower.

If your army were effectively unlimited in size you could just swamp with numbers in certain situations; the Romans, Persians, Mongols, Afghans, Soviets, Chinese and NVA/VC have all proved that this may work in certain circumstances at different points in history. But the stupidity of British command during WWI proved conclusively that embedded, motivated defenders armed with appropriate weaponry can often prove insurmountable by sheer numbers alone.

Of course today with air power and modern artillery little of the historical precedent is relevant any more.

interesting foray into history but bf2 has nothing to do with any of those conflicts because in bf2 something called "autobalance" typically keeps the teams of equal size. and because tickets are always finite and somewhat balanced between teams at the start of a round, neither team has this opportunity that u describe to simply massacre carelessly and still win the overall battle. in bf2 u are actually helping your time by surviving as you get your kills. this means that in bf2 the team with the better kill to death ratio has a big advantage.

Todd_Angelo wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

i suggest a way to improve the whole bf2 experience for everyone, and you guys respond by overlooking how it would be a better game with different but better stats...

You're wrong.

Think about it...

Hint: not everyone is remotely as good as you are.

...reality sinking in yet?

if u lose you lose. if u win you win. under the present system, the individual gets to lose for the team and win individually. this is a problem that could be solved with point losses for deaths.

i already said that i am not realistically proposing this as a change to the game, i realize that it could make it more frustrating for beginners so DICE would never have it. see my comment about WoW above. but u are being very thickheaded to suggest that a game that punishes deaths isnt feasible. any flight sim is about ten times more demanding to a new player than bf2. even counterstrike, a much more popular game, has a harsher punishment for death in that it initates a long wait. bf2 appeals to a huge audience because to some extent everybody sort of gets to accomplish something.  i think its great that there are easy teampoint tasks that help people be useful, but there is just nothing wrong with people also losing points for what ultimately causes their team to lose.

j10 whoring could probably not get any worse, and its such a glaring problem with the game that i dont know why its brought into an obviously hypothetical discussion between a bunch of people with no power over the game's content. should i have made this a "death should be -1 + J10 needs to be nerfed" thread? no. because they are separate issues.

kmt wrote:

Haha good indicator for the ones who can get in my Chopper when I'm in it as Pilot. Nah, I wouldn't like it too as said what if you would get hit by arty etc. Or get teamkilled which also is a death?

i agree. i made the post very simple to see where u guys would take it. these matters of course crossed my mind and i figured somebody before me would point out that the -1 doesnt have to apply to every single kind of death if it was a part of the game.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-01-08 11:56:08)

=ST6=SewerMaster wrote:

elite.mafia wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

http://bf2s.com/player/85370592/
-Dont laugh, there are a lot of people like this

Worst Enemy
(Deaths by, via EA)     =82^GM=TRIPLINE (101)
More Enemies
(Top 10)     masta_smoker420 (44)
gee someones been statpadded on...

if you look at the stats of the Cpatain who did the padding you'll see that it's pretty much how he gets his kills: http://bf2s.com/player/70026355/

Favorite Victim
(Kills to, via EA)     The-Mutha-Fuca-IW- (255)

More Victims
(Top 10)     The-Mutha-Fuca-IW- (195), Private_Parts...[IW] (140), THEUNKNOWN_KILLA (126), =82^GM=DD (120), unspecifiedafroman (111), henchman57 (110), LIL-AUSTIN_[IW] (101), =82^GM=Apache (68), Muhammad.A|i (59), show all... Striker212 (26), ArtOfLifeX (3)

Worst Enemy
(Deaths by, via EA)     -[CROW]-Sniper (125)
More Enemies
(Top 10)     YOUR-LAST-CHANCE (62), Chizzuck.Norris (32), -=[EC]=-Roughshod (11), soldierX17 (5), LIL-AUSTIN_[IW] (2)

thats one big happy family of padders

yea i hate stupid padders like that

if u did -1 then spawn killers would pwn and the span killing would be bigger then it is.

Marinejuana wrote:

Todd_Angelo wrote:

san4 wrote:

I agree. It would encourage teamwork because that's the way to stay alive (or be revived by a medic and avoid the death).

How would you feel about being a Sergeant Major still, with the prospect of earning the 8,000+ points to 2nd Lt. taking maybe 3 or 4 months?

uh todd, game designers could actually adjust both aspects of the game to an appropriate extent.

Well gee whiz Lois, correct me if I'm wrong you didn't suggest a total revamp of the points/scoring system. The sum total of your suggestion was, "Deaths should be -1"

Marinejuana wrote:

interesting foray into history but bf2 has nothing to do with any of those conflicts because in bf2 something called "autobalance" typically keeps the teams of equal size.

That was addressed to san4 and to the question he asked, which was not about the game. "Would a real-life military force be..."

Marinejuana wrote:

Todd_Angelo wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

i suggest a way to improve the whole bf2 experience for everyone, and you guys respond by overlooking how it would be a better game with different but better stats...

You're wrong.

Think about it...

Hint: not everyone is remotely as good as you are.

...reality sinking in yet?

if u lose you lose. if u win you win. under the present system, the individual gets to lose for the team and win individually. this is a problem that could be solved with point losses for deaths.

Your suggestion would more than doubly penalise players for deaths regardless of cause. There's already a built-in system for rewarding those that are better than average; having points deducted for deaths would so heavily weigh against the average and below-average player that the game's other in-built features would be almost pointless (argh) to them.

Marinejuana wrote:

but u are being very thickheaded to suggest that a game that punishes deaths isnt feasible.

I'm being adamant that I'm right because obviously I can think this sort of thing through in a way that you're either unwilling to do or incapable of.

It was no surprise to me at all that the person suggesting this was not an average player; it's the superior players, as a rule, that don't have any perspective on what gameplay is like for the average schlub and often make pronouncements on changes to the game that would have almost no impact on them but a profound impact on the thousands of players that aren't great... over half of the rest of all players.

Marinejuana wrote:

any flight sim is about ten times more demanding to a new player than bf2.

And? Relevance to a score-based promotion/unlock system in a multiplayer environment?

Marinejuana wrote:

even counterstrike, a much more popular game, has a harsher punishment for death in that it initates a long wait. bf2 appeals to a huge audience because to some extent everybody sort of gets to accomplish something.

EXACTLY.

Hurricane wrote:

I've stated my opinion on the matter, and have defended it in a manner I think is sufficient. I also have seen many examples where teams with more deaths can win a round.

Dead right. Anyone that pays attention to the scoreboard will notice that sometimes the team that superficially looks like it's doing better (more kills, sometimes lots more kills) is actually losing the game because they're not paying attention to the other game goal: flag control.