Scoring for killing units

[ex_member]

...

Edited September 22, 2018 by ex_member

[Ryz]

Not a bad idea at all!

[Xtractor]

if you kill someone that has a ion/nuke you have your reward :1000 creds lost from the opposing team

[Ryz]

But still, if a game is a stalemate it would be much more encouraging to actively kill persons (or vehicles with a veterancy system)

[boxes]

We want to encourage people to purchase more superweapons. Right now, just the fact that dying with one and making you drop 1000 credits instantly is already a pretty big penalty. Adding another penalty to that is not what we're looking for.

I do think however the kill reward for adv.engies should increase so it further discourages their use and puts more harm to a team if people are trying to sneak non-stop.

[RoundShades]

But still, if a game is a stalemate it would be much more encouraging to actively kill persons (or vehicles with a veterancy system)

Building up veterancy is not a bad idea, but doing so by punishing chance investments, means that team leaders could blame people who even so much as buy them during a PUG. "4 SBH bought beacons and went to GDI base and were caught before planting, that cost us the point lead, what the hell is wrong with you guys!?!"

Veterancy that would make progress towards lethality during a stalemate, would be good already, even if beacons don't influence points.

[HaTe]

if you kill someone that has a ion/nuke you have your reward :1000 creds lost from the opposing team

[Ryz]

But still, if a game is a stalemate it would be much more encouraging to actively kill persons (or vehicles with a veterancy system)

Building up veterancy is not a bad idea, but doing so by punishing chance investments, means that team leaders could blame people who even so much as buy them during a PUG. "4 SBH bought beacons and went to GDI base and were caught before planting, that cost us the point lead, what the hell is wrong with you guys!?!"

Veterancy that would make progress towards lethality during a stalemate, would be good already, even if beacons don't influence points.

I get what you are saying. Now a stalemate isn't interesting cause:

a) it doesn't lead to anything

b) killing people / vehicles also doesn't lead to anything directly

You don't want to punish people for buying a beacon... But on the other hand now people aren't rewarded (at least that's what it feels like) for a kill. Unless you are into sniping all game ofc, which I find rather annoying but some people like ofc.

Not sure what the best approach is. Glad people are 'debating' about this here!

[RoundShades]

Well, kills for a unit is fine. Bonus points for the beacon is my argument. Then again, vehicles also grant too much score right now, throwing them away suicidal-like can also cost your team the game.

[HaTe]

As of right now, the refinery is quite substantially the most important structure in the game. Since even without a vehicle or infantry purchasing building, you can still buy 3 advanced infantry, have airdrops available, and can buy nukes/ions/airstrikes, it makes the refinery the most important structure in the game (95% of the time at least).

Because of that, I actually can see this being useful since the team without the refinery can still gain more credits/points by killing enemy units with airstrikes or ions if need be.

In the original, each kill of an enemy unit equaled 9.99% the cost of that unit (exception = basic infantry that were 3 points for a full health kill). But since so many mechanics are changed from the original, I really actually wouldn't mind seeing this implemented. My original reaction was much the same of Cudaker's, but after playing some more and reconsidering; it really wouldn't be a bad addition.

[Axesor]

Defensive style of playing shoulnt be rewarding, becouse it's strengthens stalemate. This random "suggestion" would reward deff team more.

Offensive style of playing should be always the most rewarding.

So no, I dissagree with a statement that this would be a good idea. Rushes, explosion, spamming ions, that PUSH on other team should be always rewarded the most.

[Xtractor]

(when credits arent a problem)How many time do we carry ion/nuke just in case we have a window to planted it.

Knowing that there is a probability that you may die without been able to armed it and that will give points to the other team,General Gameplay may change and ion/nuke will probably be less used or when a window is open for placing an i/n ,nobody will have one coz they wont want give points to the other team .

Apc Rush carrying i/n will suffer also ....imo

[ex_member]

...

Edited September 22, 2018 by ex_member

[RoundShades]

If you get some points when disarming the ion/nuke why not when eliminating a unit which carries one ?

Of course, not too many points, but some would be nice.

Better question. To be fair, why not let players pick up beacons, disarming a beacon or picking up a dropped beacon gives points, but if you kill an enemy and another enemy comes along they can pick up the beacon instead.

At least that way, the investment isn't a one-way loss, as teammates can pick up a dropped beacon just as good as an enemy can.

[MrSeriousOak]

If you get some points when disarming the ion/nuke why not when eliminating a unit which carries one ?

Of course, not too many points, but some would be nice.

Better question. To be fair, why not let players pick up beacons, disarming a beacon or picking up a dropped beacon gives points, but if you kill an enemy and another enemy comes along they can pick up the beacon instead.

At least that way, the investment isn't a one-way loss, as teammates can pick up a dropped beacon just as good as an enemy can.

Or, maybe just make the player drop 250 credits? (not off what he had after he bought the beacon)